Bill-in-KY
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 213
Polaroid 800
My first thread on this subject is about 10 down on the list. That group involved the Polaroid J66 and Polaroid 95A. I modified them to use 120 film. The first time I modified one of this type camera was in 1991, and that was an 800 model. I didn't make a viewing window for the frame numbers on that one, and that made it a little awkward to use, since I had to count rotations of the film advance wheel, and that changed after I went through part of a roll. This year, when I got into conversions again, I made a window on each of those other two. I also changed my method somewhat for advancement of film. On the first one in 1991, I configured it so the new roll of film would be in the left chamber, inside a piece of PVC pipe, with a slot for the film to come out, and the take-up spool on the right. That worked well. For the two I did earlier this year, I changed the method, and put the new film roll in the right chamber, and the take-up spool on the left. I did that because I was thinking the PVC needed to be held down, and didn't like that. One small issue with the new configuration was that the leather handle was sort of in the way, but not a real problem. It limited the size of the winding wheel somewhat, and the notched wheel rubs on the handle and scrapes it.
The main problem with that (new) configuration is that I had trouble with tension, and binding. It tended to pull the take-up spool against a side of the chamber, and cause tension, making it harder to advance the film. The first half went through fairly well, but then tension increased, and by the last two frames it was somewhat difficult. Sometimes it locked up near the end, after the last frame. I tried different fixes and tweaks, and it got better, but the last of the roll usually got tight. I used just backing paper for testing. Sometimes it would work fairly well, but the next roll of film might get tense, and get into a bind near the end. I started using a double roll of backing paper, taped together, to simulate film and paper. That was better for testing. This was after I got the 800 this past summer. I did some tweaking on the 95A and it seemed to work well with the double roll of paper. I figured on using my last roll of film in that camera.
This past summer I found an 800 at an outdoor sale, a highway type yard sale. Got it at a very good price. It has some cracks on the top part, like it had been dropped. I took a chance because the price was low. As it turned out, I don't think the cracks made any difference.
I configured this 800 the same as the J66 and 95A, and got it working fairly well, but it still had too much tension during the latter part of the roll. This camera too had light leaks in the bellows. I had to use a flashlight inside and find those and cover them. I used some light gray latex paint. The first roll didn't come out well. Had various flares, and the top 3/8" or so of the roll was not exposed, or it was blank after developing. I didn't know why that happened. I had a 6x7 (actually 5.5x7) cm frame inside, behind the bellows, just like in the other two. One possibility is that I didn't get the developer level in the developing container high enough to cover the film completely. That must be the reason, because that issue didn't show up on the second roll.
House on National Historic Register, in Lancaster, Ky
This is the best photo from the first roll used in that 800. Another thing to deal with when using these cameras, and having a frame inside smaller than the original frame size, is that what is seen in the viewfinder will not all show up on the film. It seems to me that the lens is a "normal" lens, like a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR, or DSLR. I was trying to allow enough space around a subject, such as a house, to get it all in. I had to back up enough to do that, and sometimes couldn't back up enough. I got what I could.
For the first 800, in 1991, I figured the difference and put two narrow strips of tape across the front of the viewfinder, at top and bottom. For that camera, I wanted the biggest frame size I could get, and used the full length. I had to put strips of metal on the long sides of the opening, behind the bellows, to hold the film in place, and that was the only reduction, top to bottom. I'm not sure, but I think it worked ok. I used maybe 5 or 6 rolls in that camera.
For this current 800, I made a very small thick paper frame to tape on the front of the viewfinder. I used percentages again, and came out with a small rectangular opening on the viewfinder. It looked too small, but I tried it with the 2nd roll. I was hoping that I would actually get more included than what I was seeing, and did.
Polaroid 95A
This photo shows my 95 A as I configured it. That is just backing paper on the left, take-up spool. I did the 800 the same way, at first, then later changed it.
Polaroid 800--modified, then reworked.
This is the 800 after I switched the take-up spool from left to right. The PVC new film holder is on the left. I got that PVC a bit short, so I inserted a big washer at each end to keep the PVC, and film, from moving. If I was to do it again, I'd get the PVC to fit closely. I intended to then, but it didn't work out just right. Used washers. This works better than the other configuration. I did the test with just double paper, and then used one roll of film, and had no trouble advancing paper and film. That is a 6x7 (actually 5.5x7) cm (inside measurement) frame I made and glued into the picture space behind the bellows. Made of clip board plastic. I have a 6x9 cm frame that I made for the 95A, but thought it caused a problem, so I made another 6x7 frame to use instead. A 6x9 frame should work ok. I was getting photos that size or longer in the first 800, in 1991.
Polaroid 800, with viewing windows; new one at top.
Another thing I had to change was the viewing window for frame numbers. The upper red window is the new one. Since I reversed the film flow, that put the set of numbers I needed on the top, instead of the bottom. Viewing it upside down, the bottom set is for 6x4.5 cm frame size, the middle is for 6x6 cm, and the top numbers are for 6x9cm or 6x7 cm. I had to make a hole in the pressure plate underneath this plate shown, and a hole in that one too. I have had to use a Dremel tool for a lot of this work. For the viewing window, I drill two holes with a drill, then use a Dremel tool to widen and shape it, and to smooth the edges. I used a Dremel tool for other procedures too.
Polaroid 800, modified.
This just shows the 800 with backing paper run across it. For the wind wheel shaft, I had to drill a hole through the housing, at the bottom only. That chamber has two little collars, or sockets, to hold a film roll, the original type. I think it went on that side. Anyway, those little sockets were convenient to use for my modifications. That wood spacer has a modified bolt through it, to rest on that little socket, and to engage the film spool. To fit a spool, I ground the head of a bolt, to where it looks somewhat like a letter T. Same with the wind wheel shaft. It has a T on the other end. For all the cameras and modifications, I used springs and washers, and spacers, where appropriate. I made the wind wheels for each camera out of aluminum stock. I have a metal cutting band saw which is a big help in various projects, including knife making which I used to do.
This second roll with the 800 came out pretty good. Got 8 photos, all I can get on a roll. One thing I wanted to test is whether it is better to actually focus on a somewhat distant subject, more than 100 ft, such as a house, or to set the distance scale at infinity. I tried both on a couple subjects, and got very little difference. It seems to me that it is better to set it on infinity.
Registered house in Harrodsburg, Ky
I made two photos of this one, same position, focused and then at infinity. Both came out about the same. Both needed a bit of sharpening with the computer. This image, frame 1, is unsharpened.
Registered house in Harrodsburg, Ky
Frame 2, set at infinity; unsharpened.
Registered house at Harrodsburg, Ky.
This is frame 1 again, but sharpened a little.
Registered house in Harrodsburg, Ky
This is another old house next to the one shown above. I set the camera at infinity. This photo is not sharpened.
Beaumont Inn, Harrodsburg, Ky.
I used the focusing knob for this photo, and did not sharpen with the computer.
Beaumont Inn, Harrodsburg, Ky
This is the Beaumont Inn again, but a different view. I set the camera on infinity. I had exposure set on EV 15, which gives a shutter speed of 1/100, and an aperture of f/17.5. I used that for all of the roll except the last frame, which was later in the day, and at a train yard.
Downtown Harodsburg, Ky.
Downtown Harrodsburg. Set on infinity. Sharpened a little. I did a little touching up here and there on most photos, "painting out" artifacts, and a flare in one.
Downtown Harrodsburg, Ky.
I focused this one, and sharpened a little with the computer.
Train at Danville, Ky.
I lowered the EV to 14 for this one, thinking I might need to. I didn't use my light meter, which is a cheap one anyway. I had been using EV 15, so went down one step. Still at 1/100 shutter speed. I probably could have used EV 15. I forgot to focus or check the distance scale., but it came out pretty good anyway. Right after, after I had put the camera back in the bag, I got it out to check the distance scale, and I think it was on 50' or close to it. I thought the image would be fuzzy, but it isn't; not perfect, but pretty good. I sharpened it a little.
As it turned out, I got noticeably more image around the borders than the little mask on the viewfinder allowed. It had too small an opening. I made another one, with a bigger viewing area, but still a little smaller than the original. I tried the numbers again, but had trouble getting that to work out, so I "winged it". I'll get more film later and do another one. I might use the 95A again too, since I tweaked the film advancement situation again. I got it working pretty well, even with the other configuration. For the 800, I thought it was a bad camera (this particular one) , but now I know that it is pretty good. I got all, I thought, of the light leaks plugged. I still got a little bit of flaring here and there, but not near as much as on the first roll, and with the other cameras. Every light leak matters. I found that plugging them can be only temporary. Moving the bellows out and in multiple times can cause whatever sealer on leaks to come off or separate, or whatever happens, and allow light back in. It is necessary to check for leaks now and then after working the bellows, if they have been plugged. By the way, all those photos were made hand-held. These cameras have two sockets for a tripod, but the ones with a focusing knob won't let a tripod fit in the hole by the knob. Horizontal only with a tripod. Handheld works pretty well with 1/100 speed.
Polaroid 800
