# No. 2 Folding Autographic Brownie



## queen_of_scum (Oct 26, 2006)

Hello!

I was recently given one of these cameras... and he seems to be in lovely condition (the possibly with the outer lens missing? no-one i've shown it to is 100% sure there should be a lens there ) and I'm planning on running some paper through as a test.

HOWEVER i have hit a snag when it comes to metering.... there are 4 apertures, handily labelled "1-4" :| Any idea roughly what these correspond to, or at least point me in the direction of someone who might know?

Thanks!


----------



## JC1220 (Oct 28, 2006)

the 1,2,3,4 corresponds to the aperture settings, you should see the shutter blades closing and opening when you change the settings, there should also be shutter speed settings as well.  And, yes there should be front and rear elements.  Kodak used 4 or 5 different lenses with this camera.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 4, 2006)

okay here is what i think i know..... it is most likely a miniscus lens (sp)  to check take off the back or open it... Place a bit of waxed paper over the film opening open your lens.. at infinity if you have a recognizable image it is the right configuration.  If you have an element missing it will just be a big ole blur,


1_ f11  
2= f16
3- f22
4= f32

shoot that lil mother and if the bellows leaks there are bits of advice everywhere to repair it.  Good luck and have fun with it.  I want to see your images please


----------



## queen_of_scum (Nov 7, 2006)

cool - ta! I never thought of testing the lens like that. D'oh.

On Flickr, someone told me the following:

_I happen to have two of these cameras, each with different markings on the front (and yes, there should be a lens up front. One has your generic "1, 2, 3, 4" (with indicators like "Near view", "Average view", etc); the other has actual f-stops. Your settings should correspond like so:

 1 = ~f8
 2 = f16
 3 = f32
 4 = f64._

I'll def be shooting some pics tho, fret not. I actually now have a mini-darkroom of sorts set up in the flat! Not that i've had the time to play yet mind you *sigh*


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 7, 2006)

ah but alas dear queenie, the numbers you quote are usf stops not the current ones.  To convert us to asa( current)  f16 is f16..  The next one down is one stop of f11.... the next one up is f22 of course and f64=f32  if you have more numbers you just count the stops up they are almost exact at least close enough to shoot paper and moder film with.


----------



## queen_of_scum (Nov 18, 2006)

- using light metre readings as if it were f64 and rating the paper at asa12

The rest of the tests are here

What do you think? I reckon it's in pretty fine fettle given the missing lens!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 18, 2006)

they look awfully good to me. I think you hit on a combintion exposure that works but actually I expect your paper is about iso 2 and that f stop is actually 32 but it is about the same thing. It doesn't matter because the exposure you have is dead on.

The lens might not be missing at all. Kodak made a Miniscus (sp) single element lens for some of it's low end cameras. I had a 1a (before I butchered it fot the shutter) that was a single element lens. Also it could be a B&L rectiliner lens which came in two identical elements. I have one I used for a while with the rear element moved to the front and the front gone. I used it 0n a 5x7 paper negative camera. It is a bit wide angle with only one element but I focus it on ground glass so it didn't matter.

Try this with your lens though. Take it off the rear where it does nothing to protect your shutter. It just unscrews. You might need to use a pair of pliars the first time to "persuade it" then simply move it to the front to protect the shutter. They both most likely have the same threads. 

I like the pictures a lot.

I find the glass helps the look of the paper negative tremendously.


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2006)

I love the shot!   This kind of high contrast image works great with the subject.   Really nice.

I agree with Charlie, I think you have a model with the type of lens that he describes above.   I have a couple of these old guys, and they do look odd.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 18, 2006)

Why kodak chose to put the lens behind the shutter is a mystery to me. it leaves the shutter blades exposed to the dust and the elements a lot more than if they put it on the outside. 

On the rectiliner I have the elements are really two single element lenses. So I just used the back one on the front so if hers is treaded in the front she can probably do the same to give those sutter blades some protection.

The f64 she is talking about is the old us system of f stops it corresponds to f32 on the modern scale and the paper is most likely what we all found to be iso2 that would sound about right for her light source.

I think that #2 camera also took 120 film, though it might have used a bigger one. If it took 120 film she could shoot modern film in it and the correct modern fstop would be important that's the only reason I keep bringing it up. Two stops over exposed on a sheet of film is a lot.

I just checked it does indeed shoot 120 roll film so she can shoot film if she chooses.  I am pretty sure the fstops are  11 16 22 32 for that camera.

No matter what those are still fine images on paper.


----------

