Fall 2023
Penn State, University Park
35mm film
San Francisco, January 2023
Pleasant Gap Fire Company Parade and Carnival 2022
Kalimar Spirit SP
This next set of photos were all taken with this cameraâa Kalimar Spirit SP. I know nothing about this camera in every senseâI found it while digging through my old room looking for a different film camera, and there this was, in the plastic bag it apparently came in, and seemingly never used.
What I do know of the model I found while poking online, and even then, there's not much to know (or at least, that I'd enjoy getting into). It's a black plastic box to take pictures, with an output probably comparable to what you'd get out of a disposable film camera.
While I wouldn't use it all the time, I did really enjoy what I got out of this one. I feel like a bit of a bandwagoner to say this, but I'm drawn to the imperfections in its photosâvignetting, mediocre sharpness, underexposure[^1]âthese remind me of some of the film photographs that were taken in my childhood, and something feels very anchoring in that sense.
Its photos are anchored by these characteristics to similar images of a past era. Its photos are also, in that way common to all film photographs, materially anchored to specific places and times, created by the light of a moment affecting the film material in the camera.
[^1]: And underexposure in this case is caused by operator error, my choosing to take a shot in non-ideal conditionsâthis camera does no adjustments for exposure whatsoever.
Canon Sure Shot Owl (1994) + Fuji C200 (2021)
Since this camera was a gift from my father-in-law, I thought it would be fun to bring it with us on our vacation to Maine this summer, putting the old Owl back into service capturing family memories, one generation later.
While my test shots with expired Kodak film mostly came out alright, for actually documenting our vacation, I opted to use known-good film, specifically, Fuji C200. It is a cheap consumer film, so nuanced color and fine grain are not to be expected. But my goal here wasn't to create perfect images, but to capture some of our vacation memories in a style befitting the design and purpose of this camera. I'm also interested in trying out some of the lower-end film stocks to see if there was one I particularly like.
As is perhaps fitting of shooting with fresh film, I found more keepers here than in my roll of expired Kodak HD. This is not because of the particular qualities of Fuji C200, as much as it's because I didn't have to do as much post-processing to wind up with usable images.
Sure, there were some misses.
But for the most part, I got the shot and, to my eye, they mostly looked pretty good, and I don't have to think about it all that much after the fact. Whereas with the expired stuff, I found myself doing a bit of mental gymnastics, like, "eh..this one's ok...if you want a particularly vintage look."
Yes, some shots from this roll still work because of their low-fi or somewhat dated look, but some just looked good, and it's nice to not have to qualify that.
The location for nearly all of these was Ogunquit, Maine, a place I've visited with family before, though always with more modern digital cameras. With a 200 speed film and a camera like this, most indoor photos will wind up using the flash, and the results of that are just about how (if you're my age or older) you remember itâfrequently not great.
Outside, though, and on the beach, the camera performed quite well, and I'd say I did a reasonable job here managing my expectations for what it could handle. Getting that "portrait mode" or shallow-depth-of-field look, in which your subject is sharp and the background is blurred, wasn't likely, nor was getting shots with corner-to-corner sharpness (I'm not much of a nit for that sort of thing, but I did notice sharpness tending to fall off towards the edges).
As fitting for a vacation/family camera, it did do a good job capturing memories and a decent bit of the environments in which they transpired.
Canon Sure Shot Owl (1994) + Kodak High Definition 400 (2006)
These shots are the product of a combination of two gifts, for which many thanks are due: the camera, a Canon Sure Shot Owl, was from my father in law and it was produced in 1994. The film is from my wifeâitâs from a batch of Kodak High Definition 400 that she had bought around 2006. So theyâve got a total of 42 years between the two of them, clearly a good sign to any Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fan. I figured these were a perfect match: a decades-old point-and-shoot camera paired with expired consumer film.
Iâd never shot the Owl before, and it may have made more sense to use known-good film to do a test, but I was impatient and didnât have new film on me, and I figured that if I ran into any issues, I ought to be able to discern whether the problem was the in the camera or in the film.
One challenge, though, is that to get the best possible results out of expired film, itâs usually best to overexpose it by some amount (the best web resources Iâve found on just how much are this piece by Ludwig Hagelstein and this piece by Daniel J. Schneider). As film degrades over time, it will often need more light in order to produce a properly exposed image. In many film cameras, an easy way to do this is to adjust the ASA rating on your camera. If you tell your camera that youâre shooting with a less-light sensitive film than you actually are, then the camera will try to compensate and get more light onto the film. Unfortunately, with the Owl, this was not a possibility.
Consumer film cameras frequently used DX coding to set that ASA rating. The DX code is a pattern of conducting and non-conducting rectangles on the side of the film canister. The camera reads these and then automatically sets the ASA rating to match the speed of the film indicated by the DX code . This is a great way to insulate against user-error, but the Owl also lacks a way to manually adjust the filmâs ASA rating in a circumstance where you want to over or underexpose the film.
Fortunately, thereâs a way to actually change the DX coding on the side of the canister so that the camera thinks the film is of a slower speed and requires more light.
The DX code is essentially a strip of metal and plastic along the long edge of the film canister. That strip matches up against a row of electrical contacts in the camera, and the pattern of that strip tells the camera what it needs to do to expose the film properly. To change the DX code, you can use a combination of scraping away plastic squares on the film canisterâs surface, and using electrical tape to cover specific contacts (see this handy tutorial by Amy Berge).
In truth, I can't tell whether or not my attempt at doing this hack was successful. The film is old enough that some amount of underexposure and fogging is almost inevitable, so without doing a side by side comparison and shooting a roll that I havenât hacked, itâs though to tell whether this was worthwhile or not.
The camera itself functioned reliably and pretty consistently. I do appreciate how straightforward it isâthereâs a simple, big optical viewfinder, a fixed focal length, and thatâs it (thereâs a flash, though I only used that a few times). The cameraâs aesthetics are a product of its early-90s era: it is a rounded, plastic box, with rubber buttons that, by original design or by age are a bit mushy. Compared to my other point-and-shoot camera, itâs a bit large, and most of the time that I carried it around, I used the strap that came with it.
Iâd say about 90% of my shots came out in focus and reasonably well-exposed. While the times focus was not accurate to what I wanted were frustrating, I realize in retrospect that the truth of the matter is that I have probably had a lower hit-rate when Iâve been manually focusing with my AE-1 Program. As Iâve branched out from the AE-1 Program to cameras that actually have autofocus, my appreciation for autofocus has only grown.
As for the film, it looks like it held up pretty well over the years, and if youâre in the market for a vintage look, a combination like this camera and this film are going to do the job. Still, Iâve found that the aesthetics of expired film arenât so compelling for me as to accept the frustrations of the occasional unusable shot, or having to do more tweaks in Lightroom.