Fun with Film: Vari Interesting, Varicath Vari•X from Labeauratoire

Experimentation can be a wonderful thing in the world of film photography.  Were it not for such experimentation of decades and centuries ago, the hobby itself would not even exist.  

I've been in something of an experimental phase as of late, and while I'm not quite to the point of making my own film yet (though I've admittedly considered it) or doing wet plate prints or the like, I have been finding more interest in black and white photography using "unconventional" films that may render a slightly more vintage or distressed look.

I did some browsing at Lance Rothstein's Labeauratoire, and discovered a number of such films that could facilitate this hunger, and tried out a few.  One of these, which I was admittedly on the fence about getting until moments before check out was a film called Vari•X, a low speed film that was originally intended for cineradiography use, but which was purported to give a particularly great look for photographic applications.  I inevitably took the plunge, and loaded the film into a late 1950's Kodak Retinette to see just what it could accomplish.

The results that came back after processing were decidedly delightful.  A bit of staining marked the images at random points, while the top and bottom borders had a pleasing vintage vignetting to them. The rendition and contrast were particularly snappy and grain was quite fine yet struck a great balance of tonality.  The low speed allowing for limited depth of field helped round out the look of the images.

Below are a number of my results from this fun film.  It should go without saying that I am picking up some more of this fun film!

 I started out my photographic journey with this film on the Battlefields of Antietam near Sharpsburg, MD.  The film immediately impressed me on its return with its rich and striking tonality.

The Periphery of Pocketable: The Kodak Retinette

I doubt there is any "perfect" camera out there, though in my recent experience with a Kodak Bantam, I had an interesting chance to get a glimpse of something that surprisingly embodied a sense of perfection in its ability to create some great images in a pretty wide range of scenes, all in a package that is incredibly portable, slipping easily into the pocket of my jacket; a pocket designed for an MP3 player, mobile phone, or other similar portable device.

But even with all of these things going for it, the Bantam had one challenging drawback: it's film format.  Don't get me wrong - I actually really love 828 format, as well as the fact that I can cut down any 120 film of my choice to create a roll of double-length 828 film, but I have a growing number of film stocks only available in 35mm format that I want to try, and for putting these emulsions to the test, I want to use a 35mm camera rather than trying to plaster the film stock to 828 backing paper in the dark and hope it is lined up correctly.

I have a wonderful and quite capable 35mm camera in the form of the Exakta VX, but as great as it is, it is a bulky monster, and as such, it will never be a camera that I can simply carry along at pretty much any time.  Knowing this, I decided that I would look for a "135 Bantam" of sorts, one that used 35mm film, but was similar in features and size to the beloved Bantam.  Sadly, Kodak did not make a 35mm version of the 1940's design of the Bantam, leaving me an interesting challenge of finding something that could possibly equate to the Bantam for the 135 format.

My list of must-haves, based upon the most likable traits of the Bantam were as follows:

• Compact Form Factor
• Full Manual Control
• At least 4 shutter speeds plus a bulb setting
• A good (preferably coated) 4-element lens with and f/4.5 or better maximum aperture
• A slightly wide focal length.
• An affordable price tag.

The availability of a rangefinder or metering would also be nice, but not essential.  I spent some time perusing sites, and found some possible candidates on Mike Eckman's Camera site that piqued my interest.  I had all but settled on an Agfa Karat and found one on ebay at a low bidding price and put a modest bid in, given the risks of a non-functioning shutter or a seized focusing ring.  The bidding went over my very modest bid, so I let it go.

Without doing much in the way of research, I spotted another camera on a reasonable buy-it-now price, and decided it was worth the modest cost to give it a shot.  From the photos on the listing it seemed to fit most of my list of must-haves. It was at least worth a roll of film, and it certainly seemed more travel-friendly than the Exakta.  And this is how I became the owner of a Kodak Retinette, okay two Kodak Retinette cameras.

Two Kodak Retinettes, a ca. 1959 Type 030 on the left, and a ca. 1962 Type 042 on the right, with some other goodies tossed in for size comparison.