Kodak, Tennessee

Ever since we moved to western North Carolina, I have been interested in exploring and photographing many of the small towns that are in the surrounding counties.  However, once I found out there was a town in Tennessee named Kodak, I knew that I had to visit it to satisfy my curiosity, sort of like when I went to Mongo, Indiana in 2018.  So, after yesterday, I can delete Kodak, TN from my bucket list.

First, you may wonder how the town came to be called Kodak, since Kodak is an invented word by George Eastman.  In 1892, the postmaster Harvey N. Underwood, learned of the new "Kodak" brand of camera. Underwood decided that this was a name that was easy to remember and spell, hence he sought permission from George Eastman, to use this name for his village and its post office. Eastman granted this permission. I am pretty certain that the original PO building is now a real estate office.  So, here we are with Kodak Road, which alone is a pretty good name. 

Possibly the original site of the Kodak PO.

So, for the summer solstice of 2023, I decided that I would do a day trip to Kodak, photograph places with the name Kodak on them, and do my usual meandering road trip.  When I started out a little after 8:30,  the weather was overcast with light rain, and taking US-25 from Weaverville, made for a scenic ride.  US 25 passes through Hot Springs, as does the Appalachian Trail.  I’ve visited Hot Springs several times, and it sits along the French Broad River, which US-25 crosses several times in Tennessee.  At the TN/NC state line, I stopped to photograph an old sign for the State Line Cafe, which has been replacaed with an antiques store.  US 25 25 took me through Newport, TN, where I found this lovely old store along Lincoln Avenue.  I was supposed to meet up with Donna Moore to receive a bunch of cine film and odd lenses, so we met in the parking lot of the BassPro/Cabela’s store off of I-40W.  The entire region is geared towards tourists, as the Great Smokey Mountains are not far off, and neither is Pigeon Forge,  Dollywood and Gatlinburg. Sevierville is adjacent to Kodak, and parts of Kodak have been incorporated into Sevierville.  The main roads are definitely lined with places that cater to the tourists, except in Kodak proper.  

Kodak Road turns into Dumplin Valley Road, which feeds into TN State Route 66, which is also called the Winfield Dunn Parkway.  That’s where the preponderance of business have the word Kodak, including the Kodak Post Office, which dates from the 1989.

Driving around the many back roads in the area reveals the rural character and agricultural nature of the businesses.  However, as is typical, there are housing developments being carved out if the farmland.  The original center of Kodak is a four-corners without a traffic light.  The brightly colored Kodak Trade Center is probably the most notable of buildings.  I wonder how much has changed since Kodak was founded in 1892.

I had originally planned to shoot a Kodak camera with Kodak film while in Kodak, but the weather was more suited to pulling out a Nikon D300, while dodging the rain drops.  I think I managed to hit most of the highlights.  I also finished up a roll of Derevpan 100 in my Nikon F3HP.   

On my return trip, I went S on TN 66 to US-411, which eventually took me to I-40, and back to Asheville.  US-411 is also an interesting drive, as it’s named the Dolly Parton Parkway in Sevierville.   There is a Bush’s Beans plant on that route, and it has a visitor center that was closed by the time that I arrived.  

I wonder if real hillbillies get tired of their portrayal?

That's a LOT of beans

Bush's factory.  

It was a lot of driving for the day -- the twisty mountain roads eat up a lot of time and not as much distance as those road trips that I used to take in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.  But, it's NEVER boring!

I suppose my next trip that's Kodak-related should be in Kingsport, TN, where Eastman Chemical was located.  That's a little over an hour from my house.

Unfolding a wonder - The Kodak Vigilant SIX-20

Over the years, I have had opportunities to photograph with many different folding cameras, ranging from the simple and inexpensive Ansco Speedex, to various flavors of Zeiss Ikon Ikontas, and many in between.  The Kodak Tourist was a widely used 6x9 folder, and are relatively inexpensive on today’s market.  However, the one thing hampering many of the Kodak models is the creation of 620 film - really, just 120 film on a smaller diameter spool.  That one quirk has a lot of people not wanting to shoot with some of the nicer 620 cameras bearing the Kodak label.  Instead, they look to European Agfas, Voigtlanders, Baldas, and Zeiss Ikontas to load with 120 film, and I can’t blame them.  However, the Kodak Vigilant SIX-20 - the best one with the Kodak Anastigmat Special 101mm f/4.5 lens, is a wonderful folding camera, produced from 1939-1948.  It features the Kodak Supermatic shutter with B, T, 1-1/400 sec shutter speeds, and an aperture range of f/4.5-32, and scale focus from 3 feet to infinity.  One of these camera recently came my way - and upon inspection, I realized that it had a roll of film inside, at frame 1.  I inadvertently fired the shutter after I extended the bellows, so then I had 6 exposures left, as you get 8 on a roll of 6x9 cm negs.  

I decided to shoot the rest of the roll on some good subjects, so I took the camera down to the Ledges Whitewater Park on the French Broad River, just outside of Asheville.  I decided to rate the film as ISO 50, as I had no idea how old the film was, but I assumed it was at least 50 years old.  I have had a lot of experience with old Verichrome Pan, and knew that I ought to get SOMETHING out of it.  So, in the conditions that I had, I ended up shooting at either 1/50  or 1/100 sec, at an appropriate aperture for the conditions - often at F/8.

After I got home, I loaded the film into a Paterson tank, and developed it with  the FPP D-96 for 8 min at 20°C, followed by a water rinse and fixing, and then final rinses.  When I hung up the film to dry, I was really impressed that this film and camera came through with excellent results.  I did not see any problems with pinholes in the bellows, either, but I will do a check on that later.

perfectly developed with D-96

I love seeing the film info on the leader

Aside from wanting to test simple cameras like I did for the medium-format toy camera issue no. 3 for Monochrome Mania (out of print now), I didn’t really want to have to re-spool 120 to 620 spools.  For most of the Kodaks, it’s just not worth it, but with a few exceptions, and this Vigilant SIX-20 is definitely an exception.  I’ll have to re-spool some Kentmere 400 onto 620 so that I can test this camera further.  

That nice lens and shutter combo

the viewfinder with parallax adjustment

The design of this camera is quite nice — and a feature that I have not mentioned is the reverse Galilean viewfinder on the top deck. It has a small adjustment for parallax correction, and there is also one of those small reflex viewers at the front of  the bellows, which I hate.  Anyhow, I want to shoot with this camera some more. For one, it’s probably the lightest 6x9 camera that anyone can carry in their bag, and it also easily fits into a coat pocket. Unfolded, it’s still fairly compact, and also easy to use. The only thing that might be a problem is figuring out the distance to the subject, as there is no rangefinder, so one of those old accessory rangefinders might be a good idea to carry with me.  

There are other versions of this camera, but none of the others have all the bells and whistles of this one.  That f/4.5 maximum aperture is far better than the others with a maximum aperture of f/6.3 or f/8.8.  The Vigilant isn’t the only camera in this class that can take excellent 6x9 cm images, though.  You could look for a Kodak Monitor SIX-20, and all 4 variants of that camera have a lens with a maximum aperture of f/4.5.  There’s also the Kodak Special SIX-20 and the Kodak Senior SIX-20 - all take 6x9 cm negatives on 620 film, if you haven’t already figured out the SIX-20.   

However, if you are looking for a camera that takes 120 film and makes 6x9 cm negatives, I’d look for a Zeiss Ikonta or a Voigtlander Bessa. A folding camera makes a lot of sense for travel, and these folders will give you nice big negatives.  I found that a 3200 dpi scan of one 6x9 negative can produce a 2x3 ft print at 300 DPI.  Not too shabby.  So, be prepared to re-spool the 120 film onto 620 spools if you want to go the Kodak route. If your camera has a sound bellows, clean lens, and accurate shutter, it will be worth the effort for these big negatives.   

 

DSLRs will never go away for me

 

My D300 with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 zoom

With most of the manufacturers going all-in on the mirrorless craze, you'd think the DSLRs are dinosaurs.  With film cameras, SLRs have always been my preferred platform, no matter the manufacturer. My first real camera was an SLR, and that's the way that I have been photographing for a long, long, time. My first DSLR was a Nikon D70s, and I used that camera for almost 10 years before I sold it.  I've shot with a lot of different digital cameras, including the m4/3 Olympus, Nikon 1 system, Fuji X100s, and my latest mirrorless, a Canon EOS M5.  However, were I to consistently use a DSLR, it comes down to a Nikon D3100 - mostly for ebay shots, as it sits on a tripod in my "studio."  My APS-C DSLR for anything else is my D300.  It's a rock solid DSLR that I can trust in any conditions, and works with a lot of lenses.  The only significant downside is that it uses Compact Flash (CF) cards, and not SD cards.  It has sat in the drawer for a while, unused, because I was getting a CHA error message on the 32GB card, and sometimes with a 4 GB card.  I tried a bunch of 1 GB CF cards and no problems. Hmm... I ordered a new 4GB CF card that arrived yesterday and it's fine, so yay!  For me, the D300's 12MP are enough for anything I do, and for macrophotography, it's absolutely great.  

My full-frame (FX) DSLR is a Nikon Df, with 16 MP, and again, it's a wonderful camera that uses all of my manual and AF lenses just fine.  It's what I pick up when I want to make great images.  It's paired right now with an old 28mm f/3.5 that was factory AI'd. so it works great as a manual lens on the Df.

My point with all this is that I refrained from switching to a Nikon mirrorless Z system because, dammit, I am not made of money, and second, my suite of lenses does everything I need.  The new lenses for those mirrorless Nikons are even bigger than the ones I already have.  There's an insane amount of money being spent by people that think they need a newer system.  Maybe some do, but at what point is there a diminishing return?  I see people saying they need the latest and greatest because they are gear jockeys and to them, that's their thing. Fine. It's your money.  

However, the thing is - I don't trust Electronic Viewfinders.  Sure, I use one on my EOS M5, but that's a special purpose camera, not my main one.  With a DSLR, I have a viewfinder that's a direct and immediate connection to what I am seeing.  That's how I do photography. I shoot a DSLR like I shoot film.  

So, my now more dependable D300 will get more use, and believe me, it's a great DSLR.  The controls are perfectly placed.  Also, neither my D300 or Df do video.  I'm not a video person, and the fact is, the latest cameras concentrate so much on video, that they lack some functions that appeal to still photographers. Making video-less DSLRs or even mirrorless models, would drop their prices considerably.  I think that's the real crime with these new cameras, and maybe also a reason for some to shoot film cameras - there's no video feature.  My iPhone can certainly handle any short video I may need to do.  Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I bet there are a lot of photographers that would agree with me.  Manufacturers - don't turn every camera into a video camera. make some good, robust, still cameras that appeal to still photographers!  Maybe the Df is the last of the still-only, and that's why I love it.

One Roll Review - Orwo Wolfen NC500

I recently shot a roll of this new release (2022) from Orwo, and while it’s certainly not a complete test of this film, I thought that I’d share my results from it. Orwo NC500 is a C-41 color film rated at ISO 400. There is no orange mask that one usually associates with C-41 films, so I have to assume that this film was originally designed for cine use. There is no remjet layer.

According to Orwo, "At the core of our new color film lies a unique chemical formula based on the wonderful and legendary Agfa stock last used in the Oscar-winning film ‘Out of Africa.’ Famous for their greens, desaturated shadows, and enhanced grains, these are all aspects that we are embracing for our new addition. With WOLFEN NC500, we are not trying to imitate current stocks available on the market, we are creating an alternative, something with different characteristics and a different palette." In other words, don’t expect results that you might get from a typical C-41 color film. Think more along the lines of using something like a Lomography film such as their Metropolis C-41 film. 

It makes sense to put something out on the market that’s a color C-41 film, but not the same as every other film, and the NC500 is truly that. It’s got a unique palette that emphasizes the greens, and as I found with my photographs was perfectly suited for woodland images. Since I wasn’t testing this on more colorful subjects, such as strolling along all the street art in the Asheville River Arts District, I can’t comment on how it renders that type of scene. However, given that I shot it while in South Carolina in early May, I’m pretty happy with how it turned out. Not wanting to bias the results in any way, I had the film developed at my local film lab, Ball Photo, in Asheville.

A few examples, all shot with my Nikon F3HP, and 28mm and 35mm Nikkors...

As you can see, it’s a different film than something like Fuji Superia. Tones are muted, the shadows quite nice, and the images I got from it are quite lovely. To me, the only reason that I might not use this more often is the price. At $16/roll, it's pricey. I don’t shoot a lot of color anyways, but it’s good to have a film that stands out as different from the rest. Scanning the film was easy on my Epson V700, and the film lies relatively flat. I usually do my post-processing in Corel Paintshop Pro, and I did very little with these images. 

Some people might really appreciate the “retro” look of this film, and it does have sort of a faded snapshot look to it. My view is that once you know a film’s characteristics, you can tailor your choice of shots to that film’s strengths, and in doing so, you can create images that match your expectations. However, you need to try these unique films for yourself, so that you become familiar with them. It’s an interesting film, for sure, that does not fall into the super-saturated category that many have come to expect.