The No. 1 Challenge

Had this idea while reading and writing in a thread about the advances in camera technology and the flip side of what you can do with less.

The very first consumer camera was a Kodak No. 1 and had a fixed shutter and an aperture. The No. 1 did not even have a view finder, but was aimed by just pointing the camera in the direction of the subject. It would take 100 exposures and then the user sent the whole camera to Kodak to have it developed and reloaded at a cost of $10 in 1889 ($200+ in today's money). The photos were 2 1/2” (65mm) round instead of rectangular or square.

What can you do (and what can you learn) when you don't have settings you can adjust to the conditions or an autopilot.

So, here's the challenge: Take one camera with a normal lens and set it up as a Kodak No. 1. Use any camera, even a cell phone, provided you can set it up manually as listed below.

• Use the same focal length for each shot. Option: Use the FOV equivalent. See note below
• Set aperture at f/9 or nearest. (The No. 1 lens was f/ 9)
• Set ISO at 100
• Set shutter speed at 1/100
• Optional: Set your focus distance to 10' (3 meters)

Take 5 photos:

• Use the same camera settings for all 5 shots.
• There must be at least 1 hour of time between each photo. Can be days, weeks or months, but has to be at least one hour.
• All lighting must be ambient, aka available light. No flash.
• At least one photo must be outdoors.
• At least one photo must be indoors.
• Post processing that affects exposure not allowed for the 5 images except:
  • Optional: Converting straight to B&W.
  • Optional: Apply a circle mat to the finished photos with minimal cropping.

Post your 5 photos in this thread. You can post 1 at a time or all at once.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Note Below: The Kodak No. 1 had a 57mm Bausch & Lomb lens, so to get the same approximate field of view:

· For FX use 30mm +/-
· For DX use 20mm +/-
· For CX use 10mm +/-

Edited to add: Optional focus distance
Edited to clarify: No post that affects exposure

Here's my first. It was kind of late when I had the parameters figured out and this little guy was the only thing bright enough to register on the sensor.

Might try this, if I can find the time. Interesting challenge, thanks for sharing!

This sounds like fun to me. I just hope I can complete it.
I don't think the No. 1 had focus capability. Will we be allowed that luxury?

Mike150 said:

This sounds like fun to me. I just hope I can complete it.
I don't think the No. 1 had focus capability. Will we be allowed that luxury?

Click to expand...

I thought about limiting the focus by setting the the lens to X feet/meters, but that's not easy on some of the lenses folks might want to use.

If we knew where the No. 1 was set to focus, maybe add no focus in round 2.

On another forum i follow they have a competition using disposable cameras,about as simple as the original but i dont think you can get them from Nikon

No post: does that imply no sharpening when RAW? If, I'd have to make sure I set that to zero in LR. Lens corrections?

Pretzel said:

Might try this, if I can find the time. Interesting challenge, thanks for sharing!

Click to expand...

It's for the fun and learning, so no time limit. Take a year to do it or wait a year to do it.

It takes you back to the day of, "OK everybody, stand over here in the sunlight, so I can take the picture."

Eyelight said:

I thought about limiting the focus by setting the the lens to X feet/meters, but that's not easy on some of the lenses folks might want to use.

If we knew where the No. 1 was set to focus, maybe add no focus in round 2.

Click to expand...

Perhaps set the stipulation that you estimate the focus distance and set the lens for that distance (honor system) prior to the shot.

Mike150 said:

Perhaps set the stipulation that you estimate the focus distance and set the lens for that distance (honor system) prior to the shot.

Click to expand...

Looking at some images, they appear to have a focus distance of around 10' (3 meters +/-). Could add that as an optional criteria. Thing is, you would need to use the FOV equivalent lens to get the same approximate DOF, and since that's optional, we could do the focus distance as optional.

J-see said:

No post: does that imply no sharpening when RAW? If, I'd have to make sure I set that to zero in LR. Lens corrections?

Click to expand...

Almost missed this.

This is for fun and a little learning, so let's not worry too much about stripping the basic settings out of the camera or basic post processing.

The main no post processing is no exposure adjusting, so we gain the full benefit of waiting or finding the right light to make a shot. My first attempt, I waited half an hour for the sunset to get dark enough. Didn't use the shot becasue I figured out the focal length was way off.

I am sorry to be a spoil-sport, and the "see what you can do with no settings" does seem an interesting goal, but I fear the No. 1 Kodak is merely a serious and unrelated complication today.

For one thing, today, ISO 100, f/9, and 1/100 second is two stops overexposed in bright daylight. Which is really tough on digital.

But I also maintain those are also invalid numbers for the No. 1. We see lots of early Kodak pictures with dark shadows in bright sun. Negative film did have much more latitude to be corrected in the darkroom (overexposure was often considered a plus. ), where digital and JPG are relatively limited. But two stops as a goal? Does not seem real.

Film speed was NOT equivalent to ISO 100 in 1899. I have no clue what it was, but ASA 50 to 80 was more typical in the 1950s (for general purpose use). (and yes, Kodak did summarily double all those ASA numbers in 1960... less safety factor since more meters were in use, and color was creeping in).

And f/9 was not f/9 in 1899. There were several systems of numbering apertures. F/stops nomenclature was invented earlier, but not in wide use until maybe at least the 1930s. What was in wide use in early century was the "U.S. System" of aperture nomenclature (heavily influenced by Kodak, in the UK too), and it's f/9 was closer to f/stop f/12 or f/13. I once had my dads Kodak folding camera from around 1930, and its aperture numbers did not match f/stops even then. Could not use a 1950s light meter with it.

And later on, say in the 1950s, the Brownies had shutter speeds not exceeding 1/50 second, if that.

I would suggest something from Sunny 16 bright sun as being a more general box camera setting today.

WayneF said:

I am sorry to be a spoil-sport, and the "see what you can do with no settings" does seem an interesting goal, but I fear the No. 1 Kodak is merely a serious and unrelated complication today.

For one thing, today, ISO 100, f/9, and 1/100 second is two stops overexposed in bright daylight.

But I also maintain those are also invalid numbers for the No. 1. We see lots of early Kodak pictures with dark shadows in bright sun. Negative film did have much more latitude to be corrected in the darkroom (overexposure was often considered a plus. ), where digital and JPG are relatively limited. But two stops as a goal?

Film speed was NOT equivalent to ISO 100 in 1899. I have no clue what it was, but ASA 50 to 80 was more typical in the 1950s (for general purpose use).

And f/9 was not f/9 in 1899. There were several systems of numbering apertures. F/stops nomenclature was invented earlier, but not in wide use until maybe at least the 1930s (heavily influenced by Kodak). What was in wide use in early century was the "U.S. System" of aperture nomenclature (in the UK too), and it's f/9 was closer to f/stop f/12 or f/13. I once had my dads Kodak folding camera from around 1930, and its aperture numbers did not match f/stops even then. Could not use a 1950s light meter with it.

And later on, say in the 1950s, the Brownies had shutter speeds not exceeding 1/50 second, if that.

I would suggest something from Sunny 16 bright sun as being a more general box camera setting today.

Click to expand...

You're such a party pooper

WayneF said:

I am sorry to be a spoil-sport, and the "see what you can do with no settings" does seem an interesting goal, but I fear the No. 1 Kodak is merely a serious and unrelated complication today.

For one thing, today, ISO 100, f/9, and 1/100 second is two stops overexposed in bright daylight.

But I also maintain those are also invalid numbers for the No. 1. We see lots of early Kodak pictures with dark shadows in bright sun. Negative film did have much more latitude to be corrected in the darkroom (overexposure was often considered a plus. ), where digital and JPG are relatively limited. But two stops as a goal?

Film speed was NOT equivalent to ISO 100 in 1899. I have no clue what it was, but ASA 50 to 80 was more typical in the 1950s (for general purpose use).

And f/9 was not f/9 in 1899. There were several systems of numbering apertures. F/stops nomenclature was invented earlier, but not in wide use until maybe at least the 1930s (heavily influenced by Kodak). What was in wide use in early century was the "U.S. System" of aperture nomenclature (in the UK too), and it's f/9 was closer to f/stop f/12 or f/13. I once had my dads Kodak folding camera from around 1930, and its aperture numbers did not match f/stops even then. Could not use a 1950s light meter with it.

And later on, say in the 1950s, the Brownies had shutter speeds not exceeding 1/50 second, if that.

I would suggest something from Sunny 16 bright sun as being a more general box camera setting today.

Click to expand...

I don't think it'll spoil anyone's sport. I figured some of the info may not be spot on, but for the purpose of this game, it served as a starting point.

Regardless of the actual 1889 specs, there is a reason for the settings chosen.

Thanks for the thoughts.

I'll check tomorrow if it's even possible for me to shoot with those settings. Today was the first day this week I could distinguish different clouds, let's not even talk about having sun.

How close to FX 30mm do you have to be?
I only have 24mm or 50mm to choose from

Could always try and persuade the wife that a 35mm is essential if thats close enough, that is my next purchase.

wornish said:

How close to FX 30mm do you have to be?
I only have 24mm or 50mm to choose from

Could always try and persuade the wife that a 35mm is essential if thats close enough, that is my next purchase.

Click to expand...

Exact focal length is optional. So use either. But whichever you pick, should be used for all five shots. Of course, we could add a special wornish only criteria that it has to be 35mm.

I suppose I have the settings right. The light was gray and flat; I just cropped and resized.

Post processing that affects exposure not allowed for the 5 images except:

• Optional: Converting straight to B&W.
• Optional: Apply a circle mat to the finished photos with minimal cropping.

Click to expand...

Just to make sure I have this right.
No lens correction, CA correction, or leveling. No 7 bracket shots.
No adjustments in LR, then opening in PS for some unsharp mask treatments, then selecting the sky to make a new layer, then taking that layer into Nik Tools for some Glamour glow treatment and reblending it in PS then back to LR for another 20 minutes of re adjusting, the exporting it with output sharpening set for screen?

Surely you jest!:glee:

Sounds like a challenge