Photo-Analogue: V. P. Twin

Showing posts with label V. P. Twin. Show all posts

Monday, 29 October 2018

October's #ShittyCameraChallenge

V. P. Twin with Ilford XP2 Super

With October being announced as the second month this year for the #ShittyCameraChallenge, I wanted to use a different camera from June's contest, the Micro 110, and my first thought was to choose the Elliott V. P. Twin. The V. P. Twin seems perfect for the challenge - no user controls other than the shutter lever, a fixed-focus meniscus lens, a virtually obsolete format, a body made from Bakelite (or a Bakelite-type brittle plastic), and it was once sold in three parts for six old pence each. In my original post on the V. P. Twin, I calculated this to be £3.73 at 2016 prices - and the camera is probably worth hardly any more now; my model of the camera is the post-war version, which was once sold for 7/6, or 37.5 new pence, which would be £6.32 at 2016 prices. This was around the price I paid on a well-known auction site including postage. A handy definition of a 'shitty camera' is one where the camera is worth less than a roll of film: the V. P. Twin takes 127 format rollfilm, and certainly any new 127 film would cost more than the camera. There seems to be a small resurgence of interest in the 127 format, and a new Rerapan 400-speed black and white film is currently available, as well as Rera Chrome and Rollei Crossbird.

Elliott V. P. Twin

However, I didn't use any of these films over the week I was shooting with the V. P. Twin. Instead, I had some cut down medium format Ilford XP2 Super, HP5 and FP4 Plus, rolled with 127 backing paper, as well as some 35mm Kentmere 400. As the V. P. Twin is a snapshot camera and has no aperture or shutter speed controls, whatever film I was using - and these were mostly fast films - the films' latitude was important in order to provide results in a variety of lighting conditions (I did develop the XP2 Super in RO9; C41 process would have been better in terms of latitude for the film). Originally, the camera was recommended to be used for subjects in broad sunlight, of which there was some this October - obviously not as bright as summer sunlight - but I shot with whatever light was available, with mostly acceptable results.

V. P. Twin with Ilford HP5 Plus

I did attempt a few shots of well-lit interiors, where HP5 gave good results. The photographs I took all demonstrated the shortcomings of the V. P. Twin: the meniscus lens has very visible vignetting and distortion in all images; there was also some camera shake in a few shots (using the camera this month, I noticed that the shutter appears to trip slower in one direction as opposed to the other); film flatness was an issue in some images (most notably with the 35mm film, as this wasn't supported at the sides of the frame); and the framing in a number of the photographs was clearly off - the curved metal viewinder frame of the V. P. Twin is rudimentary at best. All these factors help to qualify the V. P. Twin to be a 'shitty camera'.

V. P. Twin with HP5 Plus showing camera shake

V. P. Twin with Kentmere 400 - out of focus areas caused by lack of film flatness

V. P. Twin with Ilford XP2 Super - poorly framed subject

And yet these factors are part of the charm of using the V. P. Twin - other than the problems with accurate framing, which rarely provides a more interesting composition than the one I was trying to frame. Ideally, I would have probably shot everything on HP5 Plus, as this would have been the most sympathetic (or C41-processed XP2), but I was just shooting with what I had - what was already cut down and/or rolled with 127 format backing paper for use. Doing this - shooting with what I had - using a simple snapshot camera, over the course of a week, and the results that come out of those restrictions, are one of the chief attractions for taking part in such a thematic 'challenge', and, by doing so, engaging in part of a larger online community of film photographers.

V. P. Twin with Ilford HP5 Plus

V. P. Twin with Ilford XP2 Super

V. P. Twin with Ilford FP4 Plus

V. P. Twin with Kentmere 400

V. P. Twin with Ilford XP2 Super

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

World Toy Camera Day 2016

For this year's World Toy Camera Day last weekend, I used my V. P. Twin, feeling as this would qualify for being a 'toy camera', being made of plastic with no user controls other than the shutter lever itself. I shot a roll of HP5 Plus cut and rolled with 127 backing paper. As the morning was grey and overcast I decided to push the film one stop to compensate for not being able to change any settings on the camera, which worked as well as could be expected, although a number of frames were quite underexposed. There were problems with lens flares, light leaks and film flatness, which I'd noted in writing about the V. P. Twin; I had intended to make an additional tension spring to balance the pressure on the film inside the camera, but in the event I didn't find the time. I did also shoot a roll of Fomapan 200, but the roll suffered rather more from light leaks as a result of the camera back not being fully closed, which I only realised most of the way through the sixteen shots, so I've only posted images from those shot on HP5 Plus here.

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

The V. P. Twin

V. P. Twin with soft case

Having written a moderately comprehensive post about the Vest Pocket Kodak, I wanted to write a post about the other camera that I used on this month's 127 Day, the V. P. Twin. About this, there is rather less to say, but millions of these were made, and as an extremely cheap snapshot camera, the V. P. Twin may well have been the introduction to photography for a great many people, particularly in the UK where it was produced. How well it may have travelled is an unknown - on Collections Appareils it's listed as being rare in France, but a number are always available on a well-known auction site, and I have on occasion seen V. P. Twins in antique or junk shops.

V. P. Twin with wire framefinder folded out for use

The name derives from the initials for Vest Pocket, an alternate name for 127 rollfilm, and that the camera uses a frame size of 3x4cm, which means that two red windows are needed to advance the film, the numbers on the paper backing appearing twice, once in each window, to provide sixteen photographs on a roll. The camera is made from plastic: when first produced in the mid-1930s, this was Bakelite in a number of different coloured variants; my version of the camera dates from after the war, clearly identified by the metal faceplate around the lens. Although many websites don't differentiate, there are some suggestions that, post-war, a different plastic other than bakelite was used. With my example, the plastic appears very much like Bakelite, hard and a somewhat brittle, as evidenced by a small chip broken off inside, but this is not conclusive.

V. P. Twin with wire framefinder

The camera has a fixed-focus meniscus lens of f12.5 (the instructions recommend a subject distance of eight to ten feet) and a rotary-type shutter that fires when the lever is tripped in either direction. The 1950s version of the V. P. Twin has a metal faceplate with the phrase "BLOOMED "BOLCO" LENS": BOLCo stood for British Optical Company; bloomed appears to mean that the lens was coated, which, judging from the colour of the reflections, may well be the case, although it might seem an unnecessary refinement given how basic the lens is. To compose a shot, there is a single metal frame which hinges up from the top of the camera. The advance knob provides a loud ratchet sound, making operation of the camera less than discreet given how quiet the shutter is.

V. P. Twin opened for loading

Although the instruction manual tells the user to twist a coin between the two projections at the top of the camera, and the letters "INSERT COIN AND TWIST" are embossed on the camera itself, I've found it easy enough to open using my fingers in the slot. The V. P. Twin is famous for having been sold in three individual parts, each for 6d, which, in total, converts to 7.5 pence in new money, surely one of the cheapest cameras ever made (according to one online calculator I've used, this would be the equivalent of £3.73 at 2016 prices). Although this sounds apocryphal, the onetwoseven site confirms the story. In the 1950s, the V. P. Twin was selling for 7/6, or 37.5 pence, or £6.32 at 2016 prices. For a simple camera, the instruction leaflet is very comprehensive; my camera came with both instruction leaflet and soft case.

V. P. Twin leaflet front

V. P. Twin leaflet back

I first shot a short roll of Ilford HP5 Plus cut down from medium format, and the results were very much what I imagined them to be: vignetting, distortion and so on from the meniscus lens. There were also some scratches, which may have been from the process of slitting the film to 127 size. The shutter looks and sounds very slow, but it's probably around 1/30th; some shots appear to show a small amount of camera shake, but given how little in the frame is truly sharp, it matters less than this might. As I've written about other simple cameras, the use of modern fast emulsion allows a greater flexibility in the situations in which the camera may be used. The instructions state that:

The V. P. Twin is strictly a snapshot camera. The same rules which govern Snapshot Photography with any other camera should be followed. The subject should be in broad, open sunlight, but the camera must not. The sun should be behind your back or over your shoulder.

V. P. Twin test roll with Ilford HP5 Plus

Given the typical film speeds of the 1930s when the film was first produced this advice would have been well heeded; today, being able to use a 400 ISO film with both lower contrast and good latitude means being able to ignore that stricture: the photograph above was taken on an overcast day, with plenty of shade from a nearby tree. Shooting longer rolls of film for the 127 Day did show some issues with film flatness which appeared to increase over the length of a roll; the camera has one flat tension spring at one end of the camera inside, as seen in one of the images above, which does not seem sufficient to keep the film tight as the amount on the take-up side builds up. This lack of flatness shows up as distortion, especially clear in straight lines, as shown in the second-to-last image on this post.

Maurice Fisher, on the Photographic Memorabilia website nicely sums up using the V. P. Twin as his first camera, replete with camera shake and framing errors. Accurate framing is very difficult to achieve; it's probably best to simply ensure whatever motif being photographed is simply centred. Camera shake with the V. P. Twin is partly due to the camera being so small and light, but not insurmountable if the instructions are followed to hold the camera tightly against the face to steady it; I also steadied a few shots by balancing the camera on a flat surface. As a cheap, snapshot camera, I did find the V. P. Twin to have a certain charm, and the quality of the images is easily the equivalent to the toy cameras that have become popular in recent years.