That was pretty much the conclusion I came to after flying it a couple of times. It was so much work and you got crummy photos compared to today's cameras. Plus don't forget, you have to process and print the film yourself as well. I flew my Cineroc many times (including reloading the film cartridges) and that was much, much easier to do. So I kind of gave up on the Camroc.

Yeah, maybe. But you have to keep it flat so the focal plane is even. The film holder has a ring that does just that, if you make it smaller you'd have to ensure it lays flat.

At least in name they do, but it is ISO 320 now.

The Tri-x sheet film was always ASA(ISO) 320. We were taught to expose it at 160 - 200 and reduce the development time to give a bit more detail in the darker or shadow areas.

S.

Oh OK I didn't know that. Like I mentioned I used Plus-X so I never bought a box of Tri-X.

How long did you develop the Plus-X?

S.

Heh, I don't recall. We did this in about 1995 or 1996, and I probably followed Kodak's recommendations for processing. I did know the shutter speed at that time so that was a start. I'm sure we also compensated during printing as well but honestly I don't recall. I've lost those negatives and prints somewhere.

At that time I was working at a place that had a nice darkroom and photo equipment. Although I have my own stuff, it was easier to do it there than at home. I recall we did a few test shots out in the parking lot to determine the best processing times and stuff like that.

Another reason we did it there was (besides having a far superior enlarger than I have) they had a 120/620 negative carrier. I only have a 35mm and that was too small. We built a mask of some sort for the round negatives and used that to make prints.

Even under ideal conditions (camera held perfectly steady, bright sunlight) the pictures weren't all that great.

One other thing (although I think the original poster has long since wandered off into the weeds), the Camroc uses a #8 rubber band. I believe that may be in the instructions but if not, there you go

Original poster is still here.......been reading, and maybe learning a thing or two. First of all I've read the past Model Rocket articles from the link provided me earlier, and I've tried to search and read past stories here, and what ever google provides. That said, I'd just like to say, this whole thing for me is just for the heck of it. I know the pictures were never that good, amd I'm sure I could do better with my digital keychain camera. But it looks like a fun thing to fart around with, something I never had the time, knowledge, or the money to do in 1968 or '69 when I first got a Camroc. Always liked cameras, probably got my first when I was about 10, and still have the pictures. Anyway, cutting the film isn't much of a problem for me, I was a tool maker for 10-11 years in a former life, and I have a couple friends still doing it that can help. I do need some film to practice with though if any one has any to spare ;-) .The idea of a glass lens sounds good, but I don't want to modify the only Camroc I have, maybe I can find someones spare parts to buy. If that's the case I'll need help picking a lens, have no experience with that. But again, I can machine a holder. An interesting thing I've read in a past article stated that the original film was curved in the holder. Can anyone confirm that ? I can't find any of my old negatives to play with. Also the past issues of MRN said to use 120 roll film, but here it seems as if the sheet film is the medium of choice. Developing may be a bit of a hurdle too, but with the help of the internet I hope to find a hobbiest near me willing to try.
Enough ramblings for now, thanks for the comments, I'm going to keep searching the internet, and of course listening to all you folks here
BAR Dave in MI

In the January/Febuary 2009 issue I wrote an article on my experiences flying a Camroc. I have probably violated copyrights but I scanned in the article and attached it. It sure was fun flying that bird!

Ted Mahler

Attached Thumbnails