ola_tuvesson

<p>Thanks! If you look on the Emsa site you'll see they have loads of different sizes available - I'm sure the same is true for other manufacturers. Some container sizes stack in neat ways too. I do have a few rolls of 135 in the refrigerated box (as opposed to the frozen ones) and can report that the 1L version holds six rolls of 135 standing up, height and length a perfect match, but with a fair amount of space left on the sides. Eight 120 rolls and three 135 rolls fit just as neatly as twelve 120 rolls do. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't freeze film to be used in less than a year</p> </blockquote> <p>Yep, I've never frozen film before either, but 20 rolls of 120 is more than I'm likely to use in a year - especially considering I have a bunch of mixed rolls already in the fridge. It's also the first time I've ever bought IR sensitive film, and although the SFX is not a "real" IR film I figured it can't hurt keeping it below zero. At this point <em>I have no idea</em> when I'm going to be using any of this, or how often - it could well be more than a year, even two years before they're all gone.</p> <blockquote> <p>a desiccant is a good idea</p> </blockquote> <p>I live by the sea and buy desiccant bags in bulk to keep various bits of equipment damp, mould and corrosion free. Tool drawers, component storage, camera bags, laptop bags - open any of them and you're likely to find the familiar little pouches with "do not eat" printed on them (a silly warning since in the unlikely event that you'd feel tempted to do so, the worst thing that would happen to you is that you might feel a little thirsty). I "recycle" them in a small toaster oven I have in my workshop and consider them <em>essential</em>. Since I always have literally dozens of these to hand I figured it can't hurt popping one into each box - might keep any paper eating moulds from munching up the cartons if nothing else. Life by the coast also means frequent and lengthy power outages and I cannot trust my tiny freezer to stay below zero at all times...</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yeah, well, I needed <em>something</em> to put the film inside, and had no suitable bags or other containers to hand. It's not going to hurt them to store them like this, is it? FWIW, those three Emsa containers cost just £14.50 delivered, and should last for <em>decades</em> - the batch of film cost ten times more! I just felt it was a happy coincidence that they were such a perfect fit for film rolls (which I prefer to keep in their original boxes) - it may be that there are others who like the idea. And the fact that they are made in Germany only adds to the nice feeling of <em><strong>Ordnung!</strong></em> :D</p>

<p>I'm sure shrink wrap would work very well - though you'd have to re-wrap every time you take out a fresh roll...</p>

<p>I was running out of film and decided it was time to stock up - and to try a couple of interesting emulsions I haven't tried before. But since I'm a bit random with how much film I use, I wanted to make sure I stored them so they will last; it may be a year (or more!) before I've gone through them all, particularly the SFX and PanF rolls. So I started looking at options for airtight freezer safe containers, of the type usually used for food storage, and stumbled upon what might be the perfect solution: the <a href="https://www.emsa.com/en/products/freshness-guaranteed/food-storage-containers/clip-close-classic-format-100l/">Emsa "Clip & Close" 1L</a> size container is not only well made, completely air-tight and freezer safe - it also happens to have <em>exactly</em> the right dimensions for 12 rolls of 120 film, and I mean like down to the millimetre, in all three dimensions. An added bonus is that you can clearly see exactly what rolls are inside each container without having to open them. Some photos:</p> <p> </p> <center> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18240579-md.jpg" alt="" /><br /> A selection of fresh 120 rolls from Ilford</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18240580-md.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Emsa Clip & Close 3x1 Litre</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18240581-md.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Ready for the freezer!</p> </center> <p>Since I only had twenty rolls I was going to freeze I opted to put a mix of ten in each box, and used the left-over space for a bag of silica gel desiccant, for <em>ultimate</em> storage conditions. It also meant I had one Emsa box over - I now use this to store the rolls I want to have to hand in the refrigerator instead; no more boxes of film falling out on the floor every time I open the refrigerator door...</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have this lens - a CF T* FLE version from 1996, and it is simply wonderful - the only pity being the filter size - that it is an uncommon size</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed. So imagine how amazing it was to get hold of one that came with <em>both</em> the original UV drop-in filter AND the dedicated polarizer (which doubles as an adapter for the Proshade, which I also have, allowing you to adjust the filter with the hood attached). The polarizer even came in the original box. These filters are like the proverbial hen's teeth, and both were absolutely spotless. Alone they are probably worth $300-500. And a mint condition 4/40 CF FLE maybe $1500. But I paid <em>a lot</em> less than $2000. I also wasted $90 on a Proshade adapter for it, which I now have no use for. Now do you see why I'm frustrated?</p> <p>Then again, I'm not a big filter user either, though I do like a #22 orange when the Simpson's clouds are out, and with lenses as expensive as this I consider an UV filter to be mandatory.</p> <p>To cheer myself up I used the refund to buy an Imacon Flextight Photo instead - finally able to scan my Hasselblad negs! Time. To. Let. It. Go.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I agree Tom; I've let this get to me more than it should have. But I'm sure you know what it's like when you fall in love with a magnificent piece of glass like this, only to have to see it go. And technically, I was still the legal owner of this lens until Friday afternoon, since I had not yet received a refund. So when the technician looked at it, he was really looking at <em>my</em> lens - it was only some hours <em>after</em> the inspection that a final decision was made, and I asked for my money back. I guess that's what really pissed me off; had the technician said "I can't answer your questions because it's not your lens" then I could have explained that actually it <em>was</em> my lens, but instead he gave me this nonsense about not finding any fault, when I <em>knew</em> that there was <em>something</em> wrong with it. I found that rather insulting.</p> <p>As to my certainty regarding <em>what exactly </em> it was that caused the damage shown in my photos, I confess to having some doubts. That's why I posted here. I just wanted certainty. I <em>still</em> think it looked like some kind of impact damage, but of course, had a qualified lens technician said to me that it was fungus and given me his word that he'd been able to remove it without any lasting impact, then who am I to argue? Lens technician I am not. I don't know if it's even possible for two elements to collide inside a lens like this - though having looked at a cross-section view it sure looks pretty cramped in there. The only glass I have with fungus damage is a Hasselblad chimney finder, where the attack has left permanent marks on the coating. It doesn't affect the use of the finder at all (it's invisible when looking through it), but it also looks <em>nothing</em> like what you see in the photos above. So I really just wanted to settle this in my own mind. What if the seller was telling the truth? I never saw the lens again after the "servicing", so short of getting a professional opinion from someone here, based on my blurry photos, I guess I'll have to live with the possibility that I may have missed out on the deal of the century instead.</p>

<p>Look,<em> it's cracked glass</em>. There are tiny shards sprinkled all over the element. Sharp geometrical lines around a darker centre. No way this is a mould, or any other kind of organic structure. I was hoping I could get some confirmation on this, but really, it's quite plain to see. Add to that that there appeared to be some movement inside the lens when handled and I'm pretty convinced that my initial assessment is correct - and that the seller and/or Camera Museum were taking me for a fool.<br /> <br /> You might want to have a look at some pictures of mouldy lenses to see just how ridiculous the suggestion that this would be a fungus is: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=lens+fungus">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=lens+fungus</a> Tell me if you spot anything that looks remotely similar - I sure as hell can't.<br /> <br /> So having serviced a lens that someone is selling - a $1500 lens - you would not be able to say to a prospective buyer what service you performed on it? To me that would be quite worrying, and I would stay away from any such equipment. As I chose to do in this case - precisely because details of the fault and the servicing done to remedy it were not disclosed in an honest way. I'd advise anyone else thinking about parting of a huge chunk of their hard-earneds to do the same. It is worth remembering, when it comes to collector's class lenses, that damaged glass is basically impossible to restore to factory condition - spare elements are unlikely to be available, and a lens with a damage such as this one, however nice in other respects, has in effect a market value only equal to that of the spare parts that can be scavenged from it. I count myself very fortunate indeed that I spotted this flaw in time.</p>

<p>Doesn't <em>anyone</em> have an opinion on this? Surely there must be someone here who has dealt with damaged/mouldy lenses? The deal may be off, but I still want to know: could this <em>really</em> be "fungus" on the glass? Or do you agree with my assessment that it looks more like some form of impact damage? I did an image search for "lens fungus" and couldn't find anything that looked even remotely similar... I feel like I have been taken for a ride, and would like to settle the matter - if nothing else, it will help knowing what to look out for in the future!</p>

<p>And then it gets even weirder. I decided to call the Camera Museum myself to hear first hand what the techie had to say - and guess what, he goes "oh no, there was <em>nothing wrong with that lens at all, no fungus or anything.</em>" I tried to explain to him that I had photos showing the damage quite clearly, but he was, shall we say, less than interested. I asked him if I could get him to evaluate the lens for me (for a fee) and he said they'd have to send it off(?) elsewhere to do that, which I thought was rather odd since he had just done an evaluation of it for someone else! I asked him to confirm that he had taken no action other than opening and inspecting the lens, and again that there was no fungus, scratching, or other damage to any of the elements, which he confirmed. Then I got a pretty angry "look, this has nothing to do with me, it's not my problem, don't get me involved" - funny considering he's had the lens apart on his workbench just hours earlier... This whole thing stinks to high heaven - I'm puling out!</p>

<p>The plot thickens. Having returned the lens to the seller he took it to the Camera Museum in London to have it examined, and the techie there said there was fungus in the lens, opened it and cleaned it. Now the seller is offering it back to me. I would love to accept, but I'm very hesitant; could this really have been a fungus "infection" on the glass? I've never actually seen this in real life, so don't know what it looks like, but to me the glass looks cracked/scratched? Can anyone here offer some opinion on this? </p>