Silent Street

:eek: £200 quid is expensive!! Failure of the winding mechanism is very common unfortunately, and it is almost always age and use-related, dating back many decades. It is not a good first association with the camera for first-time users, but this is to be expected with the very old machines that today are more of a collector's item or hobbyist accessory, far, far removed from the brutality of professional service that was their bread and butter way-back-when. It is the right thing to do to seek a refund from the seller.

I think it would help more — a great deal, actually, if you owned a Pentax 67 and were familiar with the fittings of e.g. the prisms, metered or non-metered. Regarding Pentax/Ricoh, support for the Pentax 67 MF cameras ceased in 1988 and no support, verbal or otherwise, is provided by the conglomerate of Ricoh/Pentax that we know today which is not even familiar with the earlier cameras. When and where a component fails it needs to be referred for repair, chiefly on the grounds of the age of these cameras, both the 6x7 (1969 onward) and the newer 67 (1989 to 1992). Repairs are provided (in the USA) by Eric at pentaxs.com (Tennesse). Though very rare, the prism latches can jam or lose functionality if there is rust present in the spring release or the spring itself has slipped (either/both events can be the result of long periods of neglect, but more commonly heavy professional use). I think it is likely rust or an obstruction is also present in the body-side latch piece. You can try a very small squirt of WD40 where the latch fits into the top prism fascia and see if that frees it up. It is important to thoroughly clean the focusing screen if WD40 gets onto it. Use isopropyl alcohol and a microfibre cloth for this and be thorough. Photonet is just one of the avenues of enquiry you can make. There are others. You may find that posting your query in the medium format section of Pentaxforums.com will generate some assistance from long-time users of these cameras.

Are you positive that the end of the leader was firmly engaged in the take-up spool and after that, the film was wound on up to and only to the START line before closing the back? If the leader is not engaged and the back is closed, the winder will continue winding, albeit with the tell-tale symptom of virtually no friction, which should be present at all wind-on action up to 10, after which is slackens off. The other possibility is a stripped winding mechanism pawl. This is common with the early 6x7 cameras (later generation, 1989 onward cameras, had improvements put in place to reduce this malaise). The frame counter roller may also be at fault. This is the smooth surfaced roller to the right of the film gate (don't touch it: rolling it back and forth is detrimental). Open the camera in a dark bag, under the blankets, in the closet... anywhere that it is dark, and wrangle the film out. Pull out the film spool clasps at the base of the camera before going into the dark, open the cover and work very carefully at getting the film out starting from the take up spool. Still in the dark, rewind it as best as you can and have it processed. Then critically examine the camera, especially the winding mechanism: put a blank take-up spool in, close the clasps and "freewheel" the winding. NO frame counter movement should take place during this.

Mmm-hmm. Some home truths in that sentence. Studying art will be easy for those who can create through their mind's eye and conceptualise ideas. 'Twill be completely lost on those who are head-over-heels enamoured and addicted and besotted by technology and automation that only serves to obstruct the path to creativity. The cameras I use don't actually, really "feel good in [my] hands" But they are only tools to get the job done, not the Mona Lisa. Another day, more work... _______________________________________ L/mm?? I think I last paid any attention to that floss around 1984...:rolleyes:

The 6x7 / 67 is not really the best camera for the task, rather the camera that was widely available in studios for a long time for stills. For the DoP, reasonable magnification is one factor, but the 90% field of view is another (unless a chimney or waist-level finder is used, which I suspect would have been the case), requiring some mental examination of the scene to 'trim' out anything not relevant to the cut. I'm reminded latterly that a Pentax 6x7 was also used in the first Mad Max movies, filmed outside Silverton in outback New South Wales here in Australia. Just look at the Feral Kid (Emil Minty) nowadays — the long tresses of wild hair are gone — nowhere near as feral as way back then!! :p

Not the first time the Pentax 6x7 or 67 has been used like this, and not specifically for IMAX. Apocalypse Now and Platoon (filmed in the Phillipines in 1986) had a similar accessory arrangement.

:gasp: What a cracker!!!

Steve, The botanist in me wants to now what that carpet of rock-creeping succulent is. I surmise it has a deep and tangled understorey below what can be seen in this? The gorgeous water looks ... soooooo enticing! The Pacific is one of the few safe-havens from COVID at the moment, and keen to remain that way. Anyways, have you bought our Business Class airfares for standby departure yet!? :):p

Professional facilities will give quantity discounts for processing, scanning, proofing, printing: the more you do, the cheaper it gets. Yes, I understand this won't sound good to everybody, but it is an economy well worth supporting, and for me, ,it is one that frees me up to increase my productivity. We don't all have time or desire for home processing (I'm actually painting my house and sleeping in a tent in the backyard!) — time that can definitely be put to good use in travelling about in the endless pursuit of the production of images. Maybe I will retire in 2021, which appears to be just around the corner...

Excuse me, but I do not consider you to be knowledgeable or in touch with the industry or practice (consumer or professional) in relation to analogue. You can pretend to be, but some things are obvious to me that suggest otherwise.

Lenses make the photograph, not the camera. Your L-series lenses will be fully functional with the 5DS and these are the lenses you should stick with. By and large, the camera in and by itself is irrelevant: it is next to useless with an average lens on the front, which unfortunately happens too often with people getting carried away with the attractions of the camera over the baseline necessity of giving it the best 'eyes' possible.

Things must be different then in the USofA! We've been filling out job sheets at labs since at least 1994. Really though, pro labs here in AU aren't occupied with negative processing now, but lots of E6, scanning and digital-to-print production. Lots of Chemists accept negative film from mums and dads for processing, and that's as much as they need or want. I never bothered with negative film — coming, as I did decades ago as a pictorial editor, negs were far too time wasting to examine on the light table compared to slides.

This is quite a striking pic — reminds me of Greece, is it Greece? Others I have viewed remind me of Tuscany.

Professional processing labs will specifically require input from the photographer as to the metrics of the finished result — this has always been the case, especially when negative film ruled the streets for weddings, commercial, portrait, advertising and sport. For them, it is not a case of just dip the film in and process to standard parameters — there will be specifics to follow, for under or over-exposure, push or pull, developer type, temps, proofing etc... But for High Street consumer labs, it is pretty much true you get what you pay for: a fast, automated result with default corrections and a default colour space from the machine, unless you've said 'No Corrections'. Much can be touched up at home by a knowledgeable user in Fauxtoshoppe or Lightroom, but with negative film, a working knowledge of profiling and colour spaces for that type of film is pretty much essential, moreso if you are prepping for print rather than just web viewing. Scanning of negative film frequently causes flare-ups on fora with for and opposing views (I ignore such things). Pointedly, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to scanning one or any work — it must be tailored, and negative film especially requires specialist care and in many instances, combometric profiling (two profiles combined e.g.from the ICC) to get the best results. I would not expect this professional level of processing and scanning service to be cheap. Off the top of my head, here in Australia there are no professionals actively using C41/neg stock or scanning it for production, but there is a substantial legion still using E6 over multiple formats with lab processing, chiefly MF and LF — very little in 35mm, and just about all of that E6 processing and scanning is print-destined (giclée or hybridised combometric RA-4). As standard practice, exposure is finished in-camera — there is no correction at processing, and profiles/colour spaces and metrics are applied per spec at the lab — quick and cheerful! [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] Most minilabs are very variable. Pro labs occasionally variable. True, mini labs are not consistent, I can say that much. Pro labs...the onus is on you to explain how things will be (as discussed above). I believe the latest minilab printers give the operator an electronically generated preview on a monitor. Yes, usually a very small, uncalibrated, unprofiled monitor which does not differentiate palettes or tones. Their business is about speedy throughput and money in the tank. They're dealing with mums and dads and students just looking for a record, as we all did eons ago.

Indeed. When I saw those photographs I thought it was something out of the props for Saving Private Ryan, until I Googled the place and... well, I have no words as to the horror — quite jarring and a ghastly reminder of the brutality of war long ago.