Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 532/16 - loading film

Background: I've gotten my SI 532/16 back together and sorted through shutter cleaning, optics clean and lube and film advance mechanism servicing. I've run a couple of rolls of film through it with mixed results related to frame spacing. One roll had good clean 3-5mm frame spacing while the other had overlap. Each roll had a completely different amount of film wound onto the take up spool prior to starting with frame 1. One had virtually no film wrapped on it during film loading (frame overlap roll and frames were wasted at the end of the roll) while the other had at least three frames wrapped/wasted on the t/u spool during loading (nice frame spacing).

 

At the heart of the issue is that I don't know how where frame 1 starts. Does anyone out there have a 532/16 and a way to load film that works? After 60 years of these cameras being out there, someone must have a tried and true (logical) way to load film so that you can get 11 frames out of it and little or no overlap. I tried the archives and came across nothing that is valid today. Please don't refer me to threads talking about sighting through the rear film window to look for frame number 1. This only worked years ago when film backing had numbers printed in the correct location - Kodak for one, no longer does. Some advice from someone with experience with this device would be appreciated.

You know, I ran an allgedly fresh roll of Kodak Tri-X through an old Russian rangefinder last year and it definitely had numbers to follow.. With that camera, that's the only way you know when to stop advancing the film to the next frame.

Kodak film as recent as a year or so back Kodak still has numbers. (Haven't used or processed any yet from my most recent purchase.) They are a lot fainter than they used to be, which can make reading thru a red window more difficult. The little advanced warning cues were made smaller and lighter too. The change was a reaction to problems showing up two or three years back; apparently ink from the numbers was affecting the emulsion. In the first revision they had dropped one row of the numbers for 6x9 format which left none showing in certain early 6x9 folders. The stuff works OK in my Perkeo II 6x6 and my Ercona II 6x9, both early 50s creatures.

 

There was some talk a year or so back that Kodak wasn't done tinkering, so maybe there have been or will be more changes. But many older cameras have to use red window positioning, some just for the first frame, others for all. The "wrapper offset" problem made quite a few customers rather unhappy. I flip-flopped between Kodak 400TX and Ilford HP5 Plus on a trip in 2016 just in case!

Thanks Dave and MW for the input. You've provided a great sanity check for me. I am using fresh dated film and you are right the numbers are still there and they are faint as you mentioned Dave. After running a roll through with the back open I can see the telltale "bar code" looking strip followed by a black arrow. What follows in faint black ink is the word "Kodak" and then "I". The issue is that it is so offset that, with the back closed, you can't see it unless you peer at a sharp angle. This won't be fun in daylight but at least I know what to look for and where. Maybe this is the "wrapper offset" you were referring to?

You’ve inspired me to get out my 532/16 and shoot a roll.

Andy,

Perhaps it is not reassembled properly. The manual simply directs you to engage the spool and give a "few" turns to get the paper backing tight. Then close the back. You then wind the 532/16 to the first shot where it stops, and from then on, to each succeeding shot and stopping. It has a locking mechanism to prevent double exposures, which adds a complication to loading. Locking mechanism must be turned off and counter rotated past 11 before loading. I find this to be a confusing procedure. There is no use made of the "red window". Good luck.

Tony

Tony, thanks. I'll try your suggestion and see how it reacts. Does the manual indicate how to release the locking mechanism? Also, if you could link me to the manual, that would be appreciated as well.

Thanks Dave and MW for the input. You've provided a great sanity check for me. I am using fresh dated film and you are right the numbers are still there and they are faint as you mentioned Dave. After running a roll through with the back open I can see the telltale "bar code" looking strip followed by a black arrow. What follows in faint black ink is the word "Kodak" and then "I". The issue is that it is so offset that, with the back closed, you can't see it unless you peer at a sharp angle. This won't be fun in daylight but at least I know what to look for and where. Maybe this is the "wrapper offset" you were referring to?

No, "wrapper offset" is a term that uses "offset" as in offset printing. A problem situation would have been that a thick, gunky ink on the backing paper would imprint on the emulsion. In this latest case, it seems there may be more of a chemical outgassing issue, but I've never seen a detailed analysis. Some Kodak emulsion appeared to have the problem worse than others, 400Tmax being one of the most notable. There are all sorts of bewildering claims, but the gist of it is there had been changes in the backing paper, and the printing, when the problem showed up, so now there have been more changes. Similar problems have been seen from other manufacturers in the past, and various unhealthy storage conditions can compound the problem, but the latest problems seemed to belong to the Great Yellow Father.

 

Here is a thread elsewhere about number alignment problems -- in Post #23 I show backing paper of old and new 400Tx plus Acros and FP-4. Kodak has definitely given a lot less to target. I don't seem to have too many examples of known date backing paper on hand at the moment,. It will be interesting to see what a newer roll looks like. And now that I review that thread, they did reduce the number of rows for all formats. That seems a rash assumption on their part!

 

One easily suspects some of the problem is that much of the process that used to be in-house is now contracted out and the operations may pass through several hands. Rumor is there is only one supplier of the backing paper itself, which I find difficult to believe, as the finished stuff from different sources looks quite different. But even if true -- maybe more so if true -- it is likely the customization for specific films that's the problem

Edited February 18, 2018 by dave_thomas|8

Andy,

I recommend Bukus, with a small donation. Easier than me messing up trying to explain.

Tony

Tony, I realize it is not internet politic to correct spelling but in this case it might make the difference between finding Mike's site and not finding it. His last name is spelled Butkus. Here's the link:

 

Free camera instruction manuals, camera instructions, free film camera user guide, camera manual, camera instruction manuals,  Canon camera manual, Nikon camera manual, Ricoh camera manuals, Sears Camera Manuals, PDF camera instruction manuals

Andy,

Perhaps it is not reassembled properly. The manual simply directs you to engage the spool and give a "few" turns to get the paper backing tight. Then close the back. You then wind the 532/16 to the first shot where it stops, and from then on, to each succeeding shot and stopping. It has a locking mechanism to prevent double exposures, which adds a complication to loading. Locking mechanism must be turned off and counter rotated past 11 before loading. I find this to be a confusing procedure. There is no use made of the "red window". Good luck.

Tony

Tony, thanks for the input. Actually, two things: the camera is assembled correctly and the manual DOES tell you to use the red window to locate image number 1. Where it says the window is not necessary is when advancing from frame to frame. The windows in the brass winding cam perform this function. I appreciate being pointed to the manual because although not clearly described, it DOES explain how to disengage the locking device so film can be wound onto the take up spool. I didn't know how to do that.

Just an observation-

The 532/16 is a folding camera in the Ikonta line, produced by the German company Zeiss Ikon from 1937-1955. It takes 11 size 6x6 cm images on 120 type rollfilm. The unusual number of frames, 11 instead of the standard 12, is caused by a design change which Zeiss Ikon made to encounter the frame overlapping problems which were encountered with its predeseccor the Super Ikonta 530/16

--Wikipedia

 

Problems with image spacing on various Zeiss cameras before and after WWII, are common. On many of them, the problems can be minimized, but not always eliminated, by taking great care to keep tension on the film when loading.

 

And do get the manual from Butkus, and donate the $3 to help the cause

Just an observation-

--Wikipedia

 

Problems with image spacing on various Zeiss cameras before and after WWII, are common. On many of them, the problems can be minimized, but not always eliminated, by taking great care to keep tension on the film when loading.

 

And do get the manual from Butkus, and donate the $3 to help the cause

Yes this apparently was an unplanned feature of these little devices :) I have two wraps of masking tape on all my spare take up spools so the diameter of the spool is slightly increased. Hopefully this will help keep the spacing at an adequate level. We will see.

[ATTACH=full]1239234[/ATTACH] Well I took the 532/16 down to Florida with me during a vacation in late February. It is so convenient having such a compact 6x6 in a jacket pocket. Unfortunately I have a heck of a time posting photos on this site. Don't know what I am doing wrong but I will attempt to post one of the shots I took. This one had the least amount of camera shake (yeah I need to work on that), but I got 11 exposures out of it and had no problem with the frame spacing. I wrapped masking tape on the take up spool two complete wraps so the spool had more diameter to it. That took care of any frame spacing issues. Well here goes; I like this particular shot. I hope it uploads. Edited March 31, 2018 by andyfalsetta

Trying again. Edited March 31, 2018 by andyfalsetta

cool shot!