kmac

This link looks good for learning a bit about expired film - worth bookmarking Scroll down for "Color Negative Film" https://silvergrainclassics.com/en/2020/08/how-to-shooting-expired-film/

That thought flashed through my mind as well, but as it turns out, 1972 was when the change came from C22 to C41, according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-22_process I guess the OP could simply confirm which process is on the 1973 Vericolor film box. I can't find 4105 Vericolor on the internet, only the later 4106 shows up, so who knows what 4105 really is, and which developing process, it could very well be C22, and perhaps those chemicals were produced for a while after C41 came in, to develop the C22 film still in existence, that were bought just before the change over. Personally I was developing only slide film and B&W in that era. I have never had reason to use C22, and only started using C41 in the early 80's

Hi, The film looks usable to me judging by the crossed processed sheet, but you'll need to develop in C41 to obtain the best results that you can get for that long expired film. The colors will be abhorrent most likely if the film hasn't been frozen for a good part of the 48 years since it expired. I'm not sure what the white residue is, but with C41 there is a slight milkyness look on the processed film when it's removed from the tank, however, it disappears during drying. How many sheets do you have? Is it worth carrying on with long expired color film? I think not unless you convert the images to B&W in post processing to at least get viewable images without the going through the impossible task of trying to revive the color degradation to something that looks normal. Perhaps it would be better to accept your loss and move on to much newer film. It's all valuable experience though, I went through it. Unless you know expired film has been kept in a freezer, it's a lucky dip.

Welcome "The best camera is the one you have with you when you need to take a photograph"

It may be finished, corrosion has a way of doing that.

Humphrey Bogart ?

Yes, I take photos of shutter parts as I disassemble them, so by studying the photos I can see which way things go back. Without posting a pic of my Minolta 7S, I can say the aperture opening at f16 is very small, as is the one in the OP, but for a 40mm lens, the f16 opening will be slightly smaller than that of the 45mm 7S lens, but not by much. For some of my larger cameras, I could easily stick a pencil through the f16 aperture opening. Longer focal lengths need more light.

The aperture blades look ok, you can't really make a mistake reassembling them, as long as their pins are set in their positions correctly. The aperture opening on yours looks the same as my Minolta 7S, which is 45mm focal length, but f16 is still pretty small.

Excellent post orsetto, and as usual from you, very informative and useful. It's prompted me to retrieve my 50mm 6.3 from my cabinet to see if there is actually a niche suitable and large enough for feeding drops of oil onto the very end of the helical. It turns out there is, without disassembling any parts (see photo). The red arrow points to a slot, through which the helical is accessible so tiny drops of oil can be placed on the end of it and allowed to run down, but the focus ring must first be turned to a position to expose the helical .. that position is "1m" or "3.5ft". A toothpick is too large in diam for the job, which is what I generally use, so a piece of thin wire, slightly bent will work - is my message to the OP. Using a mini torch, the shiny threads of the helical can just be seen through that slot, but they're off to one side, the outer side, so the lens will need to be angled at 45 degrees while drops of oil are placed in there, one per hour for three or four hours perhaps, and then left over night, after which the focus ring should be turned to start working the oil around. It may take quite some time to achieve easy smooth turning of the focus ring, given that only a tiny drop of oil will be allowed each time, to prevent any from finding it's way to places it doesn't need to be.

There's a small resistor added to the adaptor to drain some voltage from the 1.55v battery.

Very nice but I think the scene needs to be shot again so that the rails etc, look less like clutter, or not shown at all. The bright light on the floor in the lower right is distracting and indiscernible from a pool of flood water. The lens flare "dots" (if that's what they are) below the stairs need to be spotted out. I agree the shadows are too deep and there's no detail in them to make them good, you're stuck with those dark shadows the way they are. Good attempt though IMO. Perhaps a few bracketed shots at a few different aperture settings, and positions, would have given you a better chance for success.

Had a go at correcting it Mike, in "Preview", which is the standard editor in Apple's M1 computer Ventura's software.

You can down-size in a photo editor by clicking on "Adjust size" under "Tools". Adjust to 1,000 pixels for the horizontal size.

I don't own one but the LCD would probably drain more battery power than the meter itself, so to save battery power, the LCD turns off, but leaves the meter ready for instant use when needed during your session. And of course the LCD would also light up again when you activate the meter for your next reading.