gary green

For the 12th, Argus Super 75, Holga 400 B&W, HC-110, Epson V600.

Here's a graphic to show the discrepancy between the coverage of the Super 75's viewfinder and taking lenses.

Windmill & House Argus Super 75, Holga B&W 400, HC-110, Epson V600.

As usual, the news article had too little information to make an informed opinion about this story. For instance, I'd like to understand the airline protocol for when such an issue is raised to the flight attendant. Does the flight attendant just assume everyone on board is a bomb expert and simply accept what the passenger tells them? Do they, or should they, perform a minimal amount of "vetting" of the complaint before acting upon it? Also, if they suspected the guy had a bomb in his carryon bag why wouldn't they try to subdue him in his seat to prevent him from setting it off? In this post-9/11 world, the mantra to the public has been "If you see something, say something" so it doesn't surprise me that people are more "aware" of their surroundings than before. My wife and I were on a flight a couple of years ago and noticed a middle-aged man standing in the aisle next to his seat just a couple of rows ahead of us for nearly the entire flight. He wasn't speaking to any of the other passengers, just looking around the cabin. Later in the flight, he left his seat altogether and we no longer saw where he was. When we began our final descent and the flight attendant announced that all passengers should return to their seats and buckle up, the man was still gone but we noticed his empty shoes on the floor in front of his seat. My wife became concerned and I told her to wait a couple of minutes because he might be talking to someone in the back of the cabin and just hadn't made his way back yet. However, after another 5 minutes, we decided to notify the flight attendant of the situation because it seemed odd. My wife pressed the call button and immediately, the flight attendant came over the intercom and said to only push the call button if it was an emergency. We paused for a minute and debated and then pressed the button again. The flight attendant came to our seat with a pissed look on her face. My wife explained that the man had not returned to his seat and pointed out his empty shoes. The flight attendant immediately said "That's not an emergency ma'am!". My wife then replied "How do you know? He could be in the bathroom with a medical emergency." The flight attendant was caught off guard by my wife's response and said "OK, you might be right." and proceeded to head to the back of the cabin. We never did find out what became of the man. The plane landed and he never showed up at his seat. We even hung around in our seats for awhile at the gate allowing other passengers behind us to exit the plane first but gave up after awhile. When strange and out of the ordinary things happen it can cause a real dilemma for those who are more keen observers. This particular story does sound like the woman who complained was over-the-top and I would think her story should have raised red flags about her credibility to the flight attendant. I guess we need Paul Harvey to give us "the rest of the story" before we possibly overreact as well.

Maybe it was a Kodak Colorburst?

The Super 75 seems indeed a paradox. I can only guess the marketing department chose the name to stress it as an upscale version of the popular Argus 75 to compete with the Kodak Duaflex with focusing Kodar lens and that name recognition took precedence over the uniqueness of the lens. It seems the lesser of the two evils. That is, it would seem worse to emphasize the 65mm taking lens in the name of the camera while not providing an adequate viewing lens. I think the robustness of these cameras is due to their simplicity. I have performed CLAs on three of them (two Argoflex Forty cameras and a Super 75) and, IMHO, there is very little to go wrong or break on these cameras outside of abusive treatment.

I’ve been a regular user of my Argoflex 40 pseudo-TLR for a couple of years now and thoroughly enjoy it, even with its shortcomings. However, recently I became smitten with desire for its baby brother, the Argus Super 75, for nothing more than its unique 65mm semi-wide, 3-element, anastigmat, scale-focusing taking lens. Other than the unique lens, the Super 75 is a real step-down from the Argoflex 40: a max aperture of f8, only two shutter speeds (1/60s “INST” & TIME/bulb), a mismatched 75mm viewing lens, and, worst of all, no cable release socket! For the style of photography I enjoy, the lack of support for a remote release was the primary reason I held off buying the Super 75 for so long. But every time I came across one for sale on my favorite auction site, I kept thinking there had to be a way to solve this problem. Then one day it hit me - I had a ready-made solution already sitting in my closet! It turns out that the cell-phone clamp supplied with cheap selfie-sticks is just the right size to grip the Argus body front-to-back and allow a cable release to squeeze the shutter button without vibrating the camera. Here's my solution: Here are the instructions for making your own: Buy a cheap selfie stick that has a spring-loaded, removable cell-phone clamp attached. Remove the clamp and cut a stiff piece of plastic or some other rigid material to insert into the clamp to hold it open such that it barely hugs the Super 75 between the back and the shutter button. I used electrical tape to hold this piece in place. You don’t want it too tight or it will interfere with the shutter cocking when you wind the film. Drill a hole slightly larger than the cable release plunger tip in the small end of the clamp through the hard rubber grip. Screw your cable release into the rubber hole (it should hold firmly) and attach it to your camera such that the plunger is above the circular indent in the shutter button. Voila, you’ve now got a way to take nice, vibration-free, long exposures on the TIME setting with your Super 75 (or the simper Argus 75). I would also recommend using this adapter even for the instantaneous (INST) shutter speed setting because, in my experience, the shutter speed is too slow and the shutter release is too clunky for hand-held photos to show what the Super 75's lens can do.. Gary

Country Church Fairfield County, Ohio USA. Argoflex 40, Arista EDU 100, red filter, HC-110 developer, Epson V600 scan.

Viewing binoculars at Maumee Bay, Ohio looking out over Lake Erie. Taken with my Argoflex 40 using Arista EDU 100 and developed in HC-110. Scanned on an Epson V600.

Looking at the picture of the camera with the back open, I'm surprised it's not prone to light leaks.

Wheels, Gears, Pulleys & Chains Shot on an Argus Super 75 using Fomapan Classic 100 B&W film. Developed in HC-110 and scanned with an Epson V600.

Forgot to add that Loudspeaker was shot using a Zenobia 6x4.5 folder on Tri-X and developed in D-76.

Loudspeaker

Female Ruby-throated hummingbird fattened up for the fall migration. Taken in central Ohio using a Pentax K5 with a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II lens @300mm, f6.3. Pardon the man-made wire.

I'm a big fan of Shopgoodwill.com and have purchased many of the cameras in my collection from there. However, shipping and handling prices from some of the locations are getting out-of-hand and oftentimes exceed the auction price of the camera. Now, before bidding, I always check the S&H cost first.

Thanks for the stories Chuck! BTW, I see the "problem" on the right side of your last pic. That's typically what I saw on many of my pics.

Thanks Rick for the pointer to your thread! A great summary of the camera and excellent photos as well.

Yes, I suppose this camera is not readily found outside the U.S. Here it is.

Haunted Moonville abandoned train tunnel in southern Ohio. Shot on a 1930s Kodak Vollenda 6x9 folder. Arista EDU 100 developed in HC-110.

Thanks! I used Fomapan/Arista.edu 100 speed film. I develop in HC-110 for 13 minutes with 5-sec agitation every 30 seconds (after initial 30-second agitation). I forget the dilution letter but I use 6.5ml of syrup to make 16 oz of solution.

My solution was to insert a baffle into the light chamber to attempt to prevent or minimize the light striking this flat portion of the light chamber perimeter at a shallow angle. My choice of baffle was a thin layer of black felt material (non shedding) that I adhered to the light chamber walls just to the inside edge of the flat perimeter close enough to cast a shadow on the flat perimeter but not close enough to the film plane to fuzz up the edges. So far so good; my early results have been promising. My first roll of film since installing the baffle had no frames with the “light leak” issue which is significant because I don’t believe any previous rolls shot through this camera didn’t have at least one frame affected. With this issue hopefully fixed, the honeymoon is back on. The other niggle with this camera is the whole 620 film thing. You’re pretty much stuck using a 620 spool on the takeup side which really wasn’t a problem for me. As I mentioned above, you can fit a trimmed 120 plastic spool on the supply side but it’s a tight squeeze. In fact, I went so far as to use a dremel tool to grind out grooves in the back cover (it’s plenty thick aluminum) to fit the 120 spool as-is (except for requiring a little notch in one end of the spool to clear the spindle nub). However, I’ve found that, in operation, the 120 spools often bind up when winding the film. I think it has to do with the size of the opening in the end of the spools being too large and allowing too much play. In the end, I forced myself to learn to transfer 120 film onto 620 spools and found it’s really not that difficult or time-consuming. For best results, as usual, put the camera on a tripod and use a cable release because, IMHO, the shutter speeds are in the “too slow to safely handhold” range if you want pin-sharp photos. Also, the shutter release operation is crude by any standard and it takes practice to hold the camera steady while pressing the button. If you need to handhold this camera, press it firmly against your body and breathe out before pressing the shutter release button. I also recommend keeping a piece of black electrical tape over the film counter window (fold over one edge so you can easily lift it to wind the film) and gluing a thick rubber washer or O-ring around the elevated tripod mount to give added grip and stability. Here are some sample shots.

I reasoned that there must be a fundamental design flaw with the camera that was the cause of the “light leak” so I took a closer look at the internal construction of the light chamber and noticed that the first 3/8 inch of the perimeter of the light box at the film plane was nearly perpendicular to the film plane. After this point, it angled up towards the rear lens element as is typically seen. Any light striking this flat edge would be a part of the image circle outside of the film plane. Using a flashlight with the shutter open, I could see that a bright light source just outside the edge of the frame could strike this flat 3/8 inch perimeter strip at a shallow angle and reflect a concentrated beam up to the edge of the film (while the light chamber is matte black, it is not non-reflective). Here is an illustration of the light chamber design and an attempt to show what I believe is happening (top-down view - not to scale).

I’ve been collecting and using old cameras for most of my adult life. I’m a spare change collector however; no Leica, Rollei, Contax, etc. elite cameras in my cabinet. Instead, my collection is mostly filled with old Kodaks and sprinkled with an assortment of other low-value brands/models. Being somewhat mechanically inclined, I look for affordable, vintage 35mm and 120/620 film cameras in repairable condition, give them a home-grown CLA, and run a roll or two of film through them for fun. In particular, I look for “sleeper” cameras that aren’t in high demand by collectors but have one or more unique qualities that distinguish them from the plethora of cheap, ho-hum, copycat film cameras that flooded the markets back in the day. I bought my first Argoflex Forty at an online auction after reading a review on the Photo Jottings website. Up to that point, the only Argus cameras that stuck in my mind were the C3 “brick” and the Argus 75, neither of which held any special value to me. The Argoflex Forty was different. I was intrigued by the combination of functionality and basic simplicity of the camera: the brilliant viewfinder, the large negative, the apparent quality of the lens, the 9-bladed (circular) iris, and the range of shutter speeds and apertures. As a late middle-aged lifelong eyeglass wearer, my vision has started to degrade to the point where attempting to manually focus and frame through squinty and/or dim viewfinders, which would describe most of the cameras in my collection, has become too tedious. The large, bright, and reasonably accurate viewfinder in the Argoflex Forty was just the antidote for these tired old eyes to keep enjoying my hobby. Since I tend to shoot landscapes at apertures of f8 or smaller, guesstimating distance for the scale-focused lens isn’t too much of an issue. In fact, for both metering and subject distance, I use apps on my phone which, up to this point, have served me well. All relationships have their ups and downs and, after shooting my first roll of film, I started to feel the honeymoon was over. You see, most of the frames had what appeared to be a light leak along either one or both sides of most of the frames. I didn’t notice the problem on the top or bottom edges, just on the sides. At first, I blamed this on trimming the roll of 120 film to fit the 620 supply side (a tight fit but possible). I soon discounted this theory after noticing that even the later frames, buried deeper on the spool and safe from light bleeding over the edge of the spool, were affected. I also saw the problem on film that I had re-rolled onto 620 spools in my darkroom. I then took out my high-powered LED flashlight and tried to find any evidence of light leak to no avail. Searching through other reviews of the Argoflex Forty on the web, I found evidence of the same problem in the sample photos provided in the reviews. Most of the reviewers dismissed it as a light leak and others opined that it was a desirable effect that added vintage charm to the photos. This would not do! I wanted and expected excellent results from this camera based on the positive reviews. Something had to be done. Here is a particularly egregious example. This is a long exposure shot of the interior of a church sanctuary. Outside the frame on both sides are exit doors with viewing panes to the outside. The light through both doors has bled onto the edges of the film.