stuart_pratt

The number of posts you have to this particular thread would suggest otherwise!

Very interesting, but I think I’ll stick to normal development for the time being!

To minimise halos when burning in, try two or three different ways of burning. For example, use the traditional mask, cut to fit the landscape for perhaps a third of the exposure, then use a straight edge mask mid way through the mountains (you’ll increase the density of some of the mountain tops, but hopefully not significantly. Then use a board with a hole in it to burn in locally. This will help minimise halos that would ordinarily occur using just a straight mask for the whole extra exposure. Keep the mask up near the enlarger for a more diffuse edge. You could try flashing just the sky area of the sheet of paper too.

Are you burning the sky in? If you are getting the contrast you need and like in the scans, there should be no reason you can’t print it. Perhaps it just needs more exposure in that area?

Apologies John, I somehow passed over your earlier comment. Yes, that makes sense. Would be helpful to have a roll of 120 dated 1953!

Thanks for the reply. I feel a bit stupid, having thought about it, I completely ignored the fact that of course, the window isn’t right behind the film gate, but a couple of inches behind it, on the bottom of the camera. Duh! You are spot on, I loaded a backing paper and wound on until the 6x9 ‘1’ was in the red window, and lo and behold, the ‘1’ for the 6x6 numbers sits smack behind the centre of the film gate. This begs the question why did Zeiss put it there and not behind the film gate? I’ll have to make sure that frame 1 exposes and advances correctly with the next film and see how much film sits before frame 1.

Yes, that is correct IRO the frame counter. There is automatic frame registration once you have wound to frame 1 and reset the counter to 1. You wind on and it stops at the correct position. You are correct about it being the 6x9 numbers on that side of the backing paper, not 645, my error. So that explains it, as the number 1 for the 6x9 is about one frame ahead of the 6x6, so you’d pull more film through. But why did they do that, it’s a 6x6 camera? Have the film markings changed location over the years? Camera built in 1953.

I have an Ikoflex 2a which has been serviced and takes great pictures. I’ve noticed that the first frame is well onto the roll, such that there is at least a couple of inches of unexposed film prior to the first exposure. The frame spacing are quite generous and this means the last exposure only just makes it onto the roll, by perhaps half an inch. Not a particular problem, and I’ve heard the usual problem with these is overlapping frame spacing due to thinner films these days than when these old timers were designed. I thought I’d check the frame markings on the backing paper to see if I could stop the wind on process early and prior to the ‘1’ marking so I had less film wound on before the first frame. The 6x6 frame markings are in the centre of a 120 roll backing paper, however, the red window on the camera is to the side of the frame, see picture, and is aligned with the 645 frame markings? This makes practically no difference as the number 1 for 645 is less than half an inch ahead of the number 1 for the 6x6 markings so that would mean I’m winding on an extra half an inch. It would be pretty easy to stop winding when I reach the first set of ‘dotted circles’ which would presumably solve the ‘problem’, but I wonder if anyone knows why the red window was set in that position in the first place?

I've got some FP4 in my recently serviced Ikoflex 2a. I've just put a new mirror in in too, although the old one looked reasonable, the difference is obvious.

I would think insufficient developer as maris discusses above. Just curious that you use unfiltered water for final rinse but filtered for the processing. I do the reverse!

Pentax Spotmatic SPII with a Yashinon DX 50mm f1.7 and with HP5. Once it stops raining and I've put a strap on it!

Contax RTS2. The only unflawed camera I ever owned.

I’ve been using this in the UK. Not sure if you can get it in the US? https://silverprint.co.uk/products/bweurohc05

So I eventually got round to a, well, it's a bodge, lets be honest. I decided I would just have to cut a sheet of 5 x 4 film and modify the holder to fit it. It's fine length ways because the holder is longer than 5" but needs a tad trimming off the top of the film because the holder is only about 3 3/4" high. I filled the ends with two thin strips of wood, painted matt black to make it the length of the film, and filled the DGH with a strip of black foam. Then I cut down a bit of 4 x 2 to about half an inch thick to make the 'pressure plate' which holds the film flat against the aperture (it was all I had in the shed!). In the darkroom, I held the sheet of film against the pressure plate so that three of the four sides aligned, leaving the excess of the film protruding beyond the top of the plate. Then I just cut off the excess bit of film and loaded it. Filled the two or three pinholes in the bellows with some roofing bitumen and took a single shot. It was a bit thin, but shows it all works 'properly' and I'm not sure I've ever had a neg with quite so much dust and scratches on!

That’s kind, sadly, I’m in the UK.

I was thinking along similar lines. I'm sure I could rustle up some sort of 'pressure plate' to hold a cut sheet of 5 x 4 in place against the holder aperture using the springs in the back of the holder, and perhaps a very narrow 'box' of the same size as the 'plate holder' with a slot entrance, so the film can be cut in the dark : drop the film in, cut off the excess. Watch this space.

Thanks Dustin, that makes a lot on sense. I suppose given the age of the camera why would you use a single glass plate when film was readily available? Thanks for the links. I guess I have few options given it will be difficult to find film for it, at least in a format that it can accept. I think I could adapt it to hold a glass plate, so I might think about doing that. Cut down a larger one maybe. In the dark. Hmm, maybe not! Cut my own and do a wet plate collodion? Hmm, maybe not. Cut a sheet of 5 x 4 film and use that? Much better idea. Forget the whole idea? Hmmm, maybe!

Thanks Joe, very helpful. The GG screen is part of the pop out hood which is affixed to the back of the camera via the same slots that the plate holder is, rather than part of the plate holder. The GG has a DGC (dirty great crack) but so will I at 95 (ooer).

I mentioned to my Dad that I was thinking of getting a folder, and he produced this. With some Internet research I've found it to be a Zeiss Ikon Maximar (207/1), dating from about 1927. It has a Preminar 13.5cm f/4.5 lens, remarkably, in really good order and a KLIO shutter speeds from 1 sec to 100th with B and T. Sluggish half and 1 second, but 5th and 10th sound about right, so hoping those briefer than that are OK. It came with what I assume is an after-market plate holder, made by Agfa, which fits perfectly. The case was very tatty and peeling on most of the edges so I've spent some time today gluing those back down, giving it a general clean and lubing the rails. Unfortunately, looks like someone tried to clean the mirror of the reflecting viewfinder with a brillo pad, but focusing can be done on the ground glass. I thought it might be fun to try to use it, but need some help. I assume this used dry plates? The dimensions of the plate holder are 144mm x 94mm (5.6 x 3.7") and the actual aperture within it is about 87mm x 115mm (4.5 x3.4") (as is the aperture in the back of the camera). I can't find any plates measuring this size out there on the web, and from what I CAN find on the web tells me this was a 9 x 12 camera?? Are plates sold by their actual size or by the size of the image taken on them. The ground glass has what looks like an amateur etching within it, with grid lines measuring about 89 x 64mm. the plate holder has a spring loaded catch which works fine, but a Dirty Great Hole (DGH) which wouldn't be conducive to great picture taking. I'm guessing there is something missing here, or it was for inserting a smaller film/plate format?? Any help anyone can give would be great, thanks.

It doesn't look too bad, but test it with something pointed - if it's sticky, I'd change it. Camera light seal foam and felt *BUMPER PACK* - Milly's Cameras (cameramill.co.uk) if you are in the UK.

I certainly won’t hurt to change the light seals, and it’s not a difficult job really. You should be able to find light seal foam on eBay. I can’t tell from your pictures if there is a hinge seal on the body side of the hinge, or if what appears to be the remains of foam there is an imprint of the foam left by the door hinge seal. I think it must be the latter since it would be odd to have seals on both sides. For the door rails, I cut a sheet of foam you can buy at a hobby suppliers with a wheel cutter to about 2mm thick and push it in with a cocktail stick, you could measure it, but I do it by eye. It stays there by the fact that it is slightly compressed. The other seals will need to be self adhesive foam of the correct thickness. You’ll have to stab a guess at what that was, and choose the foam you feel is correct. Probably, the seals as they are now are half the thickness they were originally. If the door won’t close, you’ve gone too thick (and you might damage the hinge). Cover the film gate with a good stiff piece of card taped down before you start, as you don’t want the goo from the old seals in the mirror box or on the shutter anywhere. Take a photo of what you have before you start so you can replicate it, and then scrape off all the old foam. A very small amount of lighter fluid, and I mean small might help clean the actual glue off (often the foam comes off OK but leaves the residue of the old glue) but be careful. I put a few drops on a tiny rolled up piece of paper towel and run it into the door rails, leave it a while, and then scrape out. Make sure you run the door hinge seal right up to the edges so it meets the door rail foam so you remove the possibility of the marks you are getting. That might solve it, might not, but if you have gummy seals, you should replace them anyway. The pink dye is the anti-halation dye in the film. It helps stop light bouncing around and fogging your film. If you wash longer, it should disappear. If you pour out the wash water in a white sink, you can usually tell when it’s gone. If you do the inversion method of washing, this will be well beyond the amount you need to rid the film of fixer in my experience. Good luck.

Odd. I wonder if your newly acquired FG20 had recently undergone a light seal change, and that person didn’t run the door seal strip right up to the seals in the door rails? It’s a very clean edge, normally light leaks might look a bit more diffuse than that, but that would be my guess. That might explain why you have it both sides of the film.

Two blasts from the past here. Ilford XP1! I remember it well. Hope that’s been in the fridge Rick!