andrew1

<p>It looks as though a previous owner wanted a sort-of stealth look, and did some simple custom modifications do achieve that. It looks as though he/she removed white paint from the serial number and the Leica M6 logo on the front, and the red paint from the lens release button (quite easy to do, btw, and no harm done), and replaced the red dot with that solid black thing. The battery cover is indeed a replacement Leica offered. Otherwise, this seems to be a standard 0.85 M6 classic- which was only produced in small numbers, don't forget. </p>

<p>As David points out, only the very early Wetzlar made M6's had the engraved line of script across the back of the top plate. If this camera had that line, it would indicate that the either the top plate or the finder had been replaced. In that case, an early serial number would tell you that the camera had had the 0.85 finder installed later; a late number would mean that it had an earlier top plate mounted. In any case, this doesn't apply to your camera, so never mind. Enjoy using it!</p>

<p>What Robbie said.<br>

You can also go to any lab that processes 35mm C41 and ask them to give you any old film cassettes from film they've just processed. These should have a tongue of film sticking out of a decent cassette that's seen one use and is now about to be either garbage, or at best recycled. If you ask them to save them for you, pretty soon you'll have all the cassettes you could want, for free.</p>

<p>"MV" stands for Megargee and van der Linde; this is indeed one of the best black and white labs in the world.  Jim Megaree is one of the best printers you will ever find.  Consequently, they are a bit pricey- but worth it.  I don't think they do color work, though.  Take a look here: http://www.mvlabs.com/<br>

I have used CRC for several years, and am very happy with their work- they'd get my vote for most stuff.  A word of caution about Baboo- they lost my film twice (!) and damaged negatives or slides on four separate occasions.  I don't know what possessed me to keep giving them chances.  This was several years ago, but I'll never go back.</p>

I'd go with Photo Village- although Lens and Repro and Photo Habitat are also good suggestions. As for B&H, don't

bother; not only do they not do rental, but good luck getting anyone who knows what they are talking about to spend time

with you, especially if you aren't buying big ticket items.<p>But Ray is onto something. I just looked at the rental rates

in an old L&R catalogue, and it looks like you'll spend around $75 a day to rent an M6 and a lens. Meanwhile,

used prices for Leica gear are pretty stable. You could buy any body and lens you could want to try, (the best deals are in the

classifieds here and at rangefinderforum.com, or on ebay...) shoot until you feel like you really know how it handles, and either keep it or

sell for about

what you paid, give or take. Even if you sell for a bit of a loss, you should still

easily come out well ahead of what you'd spend renting- especially if you wanted to keep the kit for a week or more. This also brings

up the point that if you've never shot with a rangefinder before, it might be a good idea to hang onto it for a few weeks to

really get used to it.

The M2 is great, but it lacks one important feature from the BEST M ever- the M3's finder.<p>Seriously, after having

owned and used several M's representing basically the whole range of manufacture, I would not hesitate to own and use

any one of them. But my first choice for film shooters will always be M3's and M2's- in that order.

Are you trying to remove the lens from the camera, or simply extend it for shooting? To extend it. you simply pull the fornt

out, and turn it counter clockwise to lock the front element. To remove the whole lens from the camera without damaging

it, grasp the base of the lens (the part with the distance scale) and simply unscrew it from the body by turning it counter

clockwise. You can do this with the lens extended or collapsed. Be careful lifting it out of the body if you remove it

collapsed, so that you don't whack the end of the lens into the RF cam inside the top of the camera, or damage any other

parts. The base of the lens with the distance scale should remain attached to the lens- if the front part comes away from

this, it will need to be repaired. Good luck!

John Shriver is exactly right about he shutter speed issue; don't worry about it. Similarly, I wouldn't worry too much

about the various upgrades over the production run and the serial numbers to look for, etc. Just look for one in good

mechanical shape, and make sure the finder is clean and clear. The glass pressure plate works very well, but these are

only found on the older cameras- and some of them have been replaced. I wouldn't worry about it one way or the other;

if you get a glass one, just be aware of it. Ideally, get one one with two red-painted pins in the top of the rewind shaft-

these are more marginally more robust mechanisms than in the earlier versions- but again, don't worry about it. Far more

significant will be the care and use it has seen. A camera that has sat in a drawer for 40 years might not work as well as

one that's been exercised regularly. As for the meter issue, just use a decent hand-held meter, and forget the silly clip-

ons. Shooting negatives, you rarely need to meter each shot; just take a couple of readings so you know highlight and

shadow values, then put the meter back in your pocket and shoot till the light changes more than you can guesstimate.

(You'll find as you do this that you need to meter less and less...) The difference between 1/25th and 1/30th- especially

with the Leica shutter-really means even less here.

The recommendation to look at an M2 might be a good one- the choice between the two really comes down to your

preference for your normal focal length. If you're a 50mm shooter (like me), you'll love the M3- but if you use a 35mm

most of the time, an M2 might suit you better. Anyway, it seems to me lately that the used prices I'm seeing for M3's are slightly lower than for M2's- but that may just be because I have two M3's and am casually shopping for an M2.

Good luck finding a good camera- they are out there, and with some patience, you should get a good deal on a camera

you can keep using for many years to come.

Oh, and BTW- I', not making "claims about *which* dyes are released"- I was told by the same lab owner (also the labs

founder, and a highly accomplished film tech) that it was anti-halation dye. I had no reason to be suspicious of his

"claims", and am only repeating what seemed to be a sensible answer.

I was taught to do a pre-wet when I worked at a lab ten years ago. The lab owner's logic was that it swells the emulsion

and prepares it to accept development more evenly. I expect this was more of a concern years ago with older film stocks

but regardless of the relevance of the practice, I still do it sometimes- especially with some film/developer combinations

which seem to give me better results with a pre-wet. Using Ilford FP4 and HP5, I pre-wet with a few developers- like

Rodinal- because my negatives look better when I do it. But it's certainly not something I do all the time. I have found

some combinations that don't seem to like a pre-wet- like Fuji Neopan 400 in Rodinal; this combo gives me much better

results without a pre-wet. I'm certainly not saying anything like "You have to do it to get the best results"- I'm just

proffering the technique by way of an answer to the OP as something that works for me.

I do a pre-rinse to remove the anti-halation coating on Ilford films. Try it- you'll notice the pre-wet water comes out green.

The end result on the film is that the base fog is reduced and the shadow areas gain some depth.

For FP4+ shot at EI 80 in Rodinal 1:50, I use 12 minutes- after a two minute pre-rinse in plain water. I agitate for the first

35 seconds, then give the tanks 2-3 inversions per minute thereafter. Pre-wet gets the same agitation. This is all at

68F/20C, of course. Sorry I can't comment on 1:100- I don't really use it.

These marks are definitely lens flare, not bubbles, FYI. Lex is right with his identification of the shape of the aperture

iris; bubbles will almost never take that shape- they'd have to be packed together, honeycomb style to do that- very different from what

we're seeing here. The other

give-away is the straight line formation- these are reflections off all the air-to-glass surfaces on the lens.

I love this- the OP starts off by asking if anyone here has worked on their own MP, and goes on to ask NOT to be told to

just send it off for repair. So what's the first thing that happens? Two people tell him to send it off. Jeez. Does anyone

actually read the posts here anymore, or do you simply look at the headline and decide you know everything about the

subject? Believe it or not, some folks actually can and do work on their own cameras. It would appear this poster is one

of these- he describes his credentials (not that he has to justify what he does with his own cameras to us), even telling

us he has built cameras from junk parts. What's so difficult about giving the advice/information asked for, rather than

what's specifically NOT asked for? On top of that, you suggest sending the camera off to Don Godlberg? Are you

kidding me? For the past year, all I have read about DAG is that he rarely responds to questions- even from folks whose

gear he's been sitting on for months, never mind potential new clients- and he often takes MONTHS to complete repairs.

This has been my personal experience with him, too, BTW. I know he does great work, but he's swamped right now clearly picking

and choosing who gets good service- he's the last person I would recommend right now, especially to someone who A)

complains of having waited absurdly long for camera repairs in the past, and B) says they don't want to send their

camera off in the first place!<p>OK, sorry for the rant. Sean- sorry about your luck with your camera. Leica's QC ain't

what it used to be. But it sounds like you are well qualified to at least open up your camera and see if it's something you

can repair yourself. If you don't yet have the right tools, you'll need some good flexiclamps to do a decent job of it- the

links Colin provides are helpful. Don't let anyone convince you you can't do the job yourself- especially as you are a

reasonably qualified camera technician. There used to be plenty of folks here who could not only read posts, but

actually worked on their cameras themselves, and could give you more advice about what to expect and how to

complete a repair- I hope some one of those folks is still lurking here and might chime in. Either way, I suggest you get the right tools, pull

the top plate off and

take a look. From all you've told us, this sounds like something you should be able to handle

Kelly Flanigan's pictures illustrate this problems perfectly- that bottle of Windex has scratches all over the label. I'd return

it, if it's still possible.

Doesn't matter. Remember- use quality gear and good technique, and you'll be fine; crap equipment and/or sloppy technique is likely to

yield poor results.

Make a vignette frame. It's easy to affix stiff black paper or card stock, cut in a jagged-edged semi-circle, to the edges of

a lens hood, an inch or two in front of the lens. You can experiment with all sorts of shapes, and various amounts of

intrusion into the frame. It's surprising how little intrusion is needed to cause vignetting- have fun.

First, as others have suggested, just mix the whole gallon of D76 up at once. It's almost impossible to correctly mix up

only part of the powder, and anyway, it will last at least a couple of months. Store in full, tightly closed bottles,

preferably kept in the dark. Glass is best, but you can use just about anything; most photo stores sell (or used to sell)

brown plastic bottles. I re-use old wine bottles, milk jugs, or whatever else is to hand to store my photo chemistry. Be

sure to label everything carefully, and I suggest also marking with the date mixed. For chemistry I re-use, like fixers,

perma-wash, etc., I make sure to track the number of rolls and/or sheets run through the solution, too. Since most

chemicals last longest in full, tightly capped bottles, you can fill them with glass marbles to take up extra volume in the

containers. Use the amount of chemistry you need, and save the rest for your next adventure- this way, there is usually

something mixed up whenever the urge to process or print strikes.<p>Lots of folks don't use stop bath- just plain water, and

they get along just fine. Others will (and already have) told you not to bother with white vinegar as stop, and that you should buy the

commercial stuff. Use the vinegar- it works well, is cheap, entirely non-toxic- and if you are like me, you already have it

in the house for any of it's dozens of other uses. I've been using vinegar as my stop bath for years with no problems. I run a small

custom lab, and all of my clients film and prints have been processed this way for years, too. I use distilled white vinegar, diluted with

water to around 1:25, for both film and paper. I use it once and dump it- though if you want to re-use it, you certainly can. After a few

uses, you'll see it turn yellow, green, or red (it depends upon what developers and films you use- fun!) and get slightly cloudy- this is a

good indicator that you need fresh stop bath (who needs "indicator" stop?!?). BTW- the only real reason to use stop bath is to prolong

the life of your fix- which is why I do it. You could use the same stop bath for the film and for the paper, but I don't,

since vinegar and water are both cheap- besides, I like to limit the potential for any sort of cross contamination in my chemistry . Lastly,

you can of course use the same brand fix for film and paper, but they generally use

different dilution strengths, so you should mix up some for each, and re-use them until they are exhausted. Check the

manufacturer's info. for recommended life of the fix.<p> Have fun with your foray into processing and printing. Like anything,

it takes some practice to get really good results, but you'll get the hang of it quickly- and it's incredibly rewarding and satisfying to do!

Hopefully, this is just the beginning for you! Enjoy!

I do get as many as ten uses out of Microphen, always using it full strength. I dump it before I see any difference in

performance, and I don't let it get old- maybe two months, as I said, before I dump it, regardless of how many uses it has

seen. I used to work in a custom b&w lab in NYC, where I was taught that 1 gallon of Microphen would safely process

about 50 rolls of film, and will last about 3 months in full, tightly-capped bottles stored in the dark. Now that I run my own

small custom lab, I still use it this way; I use my two-bottle method (described above) to track where I need time increases,

and I fill the bottles with glass marbles to make up the difference in volume to keep them full. I run film for clients as well

as my own film, so I can't afford to screw this up. Stored and used properly, Microphen will safely process a lot more film

than many give it credit for.

I use Microphen pretty regularly- mostly for push processing. I always use it full strength, and I do re-use it. I store it in

two bottles- one labeled "Fresh" developer; the other for used solution, labeled "One Run". Once all the solution has been

used once and is in the "One Run" bottle and "Fresh" bottle is empty, I re-label is "Two Runs". I increase my times by

10%, and process away until all the solution has been used twice and is now in the "Two Runs" bottle; the "One Run" bottle

becomes "Three Runs", and the times go up again. I do this until the developer has been used 10 times or is two months

old, which ever comes first.

Sorry, James, but unfortunately there's nothing else like 55 out there. If you can find a 405 back, you can shoot the

smaller 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 pack film in your 4x5 camera; Fuji is still (for now) making the 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 pack instant film, in

both color and black and white; but sadly, nobody is making positive/negative instant film in any format anymore. There

is pretty slim chance that anyone else will pick up this technology, but it's possible. (We can hope- but don't hold your

breath.)<p>You can still find some type 55 here and there, and even the type 665 (3 1/4 x 4 1/4 P/N pack film), but it

goes for fairly outrageous prices, and it's just going up all the time. Last week, you could get it on eBay for an average

of around $8 per sheet. Too rich for my blood, and probably for your charity work, too, but if not, you could get some. As for the 405 back-

I wouldn't invest much money in Polaroid backs or other technology these days, as most likely within a couple of years

there won't be any Polaroid- or any other instant film- available at any price. I hope someone will pick up making this stuff (I know

Polaroid is interested in licensing their technology to another manufacturer); but

again, don't count on it.<p>As for shooting blind, you could buy or build an adapter to mount a DSLR to the back of your

camera in place of your ground glass, and use that for proofing- or even shooting- or just get used to working without the

security of 'roids. Anyway, good luck with your shoot!

Tough question, for a variety of reasons. What look you are after, and what light do you have to shoot in? These are

the choices I make when I load film. Plus, you have to consider what developer you'll use to compliment these factors

to get what you're after. Do you want maximum sharpness? Fine grain? Longest tonal range? High contrast? Soft

contrast? What balance of these? Light quality, EI and developer choice will each play a role in what you get.<p>For

my own Tri-X use, I have settled on the following combinations: EI 200-250/Rodinal- for maximum sharpness and long

curve with nice but visible grain; EI 320-400/ID-11 for smoothness in moderate contrast; EI400/Xtol for similar but

sharper results, especially in controlled contrast light; EI 640-800(?)/Diafine when I don't know what's on the film or what

light it was (I find Diafine will give good- but not great- results at almost any speed from 400 to 1250 or so) EI 800-

1600/Microphen- great for pushing. I'll also use HC-110 in various dilutions for Tri-X shot at any speed from EI 200 to EI

1200, if I just want good results with a balance of characteristics from film shot in a combination of light. Sometimes it

just depends on my mood- or what I have mixed up.<p>I know you asked about 35mm film, but I might as well mention-

film format will also affect your choices. First, different sizes of film have different thresholds for acceptable grain,

based upon how big you might want to enlarge. Second, roll film might be shot in a variety of lighting conditions; you

have to balance your choices around this. Sheet film is easier to control, since you are dealing with only one exposure

and can really tweak things without compromise.<p>Choosing your EI doesn't have to be this complex- especially with

Tri-X, which is a very forgiving film which will yield great results in most conditions. I bring up all this other information to

remind you of the choices you should be considering. My best advice is to test- and get to know one film/one developer

really well. Choose one- D76, ID-11, Xtol, HC-110, Rodinal, FG-7, or whatever soup strikes your fancy, and shoot a ton

of Tri-X, testing to find your speed and time. Once you feel you've nailed what works for you, branch out and test other

speeds and other developers.<p> One final point- make sure you keep good notes about all your results. There's no

point doing loads of testing if later on you don't know what did what. Always try to keep all the info. you can, about the

light, the EI used, the developer used, time and temperature, agitation- everything that will affect the look of your

negatives. I used to work in a high end boutique film lab in NYC, and now I run a small lab myself. I have processed

film for dozens of photographers, and I keep all these notes in a searchable database, so that I can see what has

worked (or not!) in the past. I can search this by nearly any variable I can think of. Especially in this case, good note-

taking is a must; but even just doing your own film, you can generate a huge log of information about films, speeds, and

developers used. Whatever you come up with, it's worth knowing how you got there, so you can repeat- or not- as you

want. Have fun, and good luck!

You can't go wrong- HP5 is a great film, and very versatile. With some practice, just about any developer will give you

good negatives with it. Have fun, and let us know what you choose, why, and how you like it.