skip_a

Thanks, Franka. For 20 bucks, I guess I can afford to just experiment.

I was browsing in a camera store today and I found a few 50 sheet

boxes of 8x10 Kodak 64T Electronic Output Film in the clearance bin.

The stuff is out of date by two or three years, if I recall

correctly, and it has been stored at room temperature for at least

the last two or three months that it has been sitting in the

clearance bin.

 

The boxes are marked $50 each, but I was told I could have them for

$20 each. I didn't buy any of it because I don't really know what it

is used for.

 

Does anyone know what this film is used for? Can it be used like

nornmal E6 process transparency film? Adorama sells current stocks

of this exact same film in 50 sheet boxes for $360 each, so even

though this film is quite old and has been stored at room temperature

for a while, I figure it might be worth taking a $20 chance on it if

it can be used as a camera original film.

Here is another article about Ian Spiers' ordeal. I don't know how to make it a link, sorry.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_re_us/photographer_questioned_1

 

I found it interesting that the author made brief mention of the recent New York subway photo excursion/protest.

 

This sort of treatment at the hands of the police and the federal government (Homeland Security cops) is indefensible, in my opinion. I frankly don't understand the position of the police-state apologists on this board who dismiss this sort of event as "no big deal." People who have not broken the law should not be hasseled by the police.

47, and I bought my first Leica, a IIIC, two months ago for one dollar. Sent it off for a full body and lens CLA and I've been shooting it now for three weeks. Hoping to acquire an MP for my next Leica.

Harry, I could probably manage the longer lens with the 50mm VF in a pinch, but going wider than 50mm sounds like it would be considerably more bother. It does seem a bit inconvenient to have to put an auxilliary VF gizmo up on top of the camera.

 

Bill, I've got my eye on a couple of IMARECTs now on Ebay. Thanks for the tip.

Ok, I was more confused than I thought! Thanks everybody. I've got it now. As long as it's an RF-coupled lens, the rangefinder on my IIIc will allow me to focus the lens. I need a viewfinder that is compatible with the lens focal length to show me the proper field of view.

 

I haven't actually used my "new" IIIc yet. This is the one that I got at a garage sale for $1 that I mentioned in a post about a week or so ago. I sent it to Youxin Ye for a CLA and to have the vulcanite replaced with new a leatherette cover, and he got it back to me in less than a week. It looks great and operates smoothly. Unfortunately, my 5cm Elmar is still with Sherry Krauter, so I'm unable to use my camera. I was thinking about buying another lens in a different focal length, maybe 35mm, and I was just trying to figure out what else I'd need to use it. And apparently that would be an accessory viewfinder, assuming that I find a 35mm lens that is RF-coupled.

I'm a bit confused about lens focal lengths and RF compatibility on a

screw mount camera like my IIIc. Is the built-in RF only good for

50mm lenses? Is a special finder required for longer or shorter

focal length lenses?

 

If I mount a 35mm lens on my IIIc, will I still be able to focus it

accurately with the built-in finder? What about a 90mm or 135mm

lens? Do you have to mount an auxilliary RF every time you use a

focal length other than 50?

Harry, street photography is perfectly legal, and few people mind being photographed in public as long as the photographer is not being obnoxious. Street photography has a long and fine history, and many of the finest and most acclaimed photographers have practiced it.

 

The courts have firmly established that there is no expectation of privacy in when one is in public. A conscientious photographer, of course, will desist if a subject objects, and will also ask, if it seems appropriate, before shooting in some circumstances.

 

The right to photograph in public isn't a "purported" right. It's an actual right that is based on the first amendment. There must be a compelling government interest to support restrictions on public photography.

 

Do you think the government has a compelling interest in restricting photography on subways? If so, why?

To clarify, I mean in your comment regarding outrage and Abu Ghraib.

You are more right than you imagine, John.

Enforcement of this ban on photography in the subway is likely to be selective. Meaning that the transit authority cops may use undocumented, capricious, or arbitrary criteria to hassle or detain people who shoot photos on the subway.

 

Here, even NYPD Transportation Police Chief Michael Scagnelli says so...

 

-----------------

 

NYPD Transportation Police Chief Michael Scagnelli said police would use discretion in issuing summonses to shutterbugs. But violators could be questioned and subjected to background checks, he said, and have their film confiscated.

 

-----------------

 

Here is the article...

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/195499p-168940c.html

 

I have a hard time believing anyone could possibly support this regulation, but some people have no qualms about trading civil liberties for an illusion of safety. From the same article...

 

-----------------

 

John Erboso, 46, a messenger from Queens, supported a photo ban, saying it's hard to tell a tourist from a terrorist. "You don't know who to trust anymore," he said.

 

-----------------

Preston said "It's a $25 fine and no provision for confiscating your equipment. Just ignore it."

 

The point is, there's no anti-terrorist benefit to the regulation, it will be very difficult to enforce uniformly, and no one should have to pay a fine for taking photographs on the subway anyway. It's just one more needless intrusion of government in people's lives. And, some people will be needlessly importuned or subjected to harrassment for ignoring it.

If the regulation passes, perhaps a bit of civil disobedience would be in order. Photographers who use the subway could take a picture a day while riding the train and send them anonymously to the MTA.

Trevor said "If some CCTV catches you in the act of photographing then they will never know who you are will they?"

 

Not until they get the facial recognition systems perfected and the database seeded with your driver's license photos.

Uh oh. I feel myself being inexorably drawn into the world of Leica. This is a terrible development, as I doubt I can afford it! But, there appears to be no help for it. I've been reading on this forum all day. I've ignored all my other plans for the day. I'm on a hunt now for that book that Harry mentioned. Found several used ones listed at Amazon, but they're pricey. (Leica, go figure!)

 

Melvin, from the serial number, it would appear to be the IIIc built toward the end of the '43 to '46 range. The lens is definitely uncoated. There is a lever below the film rewind that seems to zoom the rangefinder, but I don't see a diopter adjustment. The leather case is in great condition. I don't want to sell it, and in fact, I now have no thoughts of selling the camera.

 

My plans now call for fix and use. Thanks everybody for the service and repair recommendations. Time to start making calls. And, to all those who have commented one way or the other, I'll get the Elmar restored regardless of whether or not I buy a Summitar.

Stephen and Jorge, thank you for the links to manuals and usage materials.

 

Harry, the shutter is a black fabric focal plane type. The lens just has an iris, no lens shutter. I don't see a K anywhere. Or did you mean the shutter release button? It looks like chromed brass, with the brass showing through.

 

Now that I know a little more about this camera, I think I will get it CLA'd and repaired, as I can afford it. It has the takeup spool inside it, but it seems to be stuck.

Wow. That was a bunch of fast responses. Thanks, guys!

 

I guess I'm not really surprised that these old Leicas can still be repaired. I love old vintage cameras, particularly fully mechanical ones. After inspecting this one, though, I didn't think it would be worth repairing because of the lens and the sticky shutter. But I've been firing the shutter, and it's starting to loosen up. Overall, it seems to be mechanically functional. Perhaps I'll have it repaired after all if I can find a service facility. Anyone know of any good ones, especially around Dallas?

 

Loading film into the camera doesn't seem all that straightforward, and there are other controls that aren't intuitively obvious (to me, anyway). Like that little lever in front of the shutter release button with the R <--> A next to it.

 

Does it use standard 35mm cassettes? Are there any web-based instruction guides that show how to load and shoot the model IIIc?

Here is a top view.<div></div>

I salvaged a Leica from a garage sale for $1.00. It's old, and it's

not in great shape. The lens appears to have fungus or a haze,

especially on the front element near the outer edges. Could just be

dirty, I haven't tried to clean it. The shutter seems sticky. It's

missing part of the leather cover on the front of the camera.

 

It says Leica D.R.P. Ernst Leitz Wetzlar on the top, and serial

number 397234. The lens is a Leitz Elmar 5cm 1:3,5 serial 599490

(very small numbers on the black ring surrounding the front of the

lens).

 

From reading other posts, I believe that this is a model II. I'm not

really interested in using this camera (and I doubt it is usable),

but I'd like to know a little more about it, especially the model

number and when it was made. Can anyone help me identify it?<div></div>

SPUR Imagespeed from 8x11film.com, perhaps also available from fotoimpex.us (JandCphoto), was designed to yield pictorial contrast with this film. I'm not sure if that is the "Control" type developer you're referring to, but if you're not interested in trying it, then you might try a high dilution of Rodinal.

 

For Tech Pan, Martin Tai from the Minox forum suggests, I believe, a 1:80 dilution of Rodinal Special (not availabe in the US), or a 1:100 dilution of regular Rodinal with sodium sulfite added. Add 56 grams of sodium sulfite per liter of distilled water, and use that for the 100 parts water.

 

I have no idea if this would work with the Imagelink HQ film, but the Rodinal with sodium sulfite works great with Tech Pan. A 125ml bottle of Rodinal is cheap, so you won't be out a lot if it doesn't work.

Thanks, John. It sounds like it might be worthwhile to try to restore some of the faded Ektachromes by scanning and photoshopping, even if I can't output them to slide film.

 

As for the rest, perhaps the best course will be to edit carefully and duplicate selectively to keep costs down.

The lowest price duplicating services I've found charge from around $1 to $1.25 per 35mm E6 type slide, and around $2.50 each for Kodachrome. Those are the large quantity prices, more than 100 originals, or more than 500 originals, etc. Some duplicating services charge as much as $4 per slide.

 

So I'm investigating the possibility of doing it myself, the whole nine yards, from exposure to E6 processing in my CPP-2 to mounting. Ignoring my time, I know I can do it myself for less.

 

I know there are a number of ways to duplicate slides. I'm looking for the highest quality, fastest and easiest production method, which is why I'm questioning the capabilities of this Dia-Neg 2000 machine.

Thanks Art.

 

I'm also considering a Bowens Illumitran for an upcoming project, which will consist of making duplicates of a couple of thousand slides. Many are lovely old Kodachrome slides, and many are sadly color-turned and faded Ektachrome slides.

 

It's too much material to scan. I'd really like to dup the most important ones on Kodachrome 64, but I can't afford to do them all that way. How archival are duping films?

Does anyone here know anything about the Dia-Neg 2000 slide

duplicator or ever used one to make duplicate copies of slides or to

make negatives from slides? Does it require special film stock, or

can any positive or negative film be used? Does it produce high

quality duplicates?

"I'm just getting into LF (8x10), and I plan (at least for a few years, perhaps always) to only make contact prints."

 

If you start out with the Azo/Amidol combination, you just may find your contact prints so beautiful that you won't ever consider enlarging them.

 

Azo is easy to use, and when developed in Amidol per Michael Smith's methods and formulas, it's tough to beat for contact printing.

 

Azo is a single weight paper. It's not especially fragile, but it is slightly more prone to creasing than double weight papers. Avoid the use of tongs for handling it. Just pick it up near the edge using your thumb and ONE finger, and it'll be fine.

 

Jim Shanesy's comments regarding the use of a glove is right on, but I often just use my bare hands, and I've not had any problems with stained fingernails or skin. Probably I don't do enough printing to worry about it.

 

If you get a bluish or greenish cast with Azo/Amidol, a very dilute KRST bath, like 1:128, for three minutes will get rid of it, and it won't turn purple even if you leave it in for double that time.

 

If you're of a mind to try Azo and Amidol, just do it. No particular experience is required, and you may find yourself quickly turning out satisfying prints.