PaulWhiting

Thanks... I'll check the contact cement at my local hdwe store.

Thanks, Glen, but the numbers aren't visible in my camera, a Rolleicord. However, I developed the film taking a wild guess as to time and dilution. When I turned the lights on and could see the backing, it was Tri-X Pro 320. Negs were good enough to check the spacing between the frames, which is all I cared about.

I think you're on to something, pavel, thank you. However, I wonder if you could clarify this part for me: "...if the right (left) edge of back paper is not folding by the spool disk when begin to winding the paper end." How about "You can see if the backing paper is winding correctly if the edge of the paper is smooth where it touches the take-up spool flange, not wrinkled." That's how I interpret it anyway... please let me know if I get it! Your message helped me by making me look more carefully at how the take-up spool sits in the compartment. I've discovered a slight variation in spool lengths as I try different spools. Thanks again!

I've seen plenty of instructions for how to use that printer utility (mine's a 1400) but they don't show exactly what to look for and how long to run it. It's the utility that starts off with this screen, except for the 1400 it shows only three boxes, not four. Each time you run it you get nine squares for each of the three boxes and you're supposed to pick the cleanest square and note its number. Hard to explain all this in words but if you've used this utility you'll know what I mean. The first screen shows all boxes with a "5" in them, and each time you run the test you get closer to all fives and enter those numbers - and run the test again. Here's what I assume, and this is missing in the documentation: -> You want to get all fives, so the test looks like the first screen with all fives, right? Sometimes I've run the utility as much as 9 or 10 times, each one better than the last, but I never get all fives. So is the goal to get all fives and you're supposed to keep running it to achieve that? It does help, I made a large improvement in my print quality when I had a three, a four and a five. But the print isn't as good as when the printer was new. Should I keep going? Is it possible to get all fives? Sometimes it's hard to pick the cleanest box, I've had to use a loupe.

Some folks have suggested a second roll. This time I was very careful to get the tab centered on the take-up spool. What I noticed this time is that the first frame's edges were narrow on one edge and wider on the other, but at the 12th frame they were close to normal. I placed the first couple of frames in my scanner's film holder and I lose just a sliver of the image on the narrow edge side - no surprise there. The paper backing was smooth, no ruffles. Guess I can live with that.

Thanks Bill, but I'm not sure I want a bond that's un-removable - or even close to that. I appreciate your suggestion.

Paul Ron: No, unfortunately I haven't shot any more rolls. I should, I know, but I'm running low on D-76 (in this digital age!). As for the Yashica, a classmate had one way back, he liked it very much, but I can't speak from ever having owned one. One thing I've noticed is that every Yashica I've seen has a built-in light meter. It might be hard to find cells if needed, and personally I don't like having any equipment around that I can't get parts for. You can shoot without the built-in meter of course... this is just a quirk of mine. Rodeo Joe: Good tip to check the focus on the edges... so I did that, and the edges look as much in focus as the rest of the image, ie good. Glen: As I look at the track the film rides on, and if it's the one you mentioned, I can see what the width of clear margin should be. Thanks all, and to the few I have not mentioned, I found your thoughts useful as well.

I'm mainly concerned there might be something awry in my Rolleicord V. I got it at the auction site, and it has a recent CLA (4 yrs ago) by Harry Fleenor, who also installed a Maxwell screen. I paid $260, I thought that was a pretty good price. The seller gave me 14 days to try it out and my time is up tomorrow. He has a 100% rating and so do I. I don't think this film alignment is bad enough to warrant a return... thanks to this thread I think I can deal with it. I tested the shutter with the PhotoPlug, all speeds tested within 1/3 stop. And that Maxwell screen is very nice, all right. One side benefit to going digital is that for 120 film I can easily fit 3 strips at 4 frames/strip on a standard sheet of paper, "standard" in digital being 8 1/2 x 11. Likewise for a 36 exp roll of 35mm. Was always a tight squeeze on a "standard" sheet of darkroom paper, ie 8x10. And most notebooks are designed for 8 1/2 x 11. I'll quit my thread drift before I get kicked off!

Thanks Ben - sheesh, did you dig through those 100 rolls just for my question?!! If so, many thanks! I agree that it should self-center... I've never really had to pay attention to how the film was behaving. And I know what you mean by "ruffling". I think I used to get that on old box cameras. I dug in my wastebasket to rescue the backing and there was not a trace of ruffling. Well, I'll just have to be more careful.

Paul Ron: Attached (I hope!) is a photo of my negative strip, which should make clear my "problem". I put problem in quotes since this isn't really a big deal. Ferdi's message was reassuring, maybe it's just a matter of inserting the paper leader into the take-up spool more carefully. Also, I see a little light leakage on the wider margin side, which adds to the possibility of the film not being centered properly. Thanks everyone!

I'm using a Rolleicord V, recently serviced so I don't think the problem is the camera. The film is Ilford HP5+, and I'm using Nikkor tanks. But one clear edge is narrower than the other - not a serious problem, it just makes it difficult to read the frame numbers on the narrow clear edge side. And I have to confess to a little streak of OCD! It could be that I didn't get the paper leader centered properly on the take-up spool. Any thoughts? PS I did do a search before posting this.

Thanks, Charles... now I remember where I heard that term. My scanner was giving poor scans and I had it cleaned. The glass had that foggy look and the tech guy said the scanner had outgassing. Made a big difference in my scans.

Fritz: That does help, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for it here in the US. Charles: I've heard the term "outgas" before but I'm not sure what it means... can you clarify for me? Thnx!

Thanks, Fritz... is there a brand name for that sealer, is it in a tube or... ?

Thanks all ... I'm getting some great answers, here I was ready to delete my post. I was getting pretty embarrassed for such a careless mistake on my part! Rick: actually, there is indeed a third color besides the black and the yellow. It's a grey band about 1/2" wide, and superimposed on the band, in white, is "BLACK & WHITE". Maybe the grey tells us something... Yes, I'm a fan of D-76 too, used to use it at 1:3 for 35mm film exposed at 200. 1:1 worked better for MF, don't know why. Got some prints some took as medium format. I'm leaning toward HC-110 now because I'm doing mostly color digital converted to b/w. I'm told that HC-110 has a longer shelf life, which might be an advantage because I don't shoot b/w often enough for the D-76 to remain fresh. PS to Ben: Forgot to answer your question on age. I don't honestly know but I'm sure it's outdated. I'm not too worried about that, I'm just shooting a roll for my Rolleicord to test the spacing and shutter consistency, I've got 14 days to try it out - got it used on the auction site.

Ben: I unrolled the film as far as I dared, up to the arrows - the arrows that you line up with the red dots on the inside of the camera body (it's a Rolleicord), but no luck. Let me know what your find out when you get home. Thanks! Mike: I'll be scanning my negs, to print on a modified Epson printer. I'm using D-76 1:1, but I think that's fairly equivalent to the the dilution you suggested for HC-110. Thanks for that thought...

Thank you, Charles. Do you mean you also have a Fuji, or at least a viewfinder glass falling off on some other camera? Mine fell off with no warning, but luckily I noticed it was missing soon enough and found it amidst the stones and grass where I was shooting. I looked up RTV on line, but it was fairly expensive for a small tube. Can you point me to where to get this at a reasonable price? Would it be in a hardware store, or automotive supply store, under a different name perhaps?

This probably sounds like a very stupid question... the beginning of the yellow paper backing says Kodak, Black and White, but no hint of the speed! It may have been on the small adhesive white tab that holds the end of the backing in place but I foolishly threw that out. All I know is that the backing says simply Kodak Black and White. It's probably TMax but whether it's 400 or 100 I can't tell.

[uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] Thanks... I like the idea of double-sided tape. It's readily available, simple and provides all the holding power I'd need. And if necessary for repairs, should be easy to remove. I'll for sure stay away from superglue. (BTW, I'm relatively new here... when I put an "@" in front of your name, do you get an alert?)

My Fuji's viewfinder glass falls off, to be exact, it's a Fuji GS45S. See photo... I'm reluctant to use Super Glue, epoxy or any adhesive that would make the glass more or less permanent. Some folks have suggested rubber cement, but would like some other suggestions. The only rubber cement I have is the kind sold in stationery or art supply stores. Thanks all!

I've had trouble recently resizing a jpg photo in QuadTone RIP, which means I also have trouble setting the margins. The print ends up with just a portion of the original image, prints the image too small, or ignores my margin settings. I can do it in a TIFF file but I have many b/w photos that are in jpg, and saving them in tiff is one more step in my workflow plus I end up with huge files. The original version of this software only worked with tiff files but later versions are supposed to work with jpg also. I've tried reinstalling the software, either by deleting the previous install and doing a fresh install (current version) or by simply writing over the exisiing install. For a few days the fresh install allowed me to resize the photos and choose my margins but today no luck. Am running Windows 10 with plenty of memory, and my jpgs are from a Nikon D90. In addition to QTR, I'm using Photoshop Elements 13. TIA! Paul

Hello Jensen, I have a pair of clips I'd like to sell. I bought them for a Rolleiflex and was going to do what Ed said in his first paragraph. I paid $25 for them... you can have them for $15, the surface is a little worn where the camera's lug rubbed against them. This in no way affects their safety. Let me know if you're interested and I'll try and attach some photos. I ended up buying a strap which already had clips so I didn't need these.

@Dieter Schaefer : Right, I began looking at the camera more closely and indeed I noticed the AF pin moving in and out. Of course, I had to remove the lens to be able to see that pin. And - at that point I moved the AF/M switch back and forth and I had no detent, no middle position! I only have one lens but I'm going to borrow a friend's lens and see how the AF/M switch behaves. Maybe the tab in the lens is a little off. [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] : Very reassuring, thank you!

Thanks, Ray... that's good and bad to hear - good in the sense it confirms my suspicions. But also bad in the sense it might indicate something more serious! Paul

Just acquired a D90 in excellent condition but I'm a little concerned about the AF/M switch on the body, just below the lens release button. Midway between those positions there's another detent, a position which has no label. Has anyone here experienced that? Is it a problem? Or a feature?! TIA, Paul