davecollopy

I've never seen those nipples before. But I'm gonna guess those are antenna mounts based on that wire hanging from the wiper access panel. Dodge wipers would have been vacuum driven. Since I don't believe they are factory, they may have been for military radios mounted in that hole where the glove box usually is. Probably early 4WD WWII trucks based on the sole surviving flat rear fender. Once war production was in full swing the military preferred the open cab. This cab was still produced for the 2WD civilian model pickups with nice round fenders for rest of that decade.

 

Chevy cabs from the same period are pretty easy to spot. They liked to put the gas tank right under the seat cushion. I don't know anybody else who did that.

HP, you may be correct, but I have always been under the impression that it was the development of the "super" telephoto(150mm+) that made the 35mm SLR the photojournalist's tool of choice, and solid state electronics that led to mass market appeal. Either way I cannot comment on the '39 Praktiflex as I have never laid eyes on one. What I do know is nothing seems to surprise me anymore. Generally, you will find with many innovations, it takes several years from the moment of realization to the time when it appears on the market. For instance people were coating lenses as early as the 1890's but it never really caught on commercially until the late 1930's.

Michael,

 

Excellent link and that is one of my favorite quotes. BTW I don't believe for a second Rutger Hauer adlibed. He may be the author but I doubt anybody could have thought it up on the spot.

 

Again, that is an excellent site. Once upon a time I abandoned a 64 Dodge van that overheated in the Mohavi Desert. You might mention to the photographer thet the 30's Chevy truck cabs are actually 40's Dodge Cabs.

 

For some reason I thought you might be interested that Billy Wilder's Ace In The Hole was released on DVD this week for the first time ever, shot entirely on location on Route 66 near Gallup, NM.

I've always been a big fan of KW myself for their uncredited innovations.

 

Frankly, this here is little more than a semantic difference of opinion. Mirrors have been returning in SLR cameras for almost a century. And believe me when I tell you the split second difference of the exact moment at which they are returned, or the specific mechanism that actuated their return, or the first marketing team to coin the terms "quick", "instant" or "automatic" all had very little impact on the evolution of photographic equipment. It seems to me hardly a reason to call anyone an idiot.

 

If you are talking about the innovation that resulted in the popularity of SLR camera systems in the 70's I would argue it was the circuit board. That and the solid state transistor.

It was the 70's when automatic exposure and slr systems became popular. In many cases equipment from those systems was interchangeable with newer equipment from the next couple decades. So there is sound logic in the designation of this forum. Also I don't see a problem if somebody were to post a question about equipment manufactured after 1970. This forum has never been moderated heavily if it's moderated at all. It's just that if you have a question about Canon's FD system or Olympus' OM system, you might get a better response by posting it to those forums.

Olympus XA is the small camera I use but it's not pre-70. A pre-70 rangefinder I would recommend is the Argus C-44. Not that small but its dirt cheap. Mine was seven bucks. Battery free operation, sharp tessar lens, big bright rangefinder, excellent ergonomics - it's a simple, dependable well built camera, I love mine. Just don't plan on interchanging lenses too much.

It depends on what you want. Some photographers prefer contrast and don't even use the full grayscale. Either way you'll loose much of it digitally printing. For myself, I like developing and scanning 6x9 film. Sometimes I'll scan once for the shadows, once for midtones and once for highlights and put it all together in PS. This way I end up with enough information to manipulate in order to create the illusion of tonal values that otherwise are not possible in a digital print.

BTW Patrick's advise is spot on, especially #1. Keep peripherals to a minimum or the fun factor goes way down. I almost always have an Olympus XA on a lanyard or in my pocket when using a folder.

Years ago I ran the trimsaw at a lumber mill in Montana. It didn't take long to where I could eyeball everything out to twenty feet within an inch of accuracy. I know this doesn't help much unless you have a local sawmill and a lot of free time but that's how I do it. It just takes practice.

I agree with others, keep the Hassleblad. I will echo recommendations for Nikon F2, Olympus OM1 or Canon AE1. I actually prefer the AE1 over the A1. AE1 a simpler camera, more intuitive, and less prone to the dreadful shutter noise that commonly affects Canon SLRs from that period.

 

The problem with the evolution of Canon SLRs, the problem with camera design philosophy since the 70's in general, same as the evolution of personal computers, is the resemblance to the "leave no child behind" philosophy in our public school system.

The Anastar on a 35RF may be a triplet. I don't know. I had always heard they were a tessar design. The 80mm Anastar on a Kodak Reflex is four elements in a rather unusual design. I have never heard of an Anastar on a Tourist. I would be interested in what lens design that might be. The 105mm Anaston on the Tourist is a triplet and it is a very good lens.

 

Refinder, I think you will be quite happy with your Tourist's performance. If you're up to it, remove the shutter/lens assembly from the front standard. Remove the cells from the shutter and brush away any dust from their surfaces. With the glass removed you can soak the shutter in lighter fluid. That should solve the problem.

Actually Thowe Kamera Werks was in Dresden. I have one with a Rodenstock Eurynar, so if you can find some Voigtlander 9x12 sheet film holders, they will fit your camera.

Well that sucks.

I reccommend 665. It's an iso 80 B&W film about 20 bucks a pack. The great thing about it is you get a negative from each exposure that you can later print or scan.

I assume your lens is the Skopar. There is no cementing going on with the front element. The front lens is removed by unscrewing the nameplate. As you already discovered there is really no good way to get a decent grip on the nameplate to turn it out. If it isn't already loose so that you can unscrew it by hand then you are pretty much out of luck. Any effort to do so will more than likely result in further damage to the lens.

 

The good news is your Avus (unlike most other plate cameras) has an I.D. in the front standard that is the perfect size to accommodate a wide variety of lens-shutter assemblies. And the infinity stop is conveniently adjustable. I have a nice coated Kodak Ektar on one of mine and a coated Wollensak Raptar on another. The uncoated Skopar is a decent performer but IMO it's not one of the better tessar designs.

I didn't know Lumet had written a book. That would certainly be a good bet as Sydney Lumet is probabably the most accomplished and yet underrated director in motion picture history.

 

I would also recommend the works of the German expressionists of the 1920's, directors like Murnau, Lang, Wiene and Dreyer. They pretty much wrote the book on the universal language of camera movements, a language that is still very much in use today. Study the films "M" and "The Last Laugh" in particular. There's a lot to learn there. And once you realize how innovative these guys were at a time when Hollywood was making movies like a soccer mom taping a High School play, I think you will be rather impressed.

 

The Russians also did a lot of pioneering work about the same time. But the 'montage' movement is more related to developments in the language of editing than it is to in-camera functions.

If the fungus is on the outer surface it can be removed. First try a solution of 50% ammonia with 50% hydrogen peroxide. In most cases this will do the job. Some cases may require cold creme. I only recommend it as a last resort as it is a very messy business and difficult to remove. Take note that if the fungus has been allowed to remain on the glass for some years it may have etched the glass, in which case the damage is permanent. If the fungus is on the inside element you are out of luck. I don't recommend disassembling a zoom lens as it is highly unlikely you will get it back together.

There's some very good advise for you here, already posted. Most importantly: don't look like a victim.

 

Whatever you do, do not show fear. They can smell fear. And if they smell it on you they will be on you like flies on you-know-what. Also, if you happen to get lost, do not act like you are lost. And don't ask anybody for directions! Act like you know where you are going. Walk fast! Where ever you are, whatever time of day, walk fast, all the time. If you see someone coming down the street, get on the other side of the street. If they cross over as well, then turn down a side street. Start walking even faster. Run!

 

Stay away from dark lit streets. And always act like you mean business! But don't over do it. You don't want to be mistaken for a terrorist either. Do not, and I repeat, DO NOT pack a knife or a gun. There's nothing more pathetic than the victim who thought that it was just going to be a knife fight. And with a gun fight, either outcome is a major inconvenience. You are always better off just running away, running as fast as you can. Don't wait for a situation to get out of hand. If you are not sure, it is better to run now and sort it out later. It is always better to err on the side of caution.

 

But most of all, take lots of pictures. The Big Apple offers some excellent photo opportunities.

Dan, I fully realize that particular quote as I presented it runs against the grain of your general philosophy. Whether or not I took it out of it's original context is of little consequence since it sort of jumps off the page at the reader all by itself.

 

I have no issue with such statements made in isolation as I believe they serve the important purpose of highlighting the significant roll of the photographer, lest we ever forget that.

 

But I see this same sentiment presented more and more on a daily basis. And in some quarters it is presented not so much with an emphasis on the photographer, but rather with the specific intent of discouraging discussion of gear. Certainly not your intentions here, I know, but I was bound to speak up about this sooner or later, and I simply made the decision to do so whilst I was reading this particular thread.

 

Anyway I didn't mean to pick on you, per se. Rather, I purposely pulled quotes from both of you so as not to appear to take sides in the ongoing debate.

 

I do generally agree with what you have to say, and the only disagreement I might have here is a small one indeed. Where you would say: "...very poor camera", I might say: "...very simple camera". I do have enough cameras that do not work at all to appreciate any one that does.

QUOTE: "...it's the photographer, and not the camera"

 

and this one:

 

QUOTE: "If the gear works at all, it isn't the gear, it is the photographer"

 

I hear this quite often nowadays at photo.net, and I have yet to see the works of a single photographer who uses no gear and produces outstanding photos. For this reason I am forced to believe that it is the photographer AND the camera that conspire to produces the final image, regardless of whatever meme that is currently in popular circulation on the net.

 

Btw Gene, I particularly like #3.

Developing B&W is not that difficult or expensive. $40 will get you everything you need to develop several rolls in your own home and the learning curve is less than navigating menus and interpreting cryptic symbols on a midrange digital camera. If you are shooting B&W you will eventually reach a point where you want the control of developing the film yourself. And when that happens you'll find handling 120 film more satisfactory than 35mm.

 

Printing B&W 120 film is somewhat more difficult and more expensive. But there are several options available: you can build your own darkroom, or you can join a class or club and use their darkroom. You can have a lab print it for you, or you can scan it into PS and print it out to inkjet. The choice of camera will have little influence on the final results and there are many sufficiently capable 120 format cameras available for as little as $20. I recommend getting more than one to discover what features you personally feel are essential, and what features you can live without. Medium format is a very different beast than digital, than even 35mm.

Set your ISO to its lowest setting. Noise does not date an image. Next drop your contrast to -2 or -3. Now set your resolution to its highest setting. Turn off your flash. Use a tripod and remote if you have one. Your subject could be anything I suppose, so long as you present it in the required style.

I have this camera. Two in fact. One I have has the Ibsor shutter with a Schnieder Jaconar f/4.5 lens. The other has the f/8 Special-Aplanat in a Vario. They are very cheaply built but great little picture takers after the red window is permanently sealed. Mine are typically black but have a amall D. R. P. stamped inside the take up spool compartment. Other than that there are no markings on the camera itself whatsoever.

Dropping them. It kills them instantly.

I will second the f/2.9 Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan as being a most exceptional lens. I once had a Balda-Six with the 7.5cm Trioplan that was sadly lost in a fire. I've had much difficulty locating another. Rodenstock also made several high quality three element lenses. In the forties Kodak began producing a three element lens, the Anaston, which I felt was also a notable lens.

 

The thing about the three element lens is their range in quality. There are some very good ones, and there are some real dogs. Before lens coating was common a four element three air space lens produced an unacceptable amount of flare limiting its usage. A three element two air space lens manged flare in an acceptable manner. The tessar was originally considered a modified three eleement design. Its two air space design handled flare while its four elements made it a consistent performer that still makes it a popular design with camera manufacturers to this day.