carl_neilson

Just deleting multiple identical reply posts - it's just not my day with computers!

Well, I found a solution, so I'll post it here in case anyone else has the same problem... maybe even me down the track :)

 

With the camera and cable connected, and the original installation CD in the computer's drive, I restarted the computer. It went through a "found new hardware" process and asked if I wanted Windows to look for software. I clicked "yes" and it reinstalled a driver (I think) from the CD, and after that it could detect my camera! I had previously tried to uninstall and reinstall the software without success, so the process I set out above might be the only fix.

 

I'm happy again :)

Hi, I'm hoping someone else has had this problem and can help out. I've had the EOS-1v's data link cable and software for quite a few years, and it has always been a bit unstable when it comes to connecting the camera to my computer. At the moment I have a lot of data to transfer, but I just can't get the software to acknowledge that the camera is connected. It always just comes back with "Unable to communicate with camera. Check that the camera is in data-transfer mode and the cable is properly connected". The transfer mode is selected and the cable is connected properly. It's extremely frustrating. Does anyone have a fix or a work-around? Is there a particular sequence I need to be following regarding plugging in, putting the camera in transfer mode, and running the software? Any help would be much appreciated.

<p>Thanks for the reply Charles. I believe this film even pre-dates the older version of APX that's listed on the chart that you linked to. Unfortunately there are no details in the boxes. In the end I found an old guide for that film that only lists Agfa developers, which I don't have. As there was nothing on the film I couldn't reshoot at a later date I did a couple of experiments. I developed the first roll for 11 mins at 20 deg Celsius and the negs looked a little thin, so I did the second roll for 13 minutes and they looked better. I still have two more exposed rolls plus five more unexposed rolls in the freezer, so I'll use your advice to tweak the variables going forwards. By the time I'm on the last roll I should have it worked out perfectly haha :-)</p>

<p>Hi all, my online research has come up empty so I'm hoping some of the gurus here can help me out. I've been given a number of "Agfa Pan 400 Professional" 120 rolls, and have some D-76 on hand, but I can't find any development times for this combination. The film has an expiry date of July 1990, but I have been told that it has been frozen since new. As an experiment I shot it at box speed. Could anyone give any advice for development time please?</p>

<p>Thanks to all for the replies and advice. I passed on it in the end. It's a shame because local ones that have been serviced and have a bright-screen fitted are far and few between. This one was selling for a premium though so I'd rather just hold out for one that's exactly how I want it. Until then I'll "make do" with my lovely (if dim) Triotar-fitted Rolleicord III.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick reply John. Much appreciated. I'm tossing up whether to get it or not if it doesn't come with the original counter. I guess I could shoot the smaller frames for a while and see if I can track down the counter eventually.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I may have the opportunity to purchase a Rolleicord VA that's recently had a service. I'm keen, but the seller says that it's got the optional 16-exposure kit fitted. I would like to return it to 6x6 format, but aside from removing the masks I believe the counter wheel has to be changed too. At this point it's unknown whether the original 12-exp counter wheel is available with this camera. I don't know much about the 16-exp kit, but I'm guessing that it's the counter wheel that determines the frame spacing as well as the actual counting? (That is, if I left the 16-exp counter wheel fitted but removed the rest of the kit would I just get overlapping frames?).</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Carl</p>

<p>A bit late to the conversation, but I've been enjoying stereo photography for quite a few years now. I started off with a Stereo Realist and then moved on to a Wollensak Stereo 10. Here's a few tips and observations from my personal experience...</p>

<p>Always keep the camera horizontally level, otherwise the two photos will be a little mismatched and difficult/uncomfortable to view. Some cameras came with an inbuilt bubble level to help with this. The Stereo Realist is not one of those unfortunately, but my Wollensak is, and it is an extremely useful tool for me.</p>

<p>Back in the day camera labs would mount the stereo pairs into stereo mounts for you, but that service is long gone. You'll have to buy your own supplies and learn some DIY stereo mounting techniques.</p>

<p>The left and right images must be very carefully positioned when mounting, otherwise the slides are very uncomfortable to view. They have to be exactly horizontal (not tilted at all), exactly level with each other, and positioned at a certain distance apart to achieve the correct "stereo window" (which is impossible to explain in a short paragraph like this).</p>

<p>My Realist often had slightly overlapping frames and generally uneven frame spacing (a common issue for Realists from what I've read), a problem that my Wollensak doesn't have.</p>

<p>I have a Sputnik too but have never used it due to a shutter problem. I have read that they have numerous issues with light leaks, internal reflections and other problems, and there are some good resources online on how to modify the camera to eliminate those problems.</p>

<p>I've never tried a stereo projector, but I get beautiful results with a Realist hand held viewer. There are sellers on eBay selling LED bulbs to replace the dim yellow torch bulbs in these viewers, and they make a WORLD of difference.</p>

<p>After getting my films developed I scan each frame before cutting and mounting them. This allows me to possibly make stereo cards from the scans (which I've never tried to do to be honest), view the scans in 3D in the crossview format on my computer, and create stereo photo files for viewing on my 3D TV.</p>

<p>All up stereo photography is a world of fun and I'm sure you'll love seeing the results. My favourite purpose for my camera is family snapshots. Those photos will be sentimentally priceless in decades to come, as I'm sure childhood 3D slides will be almost unique in the future.</p>

<p>On last amusing little comment... I showed some photos to my boss at work once through the hand-held Realist viewer, and the photos were so lifelike in 3D that I caught him more than once turning his head to see more of the scene, as if he was looking at the real world through binoculars :-)</p>

<p>I love "Old Wagon". These pics have inspired me to dig out the 'cord too. Although mine is a III with the Triotar it's still a tonne of fun and very capable of taking very pleasing pics</p>

<p>Hi Rajdeep, I live in a warm climate too (northern Australia), so I face similar heat problems.</p>

<p>X-Rays: I've travelled around the world with film a few times, with the same rolls of film being passed through x-ray machines at airports multiple times during my travels. I've never seen any ill effects. The fastest film I've done this with is 400iso (the faster the film speed, the more vulnerable it is to x-rays).</p>

<p>Cold storage: It's not critical for a surprising lenth of time. I would definitely not worry about the film being at room temperature during its delivery to you.</p>

<p>Cold storage on a shoot: I would advise against this. If you are in a warm climate and you take film out of a cooler and load it in your camera straight away you risk condendation forming on the film. What I do is let it thaw or warm up overnight while still in its canister (35mm) or sealed wrapper (120) so it is at ambient temperature to load up for my shoot the next day. If you don't take it out of the freezer/refrigerator the night before then at least give the film as long as possible to warm up before you unseal it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I concur with the others. I used Rolleinars on my Rolleicord for close portraits once. The picture quality didn't suffer, and the parralax correction worked fine, but the results were a little off-putting, with a touch of wide-angle type distortion.</p>

<p>Deleted</p>

<p>Ok, so to put my answer in perspective here are the cameras that I regularly use (there are others that I'm going to ignore):</p>

<p>Canon EOS-1v<br>

Canon EOS-33<br>

Pentax Spotmatic II<br>

Pentax Spotmatic F<br>

Minolta Hi-Matic 7s<br>

Canon Canonet QL17 GIII<br>

Zeiss Super Ikonta (one of the 6x4.5 models)<br>

Rolleicord III<br>

Mamiya C33<br>

Mamiya C330f<br>

Hasselblad 500CM<br>

Stereo Realist<br>

Wollensak Stereo 10</p>

<p>The winner in the "must deliver" stakes is without doubt the EOS-1v. Its fantastic auto-everything features would for sure deliver more keepers and more great candids.</p>

<p>The loser would have to be the Super Ikonta, closely followed by the Rolleicord III. This is simply because you would have to be very lucky to end up with any great grab shots, and also in the case of the 'Cord poor low light use (dim focus screen). But to be honest everything on my list would be capable of taking great wedding shots.</p>

<p>I bought a ten-pack of 35mm Fuji Provia last year from an Asian eBay seller and everything went fine.</p>

<p>Rolls...</p><div></div>

<p>Here are a couple of shots from my 55mm lens showing the bokeh. I took these on my C330f....</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have a Canon EOS-1v with the now rare data cable and software. The camera records approxmately 99 rolls' worth of data before the memory is full, and it's downloaded via the special cable to a database which came on a CD with the cable. The data can also then be exported from the Canon databse to an Excel spreadsheet if you wish, which I do as a data backup. As far as I'm aware the most recent OS that the software can be used with is Windows XP.</p>

<p>There's a host of data that can be recorded...</p>

<p>It stores this info for each roll of film loaded:<br />Film ID number<br />Date loaded<br />Time loaded<br />Number of frames<br />ISO</p>

<p>Some of the data recorded for each frame is customizable by the user. Here's what I chose to record:<br />Frame Number<br />Date<br />Time<br />Focal length of the lens used (even if it's a zoom it will tell you what it was set to)<br />Shutter speed<br />Aperture<br />The lens' maximum aperture<br />The camera's shooting mode (eg. Aperture Priority)<br />Metering mode (eg. Evaluative)<br />Auto-focus Mode<br />ISO (when set manually)<br />Exposure compensation factor<br />Flash exposure compensation<br />Flash Mode<br />Multiple exposure on/off<br />Film advance Mode<br />Bulb exposure time</p>

<p>I love having the info at my fingertips when working out why a certain shot was good or bad.</p>

<p>My Mamiya TLRs, Hasselblad 500C/M and Stereo Realist classics are regular conversation starters with perfect strangers. I'm always happy to chat about the cameras, especially with others like myself who are into them, and with old-timers telling me about how they had one back in the day.</p>

<p>I have been gifted some great items in the past from friends and aquaintances who know of my love for the old mechanical classics. I've been given a Mamiya C330f kit by the widow of an aquaintance who wanted to see it go to someone who would use it, and a Mamiya C33 kit by a total stranger who took it into my local camera shop to see if they knew of anyone who would appreciate it. Both kits were in great condition with multiple lenses and I am eternally grateful to receive them. I've lived up to my end of the bargain and give them plenty of use.</p>

<p>One of the great things about using old manual classics is that you can pick up top line pro gear from decades past for the cost of an entry level digital SLR. Just because my old cheap Hasselblad is a relic from the 70s it doesn't mean it can't take photos anymore of equal quality to the 70's professional photographers. Now talent behind the lens, that may be another matter...</p>

<p>I agree with the people recommending a proper light meter. When I bought my first non-meter camera (a Rolleicord) I did what you suggested and used my SLR as a meter. It was a PITA lugging two cameras around though and constantly swapping between them just to get the exposure settings, but I did that for a year or more. When I bought my meter I was really kicking myself that I hadn't done it a lot sooner. It was well worth every cent that I spent on it for the convenience.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. I've asked this question on another forum too and it appears that I'm not alone having the needle rest lower than in the centre of the range, so maybe that's normal. My cameras definitely do meter a stop or two incorrectly though so I'm going to get them checked over to see if there's another issue with the meter that needs fixing or calibrating.</p>

<p>Hey Enrico, you must really love the SPII's!! You can never have too many of them, hey? It's my favourite camera. To answer your questions:<br>

1 - The battery check function works perfectly.<br>

2 - The contacts are clean.<br>

3 - I use 1.5 volt silver oxide batteries with a little plastic ring to build up their diameter so they'll fit in the cavity nicely.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Carl</p>

<p>Hi all,<br />I'd just like to crosscheck an issue with some other Spotmatic users out there. I was reading "The Asahi Pentax Way", which said that when the meter is switched off the needle rests in the centre. In other words with the meter switched off it looks like it is showing correct exposure. I have two SPII bodies and on both of them when the needle is at rest with the meter switched off it points significantly lower than the centre "correct exposure" position. It's not way down low by any means, but as I mentioned it is significantly lower than centre. Is that what other Spotmatic users here see in their cameras too?<br>

<br />The reason I'm asking is that I've noticed that my cameras' "correct exposure" actually seems to be one to two stops overexposed on both of my bodies. For example, in a "sunny 16" situation (confirmed by my hand-held meter) the meter on one body indicates correct exposure at at f11 and on the other body it is the click-stop between f8 and f11. Both cameras had their light meter photo cells replaced about three years ago, so I was wondering if the reason was something as simple as the needle being out of calibration.<br>

<br />If a few people could check their SP or SPII bodies and let me know where their needle rests I'd really appreciate it. I believe the SPF used a different kind of meter so that model may not have any relevance to my cameras.<br>

<br />Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Rick - congrats on a great thread, great photos and a great camera! My first TLR was an old Rolleicord but it wasn't long after that I "upgraded" to a C330f and never looked back. I love the versatility of these cameras and the size and weight has never bothered me in the slightest.</p>

<p>Last year a guy donated his father's C33 kit (body, three lenses and various original accessories in an aluminium case) to my local camera shop on the proviso that it was given to someone who would appreciate it and use it, and knowing my love for these old Mamiyas the guys at the shop passed it on to me. The original owner made a living with this camera, shooting product photos for shop catalogues, etc, so it had seen some use. But it was well looked after and performs flawlessly to this day. In fact I've been getting more of a kick out of using this older C33 than my C330f if I'm being honest.</p>

<p>Mike - I love that photo of your Dad and his camera.</p>

<p>Time to report back on the results. I developed the film this afternoon, but only had very minor success. I added a couple of extra minutes to the development time, hoping that it may help things along. The film's edge markings came out fine, but I got no images. In fact all I got through the length of the film was what looks like fungus or mould residue. There isn't even a hint of image frames on it. Initially I was assuming that the film had been exposed because it had been wound back inside the canister, but now I'm sure that the film was never exposed for a couple of reasons. One is that the edge markings came out clear. The other is a weird one. The frame numbers start at number "5", so the leader and first four frames had been cut off. Never mind -- nothing gained; nothing lost.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses so far.</p>

<p>Clay - The cannister says "ASA" and seems to be identical to the cannister on the left of your photo.</p>

<p>I use D-76 for all of my general developing and I have a big supply of it at the moment. I realise that I may not be giving the latent images their best chance by using this developer but I don't want to invest in another type of developer like HC-110 just for this one film. If it was a roll of my own family's long lost photos it would be another matter of course.</p>

<p>I develop my own fresh Tri-X like this:<br />1+1 dilution;<br />30 secs agitation initially;<br />10 secs agitation each minute;<br />Total 10 mins development time.</p>

<p>Should I do anything differently with this old film?</p>