carl_neilson

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I was given a bunch of old camera gear recently, comprising of a Spotmatic SPF with a few M42 lenses and accessories, and a Pentax K1000. In the case with the K1000 I discovered an exposed roll of Tri-X and just for kicks I'd like to see if there are any images on it. I can only guess about the age of the film, but presuming it was probably shot with the K1000 there is an airline carry-on luggage sticker in the camera's case for a flight dated 1985 so that may be the earliest it was shot. I'm not up with my Tri-X packaging history so I can't tell potentially how old or recent it might be from the design of the cannister.</p>

<p>I use Kodak D-76 for all of my black and white developing so that is the only developer I have on hand. Since the contents of the film have no personal meaning to me I don't intend to buy any other kind of developer that may give better results under these circumstances.</p>

<p>Are there any recommendations out there re D-76 dilution, time, and agitation technique that would give this old film the best opportunity to reveal its contents?</p>

<p>The only other info I can add regarding the film is that each year it has been subjected to a hot, humid, tropical summer here in North Queensland, Australia.</p>

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

<p>Rickenbacker guitar shot with a Mamiya C330f</p><div></div>

<p>I have the next model, the Spotmatic SPII, and it is by far my favourite 35mm system. I've built up a collection of 6 or 7 M42 Takumar lenses over time and they're all fantastic.</p>

<p>Love the Spotmatics! I have an awesome SPII kit that I've built up over the years with two bodies and a multitude of lenses and accessories. I have a few regular cameras for different purposes but the Spotmatics are my favourite "fun" cameras with picture quality to match the fun level. My SPII bodies were serviced by Eric too. A few years down the track they're still functioning like new. He does a great job.</p>

<p>I bought a Pentax Zoom 105 Super when it was new (1991?) and used it for quite a few years back then as my general-purpose camera. It won a few awards on release and I really liked it.</p>

<p>Amazing!</p>

<p>Hi Niki, thanks for the well thought-out response to my comment about the 18 months notice. When I posted it I was half expecting a silly backlash to it.</p>

<p>It seems there were a few mitigating factors there at the end from what I read in your reply, but I guess from my point of view the reason I couldn't understand people's complaints was this...</p>

<p>I live in Australia and the Kodachrome sold here was "process paid"; i.e. the cost of the film over the counter included the cost of processing. When you shoot your roll you then send it to Kodak Australia who sends it to Dwaynes, and a few weeks later the slides arrive in the mail. I read the reports of Dwaynes' deadline well in advance of it happening, and as I had a few rolls left in the freezer I wanted to make sure they didn't go to waste. Mid way through 2010 I emailed Kodak Australia and asked what their deadline was to ensure my slides get processed, and they replied that I should have my film to them by the first week in November. So I made sure that I used up my remaining film and late in October I mailed it in. I made sure that I didn't run the risk of sending it in right on the deadline and possibly missing the boat due to postal issues or natural disasters...</p>

<p>I feel for those who had their slides returned, because I know I'd be shattered if I didn't get mine processed.</p>

<p>I agree with Richard. People really shouldn't be complaining if they somehow couldn't manage to get their films in on time after having 18 months notice.</p>

<p>Bob: I'm envious of your Wollensak. They have a great reputation. Some day hopefully I'll pick one up to compliment my Realist. I can't speak for how JDM scanned and aligned his photos, but I have experimented a little with creating cross-view scans of a couple of the old slides that came with my viewer. I used my Nikon Coolscan V ED to do the actual scanning. It was a bit awkward to do because the end of the slide was narrower than a normal 35mm slide so it wouldn't fit properly. I ended up attaching the stereo slide to an empty regular 35mm slide mount with small clips, and then sliding them into the scanner together which solved that problem. When I get my own strips back I'll scan them before I cut and mount them. Each frame of the stereo slide had to be done separately of course. To combine and align the two images I used a great freeware programme called Stereo Photo Maker. The programme was easy enough to use without instructions, although I think I was only scratching the surface of what it's capable of. Here's an example. I didn't worry about Photoshopping the dust off the slide because it was just an exercise in scanning the slide and using Stereo Photo Maker...</p>

<p>I too have the Pentax Stereo Adapter. I bought it at about the same time as I bought the Realist because both were available to me at the time and I was unsure about which way would be better. But I was soon smitten with using the Realist so the Pentax adapter has sat neglected the entire time. I really should give it a try.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I was really happy to see your topic here because late last year the stereo photography bug hit me and I bought a Realist. I've shot a half dozen or so rolls of Fuji Sensia with it but I haven't seen the results yet. The viewer I bought for it came with a couple of hundred amateur slides from all those decades ago, and seeing that 3D snapshot of family life was a real blast (even though it was someone else's family!). So much so that the shots I have been taking with the camera are not arty or documentary in style, but rather I have been concentrating mainly on shooting family candids and other shots of general home life. I'm sure my own 3D family photos will be just as much fun to view in 50 years time by whichever family members inherit them as the ones from the 1950s that I've been having fun viewing lately.</p>

<p>I agree with your opinion about the strange ergonomics, but to be honest within the first half a roll I had the routine down pat and it wasn't awkward at all.</p>

<p>I can vouch for "Dr T". He is a great source of knowledge as well as new and used equipment and other supplies such as slide mounts.</p>

<p>Yep, I have two Spotmatic SPII bodies and a range of S-M-C Takumar lenses that I've collected off eBay over the last few years. I really love this kit and regularly shoot slides as well as home-developed black and white film with it.</p>

<p>My 35mm Eos bodies and I thank you too.</p>

<p>I'm sorry to see this series end too. No doubt you get a kick out of all the found films you develop from unknown sources, as we all do whenever you post your results, but I'm sure that feeling must have been a hundred-fold in this particular situation.</p>

<p>I really liked your photos. The thread title really caught my attention because my dad bought a 7s brand new in 1964. I came along in 1968 and all of the childhood slides of me and my brother were shot with this camera. I have the camera now, and although I'd love to shoot with it the focus ring is seized. As has been stated these cameras are cheap second hand and probably not worth the money spent on a pro repair, but some day I'll get this one fixed just for sentimental reasons.</p>

<p>Here's me and my Dad in 1969, shot by Mum with the Petri 7s...</p><div></div>

<p>I purchased a new-old-stock 1v body last year - never used until I had it in my hot little hands. I don't know what the brand new "street" price was when they were the thing to have for pros, but I know the full price here in Australia was a bit over $4000. I got my "new" example for $800, and it was worth every cent. I admit that I've never used any of Canon's competitors' equivalent cameras, but I can say that it's the best 35mm camera I've ever owned. I'm talking along the lines of a complete package - strength, quality, features, customisation ability, and on and on. I do have other high quality pro or advanced-amateur cameras that I equally enjoy using, but they're much older and are manual, so they don't compete head-to-head with the 1v. So here's a 1v fan uniting with a big "yes"!</p>

<p>On Christmas day I shot a roll and a half of family snaps with my Stereo Realist on Fuji Sensia 100. Can't wait to see the results!</p>

<p>I've just started to get into stereo photography and before buying my first camera (which turned out to be a Stereo Realist) I did a lot of research into the pros and cons of the different cameras and formats. Ideally I would have chosen one of the new medium format cameras, but they're out of my price range so I settled on a classic 35mm camera. You've done a pretty good job at listing all the downsides to the Viewmaster camera. I quickly discounted that camera when I was choosing, mainly because it seemed to be ten times the hard work to cut and mount the photos only to end up with a result that was poorer due to the image size. The Realist is by no means a perfect camera either in many respects, but if you were keen to take Stereo slides I'd recommend one of them over the Viewmaster. I'm using Fuji Sensia 100iso slide film in mine.</p>

<p>When I'm out and about in my home town I use all manner of classic manual film cameras (eg. Mamiya C330f; Spotmatic SPII; Hi-Matic 9; Hasselblad 500C/M; etc). But when I'm on holidays it's a different matter. For the most part I still use a film camera, but I take one that gives me maximum scope for all potential possibilities. By that I mean a camera with good auto exposure, good zoom lenses, etc. Until recently that camera was my Canon EOS33, but now I've picked up a Canon EOS-1v. Holidays are about enjoying the holiday after all. As much as I love photography and especially classic cameras I don't go on holidays to spend heaps of time fiddling with mechanical camera settings. I also take along a digital point-and-shoot, but that's mainly for snapshots of friends rather than siteseeing.</p>

<p>Thanks for the new responses.</p>

<p>Bill, little snippets of info like yours are great to read. It fleshes out the "event" rather than just the race itself. Especially when it comes to very old race meetings such as this one all too often it's just the statistics that you hear about. Even documentaries about those years show next to nothing about what it was like to be part of the atmosphere of the event.</p>

<p>Clay, it does seem odd to think of having to shoot "vertically" to get a landscape format on the film, but this camera is not alone in that. I own a '30s Zeiss Super Ikonta which takes 120 film and shoots 6x4.5 frames (all the time - no mask or anything to convert the format), and it is the same - to get a "landscape" shot I have to shoot vertically. In practice it was a very strange experience at first. I wonder if this "Indy" camera was a camera that could shoot both 4x4 and the smaller format shown here via a mask?</p>

<p>Yes, too true! Barring house fires or other natural disasters the negatives I shoot will long outlive me. Mind you, you still have to look after them well and take good care of them. Some of these '48 Indy strips had been folded at some point, mid frame. The folds are fragile, with some of them even splitting in that spot. That damage can never be undone.</p>

<p>You're welcome Cliff. I'm happy to have found someone who shares the interest. I've been doing a lot of casual browsing of historic Indy stuff this afternoon because these scans got me hungry to find out a lot more. Check this out on Youtube...<br /><a href="

/>It's someone's father's old 16mm home movies of this event, in colour even. It has much of the same feel as my photos. I could look at this stuff all day :-)</p>

<p>The six-wheeler still exists, by the way. I found quite a lot of recent photos of it online in car shows or museum displays.</p>

<p>And here's a 100% crop...</p><div></div>

<p>Another one of the pics was a shot of the 6-wheeler...</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks a heap for all the info Cliff. I have to admit that I posted these photos immediately after scanning the negs and I still haven't done any research on the cars and drivers that appear. I will though.</p>

<p>That's really interesting about the 6-wheel indycar. I didn't even know it existed until today. I knew about the 6-wheel F1 Tyrell in the 70s with twin front wheels, and a Williams F1 prototype in the early 80s with twin rear wheels that never made it to a race start, but I was really surprised that this Indycar beat the F1 examples by decades.</p>

<p>I have attached a full sized crop of what you thought was the number 3 winning car, but unfortunately it appears that it's actually number 63. Nevertheless I'm keen to play detective in the near future and try and identify as many of the drivers in these photos as I can.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Carl</p><div></div>

<p>The main straight after the race, featuring the famous pagoda. The main straight is obviously still all paved with bricks at this time, apart from the edge where the actual pitstops happened...</p><div></div>