Dustin McAmera

lost_coyote, with an underscore: https://www.photo.net/profile/202999-lost_coyote/?tab=node_gallery_galleryImages The new system doesn't remember forum postings older than ten years, but your photos in the gallery are there. There's a 'forgot your password' link in the login box.

'any man's death diminishes me' - discuss.

EOS M50 with the EF-M 22mm f/2 (first one) and 7Artisans 35mm f/1.2 (other two)

A bad day for the artist formerly the prince of prints of the artist formerly known as Prince..

You're right: it's for a flash bracket. It's in one of the Accessories guides at Mike Butkus' site: This page, and it's page 11 of the blue 'Practical Accessories', second document down at time of writing: https://butkus.org/chinon/rollei/rolleiflex_booklet/rolleiflex_booklet.htm

The bin-store of the cat café.

To shoehorn some cameras into this thread, I searched Camera-wiki for a boomerang, but the Boomerangflex doesn't exist. It seems the Kodak Super Six-20, the first camera to have auto-exposure, was nicknamed 'the boomerang' because of the frequency with which it came back to the factory for repair; and the Dalka Candid A20 has a 'Made-in-Australia' boomerang symbol on the front. There is an Ernemann Rolf I, a simple folding camera.

Like his boomerang, Rolf's not likely to be coming back.

Cheated here: this is my EOS M50, but with a Jupiter 11 135mm f/4 on, looking down one of our main shopping streets; the only street in our city to get the union-flag treatment for the coronation. Another square, where they are re-routing traffic and bike lanes. This is an FD mm f/1.8.

I don't know these cameras, but the Camera-wiki page includes this link, where the guy (Ian Axford) repaired one. http://photographic.co.nz/cameraworks/cameras/rollei35/ The lens and shutter unit is secured to the body by three little screws, it seems, and one had fallen out and jammed the film advance. The bottom photo shows where he replaced the screw, behind the lens. If you're lucky, the problem might just be that one or more of these screws is loose. It looks like they should be accessible with a little screwdriver, without taking the camera apart. Don't use all your strength tightening them - Mr Axford notes that some of the camera is plastic, and not too robust. Good luck!

I use an EOS M50; an APS-C mirrorless, introduced in 2018 I think, so a few years newer than your camera. It represented a big jump forward for me, and the ease with which I can carry on photographing in the dusk is one of the things I noticed. I got the camera with a kit zoom quite like your shorter one: a 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, with image stabilisation - it claims to have 3½ stops-worth of IS. I also got some prime lenses: a 22mm f/2, a 50mm f/1.8 (probably Canon's cheapest lens) and a manual focus 35mm f/1.2. I find I'm most comfortable with the prime lenses when it gets dark, although the IS on the little zoom 'ought' to give it the edge. I'd think about getting one or more prime lenses with wide aperture, to let you use hand-holdable shutter speeds. My 50/1.8 and 35/1.2 were each less than 200 uk pounds (the 35 is a 7Artisans lens). Your problem in the pictures you posted seems to be just camera shake during a slow exposure. I tend to leave my camera in aperture-priority auto almost all the time; that means in bad light I have to keep an eye on what shutter speed the camera is planning to use. If I'm intending to stay out in the dark, I take a bean bag (literally a zip-lock freezer bag full of dried beans) so I can rest the camera on walls and posts for slower exposures without scratching it; I have a little tripod too, but the bean bag is easier to use, in town.

Check out the Minimum Palmos: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Minimum-Palmos The one pictured at Camera-wiki (the pictures are at Flickr; you can click to view them full-size there) seems to have a similar Tessar to yours. The text says f/6.3, but the pictured examples actually have f/4.5 lenses. It's a strut-folding camera with focal-plane shutter. Later, things like the Nettel had focusing by variable strut extension, so didn't need helical focusing on the lens. With a 15 cm lens, I think your lens might have been on a quarter-plate (3¼x4¼ inch) camera, or a 9x12cm. You have the mounting ring on the lens there. The camera at Camera-wiki has a metal front plate and is fastened with little machine screws. But you just need three (four?) countersunk brass screws to fit the lens in any wooden board. You need a focal-plane shutter to use it though. I wouldn't be surprised if the lens itself will unscrew from that ring, but not necessarily. The only lenses I have that look at all like this are for reflex cameras with racking focus, and those lenses are interchangeable. I don't think that Minimum Palmos allows different extension; the struts and bellows are folded or all the way out; so they weren't expecting you to swap the lens. IIRC, mine have something like a two-inch thread, but then they're English. Yours will presumably be a metric thread.

It's also possible that the film may have been exposed to light at the edge by not being sufficiently tight while loading it onto the holder, or when unloading at the end (or even when loading onto a reel for development). If this has happened to just one roll, I'd cross your fingers and give it another go. Good luck!

EOS M50 with the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM (first one) and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (other two).

If you were watching the site over the last few months, you'd have seen it said again and again that the site is essentially not being maintained. Photo.net passed to new ownership. Fiverr bought CreativeLive, so they own Photo.net, but they had no plans for it. They have gone as far as moving it to a new off-the-shelf platform (Invision Community) to let it continue, but there is no budget for add-ons or custom programming. Moderation is all done by volunteers. There has clearly been something effective done about spam, which was getting bad but has somehow been sorted. But mostly, what you see is what there is going to be.

You mean these pictures? https://www.photo.net/profile/300583-duncanbowers/?tab=node_gallery_galleryImages

Internet Archive has the 1894 British Journal Almanac with a catalogue section for Lancaster. The description of the Instantograph doesn't tell you much about the lens; just that it is 'of a most rapid type'. You would have paid quite a bit extra to have the Rectigraph. https://archive.org/details/britishjournalph1894unse/page/410/mode/2up?q=Lancaster&view=theater There is a section of lenses starting at page 436. They seem mostly to suggest a 5½-inch as standard for ¼-plate. Their 'Landscape' lens is a simple meniscus - not even an achromat.

Early Photography has a few Instantographs. The quarter-plate ones all have five- or six-inch lenses (127 or 152 mm, I suppose), so if you've estimated 120, maybe what you have is five inches. http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_C5.html The lenses are either achromats (a cemented pair of different glasses) or Rectigraphs (a rapid-rectilinear - two achromats used together). http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_L5.html My quarter-plate Ensign Reflex (much later - maybe late 20s to 1930) came with a six-inch lens as standard, but it is interchangeable. It's a more adanced lens as well - a triplet anastigmat. The rigid body of that type of camera means I can't use anything less than five inches. My only other quarter-plate camera is an Ensign folder, with a five-and-a-half-inch Ross Expres.

I did an urban hike, walking ten miles 'to get some coffee', with the EOS M50. I walked through an old cemetery, coming out by the War memorial (EF 50mm f/1.8): Willow catkins on the ramp up to a footbridge (7Artisans 35mm f/1.2) Here's the road I was crossing, busy for going-home time (FD 85mm f/1.8): When I reached that water tower, the sun was getting low behind it (EF-M 22mm f/2):

I remember finding with dismay how much it would cost to get the standard (ISO 732) for the design of 120 and 127 film (I hoped I could either quote it or link to it in Camera-wiki), though I knew I'd been able to download older versions free. Then I remembered that was because I worked at a university before, and we had a subscription. I know the ISO must cost a lot to run, and a lot of their customers are commercial and should pay for the information: but it feels unjust as a little citizen, that standards cost so much: 'This is the law, and it'll cost you sixty bucks to know what it is'.

https://archive.org/details/Manual_of_Photography/page/n319/mode/2up?q=ISO

If it is supposed to be silvered, there are places (not many) that will silver scientific mirrors. In the uk I have a bookmark for Vaccuum Coatings Ltd: http://www.scientificmirrors.co.uk/ I have no connection with them, and haven't sent them any work; just thought I might do one day. I imagine there must be someone doing the same job in the States.