Dustin McAmera

EOS M50, EF 50/1.8

EOS M50 with the EOS-M 22mm f/2 (first one) and FD 85mm f/1.8.

Both exist, sort of. Under 'Explore' at the top of the page, click on 'Gallery'. At the top right of that page, there should be a green button 'Add images'. Click on that. A box opens, 'Choose category' with a control saying 'Select'. Click on 'Select' and it shows you all the categories: Member albums, Abstract, Animal, Architecture,... Of these, 'Member albums' is private albums you can make on any theme. If you choose this, the next option is whether to create a new album or use on you have already. Any other choice is one of the main gallery categories. If you choose one of these, say 'Animal', you can still add your pictures to an album of your own, separate from everyone else's Animal photos. The menu lets you choose to 'Continue without using an album' (that is, add your pictures to the common gallery of Animal photos), 'Create a new album' (you will be asked to give it a name, and a description if you want), or 'Use an existing album' within the category, if you already have one. If you create a private album within the Architecture category, it will display above the common Architecture gallery, when people come to browse that. People can also see all the albums you have in any category, on your profile page; when you create an album, you should get a new Albums tab on your profile page.

Yashica 44LM, Macocolor UCN200.

I used to wonder how people managed to break the battery door; it's not as if it gets used many times. Then mine fell off in my hand. If I remember right, it was as I opened it, when it came to it's fullest opening. I wonder if maybe the door gets stressed during normal handling of the camera, with the door closed.

I bought a replacement door from Micro-tools.

I developed a roll of used Kodachrome I had in a drawer, with Rodinal and Adox rapid fixer. My method's pretty much the same as the second example above only with different chemicals, and instead of wiping the black off with fingers under running water, I sponged it off with cotton wool in a dish of wetting agent solution. In broad terms, the method is 'develop it just like a black-and-white film, then wipe off the black stuff'. It will colour your developer and fixer yellow. I only uploaded three of the pictures to Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=54337958%40N00&view_all=1&text=Porto and the caption to one of those ('Boats') gives a little more detail of my method. I see I speculated that warmer water for wiping the black off, and maybe alkali, might be worth trying. I only did this to rescue a film which I'd already shot, rather than lose the pictures. I wouldn't go out and shoot Kodachrome, knowing this is how I can develop it. The pictures are grimy, short of detail, and flecked with remaining stuff. If I wanted to shoot slow black-and-white film I'd buy some Pan F.

Could it be a powder developer not completely dissolved?

(Diafine, that is). I find that's only sort-of true. AG Photographic in Birmingham list it but have it as out of stock for now. Silverprint list a thing called Bellini BWDF2 described as 'liquid diafine', which is a two-part liquid concentrate. 'Analogue Wonderland'* list that Cinestill monobath. I do kind of see why this would be attractive to someone who's trying out film photography because it's cool 😎 (I'm not mocking that: I did stuff because it was cool, once). Most films use the same time, so you can develop mixed batches; and it's a short time. You get to do old-school stuff without much risk of it going wrong. Anyhow, it's sold out for now. * Now I have a dilemma: do I hate these people for using the 'A' word, or like them for spelling it 'correctly' (with the -ue)? 🤔

I've never used Diafine (I'm a Brit. None of my usual suppliers keep it). I was taught with Paterson chemicals, and nowadays I have HC110 and a Rodinal clone in the fridge. I have a pack of ID-11 in the cupboard (but it's been there a while) and a few other things I bought out of curiosity. I've always been more Fester than Ansel.

Well, I said my book gave no idea of the capacity of that litre of 'MM-1': may it's high. If you were processing a lot of (say) oscilloscope-trace pictures every day, you wouldn't want to have to stop to make new developer all the time. The point to monobaths seems to be as much the fast turnaround (four seconds! and since it's going to completion, you don't even have to time that precisely) as the simplicity, both for the fairground portrait shooter and the spy-plane photographer. So even if it does work out expensive, it's not pointless, if the speed's worth it to you. As far as I can see, nobody in the thread is advocating monobaths for general use. Some of us have said 'maybe good, for some purposes'. Even the OP is only saying, more or less 'I've heard of this, and it might make my processing on the road easier; what do you know/think?'

As has been said above, more or less, monobaths were for situations where skill and care weren't available or weren't needed: where the film and the scene were always the same, like mug-shots or document microfilm. Fairground ferrotype cameras used a monobath, in a chamber at the bottom of the camera. The exposed plate dropped straight into it. Especially given the cost of film now, I wouldn't process my own medium or large stuff like that. There's a formula for a monobath 'MM-1' in the Ilford Manual (p581 of my 7th edition, ISBN 0 240 50957 9 ) Sodium sulphite anhydrous 50g; Phenidone 4g; Hydroquinone 12g; Sodium hydroxide 4g; Sodium thiosulphate crystalline 110g; Glutaraldehyde 25% solution 8ml; and water to make 1 litre. There's a note on the order of making it. 'After the addition of the phenidone, add a pinch of hydroquinone followed by the sodium hydroxide. The phenidone will then dissolve completely, and the small amount of hydroquinone helps prevent the oxidation of the phenidone. Then add the remainder of the hydroquinone and other chemicals in the order given.' It says to process for 7 minutes at 24°C. You can adjust the contrast up (add alkali) or down (acid). It doesn't say anything about the capacity of that litre of solution.

It seems to be in very nice condition! Good luck with it! I have a 4x5-inch Calumet monorail camera, which I got cheap in an online auction because they only allowed pickup in person. But I paid more for the extras you have to have, like holders, film, a better tripod, ... than I did for the camera!

I found a couple of old threads at Photrio: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/9x12-plaubel-peco-jr-questions.59483/ and https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/anybody-here-using-the-plaubel-peco-junior.193886/ It seems that Plaubel kept using single metal slides later than many makers, but an alternate ground-glass back was available that let you use the bigger wooden double dark-slides, that became 'international'.

I think the next size down if your camera isn't a 9x12 would be 6.5x9 cm. What kind of plate/film holders do you have? As far as I understand it, Plaubel supplied metal single holders for their camera. This picture shows some of the metal holders: https://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Plaubel/Peco-Supra-II.html ..but not how they attach. I guess they must slide in front of the ground glass, like the big wooden double dark-slides, but probably into a groove. You probaby have to use Plaubel's own holders. If the camera turns out to be 6.5x9, I'd certainly look for a roll-film back.

I may have overstated the hardness-to-get of 9x12 film. In the uk Silverprint and AG Photographic both list Fomapan 100 in that size, but have it as out of stock. Ilford list FP4 as in stock (for supply direct from them at Ilfordphoto.com) but it isn't cheap: 47.85 uk pounds for 25 sheets. There's HP5 as well, for 52.80. Fotoimpex has Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 listed as in stock, for between 35-40 euro for 50 sheets. Sadly no Adox sheet film at the moment. But the minimum order for the uk is currently 170 euro before shipping, and you may have to pay duty when you receive the parcel! I have a box of Fomapan 10 in 4x5 inch. I am reminded that I was dismayed to find it doesn't have the little paper sheets to separate the sheets of film. Environmentally admirable maybe, but a false economy for me; makes it harder to load the film cleanly in a dark bag.

If the flange of the film-pack holder fits the camera, maybe you could use it to adapt a 120 roll-film back. You would still have the option of using full-size 9x12 film, if you get some holders: I have been lucky finding quarter-plate holders with Kodak sheaths in.

I think the item in the first two pictures is a film-pack holder. Film packs haven't been made for ages. The slot in the end is where there would be a paper tab, which you would pull to advance to the next sheet of film in the pack. It would have looked a bit like Polaroid, except that the film would stay inside there somewhere. If you try to find plate holders for your camera, be aware that there is more than one pattern of the flange where it mates to the camera. 9x12 film isn't that easily available; I have bought it from Fotoimpex in Berlin. They now have a minimum order value for the uk; thank David Cameron for that. I have made three film sheaths for the Agfa. It was a lot of effort for not much return - but they work well enough. I bought a scrap of steel sheet, and some brass sheet. I cut a piece of the steel to match the size of a piece of 9x12 film. Then I cut the brass to overlap that, with a small margin to fold round. This would make the sheath; the back is a full sheet, the size of a sheet of film; the front is just a lip on three sides, which holds the sheet of film. In the sheath, the sheet of film is accepted into the plate-holder as if it were a plate. There's a small error in the position of the fillm; the surface of a plate would be further forward by the thickness of the brass sheet. Anyhow, I bent the brass round the steel quite easily; any steel tool and firm hand pressure will do. I trimmed it so there was no double-thickness at the corners (where the side and end pieces would overlap each other). When it was neat, I pulled the brass clear of the steel - this turned out to be the hardest job - separating them without damaging the brass sheath. I didn't think there was room for paint. Instead, I darkened the brass with a product called bronze black; it's used by gun owners I think. The finished items wouldn't win any prizes, but they work. These pages at Camera-wiki might help: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Dark_slide http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Film_sheath http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Film_Pack http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Maximar Good luck!

Leningrad? Lubitel, surely? The Lubitel was branded Amatör for some seller in Sweden, according to Camera-wiki: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Lubitel I'm not aware of any Soviet cameras for 127 film (or I'm having a senior moment: I wouldn't rule it out).

Some off the responses to the thread disappoint me a little. A person who doesn't want nudes on the front page must be a bible-basher or a prude, it seems. For myself, I don't have a problem with nudity in general. I have no problem looking at photos of *war* or disaasters when I choose to, but I approve of the announcement that warns 'this report contains images some viewers may find disturbing'. Not everyone feels like me, and I may not always be in the mood to see the war, or the nudes. I already said, my own problem with some of what is being posted isn't that it's nude, but that it's 'nasty', and I discounted the possibility of devising a filter for that. I joined this thread because it seems to me there's been a lazy policy change done, without discussion. There are good reasons why we might not want nudes on the front page and in the default views. There is a filter mechanism available on this platform and it was operating: it wasn't working 100%, but it was working better than not at all. It's been switched off, it seems. Part of the problem with it was that posters weren't all marking their pictures to be filtered, I think. To say that now nudes *will* appear, on the front page and in the default views, with no facility to opt out, and that it's now site users' problem to avoid them, is quite a big policy change.

I swam nude off a beach in Scotland; nothing remotely sexual in that experience. ⛄ There's a story that when Montgomery had just been appointed to take over the British Eighth Army in north Africa, he was driving to his command, and was cheered wildly by a soldier, naked except for a top hat. On arriving, he immediately issued an order 'Top hats will not be worn in the Eighth Army', just to let the guy know he'd seen him.

I'm with hjoseph7 in finding the 'nude & erotic' pictures from one recent poster tacky and dispiriting; but the photos don't actually show any more body than some other nude gallery posts (or with anything like the same clarity). I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to exclude photos based on ickiness, even if I could define icky. In any case, not all photography is supposed to be comfortable, and depicting something is not always the same as advocating it. This is pornography like the Cure's album 'Pornography': depressing and miserable. It strikes me that these posts are extra-annoying because they are in a member's gallery. Every new photo posted re-displays the whole damn gallery as thumbnails in the 'All activity' view (there's a 'fine art' gallery that's been irritating me in just the same way. I wouldn't ban this stuff, though it ain't what I call photography; just don't want it shoved at me on repeat like that). On the old photo.net site, I was only here for the discussion fora, and almost never saw the galleries; and I didn't miss them before I saw them. So I am trying out a new view (created under 'My Activity Streams') that only shows me 'topics' (that is, discussion forum posts, including ones with a photo, like 'No Words', but not gallery posts). I even left out a couple of the discussion fora: some of the conversations get tacky and dispiriting too!