Dustin McAmera

<p>The lens aperture selector is at 'A' not 'M', right? That is, you're not metering with the aperture stopped down?</p>

<p>I assume you're using a camera where you can actually tell what exposure is being used, right? There's two easy ways to check.<br> 1. If you have a friend who also uses a film camera, get them (or just their camera) and meter a few of the same scenes with their camera and yours.<br> 2. Your exposure should be reasonably close to the recommendation in a printed exposure guide: almost every film box used to come with one printed on the inside. Kodak Alaris still put a guide in their datasheets: look at page 2 of this one for Portra 160:<br> <a href="http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4051_Portra_160.pdf">http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4051_Portra_160.pdf</a><br> and this one for the ISO 400:<br> <a href="http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4050_portra_400.pdf">http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4050_portra_400.pdf</a></p> <p>If you're not getting the exposure you were expecting, check the camera is really set up how you think it is. If you think you're using auto exposure, check you haven't left it on a manual setting. Check the film speed is set correctly. Check the state of your camera's battery. Good luck!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Do you already have the camera? If not, think about how much you want 4x5; you could get one of the 2x3 Graphics and have a bit less to carry around. I have a Century with 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 backs. With the 6x9 back, my ground glass is full-frame.</p>

<p>Oops - no it's not; I was a dimwit, and forgot that the screen is under a clear cover. Looking again (I took my screen out to check), the top is matte, and the bottom has a fresnel pattern with a shiny, clear centre spot.</p>

<p>Hi!<br> My Pro works well, and the screen is shiny side up. </p> <p><br /><br /></p>

<p>If you want to work with the camera low down on a tripod, there is nothing like a WLF. It also lets you hand-hold the camera in other positions, like on your knee, which may let you get away with slow shutters. Folded up, it's an easy thing to carry in case you want it; no bigger than a spare set of batteries for the winder.</p>

<p>'A fistful of efficiency': in <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PGMzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PT1&dq=Medalist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ9s76h4fOAhUrGZoKHSQqBHgQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=Medalist&f=false">Popular Photography, March '44</a> (at Google books);<br> <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vWIzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA59&dq=Medalist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ9s76h4fOAhUrGZoKHSQqBHgQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Medalist&f=false">and again in May</a>: adverts for a camera you couldn't buy!<br> It looks splendid, Rick!</p>

<p>There are already <strong>Film & Processing</strong> and <strong>B&W - Film & Processing</strong> fora here.</p>

<p>On the off chance that the OP knew where she was posting, and actually has a Pentax... :)<br /> According to <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_67">the camera's page at Camera-wiki.org</a>, the P 6x7 (with a 'x' in it, but no mirror lock) was introduced in '69. The model with mirror lock was introduced in '76. Is that what you have? The camera was replaced with the Pentax 67 (no 'x') in 1989.<br /> Mike Butkus' website has the manual for the 6x7 with mirror lock, and the pictures in that manual show a body with serial no. 4018337 (on numbered page 10, at the end of the first pdf). On the front cover, the camera has lens serial 5410930, and in the parts-key on page 2 it has 5047319 (both those lenses are 105 mm f/2.4). I would guess the manual was prepared very close to the time the mirror-lock model was released, so maybe those numbers are typical for sometime in 1976. <br /> I found a picture of a camera without mirror lock in the Camera-wiki group pool at Flickr, with body serial 4007058. I guess that might well be the 7058th Pentax 6x7, and maybe the serial numbers are continuous with the new model with mirror lock (?) There are only a handful of pictures in the pool showing the SN, but none as high as yours. So if I had to guess, I'd guess your camera is from closer to '89 than '76. The pool shows some cameras with either 75 or 90mm lenses with SN 8xxxxxx.<br /> Hope that's a start!</p> <p> </p>

<p>I agree. In fact, it seems quite possible that taking your film back apart might leave you needing to get a new one. That would probably come with a dark slide, so you could save yourself time and grief by looking for the new back now.<br> However, If you don't want to do that, I think your alternative is to cut a dark slide from thin metal sheet. A credit card is too thick to go in the slot, and film isn't stiff enough to operate the interlock that stops you detaching the back. I doubt you'll find a plastic that's thin enough and stiff enough. The real dark slide is steel.<br> I think you could cut one from aluminium or brass sheet. You can get small pieces from hardware or art/craft stores. Looking at a dark slide from my 645 Pro, it's only about a quarter of a mm thick, and I think you could even cut brass that thick with strong kitchen scissors. I've made aluminium dark slides for a couple of roll film backs (for my Century Graphic). Those are much thicker; almost credit-card thickness, and too thick for the slot in the 645. If you do make an aluminium or brass slide, it won't be very strong, so treat it with care.<br> It needs to be 54 mm wide, and it goes about 76 mm deep into the camera. You need to leave more length to get a hold of, and if you're bothering to make the thing, you might as well glue a handle on it. The front corners are very slightly rounded, and of course you should smooth any rough edges before taking it near the camera. Good luck!</p>

<p>There's more than one model of <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Bantam_Colorsnap">Bantam Colorsnap</a> (the link is to Camera-wiki). The first one is quite a bit like the first <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Colorsnap_35">Colorsnap 35</a> (albeit with a grey plastic top housing). I have that Bantam Colorsnap. It has quite an interesting exposure system. You set it using 'exposure numbers' 1-11, but these aren't EV, just an arbitrary set of numbers (perhaps the Spinal Tap system). I understand the later model has real EV numbers. Anyhow, exposure settings 1-10 only adjust the aperture; setting 11 makes the shutter slower.</p> <p>Nice pictures anyhow. Looking forward to (our own, northern) autumn ought to be depressing,but you showed its beautiful side! I think the lens on these cameras is similar. I must confess I don't think I've put film through mine, though I have cut film down to 828 size once (to use my Coronet Cub while it was still usable - its body is made of an unstable resin plastic, and now you can't get the two parts to fit together). Maybe I should give the Colorsnap a try. Cheers!</p>

<p>Since it's a Xenar, could you get a tiny bit of focus by unscrewing the front element? The thread will be shallower than a proper front-element focusing thread, but it should give you something, as long as you can move just the front element (without the second one coming too).</p>

<p>Nothing whatever, and I have several square cameras; but it's not my favourite format, and my hit rate in square pictures is quite low.</p> <p>In my reply to the OP, my first point was that he asked a question only he can really answer: it boiled down to 'how much do I want interchangeable lenses?'</p> <p>But I thought, if the OP is asking for our opinions on that, how come he seems already decided on square? If I were choosing my first MF camera, I'd consider different formats. So having declined to give an opinion on the question asked, I thought I'd give one anyway, and hint that he might consider other shapes.<br> Now I think about it, the first MF camera I bought was a (square) Lubitel 166B!</p>

<p>I develop C41 (colour negative) as well as black and white. One you're confident with B&W, colour isn't very hard; but you need to be more precise with temperature during the developing step. You will need an extra thermometer, and you'll need to adjust the temperature of every solution, and of your rinsing water. I recommend you do quite a few sessions of B&W first.<br> I don't bother with gloves for C41, but I always get a little of the bleach/fix on my hands, so I wash them frequently. Colour *slide* film (E6) is a different matter; I only ever bought one kit of chemicals. I wore gloves, and got rashes anyway, so I finished up the kit and haven't done it again.</p>

<p>Oh, and a notebook. Keep notes of each film you develop: what kind of film it is, what speed you shot it at, what developer you used, at what concentration, what time you gave the developer and the fix, what agitation you used in the tank, and how the film looked when it was done. If anything goes wrong, your notes may help you work out why.</p>

<p>As they said above, you don't need a darkroom unless you mean to print.<br> The kitchen beats the bathroom for developing film, every time:</p> <ul> <li>The kitchen sink has a large drainer.</li> <li>There's ample surface space.</li> <li>I keep most of my chemicals in the fridge anyway.</li> <li>Conveniently, there's beer in there too.</li> </ul> <p>You need:</p> <ul> <li> A developing tank. The Paterson tanks are good. I prefer stainless steel tanks (for the reels; I find steel reels easier to load), but I used Paterson tanks happily for ages. In particular, the solutions pour in and out very quickly.</li> <li>A couple of reels. The Paterson reels adjust for 35mm or 120 film.</li> <li>A 'changing bag': a double-skinned black bag with elasticated sleeves. You put the tank and reel, and your film in there, zip it up, and put your hands in through the sleeves. You open your film cassettes, and load the film into your reel. Slip the reel onto the centre column of your tank (not all tanks have a centre column), and close up the tank. Then you can unzip the bag, and handle the tank safely in daylight.</li> <li>Scissors for cutting the leader off 35mm film, and detaching it from the spool. Also for cutting the tape on MF film.</li> <li>For 35mm film, whatever tool works for you to open the cassettes. I use a bottle opener.</li> <li>A few plastic water jugs or measuring cylinders for mixing your solutions in. I use really cheap jugs bought at the supermarket, which are marked fairly accurately with volumes.</li> <li>If you're going to use a liquid concentrate developer (maybe Rodinal or HC110) you need something like a syringe or pipette to measure small volumes (say 5 or 10 ml).</li> <li>At least one thermometer covering about 10 - 25 degrees C. For black-and-white you mostly work at 20 C.</li> <li>A timer. Something that beeps once a minute is good, but a kitchen clock will do, if it has a second hand.</li> <li>Somewhere to hang your film after washing; as dust-free as possible. I hang mine from an overhead laundry hanger. I hang Bulldog clips on the bottom of the film to hold it straight.</li> <li>Bottles to store any of the chemicals you will re-use. For me, that's mostly just the fix.</li> <li>A funnel to let you pour into a bottle quickly.</li> </ul> <p>Some people use a squeegee (like two windscreen wiper blades hinged together) to wipe most of the water off the film before hanging it up to dry. I don't use one any more; it's too easy to scratch the film.<br> Ilford have some 'getting started' documents:<br> <a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=16">http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=16</a></p>

<p>Is the camera a Zenit 3 (<a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Zenit_3">this one</a>) or a 3M (<a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Zenit_3M">this one</a>)? If you can open the back and look at the curtains, it's a 3M: the original Zenit 3 loads through the bottom.<br> On the 3M, the shiny button by the shutter speed dial isn't a shutter release; it's the rewind release, which flips the mirror when pressed (so it <em>sounds</em> a bit like a shutter release). The shutter release is in the middle of the frame-counter, in the hub of the film-advance.<br> Good luck with it!</p>

<p>What Brian said: seems to me only you can judge how much you care about changing lenses. That's overwhelmingly the most important difference here.</p> <p>(...but if it were me, I wouldn't be choosing between two <em>square-format</em> cameras!)</p>

<p>Looks like one of these:<br> http://www.collection-appareils.fr/x/html/appareil-21138-Voigtlander_Vag.html</p> <p>Many folding plate cameras open with a catch operated by a button concealed under the leather (below the carrying handle). Feel for a slight bump under the leather, and if there is one, press it.</p>

<p>There are chemical intensifiers too; Fotospeed makes a chromium intensifier. I haven't used it. It bleaches the silver image back to a developable state, then you wash and re-develop the film, and it comes back stronger. Of course, you can't produce detail that wasn't there at all.</p>

<p>Since the photographer was Swedish, why not a <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Svea">Svea</a>?</p>

<p>Do you have a reason to assume it's a Voigtländer? Why not an ICA, Goerz or Ernemann, or any of several other makers? See the <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Category:German_9x12_folding">category of German 9x12 folders</a> at Camera-wiki. This doesn't include <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Category:9x12_strut_folding">9x12 strut-folders</a>, which might have been a convenient choice for touring.<br> There are articles on both the Avus and Bergheil, though there isn't a picture of a Bergheil as old as 1912. They do look similar: both seem to be double-extension,and I think in 9x12 both would have geared front rise and shift. I see the Bergheil article makes mention of convertible lenses on early Bergheils (double-anastigmats, where you can unscrew half the lens to get twice the focal length), and detachable lens and shutter in later ones. There was a horizontally-oriented model of the Avus. There's also the Alpin; triple extension, and horizontally oriented.</p>

<p>You might find some ideas in several of the posts on the Flickr 127 film group: since 127 became hard to get, quite a lot of people have reported ways to cut 120 film own to size (see <a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/127/discuss/59155/">here</a> and <a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/127/discuss/72157633581781767/">here</a> , for example). I made one in the body of a dead folding camera (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/century_graphic/albums/72157594255549742">here</a>).</p> <p>However, it seems a shame to cut 70 mm film to make it into the most common size of roll film, in which many types of film can be bought quite easily. If you roll the stuff up as 116 or 616, maybe you can sell it to owners of cameras for those sizes (1<em>2</em>6 is either square-format 35-mm film or 4¼-inch roll-film, much bigger than 70 mm: see <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Film_sizes_and_designations">Camera-wiki on film sizes</a>). Or you could cut out the middle-man and get yourself a 116-sized camera.</p> <p>My experience of cutting 127 size was that it's hard to avoid some handling of the film; steps like taping the leading end of the film to backing paper are hard to do other than by hand; and you are likely to get some slight film damage from that. Since commercially-made 127 was for some time impossible to get, and it's still expensive, cutting down seems worthwhile. I'm not sure it seems so for 120 film.</p>

<p>I think you're right, on the basis of the lens it ought to be a 9x12 model. If you already have the camera at hand, measure the internal dimensions of the frame at the back (or just measure the ground glass) to see which size it is.<br /> Fotoimpex.de in Germany will sell you CHS100 II in 6.5x9 cm size, in boxes of 25 sheets, and several types of film in 9x12. Most (maybe all, for all I know) holders you find to fit the camera will have been made to hold a glass plate, and need an adapter (sometimes called a <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Film_sheath">film sheath</a>) to hold sheet film. These may be harder to find than holders, if only because it's less obvious what they are. At a pinch, you might make your own sheaths by folding thin sheet metal. <br /> IIRC, 120 roll film is only about 61 mm wide, so might not be held by a proper film sheath; but if you were making your own, you could give them as wide a lip as you need.<br /> Whichever size it is, you might find a 120 roll film holder for it. Good luck!</p>

<p>I have an RF Agifold. I haven't used it a lot, but I've run at least one roll through it. It focuses ok, and is a generally good-quality item. The RF spot in the finder is clear and bright, and it's accurate.I suspect if you found bad examples at Flickr, those people may not have understood an uncoupled RF, or else they may have used their camera without cleaning the lens first.</p> <p>I find I have just three pictures from it uploaded; classic 'just testing the camera' pictures: here:<br> <a href=" I see from my captions that I had a lot of fine dust to spot out after scanning, and I worried that it might be dust from the bellows. It's as likely that I forgot to filter my fix, but bellows this old do sometimes shed dust (or just crumble and leak light).</p> <p>I think all of the cameras have a 9 cm f/4.5 anastigmat with front-element focusing (in feet, down to 3½). It has a blue coating. The shutter on mine goes up to 1/300 second - I've seen one that only went to 1/150 - and the cocking action feels very light, compared to a Compur (it's a two-bladed shutter, nothing like a Compur, though still rim-set). It has a two-pin flash contact.</p> <p>The whole back detaches for loading, and the back has both a red and a green window, with a sliding cover to shut whichever of these you're not using. You open the front by sliding the whole RF superstructure a little to the left. The RF unit also houses an extinction lightmeter, and there's an interpretation dial for that. If I remember right, I actually metered with that for my trial roll; the hardest part is knowing what film speed you have (it's scaled in Scheiner and British Standard).</p> <p>The camera weighs a ton and is quite a lot larger than (say) an Isolette.</p>