User_1577653

I agree with you about those straps - they're simple, yet lightweight and sturdy, making them quite nice for certain types of cameras. I have one on an old Kodak Duaflex IV where I think it looks very sharp. You might try Randy at Holgamods.com. He used to sell a wide variety of individual Holga parts, but I don't know if he still does. He may just happen to have some lying around regardless, so probably worth contacting him. Good luck!

<p>Five years past the expiration date will hardly make a difference at all, especially for B&W film which has been stored in a cool place. Yes there could be some very minor effects, but this is at a level so small that it's net even worth thinking about, especially if you're new to film. I would just treat them as if they were brand new rolls and go out and shoot! Have fun. </p>

<p>Rick, <a href="http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/dacora_digna/dacora_digna.html">here </a>is a Spanish language site I found while researching Dacora Dignas. It may have a little more about the Correlar than the link above, although it's hard to say as one may just be referencing the other. <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/dacora_digna/dacora_digna.html&prev=search">Here </a>is the Google English translation. </p>

<p>Just to clarify, by 'width' I am referring to the dimension <em>across</em> the roll of film. It is the dimension parallel to the sensor, and perpendicular to the direction the carrier moves in and out. For a quick mental picture you might also say that it represents the short side of a 6x9 image. I <em>think</em> this is the dimension you meant, but now I'm not entirely sure!</p> <p>But to answer the obvious next question, in the other dimension I found that the scanner can record a maximum length of about 88mm in a single scan. That number is based on the 869GR holder and 6x9 mask, but I don't recall if it changed when using other masks or when using the other medium format holders.</p> <p>In any event, good luck with all this. I think you will really like the rotating glass holder.</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>An interesting "feature" of the 9000 scanner is that the maximum scan width you can achieve actually varies with the holder. The system first determines which holder has been inserted via a pattern of square holes near the front of the holder, and then sets the maximum width that it will allow based on the maximum it thinks is needed for that holder. In the case of the 869GR (rotating glass) holder the scanner also reads an additional set of holes in the mask, which it uses to further fine tune what it thinks the widest should be. The widest scan which can be performed occurs with the 869GR holder and the 6x9 mask (the max. width is reduced when using any other of the masks). According to my notes that maximum value is 63.481mm, which I think corresponds to imaging with the full width of the sensor - i.e., it allows a full 4000 pixel-wide scan. As far as I know, no other holder allows this full width, but I'm sure someone will tell me if that's not the case.</p> <p>That maximum width is sufficient for any image on 120 film since it is actually wider than the film itself. However, the width of film actually recorded in the scan may still be limited either by the 6x9 mask itself or the physical opening in the holder. I <em>think</em> it is still generous enough for the image sizes you’re talking about, but unfortunately I no longer own the 869GR so I don't have a way to measure it. Hopefully someone who owns one will step up and make that measurement for you. But one thing I can add is that if the 6x9 mask itself is still too limiting, you could certainly cut your own mask. Just make sure you make the hole code pattern match that of Nikon’s 6x9 mask. Technically I’m not sure you really even need the mask per se; you may be able to just apply strips of opaque tape over the empty hole area where the mask code is read, in a way that duplicates the correct pattern of holes.</p> <p>Finally, I can suggest one other possibility for you. Since it is the hole pattern which ultimately determine how wide the system can scan, you can trick the scanner into thinking you have the 869GR holder and 6x9 mask by modifying one of the other holders so that it shows the same hole pattern. Of course you may still need do some filing or grinding to increase the physical width of the opening, and I'm not necessarily saying that cutting square holes in the plastic is an easy job, but considering how expense and generally difficult to find the 869GR holder can be, it may be worth it to you. I've done such a modification myself and can tell you that it works. In my case it was because I wanted to create a holder that could scan 116/616 film, which has a width of 63.5mm with images being up to ~62.5mm wide. I actually ended up purchasing and chopping up a spare 35mm holder for this purpose rather than one of my standard medium format holder 869S, since I wanted to maintain that one for 120 scanning.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>standard bayonet-style press bulb</em><br /> This was called an ASCC bulb (American Single-Center Contact)</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks David, it's nice to finally know the official name for these!</p> <p>I was going to mention adapters too if the OP ended up having trouble finding the designated bulbs. Here are <a href="https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8187/29952135951_930554f527_b.jpg">two adapters</a> that I've made good use of myself. The one on the left would be useful if the OP finds a supply of midget bulbs like M2, M3 or M5.</p>

<p>There’s a lot of good information here but the main thing you need to know is what type of flashbulb will physically fit your particular holder, as nothing else is going to work. The Argus flash unit accepts a type of bulb that I would call the standard bayonet-style press bulb. These can be recognized by being about the size and shape of a small egg and having a metal base that is smooth-sided except for two short pins which protrude near the bottom. The most common of these in my neck of the woods are probably the GE #5 and 5B, and the Sylvania Press 25, and 25B, where the “B” designated versions have a blue color which is supposed to yield the correct colored balance when using color film.</p> <p>I’m not sure how common these are where you live, but just as a general reference you might want to check out <a href="http://www.dlbrittain.com/Flashbulbs/FlashCollect.htm">http://www.dlbrittain.com/Flashbulbs/FlashCollect.htm</a>, which lists quite a few different brands and types of flashbulbs. My suspicion is that among the bayonet type bulbs listed there many of the ones with “5” or “25” in the name are probably equivalents to the GE and Sylvania bulbs above.</p> <p>Another thing you should know is that you can find a <a href="http://www.butkus.org/chinon/argus/argus_match-matic/argus_match-matic_c3.htm">a manual for the Matchmatic</a> (at the <br /> Butkus website) which has some pretty good descriptions of how to use flash with this camera. I notice that it seems to recommend the Sylvania 25B specifically, but similar bulbs should work fine, and you don't necessarily need the blue bulbs if you're doing b&W only.</p>

<blockquote>If I were Peter I would jump on the first listing and never look back.<br /> <a href="http://www.ebay.com/sch/Cameras-Photo/625/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=series+6+polarizer" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></blockquote> <p>I agree, and good find Charles! The Vivitar even has AR-coatings - something I doubt the old old Kodaks had - so that's a bonus.</p> <p>The only thing I might suggest if you're feeling cautious would be to email the seller and get more information about the condition, possibly even ask for a better picture to show the glass. The description "nice shape" might mean something different to the seller than it does to you when it comes to optical condition of the glass.</p>

<p>Peter, I happen to have a Series VI Pola-Screen filter and consider myself lucky that it is not de-laminated like many of them are. My feeling is that they aren't really that difficult to use in practice, so if you can find one which is in good condition there shouldn’t be any reason why it wouldn’t work for you basically the same as any other polarizer. They typically aren't very expensive either.</p> <p>The Pola-Screen filters are made as a threaded assembly which just screws into the series thread or adapter on the camera, and usage depends on whether or not you have the accessory "viewer" attachment. If not, you have to find the desired angle by looking through the filter off-camera and then duplicate this angle when screwing the filter on. On mine, setting that angle is just a matter of how far you screw it on since it doesn’t have any kind of rotating mechanism (but apparently some do?). In my experience the angle usually doesn't need to be especially precise, so it's really easier than it sounds and not a big deal to operate this way.</p> <p>The viewer attachment is supposed to allow you to set the clocking angle of the polarizer while mounted to the camera (i.e., no transferring of angles involved). My understanding of how it works is that it attaches to the indicator handle of the Pola-Screen and supports a small matched polarizer that folds out on the opposite end. The idea is that you look through this reference polarizer as you rotate the filter on the camera and use that to determine the angle you want. I have no idea how well this works in practice since I don't have the attachment, but I imagine it depends on how easy/convenient it is to sight through it as you rotate the filter.</p> <p>Incidentally, while reading the little instruction sheet which came with my Pola-Screen I came across something I hadn’t realized before. It turns out that when going for a darkened sky effect you will get the maximum effect when the indicator handle is pointed directly towards the sun. The little pin in the end of the handle can even be used as a guide for this by watching where its shadow falls. The handle basically defines the polarization axis of the filter, just like some other filters might have some etched line or other mark.</p>

<p>Good question. When I purchased my last pair of prescription glasses I fully expected to get the normal and high quality AR coatings I always did, but was surprised to find they had the Hoya Recharge coating instead (although I didn't know that name initially, having never heard of it before). To me, the yellow cast was noticeable almost immediately and on the way home from the optometrist I struggled with the question of just how happy I could be with this in the long term. To be honest it just really bothered me. Perhaps I am more sensitive to such things than most, but I found that when wearing the glasses outdoors I would always want to slip them down to see what I was missing from the "real world" colors, and the answer always left me feeling disappointed in my prescription view (color-wise at least). Using them indoors bothered me too as it seemed like having a veil over whatever I was working on, and that included photo-editing too. No, I didn't use them long enough to characterize how much a difference in color they would actually make to my images, or check to see if I could compensate for it in some way. Instead I just took them back and had them re-coated with a more normal AR-coating.<br /> <br /> You know, you never realize until something like this happens how much all the time spent processing photos helps to develop a more sensitive awareness of natural color.</p>

<p>For a good list of all the Pentax 6x7 lenses, complete with specifications and the different versions made, you might want check out www dot antiquecameras dot net/pentax6x7lenses.html (sorry for the fragmented link but Photo.net doesn't allow direct linking to the site).</p> <p>As for opinions about these lenses, one of the best resources I have found is the review pages on the Pentax forums website, <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html">here</a>.</p>

<p>I think you can look forward to a a wonderfully new and different experience with the 6x7, regardless of which lens you choose. The SLR form factor and the horizontal 6x7 aspect ratio will be a change of pace of course, with the handling providing a different "feel" to shooting compared with what you have now. In addition, the camera's overall heft, the expansive view through the viewfinder, and the not-so-subtle <em>ker-chunk!</em> the big mirror makes as you press the shutter releasem all combine to create a truly visceral experience that you really just have to experience. </p> <p>For a first lens, there are several reasons why I would suggest starting with the standard 105mm/2.4. For one, they are reasonably priced yet generally very highly regarded for their sharpness, bokeh, and all around excellent image quality. All three versions share the same optical formula, so there is less of an issue here about earlier or later editions of the lens. As for field of view, it's true you already have experience with a "normal" lens, but you may find that the 6x7 aspect ratio presents different compositional opportunities than what you are used to. So I think starting with the standard lens still makes sense in this case. Best of all, the 105/2.4 is one of the fastest medium format lenses made (fastest in the Pentax 6x7 lineup), enabling mind-blowingly narrow depth of field. Even if you're not into that per-se, you will still appreciate the brighter image this lens provides in the viewfinder since the 6x7's viewfinder screen can seem a little dim when using some of the slower lenses.</p> <p>Finally, the 105 is one of those lenses with Thorium elements that tends to take on a bit of a yellow cast with age. But since you work exclusively with B&W film, you may find as others have that this can actually be advantageous since it essentially functions as a built in yellow filter.</p> <p>Good luck!</p> <p> </p>

<p>If the filter's not in a threaded mount then I suspect the glass is held in with a "c"-type wire retaining clip that might look something like one of these:<br /> <img src="https://www.mikesxs.net/parts/img600/27-1063.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /><br /> <em>Usually </em>you can just pry out a retaining ring like this using some type of pick or small screwdriver, and then the glass just pops out. I've done this before myself without too much trouble, but I will say you need to be very careful! It is easy to slip with the tool and scratch the glass or to put too much stress on it and break it.<br /> <br />In any event, it seems like the bigger issue is how to make the filter easily rotatable. If the glass can rotate around in the standard holder as you said, I suppose the simplest plan would be to just remove the entire holder each time, sight through it visually while setting the clocking for the effect you want, and then re-insert it. That's certainly inconvenient and fiddly, but maybe your only choice unless you can find a way to MacGyver you're own drop-in mount that would allow you to rotate the filter without removing it. I can <em>imagine</em> all sorts of ideas to make that work, but it would require some good machining/fabrication skills.<br> <br /> Jeff</p> <p> </p>

<p>Any progress on this? I was going to say that I doubt you will be able to improve the surface much with any further cleaning. After using the PEC products my guess is that whatever is left is probably scratches, pitting or some other degradation of the coating itself.</p> <p>On the other hand, the effects on image quality are often much less noticeable than the appearance of the optic itself (just like with scratches on the front surface of a camera lens). For scanned images it usually means reduced contrast and/or effects of flare or light bleeding between adjacent light and dark areas of an image. If you haven't seen them already, there are a number of threads such as <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00CTcF">this one</a> which talk about these effects. So it might be worth it to go "looking for trouble" as it were, and see if you can detect such defects in your images. If not, its probably best to just lave the mirror as-is and not worry about it!</p> <p>Anyway, if you ARE still looking for a replacement mirror, I might suggest that there are a handful of optical companies that can supply high quality first-surface mirrors. Granted, it would probably take just dumb luck to find one <em>exactly</em> the size and thickness you need, but it's still worth a look. The company I'm most familiar with is is Edmund Optics. Unfortunately they're not a UK company so maybe that's a non-starter for you. But check out their <a href="http://www.edmundoptics.co.uk/optics/optical-mirrors/flat-mirrors/quarter-wave-first-surface-mirrors/1927/">1/4-wave</a> and <a href="http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical-mirrors/flat-mirrors/tenth-wave-first-surface-mirrors/3112/">1/10 wave</a> first-surface mirrors to get an idea of what might be available. Look for the square or rectangular ones, either aluminum or silver coated and I would say having a surface figure specification of 1/4-wave or smaller.</p> <p>Jeff</p> <p> </p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, is this the plant in question? This is from the Denver Botanical Gardens, and your description of it resembling a brain or coral rang a bell.<br> <img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/667/20576840906_796df67242_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1024" /></p>

<p>I just uploaded the repair photos I was referring to, to <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/40109331@N06/sets/72157654419246278">this album</a> on Flickr. That might help a little. Feel free to ask if you get stuck though, either here or in the Flickr group. </p> <p>Good luck! </p>

<p>Welcome back Rohan. It's a bit late at the moment for me to give a very detailed response, but while you're waiting you might want to have a look at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/agfaisola/discuss/72157624213302904/">this post on Flickr</a>, which is what I just remembered was the reference I found before starting the repair on my Isola. Actually, there is some pretty good information in there that I had forgotten about! :)</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>Donald, I'm with the last three posters on this one - the negatives themselves actually look pretty normal to me; or at least that last photo showing the strip in front of a light source shows the negatives to to be pretty much as I would expect. I can't say for sure that there's <em>nothing</em> wrong with what you have there, but just based on what the negatives look like I wouldn't have expected the scanned result to have the heavy cyan cast you showed. I took the liberty to invert the last image and came up with this:</p> <p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/515/18439167438_e4f13237e8_z.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Even though this is just an inversion of a low-res jpeg capture, the pictures seem to be revealing a pretty reasonable result. So I would still be inclined to investigate something scanner/workflow related.</p> <p>Jeff</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yep, it's like the others said - any 120 spool you can find should work fine, regardless of whether it has single slots or crossed slots, metal or plastic, design of the barrel of the spool, etc. Even the old wooden type would be compatible. If you can find one that is; they are no longer produced.</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>As far as I know the width of the scan defaults to the same maximum size for a given holder regardless of which frame size (6x6, 6x7, etc.) is selected, so I don’t think that dimension is actually changing from scan to scan. Instead, I think the variability may just be due to the film moving around in the holder. The distance between the rails is just a little wider than the film, and consequently the film (and glass) is able to slide about fairly easily. I find that even if a lot of care is taken to insure that the film/glass is perfectly positioned between the rails initially, it tends to move around as I insert the holder into the scanner, and sometimes even <em>during</em> the scan. [Edit - now that I think about it, this might not apply to you if you are still using the original thin rubber strips that the film is supposed to sit on (I am not), which <em>should</em> keep the film more stably positioned]</p> <p>In any event, if the film migrates towards one rail or the other that edge of the image is obscured by the rail. The scanner sees the rail as opaque/black, which upon inversion becomes white. I assume this is the white edge you are talking about. Is that consistent with what you are seeing? (if so, it would only be on the “top” or ”bottom” edges, not the sides). Another possibility related to mechanical positioning is that there could be some tolerance to the left-right position the holder takes each time it is inserted and drawn into the scanner. With our small margins it wouldn't take much of a change for these those small differences to manifest as the offset/white edge inconsistency.</p> <p>If it <em>is</em> in fact just a matter of tolerances and movements, I can suggest a couple solutions. One is to use some tape to hold the film and/or glass in position after you get it exactly the way you want. Another possibility would be to get that file out again, and enlarge the opening even more. Eventually you should get to the point where the entire frame is always included in the scan. Granted, you may still need to use the 6x7 setting to get the width you need, and I can confirm that Nikonscan has some issues with identifying the frames in that situation. But as Edward commented, each of these programs (I can verify that it is true for Vuescan as well) has settings to manually adjust the position of the scan, at least along the one axis.</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>Sounds good. Have a nice trip!</p>

<p>Well that was the first thing I was hoping to hear - you know that you have to wind the film knob before you can actuate the shutter (due to the doube-exposure prevention mechanism). So that's a good start!</p> <p>There are quite a few potential causes for the shutter blades not responding - something in the shutter mechanism jammed, a broken spring, the blades themselves might be popped off their pins, something broken in the linkage from the release button to the shutter, etc. In all likelyhood you will have to disassemble the shutter/lens assembly to troubleshoot the problem. But the last possibility I just mentioned is worth checking first: if you open the camera back and look into it while pressing the shutter release, you should see an inner barrel within the lens tube which rotates to trip the shutter. Is that happening? If not then there is a linkage problem in the shutter release mechanism, in which case the shutter itself may be completely fine.</p> <p>In the end if you have to disassemble and repair the shutter to fix this, I can provide some guidance and tips, and might even have a picture or two of from when I overhauled mine. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>What exactly happens when you press the shutter release? Are you able to depress it all the way down, and if so do you hear/see anything happen in the shutter? Can you see that the shutter blades are stuck completely open or closed (or perhaps part way)? Any difference if you set it to bulb (B) mode?</p> <p>I have a few ideas about what might be going on depending on some of those kind of details, so let me know and I will see if I can point you in the right direction. The Isola II that I purchased a couple years ago had its share of issue too, and in the end I performed a complete overhaul of the thing, including tearing down and rebuilding the shutter. It really is a great little camera in a lot of ways, so I hope you will persevere in getting it working again.</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>Thanks for posting this. I probably have a weird aesthetic, but that mechanism is just beautiful! </p>

<p>By the way Scott, I can't stop staring at your picture of the horses. Super composition and a beautiful image!</p>