donday

I found the URL for the Kodak document. It seems to no longer work on their Web site, but you can access an archived version of it through http://archive.org, one of the best ways to retrieve pages at URLs that no longer work.

 

HTML version:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609010937/http://kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/ae31/ae31.shtml

 

PDF version:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609201156/http://kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/pdf/ae31.pdf

Can any reader provide either the number or actual title of the Kodak technical note on reprocessing color film developed as black-and-white? I'd like to add this PDF to my library.

I couldn't wait--I trimmed down some 4x5 Ilford Delta 100 and tried one of my current back yard motifs--hostas in bloom. A small inline image doesn't do justice to the resolution, so here is a link to my first postcard from this camera using the new (for it) holders:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3632250">Hostas #1</a>. This was just a technical image to test the holders, but the floret I focused on is crisp at 1200dpi--the film holder is true to the ground glass.<div></div>

The easy approach, IMO, is to use sightlines in the photos to try to determine the probable position of the camera, then use a wide zoom lens on a 35mm or digital camera to change focal length until you approximate the field of the original picture. Read off the FL or the digital zoom setting and map it to whatever FL you will need for the actual camera/film size you intend to take the photo with. This is how many photos such as Jackson landscapes and Brady Civil War scenes have been recreated with modern cameras. You don't have to know the original equipment, just match the taking location and field angles.

I had the winning (practically unchallenged) bid on these film holders, and received them today. They fit my 9x12 Maximar nicely! I need only to buy some film and load them up to put this endearing camera to use again. Thanks, John, for pointing out the auction, and thanks to all who helped me identify my camera and determine that it was safe to take the plunge. I owe the forum some "postcards" from my first romp with the camera, maybe in a few weeks.

Michael, I am going from info in this excellent article: http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KA_KASIntr.htm . Kodak marketing used whatever spin they needed to, sometimes garbling an otherwise predictable mapping between lens names and types on various cameras. I have one Anastigmat that is just so good, it is now the benchmark for my relative comparisons among folders with Kodak lenses.

 

Front-cell focusing always compromises the near focusing environment in some manner--looks possibly like color for this lens. I accept this, but I'm anxious to come across a folder which moves the standard for focusing. Nope, I am not in the sort of money for a Bessa II!

Bill, since you are watching for a Kodak Monitor, look especially for one having the Kodak Anastigmat Special lens--this is a true Tessar design, and should outperform the standard Anastigmat, which is based on the Cooke triplet design... still a good performer in most circumstances.

 

?Beepy, sorry about the small sizes--I'm trying to keep the pix on the page by following the 511 pixel maximum length rule. In the pond picture, the lily pads in the top 1/2 inch show fringing on their sides, looking like an extra edge around the top or side of the sharper main pad. The "highlight detail" picture shows the fringing on the top edge of the flowers. These were all shot between f/8 and f/11, which for an f/4.5 lens should be close to the ideal correction point. So I think there might be a little misalignment in the elements. Still, the sharp zones are wonderfully sharp. The overall character of the lens is part of the fun of getting to know an older camera.

The Vollenda is fun to use. I suspect the edges will look better for distance shots, but I can imagine ways to use the soft edge definition for some shot such as portraits. I'll be trying some more to find the sweet spot for this lens. These pix were mostly around f/8 to f/11 in open shade. One last detail below shows the fringing in the blurry zone from one of the hosta pix... a little more severe than I would have expected from a Kodak Anastigmat.<div></div>

And a last from this session.<div></div>

Another...<div></div>

First closeup...<div></div>

Lately I've been aiming at motifs in my back yard to test older

cameras. These shots are my first from a Kodak Vollenda 6x9 folder

that I got recently. The lens is an impressive-looking Kodak

Anastigmat f/4.5 10.5cm job on a Compur shutter. I hoped this lens

would compare to the Kodak Anastigmat f/6.3 that I have grown to love.

This lens focuses to under 1 meter (front cell focusing), so I tried

some close views that I cannot get with other cameras. While the

central region was very sharp, this lens seems to have severe dropoff

of acuity near the edge, which I attributed to the near-focusing front

cell. The black and white shots are with respooled-to-620 APX 100 in

D-76 1:1.<div></div>

An inspiring idea, John! The flattest workable steel that I had was a small screwdriver, so I revised the hole/slot idea with the thought of reaching over. With hammer, workshop vice/anvil, and mill rasp, I fashioned the following tool in about 15 minutes, and had the bellows out of the camera (mostly intact in back) within the next 5!

 

The edge will need to be hardened, and ideally the curve would be even tighter. I could not hook and pry directly, but had to catch the tabs under a corner of the tool and then pry against the side of the tool. I hope this experience report might lead to more inspiration and better tool ideas from others!<div></div>

Hi. I'm aware of at least one discussion in this forum about removing

bellows on Kodak cameras, but it involves tearing out the bellows to

get at the metal tabs holding in the back frame: <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009XKw">Replacing

No. 2 Autographic Brownie Bellows</a>.

<p>

I'm looking for a tool that would pry the tabs from the film side of

the camera body. This would allow restoration of an existing bellows,

such as for the VPK series which usually seem to be in bad shape.

<p>

Here's a photo of a paper model of a tool that I think would do the

job. The pencil-shaded edge represents the knife-edge that would wedge

the tab open as you lever the angled edge against the inside of the

frame. You would need a mirror opposite tool for reaching tabs in

both left and right corners easily. Does anything like this exist?

<p>

(I've already been stabbed by the can opener tool of my old Boy Scout

knife, which doesn't quite reach around the corner--don't try that at

home!)<div></div>

Many thanks to Mike Kovacs for providing the link that finally led me to a firm identification for my 9x12 field camera: http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/maximar/maximar.htm

The version I have is the very one pictured, which exhibits all the deltas that I was calling out earlier. Evidently the guide that came with my camera was added along the way. Instead of the camera being an Ideal, it is the Maximar B 207/7. Yay!

 

Now that that issue is out of the way, are the Recomar holders still a good candidate for the Maximar camera?

You are right, Jerry. Not much moral high ground for me to stand on. I just got set off by thoughts of the few bidders whose practices and purchase histories indicate far deeper pockets than I have. Any camera that finds a home where it can be admired by others is in a good place. I will atone by using one of my getting-dusty cameras this week.

Okay, I took the plunge and bid. If I happen to win this lot, I'll gladly offer back whatever I can't use.

Mike, the single Zeiss film holder that came with the camera is model 665/7 which can take a true 9x12 glass plate. The 665/7 is exactly 10cm wide and 15cm long, with the slide/groove running around the two sides and the end away from the velvet. The latch on the camera comes over the end of the holder when it is inserted for use.

Yes, its the double-extension bellows--I forgot to crank it out to match the manual view. The knurled knobs are slightly different, and the end of the bed is different only due to having a catch for the door release--the end is milled out in the manual picture. None of these are functionally different features--I've seen similar production variations within a model on other cameras. The bayonet mount would be a true feature difference, but this lens and board absolutely matches the book, which says nothing of a bayonet feature.

 

Model minutiae aside, does it look like this could take the offered filmholders? I have had good experience with this vendor before, so am tempted to make a bid.

Hmmm... Maximar, Recomar. Does this hint of OEM rebranding by Kodak? Perhaps we are closing in on the true heritage. Anyone have a similar original manual view of a Maximar 9x12?

Backside... last of this batch.<div></div>

Next...<div></div>

Here goes. I thought this camera had the best provenance of any of mine. The guide that came with it is for the Ideal, and the photo is virtually identical--no bayonet indicated, either in pix or the discourse (have both English and German versions). The camera came with a 12CM Z-T lens in a Compur marked for Contessa-Nettel, so not original. I found a superb Compur/Z-T matching the picture to bring the camera back to spec. I'll post the comparative perspective views followed by the back view.

 

I can see that the finder and the latch are variant--that's about it.<div></div>

Well, I'm no closer, Mike. This camera is definitely Z-I as seen by the achromat-like icon on the toe of the lens board. But the holder is slide style--see the keeping latch on the top right. The common Suydam 120 adapter fully fits it, although tightly. I have a low-end wood-bodied model with a Voigtlander lens ("Photo Porst" is the only name on the body) that seems to be the same style and size, but the back parts have minor size differences that discourage trying to interchange the holders or ground glass. I've read before about these interchange issues among slide-style holders.

I think a native English reader would understand my last sentence, but I think it is still confusing. Let me try changing the structure:

 

There are many collectors on eBay who do not interact with other users ("other users" being like readers of this list or the owner of this public collection in Thailand, as you reminded me).