gordon_ian_stalker

<p>I got a Spotmatic with a Nato stock number on the bottom, and an arrow which I am told denotes Army. All I can find out aout the number says that the 99 in the middle means "british".<br>

I recently put it up for sale on eBay, as a "military issue" camera, and some (Expletive deleted) has been mailing me with a sensless tirade along the lines, of can't possibly be military issue, cos there is not scuh thing as a military issue spotmatic! And then goes not to say that the arrow denotes Army, but it would have been actually issued (?) to a some "gay" (!) civil servant in the MoD!<br>

Of course he signs himself as Ex MoD employee. So that means, he's a civil servant right! And therefore by his own reasoning......<br>

By his recokning if it had been issued to a soldier it would have been smashed to bits. (Why? Wouldn't that have got the soldier into hot water?) Or missing in action. (Stolen?)<br>

Er, what action. Early 70's here. Maybe a bit of light skirmishing!<br>

Besides who said it was issued to a squaddie? The photographer, would I think not hold the rank of private, though possibly corporal, and would not I think be expected to take the camera into action in any case!<br>

I do know that the navy in the UK issued these for use by various persons, for various purposes. (Forces newspaper photographs.) And I knew one bloke who was the ship's photographer. (Who lost one obverboard, and spent the next few weeks "in the brig" without pay.)<br>

Mind his main objection seems to be that I' asking far too much, (Ok I priced it high but the 'military' ones' are a bit special!) and that it is grossly misdescribed. (Er, where how?)<br>

Besides, no one is twisitng his arm!<br>

Any how, does anyone know how to decipher the nato stock number, and how can I tell if it was army or navy.? Anyone?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Drew. <em>As a last resort</em> remove the lens mount-ring from the camera. <br>

Take great care with any contacts etc. These have tiny springs behind them. Easily lost or bent!<br>

Remove each of the six screws gradually working around the mount. You may find that the adapter can be freed just by loosening these screws a little. But whatever you do, do not force anything.<br>

If this sounds a little scary, you may have to take it to a professional repair shop.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Pentax original is just fab. I have two, and I'm always on the lookout for more. (I'm not just greedy, I sell cameras, and people are always looking for these.)<br />The reason I have two is that I have one in my old 35mm kit, and one stays with my new digital. (It saves faffing around.) One of those I have used for years.<br>

You can often find them on eBay. (Please don't bid on any today I've got bids running!) A maximum bid of $10 including shipping should secure one. Sometimes they go for more, sometimes for a lot less. (Sometimes you get only one appearing, just when a lot of new eBay members are looking for one, and a bidding war follows.)<br>

The genuine Pentax article is bright plated brass, just like the camera mount itself and fits perfectly flush. Even though it would have been packed with a removal tool, you can easily unhook the spring tab with a thumbnail, and I have never had a problem with jamming on any K mount body. (I have tried them on a great many!)<br>

Most of the alternatives I have seen are aluminium, and the quality of the allow varies greatly.<br>

Most aluminium alloys are soft and 'grabby'. They have a tendancy to stick, and it is easy to shave a great lump of swarf off. Not something you want falling in your camera! This also means that the screw threads are easily damaged, and if a lens jams in the mount you can't get it off the camera.<br />(This can be pretty severe! I have seen lenses jammed in a K mount before. On a 35mm locking the shutter open can often let you get to the cause of the jam, but otherwise you need to dismantle the lens. If you can't unjam it, you need to drill through the back of the lens to reveal the screws that secure tha mounting ring to the camera. You cannot remove the mount with the lens fitted. Some lenses can't be dismantled when mounted, and then it's a hacksaw job! )<br>

Also, some do not properly register the lens. Instead of sitting flush with the camera mount, they have a flange which forms a lip, and has a groove to engage the lens lock. (Just like a K mount lens has.) This meand that the lens will no longer focus at infinity, so not a <em>lot</em> of good. (The only reaon I can think as to why, is that the designer is aware of sloppy manufacturing tolerances which might mean that the spring tab solution would jam!)<br>

The genuine item can be easily identified by the following.<br>

1. It's very shiny!<br>

2. It's slim. (No flange.)<br>

3. Lettering on the front.<br>

4. there are two distinctive rectangular notches on the outside of the ring.<br>

<br />If you look on eBay note also the following.....<br>

It will not come from Hong Kong. The chinese government does not permit the import of cameras. Lenses yes. Cameras no. So any from China will <em>not</em> be genuine!<br>

<br />The seller will not have several identical items for sale under different titles. (Ebay this week banned duplicate listings for goods sold at a fixed price. This means that some unscrupulous sellers are resorting the practice of modifying titles in order to spam search results. It's agains ebay's rules, and you have to ask yourself how many other rules are they wiling to break!)</p>

<p>Also, if you are in the US, you will find that you will find the best bargains from UK sellers right now. The £UK is much lower compared with the $US than even three months ago. This time last year 1$ got you 56pence, now it gets you almost 80pence. Just over 20% more.<br />The shipping to the US is likewise cheap. These weigh very little.</p>

<p> </p>

First gelatin is already well below it's freezing point. You are goin to run into trouble at the other and of the temperature scale, but daytime temperatures of 80 centigrade will probalbly have killed the photographer before the gelatin melts!

Refreezing is OK as long as moisture is excluded. You can use silica-gel as a drying agent in a ziplock bag to be sure, but to cause problems the moisture would need to penetrate to the film. With 120 rolfilm this is unlikely but 35mm might be at some slight risk.

The most risky time is just after removal of the film from the deep-freeze. That's when condensation is most likely to form on the cold surface. To completely warm through I would leave it at least 24 hours in the sealed package before developing.

The silver colour is painted over the base black paint. I would not attempt to restore the paint by removing and re-painting. Getting a modern paint to match would be somewhere between impossible, and never!

One problem here is that the crackled finish is actually the paint itself, and the exact texture is very difficult to reproduce. Even if you have the right materials, the amount of paint applied and the drying conditions have to be just right.

It also means that all the old paint would have to be removed, and that would mean taking the whole camera apart. Definitely the wrong thing to do!

I have one in my hand right now, and can state that there is no laquer layer notricellulose or otherwise, and I don't think oxidation it the cause. Mines practicaly spotless!

I would go with the household ammonia first. That will get the basic grot out if nothing else, then reach for the lighter fluid. Use a soft toothbrush, and be gentle with it.

It may take a few minutes to make any impression at all, but with a bit of luck you may find it comes off eventually. If after half an hor you have made no impression, the paint itself is probably discolored, and it's best left alone. Anything much stronger risks peeling the paint off, and is best avoided.

However given it's location it could well be simple finger-grot, which the ammonia will lift off easily. If it is it will change to a darker shade within seconds. Don't worry, that's what should happen. It's the grot braking up!

Mind it also looks like someone has stuck a band-aid over the counter window too, and left a stain there as well. One of the two should get that out at least!

Gordon

www.mypentax.com

$30 is more than reasonable for this kind of gadget.

You should not compare such things with mass-produced electronics assembled by a combintion of automated machines and low paid workers in the third world.

The hour or so it would take to assemble this gadget easily justified the price tag. In fact in real terms it is cheap.

You should rather compare this with the price of a later spotmeter costing $100's and performing much the same task.

As for the digital meters being better, I can't comment, but in general I find digital meters harder to read and interpret. As to accuracy, the means of indication has little impact on the accuracy of the reading.

I would think this device is a realistic solution to the problem, offered at a very low price.

Canon FD mount lenses usually sell for less than other lenses these days. Only owners of old Canons are interested and most of these have had it for many years and their kit-bag is more-or-less full!

$100 sounds like a good price. Iv'e got one in PK that came with some other stuff but Iv'e already got a Tamron (Which are worth more mainly because they will fit anything. The performance is supposed to be slightly better too.) and I'll be hoping for the $136 price!

Getting lenses properly cleaned and rangefinders adjusted is not a major problem. In fact well within the capability of the average handyman with care and suitable tools. (These can be made or improvised at a pinch. See www.mypentax.com for what I mean.)

The magic trick with lenses is that they should be disassembled from the shutter before attempting cleaning, and wet cleaned with 50-50 ammonia and hydrogen peroxide. Just make sure that you don't get any between elements otherwise you may have to dis-assemble the lens groups. Often the lenses used don't have a lot of elements in any case, so even that is not disastrous, but it is fiddly and best avoided.

Use distilled water to remove the cleaning mixture. The mixture itself should not leave a deposit as both will completely evaporate away but you need to wick it all off otherwise the dirt will still be left behind as it dries. (This mixture can be used to clean fungal infestations too. But use it dilute and leave it on for an hour or so to give it a chance to kill off the fungus.)

Gummy shutters often go with hazy lenses, as this can be caused by lubricant vapour condensing on the lens. This may be due to the wrong sort of lubricant, or the shutter and lens may have been allowed to get unusually warm. If the shutter is sluggish suspect a hazy lens.

As to buying from eBay, remember that there are sellers who are qualified to make a proper assesment of a cameras working condition. I know because I sell cameras on eBay, and it really does get right up my nose the way that some sellers carry-on. It makes it much more difficult to realise a proper price for the stuff I'm selling!

My advice is to ask a few telling questions of the seller. (Such as asking to describe the camera movements, and how he knows the shutter is correctly timed and consistent.) If he does not know, or cannot refer you to somewhere you can check for yourself then he probably does not have a clue!

(It is not difficult to test the shutter speed. For the higher speeds you can view a TV screen while firing the shutter. Once you know the frame and line rates for your TV standard you can make a pretty accurate estimation on speeds of 1/60 and above. I use a photodiode to measure the speed accuratley on an oscilloscope.)

Don't be taken in by power-seller status, that's relatively easy to maintain. Check the feedback for the number of mutually withdrawn feedbacks, these are often negatives.

Also bear in mind that the best sellers will pick-up a negative once in a while, so if a seller has a very high perfect feedback score with no negatives it is very likely due to feedback extortion of some sort. (They may of course be perfect!)

Warning signs are...

Not stating a postal rate.

Not accepting PayPal. (Or making conditions on paypal payments)

Asking for payment in odd currencies. For example, why would a seller in Bournemouth demand payment (or even list prices) in $US? He will pay a curency exchange fee twice for most of his transactions. Once when the buyer pays, (assuming the buyer does not pay in $US) and once when the money is paid to his bank. (I can't think of any way that would work in his advantage.)

Overly brief descriptions. (An item worth ?500 deserves more than five minutes description.)

No refund conditions. (Eg, exchange only etc.)

Returns conditions in breach of or limiting, normal trade regulations. (These sellers are professional business users. They should offer the same sales assurance as any other business.

The ebay regulations are designed to provide a minimum level of assurance, to ensure that private transactions are conducted equably. Trade sales are alos covered by local or international trade laws.

Any activity on the part of the seller which is in breach of eBay's user agreement. These include but are not limited to, deliberately listing in innapropriate categories, adding surcharges (for paypal fees etc), or other breaches. A seller willing to break these rules is much more prone to break more 'important' rules.

Sellers who 'don't know much about cameras' who seem to have quite a lot of cameras for sale are usually just a bit dodgy too. Especially if the camera is described as in good working order! (Think about it.)

Also check the feedback left for others, (Bad sellers tend to leave agressive feedback.) and read the feedback comments left.

Always, always contact the seller before making a bid. Their repsonse will tell you a lot!

Another bad sighn is a seller who has re-listed the same item time and over agian at a low price, but collects no bids. Why would that be I wonder. (I know one seller who thinks it is a sensible business practice to block buyers who raise an issue. Saves them the trouble of remembering not to shop there again! I should not say who but he has tried to sell the same Kodak 5x4 three times now for ?75. Nothing wrong with the camera as far as I can see, but quite a lot wrong with the seller I think.)

I could go on but it would take all night, but basically anything which looks odd should be taken as a possible warning sign.

Good signs are the absence of the above bad signs.

An open declaration that they are a business seller. A detailed description of their tems of sale, how to pay, and how to obtain a refund if it is necesary. (If these are on the listing then you don't need to go to eBay if you are ripped off!) Also a knowledgable reply to your questions is reassuring. (Especially if you already know the answer!)

Don't be too put off by postal rates. Legally the responsibility for the post is the sellers,and the post may have to cover insurance and packaging too. (And packaging can be surprisingly expensive.)

Ask for a breakdown of the postal cost if it seems a bit high. Often these are approximated, as the exact weight etc until after packing. If you know of cheaper postal option, then don't be afraid to mention it. The sender may be happy to know that, but there may be legitamate reasons that they can't (or don't want to) use that option.

And don't forget the golden rule:

DON'T BID UNLESS YOU ARE 100% HAPPY WITH THE SELLER.

So do consider eBay, but also excerice caution.

I for one will be very happy if you take a few minutes to report suspicious listings to eBay. Competition is one thing, but having to compete with cowboys who tarnish the overall market is quite another.

One further tip on eBay...

Hold off buying until the end of a 'glut'. Many sellers try and hang-on to items until the see that examples are selling for a good price. This can actually cause prices to increase as the supply apparently dries up. At some point a camera will get sold for a very good price, and shortly after that the sellers will try and cash in on the high price. This will only work for the first few to appear, and then the price will begin to fall to a low. If you get it right you can buy at the bottom of the cycle, and pick up a real bargain. If not you can wait for the next cycle and try again!

I would not disagree that there are a lot around, however I sell a lot of cameras on eBay myself, and often the prices exceed my expectations, with cameras of this type sometimes selling for as much as ?30!

What seems to make a difference is where the buyer is, as well as the condition. In some countries these cameras are not so common, usually because they were not marketed there. I recently sold a lens alone for ?28 (excluding postage) to an Australian address. Ok, the lens was unusually clean, and the sutter worked properly, but even so I did not expect it to make more than the minimum price.

Possibly the particular camera it was used on was not very popular, or strongly marketed in Australia at the time!

The same applies to places like Korea, where at the time that these cameras were produced, there was simply no market for them as the cost would be far in excess of the income of the average Korean, and in many countries the only people who could afford them were foreign nationals. (The British!) Now a large proportion of these countries command a highr enough income to indulge a camera collecting hobby, and to them these cameras are comparatively rare. Often the only source is via online auctions, and often the sellers will not dispatch overseas, and some models do not appear all that frequently.

When they do they are often hoplessly overpriced, or sold by casual sellers. The overseas buyer is less likely to buy from a non-expert, as the risk of buying a poor or incorrectly described example is high, and internet auction sites provide little means of redress.

So a well described item, sold by someone who clearly knows about the camera, and who has a good after-sales record can sometimes reach top-prices.

As for price guide books....

These days they are worse than useless, as they are hoplessly out of date by the time the prices have been compiled, and the book published. That applies to many collectibles, not just cameras. These books were of use when collectibles were for the most part bought and sold at conventional auctions and specialist retailers.

In general members of the public simply do not have the time or inclination to attend such auctions, or sell via them. The internet auction (and to a certain extent boot-sales) has created an easy acess market for anyone to buy and sell at their leisure, which has led to a flood of cameras (and other goods) imagined rare and valuable by their owners.

The first few to appear in internet venues do sometimes get a good price, but then people remember the one that granny left them, and decide to sell it for the cash. Overnight almost hundrds begin to appear, and the price falls to a more realistic level. Some collectors respond to this by refusing to bid for an item which has not been seen before (or at least for a long while) expecting the prices to fall as the 'market settles'.

It is easy to inagine that with so many pressures the prices can change in a chaotic and unpredicatable manner. However, the general trend for vintage cameras is downwards. There are very few cameras which are truly rare, and in collectible condition these days, and sometimes even those sell for silly prices.

Last month an aquaintance got a genuine vintage Leica at a general sales auction for a bid of ?5. There was simply no-one else there interested. (I was elsewhere!) One month later at the same auctin house, a couple of collectors turned up, and started bidding high prices for quite common cameras. So a Pentax SP500 requiring some attention sold (with fees) for ?60, (Normally ?10-?30.) while a genuinely (Certificated!) rare Leica sold for ?5 at the same venue. That's how unpredictable the prices can be!

You could use it to neutralise waste fixer, but then again most fixer is used until it's neutral anyhow. Maybe it will precipitate silver though by displacement with the sodium.

Iv'e got the stuff on my hands before, and it didn't burn me but then I made a point of washing it off in cold water until the soapy senstaion has gone, and applying hand cream. (It converts skin oils to a soap, which is the main problem with skin exposure.)

As for darkroom use, it is a component of Rodinal developer but unless you want mix-your-own or otherwise experiment with developers I would use it for the following only.

1. As a drain cleaner.

2. Oven cleaner.

3. To remove the icky goo that the coating on the soft pouch for Olympus Trip cameras turn into.

Er, that's a negatory on the granite. Try getting a lump of granite and a gieger counter in close proximity, and you will soon realise that granite is scarily radioactive!

However, this raises the question as to whether cosmic rays are the main culprit here. For example the basement may have a higher background radiation level than the attic, and a TV set will throw off enough x-rays to fag film over an externded period.

Certianly there is no point in trying to stop cosmic rays reaching your film. Some cosmic ray particles pack the same punch as a well hit tennis ball, so a little bit of lead isn't going to do much!

What is probably more important is geolocical background radiation. If that's the case I would guess the basement is not a good location for a film-storage freezer. (Especially in a granite bedrock area!)

Also, the lead pouch would need to have a wall thickness of several millimiteres to be effective. A couple of layers of roofing lead would do the trick, but it would not stop it all. Thicker, in general is better.

Some radiation will be effectivey stopped by a thickness of glass though. (I remember that we had a lump of uranium fuel rod from the local nuclear plant in a glass jar in the science prep-room at school. Don't even think about how it got there, but that was in the good old days when it was all Russians!)

However I have a question about freezing film. I have heard that it can be the cause of streaks that look like improper agitation marks. Is this so, and how? Or is this more to do with the time between taking it out of the freezer and use?

AFIK Venetian Cream contains leather restoration oils, with a huge dye loading. (Though I suspect that the dye is not truly black.) This means that it is should be good for softening old leather and perventing further cracking. The dye will help disguise any cracks that have started to appear.

Most soft leather is treated with oils when new, and so anything that replaces these is going to be fine.

You should carefully clean the belows first with a soft toothbrush moistened (and I mean moistened!) with an ammonia based cleaning agent. Make sure to wipe it clean afterwards with a damp cloth and soft towel and allow a day or so to make sur it has dried off. Removing any ingrained muck and dust will help even take-up.

Don't expect instant results. You may have to treat the bellows two or three of times over a week or two, as the oils need time to penetrate.

However, do make sure it is leather. It is possible that the original bellows was replaced at some time, and 'oilskin' bellows probably won't respond well to the treatment.

Hang-on, I think the question was does anyone know where the name 'billy' came from. Does anyone have any ideas?

I have one, based soley on the fact that it's a German camera first produced between the wars at a time when German nationalism was on the rise. That is it is short for 'Wilhelm' as in Kaiser Wilhelm.

If that is the case it is hardly surprising that the designation was not used in America, Britain, or Australia. After all no one would be expected to buy a camera celebrating name of the WWI Kaiser in any of the allied nations, nor any British colonial posessions!

This is of course speculation, but it does fit the facts!

Assuming the plate does come off! I find the best way to remove things like this is with a rubber bung and some contact adhesive. (Evo-Stik Impact is good)

Just clean the plate with alcohol, and glue the bung on. Once set pull on the bung, and the plate should come off.

It is a lot easier to detatch the bung from the plate than th eplate from the knob. It's rubber so it can be eased off without risking damage to the plate or the finish. You can use more alcohol, or maybe a little lighter fluid to clean off the remainig glue.

And for goodness sake, if it is in good condition don't mess about with the coverings. If the old one's are in really bad condition then go ahead, but ones in good condition are hard to come by.

Or maybe I should say go ahead and I'll buy-up all the unmolested ones. I could make a killing if you all muck them up an I got all the originals!

I got offered an obvious fake leica in a car boot earlier this year, but at an asking price of ?200. One way of spotting a fake Leica in a boot sale is the seller who asks hundreds of pounds for it.

If a car-boot seller really thinks the camera is a Leica they would not attempt to sell it at a car boot sale, but would contact a specialist auction, or put it on eBay even. (With a suitable reserve of course.) It is simply very unlikely that anyone would walk into a car-boot sale with that sort of money unless they were a professional dealer, and there are a few problems with that.

For one thing there are very few professional collectible camera specialists. The market is too variable. Those that there are generally do not browse the car-boot circuit. (They may have started that way as a hobby, but it is simply too much shoe-leather to be a paying option.)

Another thing is that professional dealers (of anything) tend to arrive at boot-sales almost before they open to be sure of a cance at the good stuff. If there were a genuine Leica there, and a dealer with enough experience and confidence to be certain it was genuine after a few moments examination, you can bet 100% it will be bought.

Let us not of course forget that a camera specialist is hoping to find the genine Leica for a few quid, and is not expecting to be asked a trade auction price for it. He/She will not expect to pay even low trade estimate for this. At least in an auction he/she will have had as long as they like to examine the item, without being pressured to buy by an (often surly) seller. As the item will be availabe at least the day before the actual auction, the prospective buyer has a chance to check their references and confirm that the item is genuine, or just a good fake.

Also, no one in their right mind would leave a genuine Leica on a trestle table in a crowded boot-sale. Items very often go missing without a trace!

These sort of items, should they ever appear at a boot-sale will often be offered well below 'book' price either because the seller is not convinced they are genine, or has no idea whatever that it may be more valuable than an old Zorki for instance! The camera may well be genuine though. In many cases the items boot-sales are bought at general sales auctions as part of a mixed lot. Such lot's are often not closely examined by the auctioneers, and buyers are often bidding for only part of the lot. So often the buyers are unaware that the lot even has a camera in it at all, and thus they can end up with a camera they know nothing at all about.

(They may not even care. I know one 'professional car-booter', who does very well out of it, and has almost paid his mum's mortgage off solely on car-boot profits. He does not really care if he sells a valuable item for a few pounds as long as he makes a profit. As he put's it...'If I spent the time needed to find out what these things were really worth, I would be spending more time doing that than making money.' A very sensible attitude I think!)

It may even be the case that the seller konws full well that it is a fake and tells you so, and in fact would probably make more money doing so, because good fake Leicas are themselves collectible. (Partly because of the craftsmanship involved in producing a really good fake.)

So if anyone tries to sell you a 'genuine' Leica in a car boot sale, for more than ?20-?30 it is a fake! No question about it.

Tell them to take it to a specialist auction who can value it and auction it for them. Don't bother to tell them it is a fake, or even point out how you know. No one is going to be taken in by this, and mentioning it to the seller is often enough to make the 'Leica' disappear. (Possibly they imagine that they might be running the risk of attracting the attention of an undercover fraud officer. They may not want their CD's or DVD's checked for authenticity today thanks!)

As for the land owner's profits. Take a four acre field anywhere in the UK. Charge ?8 per car for a pitch, ?12 for a van. Two acres of pitches get's you a few hundred pitches, say 300 (that's two football fields worth. Add to that 80p parking, for 500 spaces, and don't forget it is likely that each space will be parked in more than once on a typical sale day, say twice. Assuming it is all just cars, then that is 300x8 pounds from sellers or ?2400, plus another ?800 from 'visitors' or ?3400 in total. Even if you only do this once a week and only for the summer season, (call it 12 weeks) you just took ?40,000 for 26 days work. (assuming you spend all day marking the field the day before, and that you actually turn-up to collect the money yourself!)

That is not bad going at all, especially when you consider that agricultural land is often as cheap as ?2,500 per acre.

So go see your bank manager today, and borrow the money to buy several fields. (You should be able to convince the bank manager that they can lens you enough for four such fields. Pay one guy mimum wage for two days a week to mark out the field and collect the money on Sunday. Spend your Sunday's in the summer driving from one to the other to collect the money as it rolls in, and put your feet up the rest of the year.

The large camera with the bulb is undoubtedly one of the Folding Pocket Brownies, 3A. They were made in various versions from an early first model in 1903(3A model A1 I think) right through to 1924. There is a lot of confusion about the actual dates because of the model revison numbering system, which is easy to confuse with the model number.

You can still get hold of these in various states of repair, I know I just sold one on Ebay to a chap in Australia. Getting film however is a problem, and you would need to probably slit your own from stock sheet. Buying an unused roll complete in the box is likely to cost over 300 GBP. (And that's an eBay auction. So next time you are at a boot or garage sale, keep your eyes open. I'll quite happily pay you a fiver for that mate! Mind you the one you want is the wooden spooled rolls, not the later ones.)

I have no doubt however that it worked fine when I dispacthed it as the pneumatically timed shutters are very relaible, and as the glass is uncoated bloom and fungal damage is actually quite rare. (Most fungi seem to prefer something as a little more exotic than plain 'ol glass!)

The one on the picture looks very similar in fact to the one I sold, which I think was a A3 model 3-B if I remember right. (Iv'e included a picture so so you can see.)

The camera is in fact very well equipped with a range of apertures and shutter speeds, and even limited lens movements. So within the limitations of the rectilinear lens, given the large neg size, the camera would be capable of producing very acceptable images. I would be quite interested to see the results acheived.

They discontinued the film size in the 70's so it's quite possible that someone has negatives from one of these on a fairly modern film, in good condition!

Bit late, but maybe for next time. You will find Clock Tower cameras near Brighton station. It's not by the actual Clock Tower anymore, but on Church Street. Google it for the full address.

There's plenty of stuff there so it is worth a look. Though I'd appreciate it if you kept out of their scrap offerings box, I need those for spares!

I live in Brighton and as for 'must-see' attractions, well I can't think of any. You've probably seen the Pavillion etc before, and the museum. (In fact if you are walking from the station than you go past Clock Tower on the way.) There's also the Booth Museum on Dyke Rd, if you are into fossils and that sort of thing.

You should remember Brighton's main attraction tends to be carried on behind closed doors, or on the beach!

1. Not scanned from print, from neg. The cast is not uniform.

2. Scanning as monochrome leaves dark bands at the edges. The neg is lower density at edge as well as discoloured. (The discolouration is harder to see in the neg.)

I expect to get a little darkening at the corners on a 6x6 neg with this type of camera, especially noticable in shots with lots of sky, but not just along the edges.

3. Exposed edges from loose winding on the spool would not give dark bands on printing, but light ones surely? (Iv'e seen the result of that before!) The effect is if anything worse on frames from the middle of the roll. I would expect loose winding to affect one end more than the other. (See pic for a mid-roll shot.)

4. The neg shows signs of vetrical streaking, which makes me think of insufficient agitation. Take close look at the scan and you may see than some at least of the streaks appear to line up with the fence posts. I may be imagining that, but there are definite vertical streaks in the sky.

5. Good point about bleach/fix. I have seen questions/answers about this before but in those cases the answer was inssuficent time, and the samples at least looked uniform.

The prescence of streaking and the fact thet the negs are lower density at the edges looks reminiscent of examples I've seen of poor tank agitation technique, but Iv'e never actually seen examples of this with Xp2.

I don't know if the lab actually does hand develop these, but I suspect not, and I don't know if these symptoms can be produced by a minilab!

So is this poor development, and could it have been none in a minilab?

Gordon<div></div>

Could just be due to a cassette slot leak, but I would expect that to be straight, and affect only perhaps only two frames. (I like to leave film tail-out which plugs the hole a bit.)

However, it could also be mechanical pressure ie, creased film but that would be obvious.

A third option is that the lab has loaded the film into their minilab incorrectly!

I just picked up a roll of Xp2 left in my regular independent photo dealer, and

set up for scanning. The results are far from ideal!

The images have a darker purple region (after scanning) on either side at the

film edges, and I am certain that I'm seeing vertical streaks!

Now, given that the camera is older than me (Only just! It's an old

Rolleicord.) and it's the first time of trying, I initialy thought light-leak'.

But of course that would produce bright streaks, not what I'm seeing.

I don't usually develop C41 chemistry myself, but this looks like an agitation

problem to me. However, the film used is rather old got very cheap in a boot-

sale, so I'm wondering if it could be a poblem related to it's age. I got

about 100 rolls of the stuff, so it would be nice if it wasn't!

The pic below is a scan of one of the frames. I haven't mucked it about

digitally except to reduce it to a reasonable size. There has been no colour

correction applied at the scanner so what you see is what I got!

Has anyone seen this before with old Xp2, or should I be advising my local

dealer to switch his lab!

Gordon.<div></div>

Try Clock-Tower Cameras. They will do it for ?3 too, but they say no prints!

Also the bloke in the Kodak printshop on London Rd says he can do it but I don'y know for how much.

I'm not too keen on these commercial type outlets though. Mostly the film is bunged through an automatic photolab. While these give good results if run properly, they can be operated by a chimp with a lobotomy, and often are.

I dropped 2 rolls of APS off at the one at ASDA in Holingbury a while back asking for negatives only. (Which they will do for ?1.50, and they can do it while you shop if you ask nicely.) When I went back she handed me the film. Out of the casette, undeveloped! (Duh! Mind you If you make a big enough stink they will give you ?25 for each film they mess up!)

Ahem, back to the point. If you buy your own chemicals you will find that it costs about ?1.50 per roll for colour at 35mm or 120 roll. (Provided you do them all in a batch. They don't last long once made-up.) With 110, you should be able to get away with miniscule amounts of chemicals/film, but you will probably find that you will have to do a dozen or so at once to fill-up a 16mm tank.

So, where you going to get a 16mm tank?

Try an online auction site, or Brighton Station Car Park boot sale on sundays. (Wear a red carnation so I can find you;) Mind you I go every week and Iv'e seen a couple, but not very often, and they were BIG.

Ford car boot on Saturdays is usually OK if you can get there too, but don't spend too much. White van man seems to have it in his head that all things photographic are 'rare collectibles' (There are a couple of exceptions. I know who they are though, and get there early!)

The ABS pipe thing may well work, but making sure it is going to be light tight is going to be fun. You might be better off starting with a conventional tank, and devising some sort of 'spiral' for it.

Gordon.

I get rolls exposed that long ago in used cameras all the time, and it really depends how they have been stored.

If they have been kept cool and dry you might get away with it but the results will be poor. If you have kept them properly sealed in a freezer than the results won't be too different from newly exposed film.

There is a differnce in aging with exposed and unexposed film, but I find that unexposed stuff will keep in a freezer for twenty years or more(!) and still give acceptable results. Even film not stored in a freezer or fridge will often give acceptable results.

What I tend to find with outdated unexposed film kept at room temperature, is that maybe four out of five rolls are OK for general purpose use and and the remainder vary from not so good, to absolute rubbish. (Having said that, I have bought supposedly new film which has been absolutely terrible!)

That tells me that how film ages depends on very small variations in impurities in the initial mix. This also suggests that any special processing is going to be a bit hit-and-miss.

What you can expect if you send them to 'old film' specialists is that all the films will be treated the same way based on their use by date. This will be aimed at an average aging process, which means that most of the films they process will produce an acceptable result for most folks. But it also means that film which has not aged as quickly may well not give as good a result as if it had been developed normally.

The only way to determine exactly how to develop a particular roll would be to test develop a sample and use that to estimate the changes required. It would be possible to use the header, but I'm pretty sure they don't bother!

Gordon

Ok, first check the mirror. A dark stain that moves as you move your eye, but disapears sounds like a mark or stain on the mirror.

The fact that it disapears with a lens fitted has to do with the lenses tendency to contrain the light entering the camera into a fairly well directed beam. The effect is the same as a partial obstruction just behind the lens. (Which is the the same thing really!)

That suggests that the mirror may have been disturbed, or even inexperty replaced. Check that it is properly mounted, is the right way around (ie silvered on the front!) and not actually damaged.

Next check the focusing screen is properly seated. The screen itself is kept in position with a set of small springs, and it is just possible to jar the screen out of place, or it could be the result of someone poking at it with a finger. If it is stuck in an odd position it won't focus correctly.

Use only a clean cotton bud to gently probe the screen at the corners if it does not seem to fit square on the top of the mirror cage.

The next thing to check is the lens standard/mount. The whole thing is mounted on a plate screwed to the front of the body. If the lens mount is mis-aligned badly enough you may notice an uneven gap between the back edge of the standard, and the front of the mirror cage.

The ony way to access these screws is to peel off the fake leather covering, but don't try this unless you feel confident that you can take the camera apart.

Check out www.mypentax.com where you can get an idea of what to do. There isn't actually a P30 there, but there will be one day. (It's my website, but I havent't got around to preparing the P30 page yet!) To give you a start, the first thing you need to do is remove the cover on the film winding lever. (Look at the underside of the lever.)

However, if the standard is evenly maladjusted then there isn't neccesarily a problem. As long as the mirror-screen distance is the same as the film-screen distance, whatever you see on the screen will be what goes on the film. (With the exception of any muck on the mirror & screen of course!)

As to looking at the film-plane and pressure plate etc, I don't think that has any bearing on the problem. That wouldn't show-up in the viewfinder.

What you might want to check is that the focal plane is flat, so that the top, bottom, left, and right edges are all in focus at the same time. This is fairly easy to check, all you need is a big flat surface with something to focus on, like a brick wall. You have to make sure that the camera is dead square on to the wall, (which is the trickiest part of the whole operation) then you can check that the focus at opposite corners and edges is the same.

(You might find that with some lenses that the edges and the centre are not exactly in focus at the same time. That's not uncommon. A lot of lenses sacrifice a flat field in order to improve performance in other areas. Unless you spend a lot of time taking pictures of brick walls at f1.4 it's not something you are going to notice!)

Gordon

Completely 100% genuine fake. The shuterr button is a dead givaway. In fact you really don't need to open the case. (The leather is too thick and stiff!)

There's plenty of places you can check up on, but when offered or if you see a 'Lecia' for sale it is best to assume it is fake, until proven otherwise. For every genuine Leica surviving, there are hundreds of fakes, usually worked-up from a cheap copy. (Usually russion Zorki, or Fed.) The Leica cameras were extensively copied by other manufacturers all over the world, and many were quite close so there are plenty of variations of fake leicas around, with varying degrees of accuracy.

In fact a lot of dealers get confused about this, as genuine Leicas are rare enough that they may only see one or two a year.

However, all is not lost. The fact is that good Leica fakes are themselves collectable! So it is probably worth at least twice at least the value of camera it was worked-up from!

Hi, the mirror must be front silvered. There are two reasons for this.

The first is that you will get a double image, the front surface of the mirror will reflect about 4% of anything falling on it. Ok, you may be able to ignore this, but it is likely to be a little disconcerting, and certainly won't make focusing easier.

The second is that the optical depth of the glass is not the same as the physical depth. In fact it will appear to be t/n where n is the refractive index of the glass, and t the actual thickness.

(This fact is employed as a quick method of determining the refractive index of glass, the formula is n=r/a where r is the real depth, and a is the actual depth. A microscope with a calibrated focusing scale is used with a thin sample of the glass is used, and relys on the fact that microscopes have a very small depth of field!)

The best solution is to find someone who can silver reflector telecope mirrors. There are enough amatuer telescope builders to support businesses which supply kits for grinding mirrors and usually these suppliers offer the final stage of front silvering (Aluminising actually) as a service. This usually costs less than $20 for a 3 inch mirror, and a for a few extra cents they will chemically strip the old coating. Most of these companies will re-coat a camera mirror for the price of the smallest telescope mirror they do. It should be noted that many of these companies will also deal with mirrors and prisms used in the eyepeices of these telescopes, and so flat mirrors will be within their normal breif, and can usually deal with damaged pentaprism costings too, but they may charge per surface for prisms.

You could tackle the job yourself using a silver-nitrate + ammonia process, which produces a real silver surface. However, that tarnishes quite quickly and the by-products have a tendency to react with lead plumbing to produce explosive by-products! We used to do this in the physics lab when in the sixth form, for our own telescopes. Only sixth-formers were allowed to do this as younger pipils were not considered mature enough to be trusted to properly dispose of the by products. (Like we never tried reacting the stuff with lead shot! I dare not relate what was in some of the jars in the prep-room. Let's just say we had a proper physics lab. I also recall we had a proper old-fashioned chemistry teacher too if the number of replacement windows is any measure. He really knew how to make the subject interesting!)

In addition, silver compounds are toxic, silver nitrate can cause burns, and if you can only spare an hour once a week to do the grinding and polishing, and allowing for one or two false starts, you wre usually in the sixth form before you got to the point of being able to silver the mirror.

(We had one 'old boy' who actually died of old age just after completing a sixteen inch mirror, and left it to the school in his will. The school then had to build a whole observatory dome in his honour to install the telescope. It was opened by the countries most famous female astronomer and the ceromony made the national news!)

Later at University we used a vaccum sputtering process with aluminium to produce front silvered mirrors. Even that's not difficult if you got a decent vaccum pump and a high-current source of electricity. (With the added virtue that it's less toxic, and entails a lower risk of making bathroom visits interesting!)

The big problem with doing it yourself is, it's real hard to keep dust out. A professional service will maintain a proper clean room, so this should not be a problem.

In conclusion, you would be a whole lot better off getting the mirror professionally re-coated. It is relatively inexpensive, will fix the problem without undue risk of marking the existing mirror permanently, will maintain the focal distances, and you won't risk blowing up your loo!

I don't know about US companies but in the UK http://www.galvoptics.fsnet.co.uk is one option. As most of the work is carries out mail order, and the shipping cost is basically going to the cost of packaging I'm sure that they would do the job for you.