stephen t

<p>Gayana, trust me, you are not the first! Nor will you be the last. It's a good thing this forum exists so we can help each other. </p> <p>Some folks that still use view cameras carry a detailed check list with them - I may start doing the same! Would save at least one sheet of film per shoot on average.</p>

<p>I second the recommendation to check the sold prices on eBay. Also KEH.</p>

<p>Chris.....thanks! I'll give that a try. I was going to ask why the friction ring for your tank was on the funnel - then I figured out that it is probably so you can find it when the lights are out!!</p>

<p>Dave, thanks. Not being familiar with the SQ, thanks to Mike Butkus I now have a manual for one and have compared the backs with the ETR. What you say makes a lot of sense. <br> I'm going in the darkroom, going to remove the loaded film from the ETRS, place the film holder in my darkbox, and do some more work on adding light seals. I'll let you know how it works out.</p>

<p>The more I look at that, the more I begin to suspect that the film wasn't wound tightly enough on the takeup spool, and when removed, got fogged?? I always, mostly, usually check the tightness after loading. </p>

<p>(figured out how to attach an image to the post - duh)</p>

<p>Jeff, I wondered about that myself. When the button is pushed, the mirror goes up and remains there until the film advance/cocking wheel is turned. It isn't hanging up on the way, so I pretty much eliminated that possibility. It doesn't seem to be slow, and it seems as though the mirror up and shutter release are timed properly - I see a full image circle through the body when releasing the shutter at all speeds.</p><div></div>

<p>Hey all. I've got a ETRS with the old model (one latch) film back. I've attached a low resolution image (scanned with film strips in a Print File sheet and the file size substantially reduced, but the "leak" is quite noticable in the image).<br> I can't recall anything "strange" happening the other day, except perhaps that there were no mosquitoes in the swamp.<br> The film was developed in a Paterson 4 tank and the film was loaded on a Paterson plastic reel. It came out of the tank and off the reel just fine, so it can't be a developing issue. The reel was loaded in the darkroom with no stray light.<br> The first image on the roll, thus the one most shielded from extraneous light, I suppose (the upper right one on the scan) has no issue. The third from the bottom left has no issue. All the others have that strange band. Two different lenses were used, 75mm and 150mm, so it shouldn't be a lens/shutter issue.<br> Watching the action of the mirror with the lens and back removed indicate proper operation.<br> The film wasn't subjected to any unusual conditions that I can remember.<br> I checked the larger seals on the film back and they appear OK. I went ahead tonight and added wool thread along the sides of the channels on the back.<br> Anybody have any ideas what may have caused this?? (This is my first time uploading an image in a post - I followed the FAQ re: uploading to my "gallery." If there is another way that I should use, I will welcome suggestions).</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17989567</p>

<p>James, I gave your method a try. Works great! Thanks!</p>

<p>I've always loaded 35mm film as well as 120 with the emulsion towards the interior of the reel. That seems to be the most natural way considering the natural curl of the film.<br> Winding the Paterson's rotating feed reels, I load from the leader side after cutting the leader square, AND after rounding the corners just a bit. I begin the feed in daylight, the finish is with lights off.<br> I find it MUCH easier to wind 120 onto metal reels - I'm still trying to figure out the best way to load the Patersons with 120 - they are hard for me to start in the dark.</p>

<p>Is the multiple exposure lever on the film back engaged?</p>

<p>I haven't used my 'blads in a while, but you may need film in the back if the back is attached and you haven't made provision for multiple exposures. If that is the case, there may be some "small print" in the manual that describes that requirement. I'll be watching the thread to see if someone else can shed some light on the issue.</p>

<p>I think that when the back is attached, it needs film in order to allow the shutter to fire if not in multiple exposure mode. The backs communicate mechanically with the body. I don't believe you have a problem. I haven't used my RB/RZ in a few months (been using my Bronicas and view cameras), but I do remember the same issue. The Bronica has a similar requirement with the multiple exposure switch being required if no film is actually in the back. One of the "fail-safe" mechanisms, i believe.<br> You've got a great rig - enjoy!</p>

<p>I use an incident light meter with all my 1.35V camera bodies. Once you learn to use one, you'll wonder why you didn't start using one earlier. Even with my "modern" bodies, I still carry an incident meter if practical. Besides, it's another fun "gadget."</p>

<p>Thankfully, I never had to take advantage of any of my Nikon warranties, nor Canon's. I use both systems regularly in addition to my medium and large format cameras. <br> Canon was named originally after the Buddhist Goddess of Mercy. Wouldn't hurt to spread some of that around nowadays, would it?</p>

<p>Has anyone abandoned Nikon USA and gone straight to the headquarters in Japan, or tried Nikon in Europe?</p>

<p>Peter, what are you going to use for the ground glass? A piece of acid etched glass used on picture frames? I may need to know that in the future.</p>

<p>I would remove the lens and the back, make whatever adjustments you need to so you can fire the body (multiple exposure switch perhaps - not familiar with that particular model). Watch what happens with the mirror operation. Using the waist level finder for now.<br> If the mirror mechanism is sticking, you CAN lube it sparingly with, and I do mean ONLY with, NYOIL. A web search will take you to the subsidiary that sells it in small quantities. It is used by watch and camera repairmen....oops, repairpeople. NOT the synthetic blend, but only the refined mineral oil one. Apply it with a TOOTHPICK, not a dropper. Put the smallest amount on a toothpick, and touch the pick to the spot. The toothpick should look almost dry.<br> Has worked for me. Best to gather up several more opinions before delving into the project - a lot of very knowledgeable folks on this forum.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Peter, yes they are. I quit using regular chargers a few years ago because I got tired of buying new batteries because they had been boiled dry, undercharged, overcharged, and just killed. I resisted getting smart chargers because of the almost double or triple the price, but now have at least a half dozen of them and haven't had to buy a new battery for a while. <br> With a 5AH battery, you really don't want to put more than a 500ma charger on it.</p>

<p>You may want to consider a Battery Tender, or equivalent, NOT a run of the mill trickle charger, AKA "battery killer." A 4 stage smart charger would be my choice, and yes, a smart charger always online when the battery is not being used. A 500ma would be sufficient, nothing larger, in my opinion.</p>

<p>It sounds like the lens release button isn't retracting the locking pin. I've experienced the twisting that Tim refers to, but slight movements either direction of the lens while pushing the release button has worked.</p>

<p>Sounds like you need a glass negative carrier, with anti-newton glass. I can't remember who makes them, but they are out there. Not inexpensive, but some swear by them.</p>

<p>Are you using distilled or de-ionized water for mixing the developer?</p>

<p>3 seconds, very old Core2Duo machine, home built, 4GB slow RAM, onboard video, running Ubuntu 14.10 and opening the file in Chromium browser.</p>