willscarlett

I was gifted a Vitessa that belonged to the father of one of my parents’ friends. It looks as if the beam splitter needs to be re-silvered, as when I look through the rangefinder, there are no images that need to be lined up in order to focus. Is there anyone out there that does this type of work, or services the Vitessa in general?

I have a Fuji GSW690II with a broken winding mechanism. I took it to Nippon in NYC, but they can’t repair it because there are no parts available. Just wondering if anyone else has any leads in getting this repaired.

Thanks! 

Thanks for the info. I'm familiar with Butkus, but am not going to attempt repairing this myself. I sent an email to Dan Daniel and am waiting to hear back. I also contacted Nippon Photo Clinic in NYC, but they don't repair Kodak cameras. Even for cameras like Pentax and Bronica, they said parts aren't available, so repairs may or may not be possible.

I'm wondering if anyone is able to repair, or know someone who can repair a Kodak Medalist II. Mine is having an issue where it does not advance properly. After I take a shot, it does not always properly stop advancing at the next frame and will continue advancing. If you keep winding, it'll continue to the end of the roll.

 

Thanks in advance!

Hey Bill, and thanks for your response. I still use your Rodinal recipe to develop the 80S (1:150, semi-stand for 45 minutes). It's a shame that the film is presenting so many issues, since the grain, tonality, and sharpness in Rodinal are truly outstanding. There are a lot of posts in Flickr and other photo sites about these same issues, and the inconsistent quality of Rollei films in general. I shot another roll of 80S last month and I'll use distilled water to see if it makes a difference. I'll do the same with the Superpan 200 and see if it helps. If not, it may be time to excise these films from my lineup.

I'm having issues with select Rollei films, mainly their Retro 80S, RPX 25, and ATP DC, all in 120mm. What's going on is the well-known issue of water and minerals within the water reacting with the film and causing those awful black dots. I ran into this once many years ago with a roll of ATP DC and was told to use demineralized water to solve the issue.

 

That was probably 10 years ago, and since then, I've developed countless rolls of film without an issue, including rolls of RPX 25. I also shot more ATP DC, but switched to developing it with tap water and Rodinal and had no issues. However, I recently developed several rolls of Retro 80S, just using tap water (we have a water softener installed), but when I scanned them, they all had the black dots, which are most noticeable in the sky. What is also interesting is that the marks get worse if I use darker filtration. For example, if I use no filter, the marks aren't awful and you probably wouldn't even notice them if I didn't point them out. But if I switch to a yellow, orange, red, or infrared filter, the marks become much worse and much more noticeable. The darker the filter gets, the worse the black dots become.

 

So, I had this issue with Retro 80S and then had some ATP DC to develop. I didn't want a repeat of the Retro 80S, so I went to the grocery and bought distilled water. I know it's not the same as demineralized water or deionized water, but suffice to say that the result was the same with the black dots.

 

Regarding the RPX 25, I've never had an issue with that film before, but now it is also giving me the black dots. What's also interesting is that - with all of these films - the issue seems to persist regardless of the developer. I was doing a bit of a film test, so I developed the rolls in Rodinal, HC110, Rollei RLC, Rollei RLS, Rollei ATP DC, 510-Pyro, Ilford DDX, etc.

 

Another point of contention with some of these Rollei films - definitely Retro 80S and ATP DC, but not sure offhand about RPX 25 - is that parts of the backing paper, whether the frame numbers or the circles, are burning through and becoming imprinted on the film itself, and is visible in the scans.

 

It is worth mentioning that I have not had any of these issues with Rollei IR400.

 

So, I'm trying to determine if I should get some true demineralized water and give that a shot, or just abandon these films altogether. Let me also give some more info about my developing process to see if there's anything I could be doing better.

 

First, on the rolls where I used distilled water, I only used that for the development stage. I went back to tap water for the stop, fixer, hypoclear, etc, because otherwise I'd just be burning through these jugs of water. Another possible issue is that some of this film was shot during the fall of 2018 and developed this past winter. I stored the film properly, but not sure if sitting around played a part. Some of the film was also shot during fall 2019 and developed over the winter.

 

I'd share some samples, but I'm not at home so, so I'll add those in later. I shot some Superpan 200 last weekend, but haven't developed that yet, so I can't say if those rolls will also be affected.

I believe I just have the Kodak concentrate that you mix up by adding 1 mL to 200 mL of water. Maybe too much air got in, maybe it's the plastic bottle, or maybe it's the water.

I too have used bottles over a long period of time (5+ years) without any issues. What are you mixing it with? Maybe it is your water supply rather than the PhotoFlo.

It may be the water supply. We have a water softener in the house, but I just developed a bunch of Rollei Retro 80S, and all the rolls suffer from those blank dots, which is apparently an iron complex that is formed when there are too many minerals in the water. I ran into that issue once many years ago with Rollei ATP, and the workaround is to use distilled water. I also recently did shoot some ATP and used distilled water, but have yet to scan it, so I'm not sure if those rolls have the black dots as well. But, this is the topic for a future post.

I may be answering my own question here, but I'm wondering if photo flo expires. I've been processing at home since 2010 and still have the same bottle that I opened on day 1. However, for a while, there have been drying marks on my film, even tho I've been using photo flo. So, I bought a new bottle and the one roll I've developed since then has no drying marks.

I'm looking for a little clarification regarding the processing instructions for CMS 20 II with Adotech IV. After translating from German, I'm a little confused about the agitation scheme. I'll link the PDF below, but on the third page, the fifth column on the chart "Kipprythmus (die ersten 30 Sek permanent)" - my understanding is that it says you invert for the first 30 seconds, and then looking down into the column, once or twice per minute, depending on how you rated the film.

 

However, scroll down to the fourth page and look under the "Kipprhythmus" header for more inversion info. It says to move your developing tank in the form of an 8 for the first 30 seconds, then move it in the shape of an 8 once every 30 seconds after that. After that, it says Adox recommends the "tilt development method" which achieves the best results.

 

So, ok - agitation scheme... for the first 30 seconds and then once or twice per minute, depending on exposure, or for the first 30 seconds and then once every 30 seconds after that? As for the agitation pattern... tilt development, or this figure 8?

 

Having said all that, I did develop a roll of CMS 20 II tonight that I rated at ISO 6. Followed the Adotech IV instructions and didn't do a prewash, used a 1:14 dilution and kept the developer at 20ºC. Did a very gentle tilt agitation for the first 30 seconds, then once per minute after that. The data sheets says 10.5 to 11 minutes, I did 10:45. One minute in the stop bath, one minute in the fixer, four minutes permawash, 5 minutes in the wash and 30 seconds in photo flo. The negs look great - definitely one of the better rolls of CMS 20 II that I've seen come out of using Adotech. The contrast is much more controlled and the negatives look like a standard roll of film.

 

So, even tho the negs look good, I'm still curious as to what Adox recommends.

 

Thanks!

 

https://www.fotoimpex.com/shop/images/products/media/62175_4_PDF-Datenblatt.pdf

I’m wondering if anyone knows a skilled leather craftsman. I have a Leica IIIf with the original case. I recently had the camera restored, and while the case is in decent shape for being at least 62 years old, some of the stitching needs to be redone. Specifically, the part of the case that holds the lens has completely detached.

 

Thanks in advance!

Canon 50mm f/0.95, sorry for the confusion!

I’m wondering if anyone knows if the Canon Dream lens is available for rent anywhere. I’m just curious to try it, for better or for worse. I’d be using it on an a7R III, so I’d be looking for one that’s been modified to Sony E, or Leica M with the proper adapter

This being the case, I'd opt for a late 90mm Elmarit-M f/2.8 (the one with the built-in shade). The 90mm Apo Asph is perfection - very sharp, but very expensive. In either case plan to use a diffuser filter for portraits. I'd pass on the Summarit(s).

 

My personal 90 is currently a CV Apo-Lathar with a screw-to-M adapter. It's plenty good enough for a ~2% use lens.

 

Thanks for the input. Bill!

This image should give you an idea of what the framelines look like for various focal lengths:

 

http://www.studio-plus.fr/images/NOUVELLESIMAGES/leica m6 viseur cadres.jpg

 

The viewfinder magnification (e.g. 0.72) is fixed for a specific camera. I think the Monochrom has a 0.68 finder, so the middle column (0.72) will be close enough to show you how the various framelines will appear with that camera. Framelines are displayed in pairs, so the 90mm framelines are the inner set in the bottom centre panel - a pretty small 'window' to compose in, which may take a bit of getting used to for photographers familiar with SLRs or EVFs.

 

Thanks for that frame guide. It's good to see this beforehand! Looks like when I put my D800 into DX mode.

Thanks to all for the replies! I should've been a little more clear in my post - I'm not necessarily looking for a lens exclusively for portraits, but one with a longer focal length, which could be used for some portraiture if I wanted. Yes, I do agree that 75mm is a bit close to 50mm. Even when I'm shooting with my D800, I generally don't carry anything longer than 85mm, unless I go out with a specific purpose in which I know I'll need that type of lens.

 

Anyways, these are all good tips and I'll probably ending up going with some type of a 90mm. Thanks again to all!

I realize this is a subjective question, but I’m wondering which is a more appropriate portrait lens for Leica - the 75mm or 90mm. I typically use an 85mm with my DSLR sand mirrorless systems. I’m pondering renting the Leica Monochrom and would only pick one, if I elected to rent a longer lens. A friend also told me that the frame guides get smaller as the focal length increases. I don’t know if that’s true, but basically 75mm would give a larger frame guide than 90mm. I’m looking at the APO lenses and from what I’ve read they’re both very good, with the 90mm having more aperture blades.

 

Thank you!

Hey Ed, Bill beat me to it, but I was going to say something similar. Jay had meant that as a starting time for films on which there is no info on 510. Try and roll and make adjustments from there, just don't put anything too precious on the roll, just in case :)

 

Bill - how do you like Obsidian Aqua?

? PMK PYRO Film Development Chart

 

Hi JDM,

 

Thanks for your input, granted I don't have PMK Pyro, but will certainly bookmark this page for the future!

 

John-Paul

I forgot this bit. This picture is with 100 Tmax & 510 but the only difference from Plus-X would be grain. . both films behave the same in 510. In fact, all my films get the 16-19 minute developing with 510. [ATTACH=full]1260132[/ATTACH] Camera was a 6x9 folder on a Husky V tripod. . wind is horrid on the open areas of Washington's wheat belt. Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

Thanks for your input. I'll definitely give that a whirl. I also asked Jay De Fehr what he recommended and while he didn't have a specific time for Plus-X, he suggested trying a what's he's deemed to be a good starting point for almost any film in 510-Pyro - 1:300, 70F, 15 minutes with one minute initial agitation and 10 seconds every 3 minutes thereafter.

 

Nice photo too!

 

John-Paul

I was wondering if anyone has a development time for Plus-X in 510-Pyro. I found a time on darkroom-solutions.com that says ISO 125, 1+100, 70°F, 5 minutes. 5 minutes seems a tad short

 

Thank you!

I'm trying to decide between the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II or Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for some wide angle, low light work I'm going to do. Normally I'd just use my Nikon D800 and the Nikon 24 f/1.4, but I have access to a Canon 5DS R. I've done some looking around online and it's no surprise that some prefer the Canon and some prefer the Sigma.

 

I'm asking for advice here because with my D800, I shot the Nikon 24 f/1.4 side by side with the Sigma 24 f/1.4. Aside from the fact that the Sigma needed a fine tuning adjustment of either + or - 10, I found the Nikon to be the sharper lens, especially wide open. I"m not sure if I had a bad copy of the Sigma, or if it just needed to be calibrated with the dock. On the flip side, I once tested the Sigma 35 1.4 side by side with the Nikon 35 1.4 and found the Sigma copy to be better.

 

Anyways, back to Canon vs. Sigma. Does the Sigma show improvements over the older design of the Canon? Back in 2008, I used the first version of the Canon 24 1.4 and found it to be a great lens. I guess I could always rent both lenses, but would prefer to stick with one.

<p>You should also consider Ilford DD-X</p>

<p>Once the sun went away, pretty smooth</p><div></div>

<p>Murray, I've shot one roll of Rollei Retro 80S. I rated the film at 80 and developed it for 7 minutes in Rodinal 1:50 at 20°C. I found that using the method, highlights were a bit harsh, but in shadowless lighting, it was quite nice. I'll post two examples... </p><div></div>