riccardo_mottola

apart from aging of the contacts and solderings often due to moisture and drops,

Impurities in the crystal may lead to a partial death: the cell still works but becomes

imprecise. If someone knows how to repair them...

I Have a very nice gossen sixtomat which gets more and more inaccurate the more

light there is. I have also a semi-dead Leicameter, but that one shows discoloration of

the cell... even if it was kept in a dry place in its original package for years.

the shutter-lens assembly. I Think I pretty decently restored the IBSOR shutter,

although I have yet to test it. Who manufactured IBSOR?<div></div>

I have a folder whici I am not able to identify, I'd like to know the manufacturer, the model and the

age of the camera.<br>

I was not able to find any marking on the camera except on the lens. The lens-shutter assebly is

pretty standard for the thirties I think: a screw-in lens-shutter: the shutter being an IBSOR and the

lens a Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat München, 1:4.5 f=10.5cm. Focus with a lever that moves the

front plate, with botha wireframe finder and a tiny reflex finder.<br>

The folder and camera leather are of bluish color, not so common.<br>

The whole front assembly looks to me pretty similar to some Nagel camera (the front, rimmed

screws of which one is missing).<div></div>

Opening is pretty easy: the only trouble is the shutter speed screw: it is right-handed and needs a special tool. Even then beware: the aluminum is easy to ruin.<br>

Once the camera is open you will find a nice surprise: the quality is high. Gears and axes are well done. The body is die-cast and well machined. The savings were done in a trimmed design and trimmed feature set. The mechanism itself is simple and thus also slightly more difficult to reassemble correctly, but it is well executed.

Good work, Gene!<p>

Rollfeiflexes have something unique in them... a bit like Leicas. They have deficiencies quirks, but they are just a pleasure to use.<br>

I remember with a smile the pictures I took in Boston when I visited my Aunt in <a href="http://carduus.chanet.de/astra/human_works/boston/index.html">Boston</a>. They are still striking in quality. Given the long flight over the big pond I needed a small camera to carry in my hand luggage and keep ready on my big solo strolls around the Metropole. What better thant he 1959 camera of the Grand-Uncle ?

If you want to really work in Black&White you should use bw film. Why take the hassle of "woriking in channels"? Leave that to people who use CCDs, in black and white you can obtain everything by using filters at the time of the exposure. Advantages:<br>

- real black and white look and way of capturing the image<br>

- excellent archival capabilities<br>

- excellent dynamic range, especially in the highlights<br>

- great choice in different material with different charactersitics, to tune your "sensor" to the real need<br>

- possiblity of getting a hand-made real bw print made at any time<br>

In my experience my Canon 9950F scans very well bw film and it seems to show higher resolution than on color film. I haven't yet made a print out of a bw 6x6 scan, so I speak just of monitor inspection.

<p>

You can always use color-coupled bw films, like CN400 or XP2. These process handily in c41 and supposedly they scan well, didn't try. They exhibit very high resolution with a structure of a color negative film. But they also last like one. The drawback is that filtes have no effect and you can't cheat in Photoshop either. But the results I have seen in portraits are very balanced.

I acquired the 9950F since I was appealed by its versatility that matches my film equipment I use.

Overall I am pretty satisfied with the product and I didn't experience some horror stories listed in

this forum. I have however some troubles and I did not find good answers on the forum.<br>

I work on machintosh, with a good CRT which is calibrated with 1.8 gamma, that is standard

macintosh. I use preferrably scangear in expert mode since it works rpetty well and recognises the

various film holders, Silverscan furthermore has torubles scanning at 4800 dpi, where it introduces

noticeable banding and artefacts which do not appear in scangear.

<p>

Scans are way too dark. I need to act on the gamma setting by often 0.3 or even 0.4 to get a

decent result. I compared to labscan and a general appearance against a traditional print. This is

very noticeable with slides, where the result is almost unusable, but with negatives and prints it

exists too. This is true when using the recommented color calibration, with or without auto tone

and by using color matching by profiles. Auto tone may be correct with some pictures, but I speak

on average on several dozens scans I made. I verified this also when scanning just the Kodak

greyscale ruler, where the last zones merge hopelessly if I don't correct the gamma (checked also

using the value inspector, it is not my monitor). It looks almost as if it would ignore that I work on

a mac and use a 2.2 gamma, which, still, would result dark but not so extreme.

<p>

The scanner seems to have a magenta biasing when scanning slides (and a greenish cast when

using negatives). I read that it happens to others too. I have difficulties correcting this in scangear.

When scanning high-quality, brilliant velvia slides of outdoor lanscapes I am unable to get vibrant

greens as the original has (and compared to some cheap scans I had done at my local lab too).

<p>

The best solution I suppose would be to have better profiles for the scanner. I currently see in the

options the canoscan negative/positive/slide and the kodak photocd profiles. Someone has maybe

better profiles specific for this scanner? Or in any case other profiles to try? How could I generate

these profiles?

First of all compliments: you bought the best camera ever made... I love many

cameras, but if I had to choose just one, it would be this one.

As a long time sl66 owner... (generational since my grand father) I tell you have a

problem. Maybe it is a small one, I can't tell.

You can remove backs, put them back, change times before or after cocking... that is

not really the problem. The only real reccomendation is to always complete the

cocking cycle: wind forwards, wind backwards. This is like the TLR. Once you learn it,

you will learn it so deep that cameras which don't wind back seem broken ;) This is

not a Hasselblad. Rolleiflexes just work: but they are german, you need to listen to

them. THat is, it has interocking (notice the small tab on the back of the camera). It is

a lock so that you can't insert the back when the camera is not cocked. The same

goes with inserting slides. You can't mount a back which has no slide, etc etc. The

only way to loose an exposure is if you have the camera uncocked and load a film

without removing the back. If you notice that, depress the small tab for the double-

exposure. Still, one last thing to check: the camera has mirror pre-release. It is the

slider near the wind lever. It is not a permanent one though: it prereleases, but afer

the exposure the mirror springs back. Double check it though, sometimes it can

remain half-way if the camera is dirty (read as didn't see a REAL CLA since years...)

Hi Aaron,

I did not do the work of adapting the nikkor 40mm to the SL66. As far as I know, the work was done by using the bayonet mount of a macro ring and mounting it on the collar of the nikkor. The work is clean, infinite focuses accurately. If you think, there is not much else to do, since the automatic diaphgram is not coupled and luckily the nikkor translates to a "manual" lens. The quality is nice, I never used the rare 40mm distagon, but the quality compared to my 50mm is good. Shots done side-by-side on the same film... I cannot tell them apart in landscapes where I don't have "references" to check if it was a 40 or a 50mm.<br>

You should get the lens for a pretty low price anyway. I don't have a shade or filters for it, but if yo uneed I can check the type or send you a picture of it. I have done landscape photography at high altitude without filter and I have experienced good contrast even when using color. Check:

<a href="http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/24772661/">landscape</a>

I wasn't on the negative able to tell if I did the shot with the 40 or 50... I used them both and didn't take a note.

I agree with others that it is not fungus. I woud consider the lens dead and open for

disassembly and also further delay diagnosis until you have the piece in your hand.

Open it. I had a lens that looked like fungus (inluding the "spider web" like traces) and

when I opened it was OIL, oil that migrated from the grease and covered the whole

element. A good clean with esane, alcholol an at last lens cleaning fluid recovered the

lens and left the coating intact.

If it is separation you might try the heat trick, or find a cheap repairman.

I was never a fan of neither t-max nor delta.<br>

Not only I'm not totally satisfied by their apeparance, but I have terrible experience in fixing them too!

I used APX 100 over everything, but now since it is no longer an option I use Acros 100. I have optained good results with it and Rodinal, but even better resulsts with the wonderful Ornano gradual ST20 developer. The Acros seems to have the good qualities of resolution and greyshades while preserving some of that nice "classic bw film look" (is it Tgrain at all? don't seems so). I did architecture shots in MF with the APX100 and with Acros of the same scene, with the same Rodinal developer by changing backs. Printed on the same paper the resulsts were hardly to tell apart.

<br>

Thus while now the Acros is my standard film instead of APX100, by getting better ind evelopment and using the fine Gradual ST20 I try to extend the film choice: I rediscovered the excellent FP4 which was a bit too grainy in rodinal 1+25 but yields now very fine 24x30 enlargments for me.

<br> try the Adox / Ekfe 25 ASA film or the excellent Ilford PANF 50. Decent subsitutes for the complaint APX 25.

<p>

Thus I would conclude that while I agree that having a "standard film for every task" is fine, by matching film+developer you considerably broaden your horizons and possibilities.

I have always obtained excellent results with my Distagon 50mm f4 (non HFT). Enlargments are sharp and detailed. Perfectly comparable to the results my father gets with his Zenzanon lenses for 6x7 on the GS-1. True, sometimes I have observed soft corners both by me and him, but only in particular situations and have not studied the matter more.

<br>

I have then a Nikkor 40mm for Bronica adapted to SL66 mount. Diaphgram is not automatic, but works fine. I use it only for architecture or landspace work anyway. The original 40mm lens is taunted good (I spoke with a professional photographer who used it) but the original price was overkill and I have never seen one used.

<BR>

The SL66 had originally a series of compur shutter lenses and adapters to use view camera lenses. If you find one you could use the Schneider Super Angulon for 6x9 which has a wide illumination field and would probnably help you, I have it used with slight degradation even on 9x12! Granted, you need to stop it down and the full aperture is still dim.

I have a Praktica nova and I need to peek inside (the wind lever doesn't return anymore after

loading and sometimes the cocking isn't complete even f the lever turned all the way). It has the

old-style time settings wheel, with the double settings for slow and fast times.

<p>

As a side note: is it normal that the second curtain is bumped vertically, as if it rests on a cylinder

with a too small diameter? I wonder wether the previous owner left the camera half-cocked or it is

just a design problem.

Hah, I didn't get arrested when I tried to photograph i n a railway station here in italy,

but I got escorted py the railway police, got fined.. and they just dropped me with

menaceds that the next time it would have been harder. And I was just takign

pictures of an old steam engine rotting there... and it wasn't under ceaucescu, but

pretty recently here, 2000 or so.

I don't know amongst american people, but my grand-grand-father (thus an italian

civilian journalist) had a Leica. Standard Elmar 5cm and possibly a 9cm Elmar too.

<p>

If you look at the excellent german fil 'Das Boot' one of the submarine men takes

clearly pictures with a Leica. Given the low-light condition he probably had a faster

lens, possibly a Xenar or a Summar. Some fast Hektor lenses existed too.

Some rare, rare germans (but I believe only military related) had special Zeiss

sonnars, coated, made for Leica screw mount on government contract, not available

for general sale.

<p>

TLR cameras were pretty popular among reporters in Europe so probably those were

used as well.