chris_burck1

I purchased a

lens recently

which has led

me in

direction I

didn't expect.

It's an Ilex. In

barrel, later

vintage (I

think--it

"feels" '60s or

'70s vintage,

side and

black). No

diaphragm. It

is marked

simply: "6⅜”

f:4.5 ILEX

PARAGON

MADE IN

U.S.A." No

other

markings of

any kind, not

even a serial

number. The

rear lens cell

has the

numbers

164.4

scratched into

the outside

perimeter

{presumably

the back

focus). A

cursory test

on the ground

glass shows

this thing to

be *really*

sharp even at

its fixed f:4.5.

 

Anyway, I

have a copy

of their Series

S Caltar in

Acme #3, and

took a small

gamble on

this Paragon,

thinking the

cells were

almost sure

to go right

into the

Acme. Boy

was I wrong.

Turns out that

the Acme

seems to

have a

different

thread pitch

on the front,

than the rear.

The Paragon

cells are

completely

interchangeable

on the barrel,

and the rear

cell screws

right into the

shutter (and

so would the

front, if the

rear of the

shutter had

enough

depth). But

neither

Paragon cell,

nor the rear

cell of the

Caltar, will

screw into the

front of the

shutter.

 

I don't recall

ever running

into a

situation like

this before

(though, by

the same

token, I don't

know that I've

ever tried

swapping

cells around,

either), or

even seeing a

reference to

it. Certainly, I

have

observed that

some shutters

have a

different

diameter at

the front than

at the rear.

But different

thread pitch?

Is this. . .

normal?

Thanks for the replies, guys.

 

Unfortunately, I'm on mobile for the time being, which

complicates matters somewhat WRT to posting pics.

For that matter, even when on desktop, posting pics to

threads like this is sometimes challenging for me.

Perhaps I overcomplicate things.

 

I had already considered the hot/cold trick, and

discounted it on account of being too complicated given

the size and configuration of the assembly.

 

But, that said, I got the pieces separated the other day.

Just a matter of letting the penetrating oil do it's work, I

guess.

BTW, my apologies if I've posted this question to the

wrong place. But it seemed to be the closest match. . . .

I came into an old Process Velostigmat, still attached to

it's prism and in very clean condition all around. Only

problem is, I'm stumped on how to get the lens off the

mounting plate that it's screwed into (I was able to separate the mounting plate from the rest of the prism enclosure by loosening some screws). I very sparingly

applied some penetrating oil to the threads, but after 24

hrs it continues to stubbornly resist my efforts (and

trust me, I'm using plenty of elbow grease!).

 

I *could* use the lens as is. However, I had this crazy

notion of adapting the prism to my 6x9 press camera

(or possibly my 4x5), so I kinda need to get that plate

back onto the prism enclosure. Not to mention that

general handling would be easier without that thing

hanging off the end of the lens.

 

Anybody got any ideas? Is it just a matter of giving the

oil more time? Or is there something else going on

here, like maybe they used some sort of thread locker?

Any help would be appreciated.

<p>While doing some casual browsing, i ran across this item:</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Eastman-Kodak-Projection-Anastigmat-f-4-5-10-EA-384-Rochester-NY-USA-/231002649358?pt=US_Movie_Slide_Projectors&hash=item35c8d4b30e</p>

<p>It struck me as very odd that the iris would be at the extreme end like the pics appear to indicate. I wondered what people here might think? My understanding is that nearly all (if not all) Projection Anastigmats were 4/3 Tessar type constructions, but if that's what this lens is, then it's either incomplete (i.e. missing the rear glass) or a petty unusual variant of the type (which seems improbable, considering how conservative Kodak was wrt their general lens offerings).</p>

<p>Anyway, very curious to hear what people think about it. Seemed like a pretty decent price (despite the dents to the filter ring), which was what made me take a look at in the first place. . . .</p>

<p>I've been sloughing my way through the scanner learning curve, no doubt made<br>

doubly steep by the fact that I'm not able to apply myself at it on a consistent, regular<br>

basis. I have a Microtek S400 clone which does not output RAW files. So far, I've been<br>

using TIFF as the file format. Since learning that Silverfast won't work with my scanner<br>

due to its oddball clone nature, I've limited myself to the Scanwizard software that came<br>

with it (it actually seems fairly capable, but my experience is limited to this device, so what<br>

do I know. . . .), and since I don't have Photoshop or any other 'advanced' photo editor,<br>

I'm trying to learn how to adjust the scanner output to where it's at least reasonably<br>

close to what I'm looking for in the final image.</p>

<p>The question I'm wrestling with right now has to do with curves, and how to use them.<br>

Do curves in scanning have anything to do with characteristic curves? You know, with toe<br>

and shoulder? This was what I though at first, but have found the output doing unexpected<br>

things when I try to set a curve like that. Which may mean that I really don't understand<br>

characteristic curves (I probably don't), and/or that film response curves and curves adjustments<br>

in scanning, just don't translate, so to speak (looking in the archives, I've so far found only<br>

one entry where someone offers a concrete example of a curves adjustment in scanning, and<br>

it was a gently sloping 'upward' or 'convex' curve, but that was for color slides, and I'm scanning<br>

b/w neg).<br>

Apologies for not being more specific, but I'm still grappling with these concepts. I will try and<br>

post some images, or links, as I complete my current batch of negs.)</p>

<p><strong>Nicolas</strong> - Unfortunately my budget doesn't allow for that. The only reason i have even this scanner is that i got it for $10 new in the box. Well, now i know why, seeing how the adapter is faulty. Still, can't give up on it yet. The box says resolution is 4800x9600. What it's true resolution is i have no idea. . . .</p>

<p><strong>Dave</strong> - You're right, vuescan is an alternative which i shouldn't discount, esp. if it's cheaper (the green monster is a decisive consideration here). Searches tend to return far more hits for silverfast than vuescan, though. Like, lots lots more.<br>

I'm on dialup with limited time, so i may not have explored far enough, but what i have found so far doesn't give me much basis on which to better understand/compare what these packages have to offer. Is it just the interface, as in intuitiveness/ease of use? The range or scope of controls? Does it actually affect how well the machine does its work, or interpret the output better than the native software?<br>

I'm really clueless about this, as i'm sure is evident by now. No doubt, if there's a demo available for vuescan the best thing is to download it and see what it does, but i'd really appreciate more input as well. It would help immensely.</p>

<p><strong>Colin</strong> , Great minds think alike? :) Already downloaded the silverfast se demo. They seem to have demos for all the variants, but i figured i'd start with the most basic since i'm a total newbie to scanning.<br>

Good point about the transparency adapter. Sort of a moot point right now, though, because the transparency adapter seems to be on the fritz. Either the serial connector is faulty, so it's not supplying any current to the adapter, or the bulb in the adapter is dead. Will have to investigate that.<br>

Maybe some experimentation is in order. It'll be interesting to see whether using something like silverfast will enable scanning larger negs. That would really be the bomb. I'm kind of pessimistic about it (improvising an adapter for larger formats) right now, though. The negative strip i scanned with the non-working adapter just came out black. And considering that the light element in the adapter looks like some sort of quartz or halogen technology, i'm wondering how bright of a backlight does the scanner need?</p>

<p>i'm about to develop some b&w negatives for the first time, and am working at getting my microtek s400 configured to my g4 tower running 10.3.9. I'll be installing the microtek scanwizard for now, but upgrading to a better software (maybe scanner, too, eventually) is an option i'm keeping open.</p>

<p>this scanner came with a device for scanning 35mm negs. we'll see how well it actually works. my main question is whether scanning larger negs is possible (namely, 6x6 and 6x9) if, say, i rig a holder out of a lightbox or something. if not, what is the limiting factor? is it the software? or is the scanner itself inherently limited in some way?</p>

<p>Next, Silverfast seems far and away to be the preferred 3rd party software. Is the demo version sufficient to get a sense of just how good it is? whether it will be worth the investment?</p>

<p>all comments appreciated.</p>

i will be processing my own

film soon and have several

questions. (1)the issue of

developing times gas me

wondering how what they

mean. in other words, when

does the clock start and

when does it stop? i will

generally be processing 2-3

rolls at a time, so the tank

filling/emptying times could

be significant. (2) i will

probably be using a lot of

caffenol type chemistry, and

wondered what success, if

any, people have had

processing old film with it.

most old film/found film

stuff on the web seems to

be done using d76, hc110,

or rodinal.

hello to all. this is my first

post to photo.net, though

i've been lurking for some

time--mostly in the mf, lf

and classic/pre 1970s

forums. i have an

opportunity to pick up a

complete set of the

encyclopedia of

photography (greystone

press, willard morgan, ed.),

early-mid '60s vintage. this

was something that came up

online so i have no way of

perusing the content, and

so far my online searches

have come up bupkus

(thouph i have learned that

here at PN, people seem to

like the focal encyclopedia a

lot). so my question is, well,

questions, really. . .what's in

this thing? will it be worth

my while? to put it another

way, if its content is more

along the lines of coffee

table book fare, i don't want

it. but if it's packed with

info about the famous

makers (their history and

cameras and lenses), and

info about technique and

processing and printing,

then i definitely *do* want

it. any help appreciated.

another:

hmm, i guess i can only upload one at a time...:

here's a couple pics from the listing:

no, it was mounted in a wollensak shutter (rapax, iirc), but it had a bit of an odd look, like maybe it was a custom mount or specific to a particular camera. if it was a custom job it was very well done, because it had a definite "factory look." you'll see what i mean if you look up the auction number i posted.

hello to all. i'm new to posting here, though have

browsed pn quite a bit and enjoyed it immensely. i

tried googling this and came tp empty. does anyone

have any info about this lens, such as intended

format and application, optical formula (i'm

guessing sonnar or planar type), etc? there was

one listed on evilbay that i was reluctant to bid

on it w/o any info (saw it only a couple hours

before it ended: item 200165662580), especially

with the somewhat unusual-looking shutter housing.

any info appreciated.