shalom_septimus

<p>Lex - I might do just that...</p>

<p>Charles - if it is a manufacturing defect, what do you suppose the chances are of getting any kind of reimbursement on it, given that Kodak don't even make that size anymore?</p>

<p>Larry - looks interesting. It's half the quantity at 1/3 the price. I wonder though, if it really is the same stuff, as there's a note that says "<em><strong>Note that LegacyPro L110 does not have the same yellow color or viscosity as Kodak HC110.</strong></em>" This thread <a href="/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00XET5">http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00XET5 </a>speculates that it's actually Ilford's version. Although to tell the truth it doesn't actually matter to me which one, as long as they work the same.</p>

<p>I'm also worried that once I start ordering from Freestyle, there goes my savings, as I'm probably going to order a batch of other stuff as well...</p>

<p>Somehow, my bottle of HC-110 developed a pinhole in the base of the bottle, and all of it (about half a pint was left) leaked into the dishpan where I kept my chemistry. Haven't had an opportunity to develop stuff lately, so I don't know how long it's been sitting there, but I found an entirely empty bottle sitting in a congealed puddle of goo. Thank goodness it was in the pan, or it would have been a much bigger mess.</p>

<p>Of course now that it's only available in liters, the price is up to about $35.00. My nearest supplier is Unique Photo, who have it listed for that. (About $7 cheaper at B&H, and closer in terms of distance too, but add in the $14.00 toll at the tunnel and it's not competitive anymore, and they won't ship it. If I was in the city anyway, it might have been worth a trip.)</p>

<p>So I'm going to pick up another bottle, but I was wondering, two things. One, how did that happen? Does HC-110 develop pressure while standing? Because if not, I can't see how this thick stuff came out of that tiny opening, especially with the lid screwed on tightly, simply because of the vacuum that ought to have been in the bottle. And two, I don't suppose the goo is salvageable at all? Especially since I have no idea how much it's concentrated by evaporation. I suppose I could scrape it up and re-bottle it, but I have no way of knowing how to dilute it back to its original concentration. Is there anything useful I can do with a half-pint of congealed HC110, or should I just rinse it all down the drain?</p>

<p>I've been cutting down 105mm microfiche stock for 122 and 130 rollfilm, does that count?</p>

<p>The Adapt-A-Roll 620 was manufactured in three sizes: 4x5, 3¼x4¼, and 2¼x3¼. They never made one in 3A size that I know of (3¼x5½).<br /><br>

So, I happen to have two Adapt-A-Roll 620s in 4x5, only one of which I particularly need. I was thinking of converting the spare to 3A format to use with a Premo #8. This would require narrowing it by around a half inch, and lengthening it by about the same. <br /> <br /> (I would probably find a local machine shop to do this for me, rather than attempt it myself.) <br /> <br />Narrowing it would be fairly easy; simply mill off a quarter inch, more or less, from each side, until it matches the original Premo film-pack holder. The "wings" are hollow; it shouldn't be much trouble. <br /> <br /> Lengthening it might be more of a hassle. My first thought was to have them drill and tap a couple holes in the end and screw on a piece of aluminum bar stock, but then I took another look at the thing and had an idea. <br /> <br /> There's a ridge on the bottom side that stops it when sliding it into a Speed Graphic. If I were to mill that off, the holder would slide in another half inch and bottom out in the Premo. (It has a piece of wood at the end of the channel, which the SG does not.) <br /> <br /> So my question is: Is that ridge necessary for anything <i>else</i> besides stopping the holder from sliding in too far? Like a light trap or something? Because if so, I could probably get them to attach a similar ridge at the extreme end of the wider part, but if it's not needed, I wouldn't bother. <br /> <br /> (Tried posting this at graflex.org but didn't get any answers there, so I figured I'd try here. Thanks in advance.)<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for rolls of 5x4", surely you knew what I meant.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've got one right here, as it happens... #4 Cartridge Kodak, loaded with 104 rollfilm (Verichrome Ortho, expired 1946). Not likely to get anything but fog, but what the heck, worth a try...</p>

<p>Will they process rolls larger than 120? I've got a couple of 130 or 122 waiting for development, and those are the largest I can fit in the old apron; I'd like to get a roll of 104 started (5x4, the wide way) and it doesn't fit anything I have to develop it in.</p>

<p>Carol Miller (Flutot's) overhauled my Rollop-Automatic a few years ago.</p>

<p>Not interested in 620, myself, but I would be very interested in 122. Do they have other sizes listed?</p>

<p>The press release is available, and they fixed the size to 91.75mm.</p>

<p>Price in NY is about $188 for 50' of film (about 16+ rolls), which works out to about $12/roll more or less. More if you have to buy backing paper as well: that's around $100 for 100'. A dollar a foot seems a bit high for something you can collect for free at your local pro lab if you still have one, but whatever, and it's only available in 61mm wide (i.e. 120 size) because that's how it's manufactured, so you need double width, or 1-1/2 width if you slit it carefully. . Figure on getting 75 feet of 122 width more or less, so you get also 15 rolls, which works out to about six or seven dollars a roll just for the backing paper. Exeter paper is probably cheaper.</p>

<p>(Exeter paper is gloss black on one side, matte black on the other, is 26 inches wide (enough for 7 strips of 122 width) and costs $3/foot with a minimum order of 25 feet. $100 will buy you 33+ feet, which is enough for 35 rolls.)</p>

<p>Now I have to decide whether to grab the film, the backing paper, the Exeter paper, or what... money's tight at the moment.</p>

<p>I intend to, thanks. They've still got it listed as 82.55mm which is too narrow, but Simon said he'd get the correct measurements before cutting it. I think someone at APUG was offering to send him a sacrificial roll of real VP122 to measure against.</p>

<p>I've got my name on Simon's list, you bet.</p>

<p>122 stock can be also used to respool 124 and 125, but these are much rarer.</p>

<p>Note that new plastic 90mm spools are available from <a href="http://www.sullinsndt.com/reels.htm">here.</a> They will cheerfully cut them for you in any width you want. They're too wide for any currently made tank, though, so you'll have to develop them in the dark.</p>

<p>Well, I tried loading it into the 3A Scout, and it wasn't useable. The paper is kind of stiff, but worse, when I tried winding it on, the film itself disintegrated. The emulsion (thick, yellow, opaque) separated from the base (thin, yellowed, clear) and cracked/tore in a few places. I stuck an inch or so of the base, minus the emulsion, in the sink and lit it: woosh. Nitrate for sure. That was fun.</p>

<p>But here's the interesting part: The film is not the full width of the backing paper. One end of it (the side without the keyslot) goes almost to the edge, but the other end is about a quarter inch short of the edge. Paper is 3.892", which is 0.020" short of the length of the spool, but the film itself came to about 3.53". This is more or less the same width as 122, just in a wider backing paper.</p>

<p>I'll measure the markings and post them in a new thread. Earlier threads are here: <br>

118: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00PXOZ<br>

122: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00PZhG<br>

124: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00PXOF<br>

130: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00TMHa</p><div></div>

<p>I'm working on it. Just let me get a door on my darkroom (so the dark doesn't leak out) and I might start making some. In the meantime you could try Film For Classics, if he's still around, and see if he has any 123 rollfilm in stock.</p>

<p>So the 125 arrived today, and yes, it does say 125-6 on the part that was facing away from the lens when the seller took the photo. And what do you know, it's actually spooled on a 103 spool, you can tell because it's drilled right through for a removable winding key like the old Bullets used to have. I measured it, and the flanges aren't exactly parallel (probably got bent at some time, as this thing is certifiably ancient: there's faint printing on the band that says "Develop before Sept. 1, 1912") but the narrowest spot is 3.9125", which is exactly the published length for a 103 spool.</p>

<p>I'd like to change the chart on the wikipedia page (which I mostly wrote anyway) to reflect this, but they don't allow changes based on personal research. OTOH, referencing web pages is OK, so I'm posting this here and then using it for a source to edit the WP page. So there. :-p</p>

<p>At some point I'm gonna unspool this and measure out the markings on the backing paper, like I did in my other threads with the specifications. Thinking about shooting the roll first as I hate wasting film, but given that it expired 101 years ago, it probably would be fogged solid by now.</p>

<p>Thanks. I reassembled it that way and put the thing back together.</p>

<p>That shutter is now in a different camera, though, a Folding Pocket Kodak #3. Almost looks like it belongs there, except for the Blair nameplate on the speed control.</p>

<p>Well I just scored a roll of what is supposed to be 125 on that auction site. (See item 171028058185 if you're interested.) The photos don't show the actual film number, and I have my doubts as to whether it really is 125 because the end view shows the three dimples around the axle hole. As far as I know only 101 and 103 had those holes. I suppose I'll find out when I receive it, at which point I'll get out the ol' dial caliper and measure it for posterity.</p>

<p>I probably should have pointed out to the seller that it's illegal to send nitrate film through the postal service, but oh well.</p>

<p>I have here a shutter from a Blair Hawk-Eye #3. (Long story shut, I'm trying to compile a collection of at least one camera in each roll film size Kodak made. This one was pretty well worn out, but it fills that vacant #103 spot and was cheap. Strangely enough, the shutter worked once it got loosened up.)<br /><br />This particular shutter had the lower-cost option of a cemented doublet lens in the back threads, with a blank in the front threads. I unscrewed the ring holding the glass in, and it fell out on the table. Unfortunately I didn't notice which way it was in to begin with. (Got it started turning accidentally when trying to rinse some grime off the lens with a bit of cheap vodka, and unscrewed it the rest of the way to see what would happen. Yeah, I know.)<br /><br />So: Can anyone tell me whether the concave or the convex face should be facing the film plane? So far I've tried assembling it both ways, and neither way looks right.</p>

<p>He claims to have sold 82 Kodak Easyshare c1550's already; that one's listed at $8,568.93. spAmazon has it for $70.</p>

<p>Gotta be something going on there. Is it possible to fake how many sold?</p>

<p>The first and last time I saw a Vitessa in person was in sixth grade, circa 1978, when my homeroom teacher used to walk around with one attached to his belt and take candid available-light snapshots of his students. (The waist-level shooting position made the kids look taller than they really were. My parents still have the 5x7 enlargement he gave me.) I never knew what kind of camera it was at the time, only that it was a 35mm type (the negative was attached to the back of the print) and for years went around looking for a 35mm rangefinder with barn doors on the front, with no success. It was only a couple years ago that I finally saw a picture of one and said, That's it!</p>

<p>Wouldn't mind buying one, but all the examples I've seen are a bit pricey for my current financial situation. For $50 I'd probably have grabbed it too.</p>

<p>oops, forgot about 115. I don't have one of those either.</p>

<p>Wow. Thanks for all the responses, guys. My original ambition was to collect one camera of each size rollfilm that Kodak made (35, 101-105, 116-127, 130, 828), so when I saw a 4A-FK come up I jumped on it. After I bid, I saw he'd changed the description from 4A to "4 Model A", but I'd already bid, so I let it go. Then I found out he was right the first time. :) I also snagged a 4FPK at another auction, so that covers 123 as well. So far I'm missing 103-105, 117, 119 and 121. (Numbers 106-114 were for rollholders and 128/129 were UK only, so I'm skipping those.)<br /><br /><strong>Tony: </strong><em>Maybe you could try to fit a 126 cartridge into that!</em><br>

I could, but it would fall into the film gate and get lost. <br /><br /><strong>Chris:</strong> <em>Now... where are the pictures from that lovely camera? :)</em><br>

Gotta make some film first. I did buy on spec (for about $40 + shipping) a partial roll of 10" wide stock several years ago, only to remember that I've got nowhere to cut it down. Got a small room in the basement that might make a decent darkroom, if it only had a door on it to keep the dark from leaking out. :)<br /><br /><strong>Rick:</strong> <em>I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with it. I can't figure out where the flashcubes go, though...</em><br />More likely to be flash <em>powder</em>, given the age of this machine. :)<br /><br /><strong>Ralf</strong>: <em>Red bellows, nice. Me like</em>.<br />The bellows aren't actually anywhere near as dark red in real life as they show up in a digital photo; they're really much paler than that. <br /><br /><strong>JDM: </strong><em>Not your mother's 126, but your great grandfather's. :) </em><br />Ha, you're right. My mother's 126 was an Instamatic 44, as it happens. I was considering putting that one in the shot instead of the #1 Junior. (The FPKs are all proportioned similarly; one problem I have with the auctions is that on a bare table with no context, you can't tell which model you're looking at. I put the 1 Jr in there so viewers can see how truly enormous the 4A is by comparison.)<br /><br /><strong>JDM:</strong> <em>The wood and leatherette look good too.</em><br /><br />Wood is nice, but the leatherette is good only where it's covering wood. Any that's on aluminum (besides the front door) is all dried out and crumbling, especially on the back and below the door, which you can't see in this shot. The stuff on the back was almost entirely loose, and about 15% was missing altogether. (see more pics at the ebuy auction, <a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/200806807218">number 200806807218</a>) I got almost the entire back off (what was left of it) in one large sheet and two smaller pieces, except for a couple square inches that didn't want to come off at all; then I scoured off a whole bunch of aluminum oxide dust with steel wool, and soaked the leather in Apple LeatherCare liquid. In a few days I'll try to glue it back on. I have a couple sheets of coarse seal-grain synthetic leatherette on order from cameraleather.com, maybe if it doesn't look too dissimilar I can fill in the gaps. The red window was actually a round plastic disc that was just laying under the leatherette; I saved that and will glue it back in when I do the rest of the back.<br /><br /><strong>Steve: </strong> <em>Did you have any spare parts left over? I usually do!</em><br />Unfortunately, I did in fact have one tiny washer/spacer that wasn't present in the pattern shutter. I put it where I figured it would do the most good, but I still don't know if it belongs there, or even to this camera in the first place. I might take it back out and see if it functions any differently. The air release (left side piston) doesn't work now, but I don't know if it ever did. The camera was fully assembled in the auction photos; I can't imagine the seller dismantling it before shipping it out, so I have to blame that on the post office.<br /><br />Oh, forgot to mention: the tab that holds the door shut is broken off. There are several layers of what looks like rosin-core solder on it, so apparently someone has already tried to fix this. It does stay shut without it if you don't shake it.<br /><br /><strong>Gabor:</strong> <em>I suppose you'll find a way to use it with cut filn. Some Kodak rollfilm cameras had plate backs.... is there one available for this model ?</em><br />Theoretically there were plate holders; see page 7 of <a href="http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1908sweetwallachlp767.htm">this catalog</a>: Never actually seen one, and they were likely for glass negatives anyway. Some posters on this board have suggested just slipping a cut sheet inside the back in a changing bag, but I haven't got anything bigger than 4x5.<br>

(If you're looking at that page, mine is the cheaper model with the ƒ/8 Rapid Rectilinear lens, originally priced at $35. That makes the $100 that I spent seem cheap, given 105 years of inflation.)</p>

<p>It arrived after being stuck in the Jacksonville post office for 10 days (thank you hurricane Isaac) and G_d knows what they did to it in transit, because the front lens cell was unscrewed and rattling around, and the screw in the speed dial had backed itself out, with misc. cogs & stuff floating around loose inside the camera and in the shipping carton. Fortunately I have another Kodak Automatic shutter, a smaller one from a Premo 3A, so I disassembled that one for a pattern and then put both together one piece at a time, and for a miracle they both worked when I was done. It also came without a spool, but I had one in my collection of obsolete spools, so I'm set.</p>

<p>Now I've just got to see about getting film for this beast. 4-1/4 by 6-3/4 rollfilm hasn't been available since 1949 or so... </p><div></div>

<p>It's the one on the left ... <g></p><div></div>

<p>Plot thickens even further.</p>

<p>The Seneca Box Scout doesn't even use 122 film, it uses 125. Same image size, wider stock. 122 will fit, but falls into the film gate.</p>

<p>I'm not so worried about making the supplies. I've got film stock - couple hundred feet of 80s vintage Kodak Ortho Copy 25 ASA microfiche, 105mm wide, plus about half a roll of some unknown 10" film stock which is supposedly Ilford 80 ASA aerial film from the early '90s (although at the moment I haven't got a darkroom to cut it down in). I also have about 3/4 roll of Portra NC160 in 70mm unperf in the freezer, so if I wanted to go that route I'm set as well.</p>

<p>I've also made backing paper (Home Depot sells black fake-leather contact paper which is pretty close to opaque, and if you cover the red window you'll be OK with it, especially with the slow microfiche stuff. It's $3.24 for 15 feet by 18 inches. Sku is 438356 if anyone is interested. <strong>Much</strong> cheaper than the Exeter stuff...)</p>

<p>As for spools, I've got a few extra to experiment with. I've got probably 10 of the old metal 120 spools, which have a hollow core that's exactly the right diameter to fit a 7/16" dowel. Saw one in half, cut the dowel to length, cut a slot in it with a slotting saw, file a key slot in one end and drill a hole in the other, slide it into the ends of the core, check alignment and glue it in place. It takes less time to do than you'd expect; I've already used this method to make a 125 spool out of a spare 122 spool for a Seneca 3A Scout box camera that needed one. If I start with a 120 spool instead, I could make "618" spools easily.</p><div></div>

<p>Further follow-up: It is definitively identified as a first-generation Blair Baby Hawk-Eye. Thanks to Jos Erdkamp (www.kodaksefke.nl) for the identification.</p>