Argenticien

<p>Thanks everyone, and especially Stephen, JDM, and John about the mirror and/or light shield. I'll shoot as normal today with the last of the film, then a lot of dry-firing with the back open and no lens to look for something falling, lagging, or flopping about in there. (John, I unfortunately have a non-MLU SRT102 so can't use that as part of the test.)<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p><strong>Professor K</strong> — That had occurred to me, actually. We have no case for the camera, but my fiancée (who is a photography newbie) thought maybe she had let the neck strap get in front of the lens. However, I doubt that happened. While it is plausible with a rangefinder, you'd see the obstruction through the VF of an SLR like this, and move the strap out of the way before exposing. Plus, some of the pictures are mine, such as the first and third above, and I would never let that happen. :) ... would I? I've got a half-used film in the camera now, so I can't do the dry-firing experiment you suggest, but I will later. Actually I was asking the question now in order to inform what tests I might do with the remaining half-roll that's in there, so one thing I'll try is using a wrist strap. Thanks for your suggestions.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Bronica S2, Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-H 1:2.8/7.5cm, 1/15 sec @ f/8, TMY 400 through Ilford DD-X. Epson V700 scan.</p><div></div>

<p>Bronica S2, Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-H 1:3.5/5cm, 1/125 sec @ f/5.6, Ilford Pan F+ 50 through Rodinal. Epson V700 scan.</p><div></div>

<p>Bronica S2, Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-H 1:3.5/5cm, 1/250 sec @ f/5.6, Ilford Pan F+ 50 through Rodinal. Epson V700 scan.</p><div></div>

<p>In color this time...</p><div></div>

<p>Sliver, this time on the lower-left. Similarly small sliver has also appeared on some frames on the lower-right.</p><div></div>

<p>Next one -- larger trapezoid</p><div></div>

<p>Hi everyone. I'm looking for opinions here on what might have gone dodgy with my SRT102. Or could this be user error? I've got a black blotch at the lower right (usually) of some frames. This varies from a sliver to a large triangle or trapezoid, and has recently appeared in about two to eight frames, not all contiguous, on some rolls. Most of the pictures were shot by my fiancée (who has fallen in love with and mostly kidnapped this camera) but a few were by me. Pictures below show the problem. I believe all are were made with the MC W. Rokkor-SG 28mm 1:3.5 lens mounted. I would presumably rule out any defect with the film (as this has happened on multiple different emulsions) or in processing (as the B&W were home-processed by me, whilst the color were done at the local lab). Any ideas what this could be? The SRT102 has a horizontal-travelling focal plane shutter, which I would not expect to make a blotch of this shape, but I'm by no means a shutter expert. Thanks for any input.<br /> <em>--Dave</em></p> <table width="212" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="212" height="20"> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table><div></div>

<p>I am using a shutter tester for the iPhone, bought from a chap in, if I recall correctly, Germany. It was, er, <em>mentioned </em>here a few years ago. (Bordering on <em>advertised</em> here, earning its maker a warning from the mods, so I'll not post a link.) It plugs into the earphone jack of the phone and is about 2 - 3 cm long (a hacked earphone wire plug, presumably), so can protrude fairly well into the back of an erected folding camera. I have no other tester to which I can compare it in order to rigorously validate its accuracy, but it seems to work well. I am not seeking perfect minute measurements ("is 1/500 on this camera actually firing at 1/493?") but rather general evaluation ("do I need to compensate by a stop because 1/500 fires as 1/200?"). If you visit flea markets etc. and want to test cameras in the field, the pocketable size is a boon. I don't know if it's still being made.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Doug, I love those locomotive detail pictures. As is almost always the case, medium format + black and white + anything railroad = wow. What emulsion was that?<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Aidan, I've written this elsewhere too, but maybe it helps: I've got a Rolleiflex, a Mamiya C330, and an off-brand Japanese TLR (Beautyflex). The raison d'être of the Mamiya is those interchangeable lenses. I've found that on many outings, I end up leaving the 80mm (normal) lens on all day--despite carrying some other lens in my pack with good intentions--so upon returning home say to myself 'well that was daft, I could've saved a kilo by carrying the Rolleiflex' [or Beautyflex]. If you think you might perpetrate similar single-lens behaviour--and it sounds likely based on your digi experience--don't bother with the size and weight of the Mamiya unless you find an unbelievably great deal on one. Just get any of the affordable fixed-normal-lens alternatives mentioned here. <br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>I'm working on a Windoze machine as well, but further to what Howard M said above, see http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/#related_prog on Phil Harvey's EXIFtool site for information about various ways people have extended/automated the tool. I've written code in VBA that started from Michael Wandel's add-ons up there. Sorry to mention Visual Basic and thereby burn the eyes of anyone who uses a non-obsolete, reputable language. I'm old; what do you want? Anyway what I bodged together allows me to load into Excel the list of files in a given folder, populate/update about 10 key EXIF fields that I most care about, click "Go", and apply the added/modified EXIF fields to the files. I'm primarily a film guy, so typically I'm starting from a folder of 12 or 36 scanned files with no EXIF data (or useless EXIF data from my scanner) and keying in exposure notes made on paper (yes, <em>that</em>) in the field.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>I'm not a chemist, but I was going to remark, when I read JDM's reply, that I do literally the opposite (in household chemical terms) of applying baking soda: I apply vinegar, as Chuck subsequently alluded to. My assumption was that the leaked battery material is alkaline, so vinegar (an acid) should dissolve and neutralize it. (Looking now, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver-oxide_battery">this</a> for example supports that.) I usually dip an ear bud in just enough vinegar to saturate it, but not so much that any can flow or drip freely from it, and then wipe the battery compartment's terminals/springs with as many of those as required. Usually that results in a very slight fizzing of the green gunk, which makes me think I've got the chemistry right. (This is not at all to pick a fight with JDM; I'm simply saying it has worked for me so far; maybe baking soda, plain water, beer, or liquid plutonium might work too; I've just not tried them.) After I've wiped away the corrosion, I'll typically clean up with an ear bud or two similarly slightly saturated with water, to avoid leaving any vinegar behind to cause future mayhem.<br> Admittedly this is a more involved project if you can't easily open the battery chamber to start...<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>John, are those <strong>bullet holes</strong> on the left door of the tan Citroen?! If so, did you chat up the owner as to what that's about? You'd think he would not leave those unrestored unless <em>intentionally</em>, due to there being a dramatic story behind it. (An escape from the Germans, or something like that.)<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Thanks much, Rick. I suspected the chimney was helpful, but your firsthand experience is an even better guide. I'll have to go look for one on auction. In my previous brief looks through eBay, I have seen some with and some without the eyecup, and already figured I ought be careful to get that, for the protection of my eyeglasses (which I suspect I'll need to leave on and then dial in no correction on the chimney, because my prescription is usually outside the diopter range most eyepieces offer).<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Rick, I'm much belated here as I've not kept up with the forum in recent weeks. But I wanted to say, that was a great photoessay about a vanishing pastime. You know I'm a fan of the S2/S2A and those Nikkors, so I'm not surprised that the 75 holds its own against the German glass that I'm sure was considered superior per conventional wisdom at the time.<br> May I ask how you're getting on with the chimney finder on the S2A? On these cameras, it seems like some sort of dark enclosure is in order, because the regular WLF is fairly light-leaky and prone to glare/reflection, at least on my S2. I attempted the eye-level (pentaprism) finder as a solution, since I found one as part of an auction with other useful bits and bobs. It's a good job the whole lot was very cheap, because I use the pentaprism almost never. I found the S2 to be a poor candidate for eye-level use given its ergonomics and weight, the latter of course being worsened by the hulking pentaprism itself. Hence I'm considering the chimney finder now.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>From May 2012. Same half-classic setup as above, but in color this time: Super Takumar 135/3.5 on the Pentax K20D.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p><div></div>

<p>From January 2011. I'm cheating a bit here as this is digital, not a classic manual <em>camera</em>; however, it was made with a very classic lens: the Super Takumar 135/3.5, bolted onto a Pentax K20D. When I saw a brilliant yellow bird against a very snow-whitened environment, I hastily ran outside with the camera to shoot, and quickly popped off a few shots. Before I could chimp the photos, he flitted away. When I looked at the result, to my dismay I noticed I had left the camera on in-camera black and white mode after having experimented with that setting days before. ARGGH!<br> This is a rather close crop of the whole frame.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p><div></div>

<p>Cute kit, Martin. Yes, I see in your picture that they've got what would in modern parlance be called "co-branding" with Gossen on the light meter. Does the extensible handle(?) at left in your first picture act as a bolt-action winding-on mechanism, as many of the 110 pocket cameras had? Or must one use the tiny winding lever seen at bottom-left in the second picture?<br> Mike: The Lomography Shop (I agree, "GROAN") have a black and white 110 film (cut-down Chinese stuff according to discussion online) and allegedly three color films, which I've not well looked into so don't know if they're truly three different emulsions or just badge engineering. I've tried only the "Orca" B&W so far; "Tiger" color one still in the fridge. I couldn't get great results with the Orca even in the Pentax 110 SLR, arguably the best 110 of all, an example of which I've been indefinitely lent. That may not be the fault of this emulsion; 110 in general is frustratingly tiny/grainy, and I have the specific added problem of a very improvised scanning setup. I'm afraid my tendency is much in the other direction (to shoot more medium format and maybe even more 4x5) so I'm unlikely to invest the time to perfect things at the miniature end, endearing though the Pentax may be.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Thanks for the alert here, Bill, as I do not read that other forum. Fairly soon I'll be travelling to some places I'll probably not see (shoot) again, so time to check those batch numbers on my TMax before I go. For hobbyists like me, travel pictures impaired by dodgy film would be only annoying (as I experienced with my beloved/hated Efke stocks). For fine-art photographers using film, it would be a cost, yet in many cases they could at least go re-shoot the subject. But I can barely imagine the horror of a wedding/event photographer as he discovers, after processing, this kind of defect on unreshootable pictures from the big day. His livelihood would be in trouble as the disappointed newlyweds light up all known social media outlets to slam him as the worst photographer in the galaxy, despite the fault being Kodak's. In this one respect it's good that almost all of that work is now digital.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Andrew, I struggled with this recently with a new-to-me TLR. You can Google up dimensions for Bay I, Bay II, etc., and find results like "it's 34 mm" but all that I found were unclear as to exactly where you measure that (such as, at inside or at outside of the three little bayonet claws?). I was unable to solve it prospectively, so basically guessed Bay I--this being an off-brand TLR with f/3.5 lenses--and ordered. I was ordering a no-name lens cap from Heavystar (an importer of budget-grade Chinese stuff, basically) so my risk was only USD 8. Worst case you could do a similar smoke test, maybe even more easily if you have a local camera shop with a good junk bin. (I haven't.)<br> It turned out Bay I <em>does </em>fit my TLR (a Beautyflex), so now if I order anything more expensive, such as a polarising filter, I can do so safely knowing the size.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>I'd second the advice to stay with Minolta so that your existing lenses are still useful. Since you have a 35 mm and a 55 mm in MC mounts, you can avoid apportioning any of your budget to that. You might try to find an XD-11 under $150 with an MD lens of some other length included in the auction (say, a 135 mm or the <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00YjkF">35-70 zoom</a>), then muddle through with your MC lenses in aperture mode for now. (It's not that much of a hardship anyway and they are nice glass.) Then later as funding permits, replace those MC ones with MD 35 mm and 50/55/58 mm, if after further use you do find MC limiting.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>It's bags like this that contribute to people like us waking up one day and wondering "Why have I got 47 light meters?"<br> Anyway that's a pretty little kit and quite capable, given that in its time it must have been rather entry-level stuff (by German standards anyway; in fit and finish it's plainly a cut above many Kodaks, Argi, etc.).<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>And finally this...</p><div></div>