Niels - NHSN

I regret not making more precise measurements prior to the treatment, but yes, both lenses now perform within 1/3 of a stop from what would be expected for a given aperture.

Here's an account of my personal experiences, in case you are in a similar situation: I put a few weekly hours in a local camera shop checking and cleaning up old film equipment the shop receives. A while back we got two very interesting lenses; a Canon 35mm f/2 S.S.C "Concave" and a Konica Hexanon AR 57mm f/1.2. Both lenses are quite valuable, but both were also severely yellowed/browned to the point where light transmission must have been reduced by around 2 stops. Color photography would definitely also be very problematic. Glass yellowing is a typical phenomenon in lenses made with glass containing Thorium and Lanthanum, as the case was for the lenses in question. It is common advice on the internet to expose an affected lens to hours or days of sunlight as UV exposure is said to help reversing the yellow tint process. As I am living in Scandinavia where prolonged sunshine is a rare event and hardly ever happens during the short winter days, I was thinking of using a dedicated UV light to achieve the same. I asked in an unrelated thread here on photo.net and it was suggested using a UV-C light. That UV-C light would be effective made perfect sense although I have no understanding of what is going on in the glass. UV-C effectively kills DNA in organic material, and I imagined it would provide more "punch" over the other more gentle UV light options. I did try to search the internet on previous experiences with UV-C to clarify it's effect on radioactive glass and type of suited lamp, but there seemed to be little if anything. I also consulted some AI chat-bots to see if they could provide some input, but all I got was warnings against using UV-C due to the inherent dangers involved in exposure to that light spectrum. I decided to make my own empirical experiment and got a UV-C light tube from Amazon.de. I created a silver foil lined cardboard box with ventilation holes to keep direct UV-C light exposure contained inside the box - I had no idea of how hot such a tube (25W) would run in a small box, so I installed a temperature probe close to the lens location to make sure I didn't melt the lubricants. I did place the box in a room with an open window to allow the ozone produced by the light to escape. Observations: The UV-C light did not produce much heat - the inside of the box barely rose 2-3 degrees Celsius above ambient temperature. It is very inconvenient to work with UV-C light due to the dangers to you, your pets or plants if exposed to direct light (indirect reflections are OK, but not mirrored reflections from silver foil). Also it produces ozone which shouldn't be inhaled so you don't want to be in the same room during the process. Most importantly: after more than 48 hours of very close direct exposure to the UV-C light source there were absolutely NO signs of reduced yellowing! (I do believe that all organic material that may have lived inside the lenses was effectively dead). I re-consulted the internet, where I noticed someone claiming good results using a simple white modern household LED light bulb, and someone else reported good results using a black light UV-A panel (commonly used at parties). Without wanting to throw more money at the project than necessary, I tried with a very bright Philips LED bulb I had at hand which claimid to provide the equivalent light of a conventional 100W bulb. Fast forward 2 days of very close exposure in the foil-lined box: No visible improvement - whatever rays emitted from this particular bulb did not assist the project - other white light lamps may be different. Without much hope, nor a wish to buy a large Black-Light UV-A LED panel, I cheapened out and ordered a simple 11W black-light UV-A LED lightbulb. Lo and behold, after less than half a day in the silver foil box, the yellowing was visibly reduced. After two days, it may not have disappeared completely, but enough that I wouldn't notice it if I didn't know what to look for, and certainly useable for color with a tiny bit of warming if any at all. The bulb claimed to emit UV light in the 385-400 nm spectrum, which is what I would recommend to look for based on my experiences - apparently you do not need a very powerful light either - which is convenient as you would want to avoid exposing the lens to high heat. Further readings on use of radioactive glass in lenses: https://lenslegend.com/radioactive-lenses/

24mp has been more than I need for many years now. I’m just hoping Nikon won’t focus on count but rather on functionality.

The Beginners Questions forum and seemingly several other areas of photo.net are heavily hit by spam. As when we “upgraded” to this standard community software, spammers seem to have found holes in whatever defenses are in place. I don’t see this problem on other sites I visit which uses the same forum SW. I sincerely hope the Admins/Owners will remedy this issue in order not to put unnecessary strain on our generous volunteer moderators! I am tired of reporting spam and will remove those mostly affected forums from my view - but that is hardly a long term solution. I hope the admin/owners will implement some basic measures to avoid this destructive development. Thanks in advance. BR. Niels - happy photo.net member since 1997

No need to worry. I have only found the developer temp to be critical. If the following process temps are within around 20% on either side of developer temp all is OK in my experience, although I would recommend stop and fixer temps to be closer together rather than on opposite ends of the temp scale. For washing I usually don’t care (I develop at 20°C and our tap water when coldest is about 5°C but takes a while to get there) Are you mixing fixer for single use?

I think I recall @Sandy Vongries mentioning it helps. Some of those I flag seems to disappear shortly after but not all - I don’t know if there’s a moderator at play or if a certain number of spam reports hides/deletes a post??

I think I’m marked 40-50 posts this morning, most if not all in the Beginners forum - all from new users. I don’t think it is too hard to define a gentle but effective rule to prevent it, but without a system admin to implement it, the hard work is left to the poor moderators. Wish there was a “Donate a bottle of wine to the moderators” button - oh wait - no one to implement it 😢

Foma have had QC issues with their 120 film in the past. I have not used their 120 for a while -for that reason- so I don’t know if they still have issues. It is my understanding that Arista EDU is repackaged Foma film. - just something to be aware of. BTW I have only had good experiences with Foma in 35mm rolls and 4x5 sheets both of which I use regularly. 400 iso is the way to go as it will allow more flexibility with regards to experimentation with shutter/aperture combinations. If you find issues with Foma/Arista 120 400ISO film then I’d recommend Kentmere 400 which should be cheaper than HP5+/TriX and of better quality than Foma/Arista. I do agree with the recommendation to develop the BW film yourself. It is uncomplicated if you just stick to the film vendor recommended choice of chemicals and procedure - steer clear of things like “stand development”, caffenol etc. Not only is it cheaper, but also much more satisfying. Good luck.

We had a serious tsunami of spam around the shift to the current forum software. It took a while before things were normalised, but the initiatives taken at the time seemd sufficient to keep things at bay and - to my eyes - reasonably well controlled, at least up until now. I am not sure if the spammers have found a new "hole" in the defences of the forum software or if some preventive setting have been changed. It seems that we don't have the ears of the owners, and only rarely do we hear from system admins, so any remedial action is possibly in the hands of our volunteer moderators and the timezone they operate in. I know they are aware of the problems you describe, and I trust they do their best with the tools they have at hand. I appreciate their support of our community under the less than ideal circumstances they work under.

Just got the silver Nikkormat FT2 last week. It had some meter irregularities which I hope I have fixed, so I took it out for a spin this weekend loaded with HP5+. The lens is a <new>Nikkor 35/2. The black EL came along because it still had half a roll of Superia Xtra loaded. The lens is a silver nose 105/2.5.

I found it. It is my local currency, but adjusted for inflation and converted til US$, the equivalent price in 2024 would have been: Nikon F2 w. DP-1: $3,309 Nikkormat EL: $2,413 Nikon F w. FTN photomic: $2,375 Nikon F w. plain prism: $1,800 Nikkormat FTn: $1,345 (all in chrome finish) I think I paid around the same amount for my Nikon Z6ii body two years ago, so not unreasonable, but certainly not low enough to appeal to the average amateur I would think. My black pre-Ai collection as it looked last year. In the mid 70's, only the F2 to the left would have cost more than the EL.

Yes, they are cheap. I remember I was lusting for a F80 when they were new 20+ years ago, but couldn't really find room in my hobby budget. These days the F80 cost nothing, probably partly due to the gross stickiness they have developed by now, which is, as you note, easily removed with some alcohol and a little persistence.

Bees are beginning to wake up. I took out the Nikon F80 (N80) over the week-end loaded with Fuji Superia X-tra 400. The camera offers very good ergonomics, nice size, light but not too light, all the functions you need, and possibility for customisations, like compositional lines on the focusing screen and more. It has fairly quick AF, build in flash, quiet film advance and shutter. All in all a very well designed and competent photographic tool ...... except it isn't very charming for some reason. I feel almost bad for not loving it, as I am sure a lot of effort and consideration successfully have gone into designing this device. The lens (Nikkor AF 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G) is very good too. Yes it is plasticky and light and has only 6 elements, but very sharp and versatile due to a clever aspherical design. You'll have to forgive the barrel distortion at the wide end, which is easy when you look at the price tag; which was almost nothing back in the day and these days owners can't hardly give them away for free.

I wish I could find my 1974 Nikon price list - it is here somewhere. I recall that the Nikkormat EL cost the same or maybe even a little more than a Nikon F with the plain prism (1974 was the last year Nikon F was on the official price list). Just goes to show it was a certainly not inexpensive in its time, neither was the ELW or Nikon EL2 for that matter. On the other hand, The AE-1 @orsetto mentioned was very aggressively priced and produced to a noticeable lower standard - something you wouldn't know if looking at used prices today. I help checking used cameras in a brick-and-mortar camera shop, and Canon AE-1's easily sells for 3 times the price we can get for a EL or ELW and the AE-1 still moves much faster. Good for those in the know. On a side note, I notice that the EL/ELW as often as not come in with some dents on the top plate over the prism, something I rarely see on the Nikkormat FTn. I think the top plate may not have been designed for hard use in mind.

Intrepid’s backs rotate without removal. They are very light, but I don’t know if plywood would qualify as “wood” in your mind or if you are thinking about more precious wood types? https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/blogs/guides/setting-up-the-intrepid-4x5