jeremy_keller

Hi George,

 

Istanbul shouldn't be a problem. The Sirkeci area (just up from the ferryboat docks and north of Sultanahmet) is full of photo shops, most still selling film (!) Try the street that curves off to the east above the Sirkeci railway station. It carries the trolly line up to Gulhane, Sultanahmet, etc.

 

Bring some sunlight with you. Haven't seen any for weeks ;)

As can be inferred from the subject line, I am one of the

reactionaries trying to keep photography alive in the face of the

digital onslaught. My enlarger is an Omega C67 with an Arista

coldlight; until now I have been using Ilford Multigrade IV paper

without any filters, as I understand that coldlight requires some

arcane combination of filters that I haven't had time to explore.

 

I have some negatives that clearly call for Grade 2 paper. I note

that several companies (B&H, Calumet) stock limited types (Ilford,

Oriental Seagull--but only double weight) of graded paper in limited

sizes (usually just 8x10) and am hopeful that fellow die-hards may

have other suggestions of where to look for more choice.

 

Many thanks!

I agree completely with Tom Holum. I take the Autocord and tripod when there's a particular photo to stalk, and the Super Ikonta when something might turn up. Don't underrate a good folder: The S-I is a much better choice for comingling with camping equipment and for use in rough terrain; the Autocord demands much kinder treatment.

 

The key to high quality negatives (and they can be exceedingly good, even with the obsolete triplet lens) seems to be strong lighting. The brighter the day, the better the contrast, the finer the resolution.

This is fascinating, but also sobering as a microcosmic explanation of why the world's financial system is teetering on the abyss...

 

I will be faced with a stark choice as I load my backpack for the next trip up Demirkazik, Ida, or Olympus: Averting my face with shame, I can pack my 1950s folder with its pathetic, $30 three-element triotar, or I can plunk down $30k for the amalgam of techno-hysteria described above.

 

Yes, spending $29,970 more will give me marginally better image quality and erase my shame at still using film. However, I may not remember this as I produce perfectly decent 11" x 14s" with my pathetically obsolete enlarger.

 

"You cannot afford NOT to buy..." Beware the voice of the marketer, leading the Gadarene consumer ever closer to the precipice!

Hi Robert,

 

My vote goes to the Ikonta. I am using a Super Ikonta III with the f3.5 Novar, purchased from Jurgen two years ago. It's a fine camera, albeit limited by 1930s technology, meaning that the lens needs to be stopped down to f11 or so for critically sharp negatives. Also, contrast is not spectacular, unless one is in bright sunshine. Still, the f3.5 Novar is a better lens IMHO than any of the f2.8 Tessars I have tried on the model B.

 

Re the distaff complaint: show her the price tags for old folders compared with those of Mamiya 7s, Hassleblads, etc.

Bret,

 

I had to consider the following when deciding what sort of camera I would stuff in my backpack: The possiblity of pack or tent being invaded by water, stomped on by Balkan wildlife, e.g., donkeys or goats, or slashed or stolen on a crowded Oriental street. That's why I opted for an old Zeiss folder. Advantages: low cost and weight, rugged, a snap to pack, fine lens. Disadvantages: fixed focal length, close focusing problems.

 

No easy answers; it's always a trade-off...

Hi Anthony,

 

I suspect the answer to your question re Zeiss stretching things is "yes." Note that the final series of Ikontas, the III and IV, used the Zeiss (or Novar) 3.5. This, to me suggests that Zeiss realized that all was not well with the 2.8. In my opinion, each of these 3.5s outperforms the 2.8. Even the Schneider 2.9 Radionar on my ancient Franka Solida was better than any Ikonta 2.8 that I have tried.

 

I don't know if the Zeiss on your Ikoflex is the same as that used in the Ikonta, but if it is front-cell focusing, then it is at least the same design.

 

JK

Hi Troy,

 

I wanted to add that my recently acquired ex-Kreckel Super Ikonta III with the humble 3.5 Novar is producing negatives that are far better than I had expected: resolution excellent, contrast fair, and enough edge sharpness to cut my fingers on the negatives! I make life easy for the camera, though, shooting only TX 400, and thus, almost never opening the lens wider than f11. Front element focusing means that distance shots are consistently better than closer subjects; I'm still practicing and learning on this point.

 

Received wisdom states that the four element 3.5 Tessar is orders of magnitude better than the 3.5 Novar triplet. While this may be so, the latter can produce superb 11 x 14 prints, which is all I require.

Yasou, Aristoteli!

 

I katastisi eine apelpistiki alla ochi spoudea!

 

1) I suggest a cheap folder to start with. The limestone of the Levka Ori can hammer an expensive camera into mechanical baklava with half a second's inattention.

 

2) Stavros' ouzo in Chora Sfakion is a great substitute for HC-110. Use the equivalent of dilution B and save the rest to salve the useless comments you have had to endure!

 

Kalo taxidi!

My current folder is a 531/16 Zeiss Super Ikonta with a 3.5 Novar

lens, a very satisfactory purchase from Jurgen Kreckel. It has the

most rugged front standard lens lock of any folder I've used.

 

The negatives of distant subjects, with the lens focused on infinity,

are really fine--Rollei/Planar in quality. Things start to break

down, however, if the lens is focused, say, at 20 feet.

Rollei/Planar becomes box Brownie. This is, I understand, a

shortcoming of any front-element focusing lens. The camera's

rangefinder appears to be in good shape, and in any case, I don't

shoot at any f/stop bigger than f11.

 

I would appreciate advice on how best to deal with this problem. If

I leave the lens set at infinity, the depth of field indicator (at

f/16, my typical f/stop) tells me that close focus will begin at

about 15 feet (I haven't tested this yet.) Would this be a better

solution than setting focus at hyperfocal, or keeping foreground

subjects at least 30 feet away? I'd like to work around this

limitation.

Greetings! Your environment will determine what sort of camera you need. If you find your pictures in suburbia, get a top-level system; you can drive around with everything you need in the back of your SUV.

 

My MF shots come from the back streets of cities in the eastern Med., where a paleface carrying a camera had better be very unobtrusive. A huge 'blad or Bronica would not improve one's longevity.

 

My current solution: a Super Ikonta folder that is concealed, along with a tiny lightmeter and four rolls of film, in a 4x6 inch shoulder purse, in common use in the region. The S-I has plenty of resolving power and contrast, (although not on the plane of the 'blad or Bronica), at f11 it gets the job done, and it allows me to stay unnoticed: "The right tool for the job"

 

JK

Friends! A few brief responses to this dilemma would be much

appreciated.

 

I have decided, in my dotage, that lugging an old folder up Balkan

hillsides makes more sense than trying to carry anything heavier

(assuming that it makes sense to do such things in the first place.)

 

I am currently trying to decide between the Super Ikonta III (with

3.5 novar) and the S-I IV (with 3.5 tessar.) I know that of the two,

the latter is the more sought-after. I think the former is 3-element

and the latter 4-element.

 

Question: In your experience, is the novar noticeably inferior to

the tessar? I shoot B&W, make 11x14 (or bigger) enlargements, and

almost always shoot between f11 and f22. I typically focus at 10 to

15 meters.

 

Other comments/recommendations most welcome!

 

With thianks,

 

JK

Messieurs! Do I really have to buy something fancier than my $25 Autocord? If you promise me that my 11 x 14s of downtown Sultanahmet will be even better, tamam... But the Autocord is fully depreciated (like myself), beautifully simple, and tucks neatly behind my left elbow as I stroll...and Uncle Osama pays no attention as I walk past his cafe...

As one who wanders on foot with his trusty Autocord, from the goat

tracks of the Levka Ori to the fairy chimneys of Cappadochia, I try

to use my lightweight tripod whenever possible. Lately, however, the

thought has ocurred that a monopod might provide the same benefits

without the hassle of set-up (and occasionally, hostile Balkan

stares) of the tripod. Besides, a monopod would be easy to disguise

as a Cretan walking stick.

 

What is the general experience of monopods? Worth the try?

 

With thanks,

 

JK

Imran:

 

I owned the same camera for twenty years. It travelled in my pocket, in my backpack, on my motorcycle through at least 15 countries. It fell downstairs, it fell on the ground, it got wet--and never complained. Stopped down to f/11, it produced results which are in frames on my living room wall and look good enough to have been taken with a much more expensive camera. I'm glad I have the pictures. I wish I still had the camera!

Dear Garvey,

 

I used the 2.9 Schneider Radionar for the better part of a decade in every corner of Europe. The lens was mounted on a Franka Solida III. Provided that it was stopped down to f11 it gave really fine B&W results, easily enlargeable up to 11" x 14".

 

While I never conducted a formal lens test, the Schneider beat every 2.8 Zeiss Tessar that I tested it against--disappointing, because I preferred the Zeiss Super Ikonta given its rangefinder. Having to rely on depth of field below ca. 30 feet was the camera's only weak point.

 

Enjoy your Schneider! I'm in the hunt for something similar.

Messieurs:

 

I plan to move to a country characterized by near-constant heat and

humidity. To protect the human mechanism, the answer is "beer."

However, this answer, I am quite certain, does not extend to ancient

cameras, or Summicron and Zeiss lenses.

 

I vaguely recall a thread devoted to home-made protection for the

above in tropical conditions. I think it involved mounting a 25-watt

light fixture within a styrofoam picnic box, installing the toys, and

leaving the issue "on" for the duration. Is this correct? Are there

other details that I need to attend to?

 

With thanks,

Sir Blau!

 

This is beside the point if you have committed to 'Blad. No arguments with the quality, the nonpareil Zeiss lenses, etc., BUT the dreaded

 

MIRROR SLAP

 

is potentially as baneful as that incendiary tautology "Greek Macedonia."

 

Without knowing your film/digital choices, it is hard to comment on the degree of asperity you will have to endure from the aforesaid bouncing mirror. Suffice it to say that the Movement's beloved, mirror-free (and dirt-cheap) Autocord has survived all manner of Balkan backpack abuse, from Agios Poustis to Siktra Orospoo to the rat-trap Sandzak of Novi Pazar, without more than an occasional CLA.

 

On the higher end of the $cale , there are even finer things--the Weitwinkel Rollei or the W67 Plaubel, for example. But I wouldn't use such to drive tent-pegs.

 

Good hunting,

 

Biker

Elders and Betters!

 

<p>

 

I am nearsighted, my eyes never did work well in the dark, they are on their seventh decade, and spotting the sweep second hand on my watch is hit-or-miss. In order to keep paper in the developer for the requisite two minutes I need:

 

<p>

 

One small mechanical or battery powered timer.

 

<p>

 

Ideally the timer would emit a gentle "ding" or buzz at the end of two minutes. I cannot use my Gralab timer, which is hard-wired into a cold-light enlarger. I want something a tad more accurate than the classical egg-timer.

 

<p>

 

Any ideas on who could supply one of the above?

 

<p>

 

Many thanks!

 

<p>

 

Jeremy Keller

Dear Darrin,

 

I shoot 35mm and 6x6 (the former with a Leica M3, the latter with a '50s Minolta Autocord TLR. For B&W enlargements over 11 x 14, the larger format wins by a large margin almost all the time.

 

My only cavil is with your choice of medium format weapon. The M7 will set you back thousands of dollars and will not survive an accidental trip off your bike or out of your backpack. A Minolta, Yashica, or Rollei will give you the same lens quality, save you enough for your next carbon fiber bike frame, take up half the space in your pack, and the Minolta, at least, will survive any attempts to destroy it.

 

Happy shooting,

 

Jeremy Keller

Advice needed re the above!

 

I am currently printing medium format (6x6) with an Omega C76

enlarger equipped with an Arista coldlight. The coldlight is blue-

white in appearance; there is no provision for adjusting its

wavelength.

 

As it is sometimes hard to find graded paper in the Balkans, I would

like to add a Kodak or Ilford polycontrast filter system to the

enlarger. However, I seem to remember hearing that it is necessary

to recalibrate the coldlight's wavelength/color temperature before

using polycontrast. Any thoughts?

 

With thanks,

 

Jeremy Keller

Balkanbiker@hotmail.com