va3uxb

<p>Did the edge markings on the film come out ok? Like the frame numberings and the DX encodings? If that stuff came out normally that suggests that the film was processed ok and was not itself defective.</p>

 

<p>I didn't know that Ferrania was gone. I thought they were the ones manufacturing the Lomography branded films. When I scanned the DX barcodes on the Lomo CN-100 and CN-800 films, it came up as manufactured by Ferrania.</p>

<p>I've got my eye on a Kodak Jiffy Vest Pocket. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the comments!</p>

<p>I've ordered a couple rolls of 828 from B&H, as I do plan on using the camera myself. I'd reload it with regular 35mm (the sprocket holes don't bother me) but the backing paper from the VP was partially torn. It looked like it was torn when the camera was originally loaded, the film just prior to the first frame has a 'contact print' of the rip, probably from light in the green window. </p>

<p><strong>Rick</strong>, I understand what you are saying about found films - there is certainly a bit of voyeurism involved... a glimpse into the memories of a stranger. For me, it's a matter of curiosity, and mainly just leads me to more questions - who took the pictures, why, and why were they left in the camera and never processed.</p>

<p>I have a slightly different take on the analogies you presented - I wouldn't pull letters out of the landfill, and if I found a CF card at a cafe, I'd turn it in to their lost&found. If I purchased a second-hand CF card though, I'd certainly look and see if there was anything on it, out of curiosity. And then I'd erase it. Indeed, I have had this happen in the past: I bought a used memory card and was shocked to discover it contained a database of sensitive medical information collected during some drug trials. And then I securely-formatted the card.</p>

<p>Back on topic though - the camera is in excellent condition and I've just finished giving the lens and viewfinder a good cleaning. So once I receive the film from B&H, I'll just be waiting for some nice weather so I can put this nice old camera back to work! </p>

 

<p>I have no idea what time-period these pictures are from. The roll of film next to the camera in the first image at the top of the thread is the one that these came from - old Verichrome Pan.</p>

<p>The last good frame. I think this is the same park, the same day. I can't make out the name on the paddlewheeler. There's also a peddal-boat and a canoe in the image. Looks like an interesting place.</p>

<div></div>

<p>A big impressive tree? Impressive enough to use 12.5% of his film on it.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Still in the park. The woman has her back to the photographer, so I don't think she's with him. Maybe he came alone? </p>

<p>All I can read on the sign is Pony Ride... </p><div></div>

<p>This looks like a bright sunny day in a park somewhere...</p><div></div>

<p>I came across a Kodak Bantam at a price I couldn't pass up, so I nabbed it. It's the first 828 camera in my collection, and I still can't get over how cute it is.</p>

<p><img src="http://planetstephanie.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Kodak_Bantam.jpg" alt="" width="565" height="565" /></p>

<p>From my research, I believe it is one of the original models introduced in 1935. It has the Kodak Anastigmat f/6.3 lens, with a 53mm focal length, and the rigid finder. The bellows are in good condition and do not appear to have any holes. The shutter works and is nice and snappy in both Instant and Time settings. And the aperture is selectable between f/6.3 and f/11. The viewfinder needs to be cleaned but that is the only thing that appears to be wanting.</p>

<p>The best part though was the camera came with a roll of Verichrome Pan in it! It was already wound past the last exposure, so I finished winding it up, in order to process it. I had one major snag though - I fumbled the film when taking it out, and it partially unwound, so sadly the last frame-and-a-half were light-struck. </p>

<p>I was able to get six usable images off the roll. Processed for 11:30 in T-Max 1:4 at 70degF after a 10 minute presoak. My T-Max is about 2 years old and I don't know how many rolls it's seen, all I know is it's very weak so I'm pushing the exposure times longer than normal... guesswork and hand-waving. </p>

<p>The first two images were almost identical. #1 was better-framed but blurred, #2 was sharp. It's a house, possibly the photographer's new home, or maybe his first home. It was special enough to take two pictures of it. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Shannon, I think there are some fairly basic pros and cons of using a ready-made 'pinhole lens' on a 35mm camera versus a scratch-built or kit-built or dedicated pinhole camera.</p>

<p>With the ready-made 'pinhole lens' on a 35mm camera body, you have the advantages of using an existing film transport system, existing shutter, and presumably the pinhole adaptor itself has been properly made and probably has a precision-drilled hole. On the downside, you probably have no control over the focal length, or any other aspects of the camera. And IMHO you also aren't going to learn too much about the process.</p>

<p>With a scratch-built pinhole camera, there is a lot more leeway in every aspect of the finished product. You decide the focal length, you decide the film size / format, and you have to learn enough about how and why pinhole cameras work, to get some decent results from it. To me, these are all big advantages. On the other hand, it can be tricky / difficult to get things working right, especially if it is a first try. </p>

<p>My first crack at a pinhole camera was a medium format wood camera with brass fittings, and it was a lot of trial-and-error and head-scratching to get it all working. The end result still isn't much to behold, but I'm proud of it and I got what I wanted in terms of format and focal length. <br>

Some sample pictures: <a href="http://planetstephanie.net/2009/10/12/more-pinhole-pics/">More Pinhole Pics</a><br>

My pinhole camera: <br>

<img src="http://planetstephanie.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/front-525x349.jpg" alt="" width="525" height="349" /></p>

<p>More recently I threw together a bit of an oddball, a pinhole camera that uses instant film (Fuji Instax Mini film). It was made in under an hour with plastic, tape, and tinfoil, and was done because I was wondering if it would work. I did a write-up of it here: http://www.lomography.com/magazine/tipster/2011/09/21/pinhole-instax-camera</p>

<p>I guess to summarize my opinion, there's pros and cons whether you just use an adaptor to a normal camera, or you build something from scratch. It depends what the real goal is. If one wants to try pinhole photography then a quick and easy way to do it is with an adaptor to an existing camera. If one wants to really learn about it and get a feel for it, then try building a pinhole camera and go from there.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

 

<p>I do not remember the exact year, but it was the latter half of the 1970's. I was less than 10 years old, but I can remember even then, I was fascinated with cameras. I somehow managed to convince my mother to let me hold / try / play with her new camera, and managed to take a couple snaps with it. As far as I am able to remember, this was my first photograph, my initial first-hand experience with a camera.</p>

<p>The camera itself was a Kodak Instamatic X-15, the film was black & white, and I still have the negatives filed away somewhere safe. Indeed, I actually now own that camera with which I took my very first pictures - recently my mother found it buried in a drawer somewhere and gave it to me.</p>

<p>The first picture I took, was of my mother. Either we didn't have any magic-cubes or she didn't want me to have them, so we went outside to get her in the sun - despite being the middle of winter. The picture is no award-winner of course; just the result of a 7- or 8-year-old snapping a pic of her mum.</p>

<div></div>

<p>According to the Massive Dev. Chart's page on push processing, the time would be multiplied by 1.4x, so instead of 6:30 you'd be looking at 9:06, in T-Max 1:4 at 68 degrees.</p>

<p>See here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=pushproc<br /> then just look up the time for the APX100 at 100, and the one stop push with T-Max developer is 1.4 x normal.</p>

<p>Edited twice because I am having problems this morning it seems.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

Nice pictures. I'm also a 35 SE owner / user, it's a fine camera.

<p>Thanks for all the feedback!</p>

<p>I processed another two rolls last night, but extended the blix time by about 25%. The scans came out ok this time around, so I figure this means my blix is probably just about exhausted.</p>

<p>Time to mix up a new batch!</p>

<p>Very nice collection! Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>Here is the same exact crop scanned immediately after the first, with Digital ICE turned off. It shows none of the contrasty noise that the Digital ICE caused in the first scan.</p>

<p>No other processing has been done to these two scans, and none of the other scanner software settings were used.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I've been using my Epson V500 with the Digital ICE feature to scan colour negs and slides for a few months now, and it's been performing quite well. Then out of the last 4 rolls I've scanned, Digital ICE has failed to work correctly for three of them.</p>

<p>What it seems to be doing is creating very contrasty noise. The effect reminds me of when I accidentally tried to use Digital ICE on a black&white film. I'm wondering if there is a problem with the film or the processing that is causing the scanner to act this way.</p>

<p>I process my film at home, I'm using a Tetenal Press Kit for the C-41 processing. Maybe there's residual silver on the negative that's confusing the ICE thing? It's wierd because I had it happen once, then the next roll was just fine, then the last two (processed together) both exhibit this problem.</p>

<p>I've attached an image below, this is a crop which was scanned using Digital ICE. The film was a generic colour negative, ISO 800, exposed with "sunny-16" in an old Chaika II. The film was current, and was processed last night and scanned this morning.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I didn't intend to stockpile film and so didn't get into the habit of keeping it in the fridge, or the freezer. Combined with not knowing how the older film was cared for before I acquired it, I don't know that it's worthwhile to try chilling it now or not. I do use it regularily, generally I only shoot digital if I want to take a quick picture & post online right away.</p>

<p>Most of my film is standard stuff, 135 or 120 format and mostly current or very-recently expired. I have some 'oddball' stuff though:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>In 126 format I have a couple packs of Verichrome Pan, expired in 1977. I've got fairly good results from that. I also have some Kodacolor II expired in the 90's which gives somewhat washed-out colour effects. Finally I have a few store-brand packs, and a single pack from Fuji. I like 126 as I like the square format, and I have some very nice cameras for it - the Minolta Autopak 700 rangefinder (visible in the image below) and a Rollei A26, plus I just picked up a Kodak Instamatic 500 I'm eager to try out.</li>

<li>I came across a cute, cheap Disc camera - an Ansco "Readyflash" VR-1 which is little more than a flat plastic box camera. It was only 95 cents. So I had to get some disc film for it. I haven't had a chance to try developing this film yet, but I do intend to process it myself.</li>

<li>I recently picked up a camera that used 127 film so I found some "Rollei Nightbird" film in that format to run through that camera.</li>

</ul>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<div></div>

<p>On my Nettar the serial number is stamped into the leatherette on the side of the back door near the hinge. On the opposite side of the back door, the model number is stamped - 517/16. There's no lens serial number on mine.</p>

<p>Interestingly, my camera is not on that list at wctatel.net - it's a 517/16 but with a Novar lens (Novar-Anastigmat is engraved on the lens) and a Pronto shutter. The nearest thing on the list is a 518/16 Nettar IIb.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for posting that! I'd love to go, but my own health isn't up for it this year. Maybe next time around.<br>

Cheers!</p>

 

<p>Very nice pictures. The second 'lighthouse' one is my favorite.<br>

I'm really curious about the row of metal structures, with the light standards ontop. Does something run along the top of those? They look almost like there could be a small rail or something, or maybe it is just wiring?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now of those here how many repair they own cameras and lenses just for the heck of it !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do - I just fixed a jammed Chaika-II the other night: <a href="http://planetstephanie.net/2011/09/14/late-night-camera-repair/">Late Night Camera Repair</a></p>

<p>I've had a few catastrophic failures with my 'home camera repair' but I've had even more successes. And it is always a learning experience. Nothing beats the feeling though of taking pictures with a camera that you've repaired yourself.</p>

<p>Good luck with the lens, and have fun!</p>

<p> </p>

In the couple Date-Back cameras I have, the ------ display does indicate "Off".

 

You can perhaps test by tripping the shutter with the back open, just watch the imprint LEDs as you trip it. You ought to

be able to see them light up (or not) briefly just after the shutter fires.

 

Cheers!

Nice work! A look at the camera itself would be good too.

This got me when I started doing my own C-41 processing at home. After years of B&W, looking up times etc. for different film brands

and speeds, it was hard to grasp the simplicity at first. As already mentioned though, the C-41 process is designed to be souped for the

same times and temps, regardless of film speed or brand.

 

Cheers!