steve_ember

On 11/2/2021 at 8:11 AM, m42dave said:

 

Hi, the profile of member donnie_strickland shows he has not been active on this site in about 4 years, so may not get your reply.

 

Original Chinon accessories like this are very hard to come by. I have a GAF L-ES (Chinon CE Memotron) and use an aftermarket eyecup bought from eBay vendor "Pentax Shop" which has a removable plain eyepiece glass, so it should accept a correction lens. Perhaps an optometrist could make one to fit if you can't find one.

 

According to the Learn Camera Repair website, a number of Chinon SLRs (including the CE-3) were made by Cosina, so some Cosina accessories may fit also.

Hi Dave,

My belated thanks for your suggestions, which I somehow missed until this evening! Meantime, I find my left eye will accommodate to the Chinon's VF without a diopter correction lens, but I still prefer using the right eye, so will investigate the avenues you suggested. Thanks again!

<p>I've had 3 Memotrons, one each of the Chinon branded version, GAF L-ES version, and the Sears 2000ES version, which I kept.</p>

<p>They are indeed big cameras, with a 1/2000 shutter speed, and autoexposure with any M42 lens. And <strong>Mike</strong>, the metering works just as you describe. Also they will take a 28L lithium 6V battery, available anywhere. I really enjoy using mine!</p>

Hi Donnie,

Wondering if you - or any other Chinon CE-3 owners on the forum have had occasion to add a diopter correction lens to the viewfinder window. I typically require +1.0 or +2.0 (depending on the camera). Typically, I've been able to fit a Pentax diopter attachment or, in some cases, a rectangular Nikon, to Pentax or Contax SLRs and they fit just fine. Turns out the plastic molding around the Chinon's viewfinder window is just enough too wide to fit one of these great little rescues!.

I do have a search on ebay for the Chinon-made unit, but so far no results.

So, anyone know of a dioptric lens adapter that will fit the CE-3?

Many thnaks!

Hi -sorry to be a bit late to this party. The D-7 is in a whole new league when it comes to the Contax data back series as it not only offers date imprinting, but acts as an intervalometer, provides extended long exposure, a much wider series of data printing options and is good until 2079! The English language instructions run to 30 pages although I do also have a simple 2 page quick guide to many of the features if that may help.

Hello Graham,

Hope I'm not missing something, perhaps a fllow-up to this post, but can you advise if these greater capabilities include printing exposure data between frames, as the D-8 does for my Contax AX? If so, would it be possible to purchase a pdf copy from you of the complete manual?

Many thanks!

Steve

<p>Thank you, Glen, Craig, Jochen, and Erwin, for the guidance. Looks like I'm off in search of replacement caps for these little "orphans." I'll hope the circuits will be intact once the caps are replaced. It's so much fun using a light source that was still popular when cameras like my Auto S3 were new ;-) Before my one working Cube Flash went poof, the couple I shot were all smiles at the very different light source, which I'm not sure they even remembered!</p>

<p>Hello, all - Especially anyone familiar with (dare I say it and reveal my age?) FLASH CUBES!<br>

I'm almost embarrassed to ask this question but here goes. In reacquainting myself with a variety of late-60s and '70s compact rangefinder cameras, I've been enjoying some nostalgic shooting (with the blessed absence of menus!).<br>

One of the cameras I purchased was the elegant little Konica Auto S3. Its manual mentioned the Konica Cube Flash attachment, and that reminded me that I had one stashed away, along with a bunch of flash cubes. Fortunately, I'd removed the 15 volt battery long ago, so the battery compartment was clean. So, I ordered a new battery and planned to start doing some flash cube photography, if for no other reason than to see people's faces as this "ancient and arcane" technology was used in gatherings.<br>

Meantime, the compact r/f odyssey continued with the purchase of the even more compact (and also all metal!) Konica C35. This one came in the original hardshell presentation box...including another Konica Cube Flash attachment.<br>

And, somehow, along the way, I managed to come into a third such unit!<br>

As I try to re-construct my limited use of these, I know <strong>at least one</strong> of them worked, if only once. That is to say, pressing the flashcube would cause the OK light on the back of the unit to glow and pressing the shutter on the C35 did produce a burst of light. Also a puff of smoke! The latter, I attributed to possibly the age of my flash cubes.<br>

I'm hoping that brief plume of smoke was not indicating the death of the unit, perhaps as a result of the capacitor being ancient and demented (as I must sound in posing this question!).<br>

Bottom line: I now have THREE Konica Cube Flash attachments, none of which will fire, either using the hot shoe or plugging the PC cord into cameras so equipped. Beyond that, the ready light will not come on in response to pressing in on an un-fired flashcube in any of these.<br>

At first, I suspected the 15 volt battery had been an early casualty, but it measured fine. It just can not get ANY of my three Konica Cube Flash attachments to operate.<br>

I should also indicate, I've tried this with multiple new cubes.<br>

One last item - unrelated to the Konicas: I also purchased a Canon Cube Flash attachment, which is a bit more convenient in that it has a lever for both rotating the cube and ejecting when done. Only downside, no hot shoe, but fine for cameras with PC terminal. Instead of the 15-volt battery, the Canon uses two 1.5 volt N batteries. So, I bought a pack of N cells, loaded the Canon, and (you've probably guessed it!), no joy.<br>

If anyone is familiar with this type of equipment, I'd appreciate your guidance. If it's simply a matter of an ancient capacitor self-destructing, do you know if they can be replaced.<br>

Many thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks, Lex, Jim, Stephen, and Fred. Jim, I think you've reinforced my inclination to just hold a large enough filter in front of the camera to cover both the lens and the meter sensor. Or, if I can find an arm (other than my own!) that would allow such positioning.<br>

Might be awkward, but, considering what fine condition T2s and 35Tis sell for, and the likely cost of repairing broken gears, lens covers, associated mechanisms (assuming there are even parts for such repairs), sounds like a more prudent course than attaching stuff to a moving lens - especially when these cameras can decide at the wrong moment to make like a turtle ;-)</p>

<p>Many thanks for the idea, Lex. There just might be such a contraption gathering dust in some treasure trove old camera shop. Will check the "usual suspects."<br>

I continue to be amazed at the "immediacy" of forums such as these. I pose an off-the-wall question and - literally seconds later - someone has an idea!<br>

Anyone else?</p>

<p>Hello, all...<br /> I've recently added these elegant little machines to my film camera collection. Ergonomically and fun factor wise, they are both lovely to use, but there are many times I feel naked without a red or yellow filter while shooting B/W, or a polarizer or at least an 812 when shooting chromes.<br /> Has anyone had success in "attaching" a filter without ill effects in exposure or at least holding a filter in front of one of these cameras - neither lens has threads, of course. I'm less concerned about confusing the camera as to focus, as I envision using such filters in landscape shooting, so would be selecting the infinity setting rather than auto-focus, and just using a wide enough filter to cover both lens and viewing windows, unless someone has a more elegant solution ;-)<br /> Naturally, I can - easily - use filters with my rangefinders or SLRs...It's just a matter of these little gems having such fine glass, a pity not to give whatever film its best chance to shine when using them. Thanks for any suggestions!</p>

<p>Bingo!<br>

Nice work, Randy. That's how <em>I'd</em> have wanted it to look, were it my pic and my doggie ;-)<br>

And, of course, it still looks like an Ektar! (and why couldn't a pro lab have gotten it like that?)</p>

<p>Hi Brittany,<br>

You're most welcome. Here is a further suggestion - As you had these done by a local professional lab, why not take both the negs and scans (and, I'm assuming, prints) back to them and discuss the issues. Over the years, I have found that - especially when you've established a relationship with a real photo lab, there is no unpleasantness if you show them what you like - and don't like - about their work. Do NOT accept answers like, "Well, they're just machine prints." There is ALWAYS latitude in printing to taste and a caring lab will do that. <br>

Again, this advise is offered in the absence of actually seeing your negs, so please take that into consideration in terms of how hard-nosed you need to be. Ektar is a lovely film and unless you overexposed the #$%^ out of it, you should see better results than these.<br>

I applaud your desire to deal with local companies, but the other side of the coin is they need to earn your loyalty. As to having to wait four weeks for mail-order processing...for what it might be worth, I live on the East Coast and routinely send film (including Ektar!) to three labs on the West Coast. I typically receive my (very clean!) negs, lovely 4x6 prints, and large scans back well within two weeks.<br>

That, to me, is a fair trade-off for consistently fine work, as well as prompt customer service if I have a question. After all, when we buy into shooting film, we put instant gratification on the back burner, don't we ;-) I get all the instant gratification I need from my D-SLR (which almost never goes out without a film camera or three).<br>

Another note - I strongly agree with Les as to the sometimes unwelcome artifacts of Noritsu-Koki lab scans, with the issue sometimes being an over-sharpening that can make continuous tone areas like sky a bit too "granular," even with fine grained films like Ektar. This is mainly noticeable when viewing on your computer monitor (as opposed to the typical 4x6 print). I'm still working my way through that, either by re-scanning with my Nikon CoolScan V ED or doing some post processing (or both).<br>

Even so, ain't film grand...<br>

Best regards,<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Hello, Brittany...<br>

I see some washed out areas, as well as the over-sharpening to which you refer. As someone who has shot a great deal of Ektar-100 in Nikon and Canon SLRs, I've come to love the film for its vivid colors - almost like shooting slide film, but far less critical as to exposure latitude - especially "over."<br>

Without seeing your negs, I'd hazard a guess these were processed at a drugstore or mini lab - by an experienced (or careless) printer. There is always the risk that the dreaded automatic factor is there, by which the machine "averages out" the tonalities, without human intervention, often leading to washed out prints. For example, I'd imagine in the last one, you'd rather the green railing etc were darker, so that your dog and his shadow were not so "blown out" and lacking in detail.<br>

If my guess is correct, the automated printing (and scanning) was given full rein by a "casual" operator. Scanning can be a whole 'nother Pandora's Box. That said, contrasty scenes - as some of yours are - are by and large more difficult to print satisfactorily - unless the person operating the machine brings a level of judgment to the process.<br>

Before giving up on using Ektar - or doubting either your Nikon's metering or your own skills - I'd have a serious lab take a look at your negs and perhaps run a few prints and scans.<br>

Good luck,<br>

Steve</p>

<p>I've had some superb results with Kodak's Ektar. It is an extremely fine grained ISO-100 film with a saturated palette many have compared to Velvia - or at least to Kodak's own Extra-Saturated versions of Ektachrome. I have also found Ektar negs very easy to scan with no nasty surprises. Try some - I think you'll like it, while you gain the experience that will help you with slide films. Here's an example: http://fc-foto.com/30955745<br>

Good luck!<br>

-Steve<img src="http://fc-foto.com/30955745" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hello - While I live on the East Coast, I regularly send film to North Coast Photographic in California. For the past year or so, I have sent them C-41, E-6, and B/W and have been uniformly pleased with their consistent quality. Slides are returned neatly mounted and very clean - a big plus when one is scanning into the computer for integrating film into a digital workflow. Likewise their processing of negative films has also been impeccable.<br>

I discovered NCPS on Ken Rockwell's web site. He raved about their enhanced scans, which come back to you on DVD. As scanning takes so much time to do right, I thought I'd try this service. While there are still times I'll prefer to scan a slide or neg myself, I'd have to say the NCPS scans are, by and large, impressive.<br>

I was also EXTREMELY impressed with the 4x6 prints they have made from my color negative and B/W orders - so good I'd consider them guide print caliber for making exhibit enlargements. They look like they are done by photo-sensitive professionals - not gum-chewing slackers letting the auto-everything machine do, well, everything.<br>

I should qualify this rave by saying I've not had occasion to send NCPS any film over the past couple of months, but, unless something's gone terribly wrong, I'd have no reason to think they've slipped.<br>

Their web site is very complete and easy to navigate and you get the feeling they really ENJOY working with film - Rare and commendable in what can be a genuine minefield of disappointment.<br>

http://www.northcoastphoto.com/<br>

Give them a try - I don't think you'll be disappointed.<br>

Steve Ember<br>

P.S: I've been shooting film for decades and continue to do so alongside of digital.</p>

<p>Hello Sandor,<br>

Assuming you are in the U.S. (asking because of postal costs) and willing to "part out" your film stash, I'd love to have the 15 rolls of Ektar 35mm and the four rolls of Reala 35 mm.<br>

<br />Thanks!<br>

<br />Steve</p>

<p>Hello, all.<br>

<br />Let me assure you I am of sound mind - except for having this question about using long-expired (but freezer-stored) 3M-640 Tunsten film ;-)<br>

I continue to shoot film alongside of digital, and as I need to add some new film to my freezer, it is time to use up any odds and ends that I've either procrastinated over or just hadn't had situations calling for use of a particular film type.<br>

Before I decided digital was the ticket for the most reliable tungsten shooting, I did stock up on a bunch of 3M 640 for such applications. No, I never much cared for it, in terms of golf-ball size grain and not really wonderful color.<br>

But just for grins, I'd like to go on an adventure with my remaining 3 or 4 rolls of this stuff, most likely outdoors using an 85B filter to correct for the non-tungsten K. <br>

Obviously, I'm not looking for accuracy - just some sensory adventure.<br>

So, wondering if anyone has used this film (expired but kept in freezer since expiration date) and can give me some guidance.<br>

Typically, when I've shot expired color NEGATIVE film, I've exposed at half or lower ISO to ensure denser, more printable/scanable negs. My instinct, though, would tell me it's not a great idea to "overexpose" slide film, even if expired, but again, wondering if anyone recommends such exposure adjustment.<br>

Or, would there be a point in getting a roll cross-processed in C41 chemistry?<br>

Thanks for sharing any experience you may have had with this film.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Sincere thanks to all who addressed my issue. It's truly illuminating to see the kind and spectrum of intelligent responses on this forum. Must say, some of the advice was well above my head in terms of technical theory - and perhaps I'm to blame for that if my use of the term "grain aliasing" was an inaccurate description of what I was seeing in those scans.<br>

Thanks to all who looked at my scary-grain example - I'm going to HOPE that Les was correct in his comment "Your example scan is aggressively over sharpened by default on a Noritsu machine as seen in the clumpy look of the grain. This is certainly hard to post process." Amen to that!<br>

And thanks to Konrad for the tutorial, which I absolutely intend to follow.<br>

Guess it comes down to when your left headlight is out, the first thing to check is the bulb and not the engineering blueprints for the car's electrical system or the theory of computer control ;-)<br>

And Les, thank you for posting your useful scans - including the Tri-X image. Also for the absolutely rational advice to scan the same negs I got back from NCPS and compare the results between their possibly aggressive Noritsu and my lowly little Nikon Cool Scan V ED. I'm guessing that will prove instructive. Perhaps it was too much to expect that outside scans from entire rolls would prove as workflow-easing as just scanning the shots I'm really interested in at home.<br>

We shall see. Meantime, I have a project that's eating up my spare time, plus an upcoming trip - during which I shall do the FUN part of photography and shoot more film over which to obsess and swear when it's time to post or print ;-)<br>

When I get back, I intend to follow the "basic" advice described above in hopes there will be a "scanning epiphany," and will report back on what shakes out - hopefully that ugly clumpy looking grain you were all so kind to address.<br>

Thanks again - nice to be connected with such a pool of experts.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Thank you all for the attempts to help. And Dan and Les, you are so right - it would have made more sense to post a photo showing what I'm yakking about! So please see the large-image link below for a good illustration - not saying wonderful photo - just good illustration ;-)<br>

Les, to answer your question, I've seen this crude sort of granularity on Ilford XP2 Super (ISO 400), but I've also seen it on Agfa Pan 25 which is about as fine grain a film as I know of. As I say, it doesn't seem to relate so much to native film grain as to some sort of digital over-sharpening in the scanner although, I hasten to add, I am not using any enhancement modes in the scanning process.<br>

Dang, this is frustrating.<br /> Thanks again, gents, for your willingness to help me sort this out. Photography is supposed to be fun...or so I thought before scanning entered my workflow.<br>

Steve</p><div></div>

<p>Hello Tom,<br>

Thanks for your response. As an audio professional, I do indeed understand your analogy to digital artifacts relating to a sampling frequency. Nasty stuff when listening to real music...<br>

So, I guess I must - first - determine if what I'm seeing in my skies REALLY IS grain aliasing. Perhaps it is some other by-product of the digital scanning process. Otherwise, I have to think more film photographers would be pitching the same gripe.<br>

I sure hope it's something else, as I haven't a clue as to how to slightly de-focus my Nikon scanner...nor would I imagine would NCPS care to de-focus their professional Noritsu Koki QSS scanners.<br>

So, with thanks and respect to Tom, has anyone else encountered this in their scans from 35mm film.<br>

Hopefully,<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Hello, all, from a new member.<br>

I hope someone can offer guidance with a really vexing problem. It shows up mainly in continuous tone areas like skies, and does not seem to be limited either to B/W, color neg, or slides.<br>

My practice has been to scan at 4,000 ppi in my Nikon Coolscan V ED film scanner.<br>

If I understand correctly, what I am seeing is a sort of digital "artifact" resulting from the scanning process called "grain aliasing." <br>

It is truly ugly, as it bears no resemblance to film grain, and even the finest grain B/W films are affected by this in the scanning. Worse than ugly, it seems to defy any noise reduction programs I've tried. What concerns me most is that even images shot on the finest grain films show this ugly pattern on my calibrated monitor.<br>

Recently, I've started using the Enhanced Scans done by North Coast Photographic Services, thus getting the same large 4,000 ppi scans as I had been doing one by one on my Nikon scanner. They are sharp and the colors are lovely, as well as producing excellent B/W tonality. But the granularity pattern is there, just as in my Nikon scans.<br>

When I subsequently edit, either in Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo or PS Elements, I first change the resolution of the large TIFF (or in the case of NCPS, jpg) file from 4,000 to 300 ppi, while keeping the scanned pixel dimensions of ~5,500 x ~3,300.<br>

This does not in any way change the granularity patterns on my monitor. Curiously, when I print such images on premium photo paper (full-frame on 8.5 x 11 sheets), the granularity is not as noticeable, but I remain concerned as my edited images are sometimes professionally printed to much larger dimensions.<br>

Can anyone offer some layman guidance as to what is going on here - AND recommend an easy, straightforward stand-alone program that reliably removes such granularity from continuous tone areas.<br>

I've been behind one lens or another for decades, but consider myself somewhat a newbie to scanning. Nonetheless, I've lately made a major re-commitment to shooting film, so between new work and thousands of legacy slides and negs, I am definitely looking for a way to remove this particular headache from my film-to-digital workflow.<br>

Many thanks!<br>

Steve</p>