henry_finley1

Thank you for answering. I had hoped to think there was a way to come up with a circuit (which I have no electronic knowledge to design) that would be "always off" until the red button on the camera was pressed. Single phase capacitor start, capacitor run electric motors can "kick" instantly, so why not my idea, I thought. As I understand the Super Graphic, there is no on-off switch for the battery-capacitor circuit. But batteries are protected from being under constant drain only due to good capacitors being in the circuit.But once capacitors get old and leaky, a 40 dollar set of new custom-sold batteries would get drained down in no time, if I were to buy some and install them in my Graphic with its 60 year old capacitors.I have no intention of installing and removing batteries incessantly just to protect my 40-50 dollars worth of batteries. and AAA alkalines are dirt cheap at the Family Dollar. So... how about two 9 volt cells. They would fit, and that's 18V instead of 6 with the 4 AAA's. That's closer to 45V. Even though 9V batteries aren't cheap, but at least they are common, and don't cost $20-30 apiece like the 22 1/2V special order cells. I have never seen a thread on any of these photo sites where somebody brought up this Super Graphic issue in the depth I am now attempting. OK, so my idea would require a switch, perhaps set in a custom fabricated battery bay cover, which a lot of these cameras are missing already. And said switch would have to be flipped in anticipation of taking a photo, and flipped off again later. But not immediately, necessarily. So obviously you couldn't walk around blissful that the red thumb button on the camera will "kick" your solenoid on demand. But certainly I must be on the right track with my idea. An idea BTW, which MUST NOT involve destructive modification of the camera irreversibly. I want my red thumb button to work, and I don't want to buy special order 22 1/2 V batteries, and I don't want holes drilled by knuckleheads in my camera installing hairbrain homemade ideas.

I've given a lot of thought about the 45V system originally installed in the Super Graphics. The one question is why they went to the 2-22½ battery arrangement, when the Speeds had the low voltage solenoid that obviously worked. I understand why they did it, but now 60 years later it's a mess. And here's where my lack of electronic circuit design knowledge leaves me able to dream up the concept of the wheel, but no ability to actually design it. Here's what I know: The battery bay on a Super could hold 4-AAA batteries in an easily fabricated pack. Certainly in this day of modern electronics there must a circuit design to kick that 6V up to the needed voltage to trip the shutter with the pre-existing lensboard solenoid. And this circuit should be able to be contained in the same space after removal of the camera body's factory capacitors and diodes and such. A further advantage being that it would be a true open circuit when the red button is not depressed, rather than depending on capacitors not leaking and running down the expensive batteries when the camera is not being used. I do not know what the voltage at the solenoid contacts was with the original wiring, but certainly there must be a way to do this, if anybody knows anything about designing such a circuit.

<p>Using them would be a mistake.</p>

<p>APUG had 2 episodes of postings of this obvious Liberal Activism today. Obviously the work of the shills and stooges of the Community Agitator-in-Chief with the pen and the phone. But alas, all these precious little darlings will have plenty of employment as masons next year, working from the south side. Also, the SC Lunatic Party primary was today, and both candidates had their stooges working overtime stirring up voters. It's a time-honored pattern of their party since Mayor Daly in 1960 found all those voters in the cemeteries. Just thought I'd answer the question, because you certain won't see any truth the press.</p>

<p>Let's just shoot film and be happy.</p> <p>Now that's my kind of talk.</p>

<p>agreed</p>

<p>Or do a computer search for Photoshop Prefs Or Photoshop CS2 Prefs, or whatever version you're using. When the search function finds that file, delete it. That will reset Photoshop back to the time it was first loaded onto the machine.</p>

<p>I left that site before following this problem, but it seems Kodak is still coating their film largely unchanged in their building 38 as always. But it seems they are buying backing paper from outside sources. Although I can't imagine how any strange chemical in the black ink can darken the emulsion through the thickness of the paper plus the thickness of the film. I've heard about other budget brands having insufficient opacity in their backing paper causing numbers to appear from light transmitted through the ruby window. But best as I have heard, this is happening on Kodak films now in modern cameras that do not have ruby windows.<br /> As best as I can conclude, there is either something in the black ink they print the backing paper with. What else could it be?</p>

<p>There was recently a discussion on APUG about possible problems with Kodak film doing this. I'm not versed in it as I left that site due to too many posts from left-wingers stirring their agitation. This site seems to not have much political posting.</p>

<p>No. These apertures are limitations of the iris shutter.</p>

<p>I believe in your position, I'd put the lens up on ebay as a parts lens (to keep it in circulation), and just get another. And somebody else will grab your up and be glad to have it. And you'll be back in business without turning your newfound hobby into a sour beginning.</p>

<p>WD 40 is death to a camera no matter what, period. And there may be plastic parts in a shutter that naphtha is a good cleaner, but only on the shutters that it can be used on. But only a shutter man can really know which is which.<br> You are not going to find a magic liquid to do the job that needs to be done. The shutter needs a stripdown and a cleaning and adjustment. Bottom line. Do that and you're set.</p>

<p>I've never worked on the mirrors of the gliding mirror models, but I have replaced the foam pads in the C series. Several of them, and haven't broken off a tang yet. You just have to be careful and not bend them more than it takes to get the mirror out. Even if I did I would likely resort to glue or some such idea. As far as little foam chunks, they come from the top of the mirror box, not the mirror backing pads. That's an easy fix, but it doesn't change the focus issue.<br> The whole point of all my writing, is that if you are going to take the camera apart, you might as well fix everything at once. I have actually taken the mirror apart and found nothing wrong with the backing pads (which was a miracle). Most of them turned to powder 30-40 years ago and the camera has had inaccurate focus ever since. Since most people are doing infinity work and distance, they never notice it.</p>

<p>Thanks bro, but I'm not talking about the foam bumper in the top of the mirror box. I'm talking about 3 little round pads that are behind the mirror, between it and it's backing plate. You will notice 2 small bend-tangs on the front edge of the mirror. there are 2 more bend-tangs at the top edge also, but you can't see those until the chassis is disassembled. Those 4 tangs will have to be bent straight so that the mirror can come out of its frame. Then the pads are replaced with fresh ones, and the mirror reassembled. You get 1 chance before possible metal fatigue causes the bend-tangs to break off. But since the foam pads have deteriorated on all bodies that were never serviced (98% of them out there), all bodies focus inaccurately on the order of about 6 inches at 4 feet. Doing the math, that is a grievous error. On top of that a Hasselblad 500 C, C/M series should really be used with mirror lockup at 1/60 and below.<br> A freshly serviced Hasselblad is a jewel. An unserviced one is a box camera.</p>

<p>The reason it is not sharp is because the mirror pads need replacing.</p>

<p>OK. You sound bound and determined. But let me give you a heads up and fair warning about something. In the upper left hand corner of the chassis is the gear that turns the gear on the film back, that winds the film. That gear has a coiled spring inside. If you remove the screw and take off the little cover, and let that coiled spring get out, it's all over--you're cooked. You'll never get that spring back in and will only end up destroying it trying. That spring will need to be cleaned and lubed. Good luck with that--you'll need it.<br> In closing, you need to be prepared for kissing this camera body goodbye. And so far as getting the chassis back in the shell, good luck with that. BTW--the magic number is 71.40mm. You'll need to fabricate a jig and have a known accurate dial caliper, at the least.</p>

<p>The FCC is too busy enforcing the border. (that was a joke). What is a drone? Isn't that some kind of bee? Does this mean I can't fly my Carl Goldberg Eaglet in the soybean field after they combined it? Or do I have to pray to the God of Liberalism and hope I don't get arrested as a terrorist? After all, I might chase a buzzard with it.<br> Drone. Yeah, whatever.</p>

<p>No, but it can cause flare.</p>

<p>Too much time has passed and I can't edit the above: reading, studying, and experimenting.</p>

<p>You do not exhibit understanding of how the camera operates from what I'm reading. (not to be insulting). The mirror catch is actually not adjustable. Under the interior sheet metal cover is a cam that moves a lever extending to the axle area of the mirror. This lever requires removal and bending to force the mirror to go lower than the mirror catch, so that the catch can get over the lower corner of the mirror and get a grab on it. But that is not necessarily at all the sole cause of your problem. Believe me, this is actually a simplistic camera in many ways compared to the 2000 parts in a Nikon F2, for instance. But the inter-relationship of the operation of the parts can make problems elusive to solve. Further, it sounds as there are one or more worn parts that cannot be compensated for. Translated: this is not a job for the owner. Further, even if you do successfully fix your problem, it is likely that you will get body-length tolerances fouled up upon reassembly, causing focus errors. On top of that, there are foam pads under the mirror that invariably need replacing while the camera is disassembled. And there are lubrication issues that need to be addressed while the camera is opened. If not addressed, it's only a matter of time before the very problem you are having, returns, with the resultant destruction of parts. This camera needs a professional (or at least highly learned) CLA.<br /> I am NOT in any way a trained tech, but a guy who spent many many hours ready, studying, and experimenting until I became proficient in body issues. MANY hours. I highly advise you do not attempt this repair. Reassembly without knowing the technique may result in an apparently working camera for however long, but it will be nothing more than a box camera in the photographic results it delivers.</p>

<p>No. I hardly think it's separation. Separating Zeiss glass is not an easy thing to do. It's glued for the count. I had to soak one doublet in methylene chloride for a month once to get them apart. I suspect what you are seeing is a breakdown of the black edge paint, which should be a much less involved fix. Having said that, opening up this lens is not exactly a job for the inexperienced. You can make a mess of the job if you don't know what you're doing.</p>

<p>Actually Mr. Fairbank--you're right, of course. Because I had to make that adjustment once. But since I'm not an authorized tech like you or Mr. Odess, I don't have the tools and training to do that like you guys might be able to do. I had to disassemble the chassis to get that angled cam-to-mirror lever out of the camera and bend it by trial and error, till the mirror came down enough below the catch-pawl till the pawl could get a grab on it. You really have to be careful putting it back together so that the hairpin spring doesn't get trapped under the central part of that lever. There really is no adjustment of the catch pawl itself like I stated it. I was only simplifying.<br /> But no matter which of these problems the OP has, somebody is going to have to open up that body and do some work to it, because this problem doesn't "go away".</p>

<p>agreed</p>

<p>I don't know. I have never heard of this. You are saying (I believe) that the body works correctly without the lens and back, which tells me my previous diagnosis may be faulty. I would have to open up the body and observe the action to pin down this problem. Remove the back and the lens one at a time and observe the action, then alternate and observe again. This may be a maladjustment of the mirror catch-pawl and nothing else. If so, the lens may be the contributing factor, if it has gotten stiff and dried out. Or the catch-pawl mechanism may have become worn. The catch-pawl is on a splined shaft, and I have seen the splining come loose, allowing the shaft to wobble, and work intermittently. At any rate, without attention, this problem will get worse pretty quickly.<br> Trip the camera to get the mirror up and reach in and wiggle the mirror catch pawl finger. If it is wobbly, then the shaft splining has come loose. There may be some small amount of wiggle, but if you get the feeling it is really loose, you'll know by instinct.</p>

<p>I recognize this problem. There is a small spring made of wire the diameter of a hair that has gotten mangled. This spring actuates a little bitty "finger" on a gear underneath the bigger gear in the upper right hand corner of the chassis. What happens is that the spring comes unhooked and sticks out, which causes it to get mangled in the winding stroke. It only takes that once, and the spring is toast, and the problem will never go away. Your camera is for all intents and purposes incapacitated until someone goes in, corrects the problem, and gives the chassis a good CLA and repair.</p>