kmac

I'm wondering why EDU Ultra 100 isn't listed for DDX when it's listed for other developers in The Massive Development Chart. Perhaps DDX is not suitable for Ultra 100 Selecting a few other developers, the chart has: ID II 1:1 (6-7mins), D76 stock (6-7mins) Ilfotech HC 1:79 (13mins) Rodinal 1:50 (7mins) all for EDU Ultra 100 To get the best results, you may need to buy a different developer.

This link may be of some assistance, but it doesn't mention EDU Ultra 100, however 8mins would be a very good starting point IMO. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ILFOTEC-DDX-AUG19.pdf

This link looks good for learning a bit about expired film - worth bookmarking Scroll down for "Color Negative Film" https://silvergrainclassics.com/en/2020/08/how-to-shooting-expired-film/

That thought flashed through my mind as well, but as it turns out, 1972 was when the change came from C22 to C41, according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-22_process I guess the OP could simply confirm which process is on the 1973 Vericolor film box. I can't find 4105 Vericolor on the internet, only the later 4106 shows up, so who knows what 4105 really is, and which developing process, it could very well be C22, and perhaps those chemicals were produced for a while after C41 came in, to develop the C22 film still in existence, that were bought just before the change over. Personally I was developing only slide film and B&W in that era. I have never had reason to use C22, and only started using C41 in the early 80's

Hi, The film looks usable to me judging by the crossed processed sheet, but you'll need to develop in C41 to obtain the best results that you can get for that long expired film. The colors will be abhorrent most likely if the film hasn't been frozen for a good part of the 48 years since it expired. I'm not sure what the white residue is, but with C41 there is a slight milkyness look on the processed film when it's removed from the tank, however, it disappears during drying. How many sheets do you have? Is it worth carrying on with long expired color film? I think not unless you convert the images to B&W in post processing to at least get viewable images without the going through the impossible task of trying to revive the color degradation to something that looks normal. Perhaps it would be better to accept your loss and move on to much newer film. It's all valuable experience though, I went through it. Unless you know expired film has been kept in a freezer, it's a lucky dip.

Welcome "The best camera is the one you have with you when you need to take a photograph"

It may be finished, corrosion has a way of doing that.

Humphrey Bogart ?

Yes, I take photos of shutter parts as I disassemble them, so by studying the photos I can see which way things go back. Without posting a pic of my Minolta 7S, I can say the aperture opening at f16 is very small, as is the one in the OP, but for a 40mm lens, the f16 opening will be slightly smaller than that of the 45mm 7S lens, but not by much. For some of my larger cameras, I could easily stick a pencil through the f16 aperture opening. Longer focal lengths need more light.

The aperture blades look ok, you can't really make a mistake reassembling them, as long as their pins are set in their positions correctly. The aperture opening on yours looks the same as my Minolta 7S, which is 45mm focal length, but f16 is still pretty small.

Excellent post orsetto, and as usual from you, very informative and useful. It's prompted me to retrieve my 50mm 6.3 from my cabinet to see if there is actually a niche suitable and large enough for feeding drops of oil onto the very end of the helical. It turns out there is, without disassembling any parts (see photo). The red arrow points to a slot, through which the helical is accessible so tiny drops of oil can be placed on the end of it and allowed to run down, but the focus ring must first be turned to a position to expose the helical .. that position is "1m" or "3.5ft". A toothpick is too large in diam for the job, which is what I generally use, so a piece of thin wire, slightly bent will work - is my message to the OP. Using a mini torch, the shiny threads of the helical can just be seen through that slot, but they're off to one side, the outer side, so the lens will need to be angled at 45 degrees while drops of oil are placed in there, one per hour for three or four hours perhaps, and then left over night, after which the focus ring should be turned to start working the oil around. It may take quite some time to achieve easy smooth turning of the focus ring, given that only a tiny drop of oil will be allowed each time, to prevent any from finding it's way to places it doesn't need to be.

There's a small resistor added to the adaptor to drain some voltage from the 1.55v battery.

Very nice but I think the scene needs to be shot again so that the rails etc, look less like clutter, or not shown at all. The bright light on the floor in the lower right is distracting and indiscernible from a pool of flood water. The lens flare "dots" (if that's what they are) below the stairs need to be spotted out. I agree the shadows are too deep and there's no detail in them to make them good, you're stuck with those dark shadows the way they are. Good attempt though IMO. Perhaps a few bracketed shots at a few different aperture settings, and positions, would have given you a better chance for success.

Had a go at correcting it Mike, in "Preview", which is the standard editor in Apple's M1 computer Ventura's software.

You can down-size in a photo editor by clicking on "Adjust size" under "Tools". Adjust to 1,000 pixels for the horizontal size.

I don't own one but the LCD would probably drain more battery power than the meter itself, so to save battery power, the LCD turns off, but leaves the meter ready for instant use when needed during your session. And of course the LCD would also light up again when you activate the meter for your next reading.

Let me explain that in more detail. When you go past the last frame, the handle free wheels in relation to the counter and film indexing mechanism, they disengage because they are not needed for winding the tail of the backing paper through. But, while the handle feels like it is free wheeling, it's still engaged to the winding gears that turn the take-up spool, hence why you can wind the tail through and complete the winding of the roll. And yes, there should be a minimum of resistance at the handle. So those winding gear are in play, contrary to my assertion that "no other mechanisms come into play" When you finally get to check for tension after "12" without a film in the camera, be reminded that the winding gears will turn via the handle, constantly with the handle being wound, and they should be very easy to turn. If there is as much tension on the handle as you described, maybe it would be wise to remove the film in a change bag or a very dark room after you expose No12. You can of course try the handle sooner if you felt like it. You can remove the film in the dark, roll it up, and replace it after you've tried the handle tension. It's only a matter of remembering the frame you're up to, and wind it back to that frame later. However, if the handle tension is tight without the film, I wouldn't put the film back in, I'd get the camera fixed first, you might do more damage otherwise.

Are you close to the repairer where you got the CLA done ? I'm thinking that maybe you could leave the film in the camera after the last frame is exposed and get the repairer to feel the tension on the winding handle. I'm also thinking that the repairer, while fixing the "lumpy wind on", something else went amiss during that process, and is causing the tightness in winding handle. Normally, after the last frame, the counter disengages and the winding handle free wheels, I just checked on my C3. Your 3.5F should do the same. With a film in the camera, and after the last frame, the handle free wheels, but pulls the tail of the backing paper through, with no other mechanism coming into play, no counter, and no resistance from any other mechanism. So it appears that your handle is meeting an abnormal resistance from within the winding mechanism itself, or it could have something to do with the counter, possibly it's not disengaging properly and getting jammed. That is if it's proved that the film is not binding in the film chambers. Can you remember if there was tension on the handle when no film was in the camera ? Checking this will solve where the problem will be. Without a film in the camera, check the handle tension after 12, (or is it 11). I take it you will have to do this after you finish your current Portra film.

Just click on the row of dots in the upper right corner of your post and then click on "Edit"

Great shot of the sunset James ... Were you in a plane or parked on a high road?

Another thing to consider is the diameters of the two rolls. If the backing paper is slightly thicker on one roll, the diameters will be different. The extra thickness multiplied by the number of turns on one roll may mean a significant difference to the diameter, of about 0.5mm - 0.75mm, than the other roll. Also the thickness of the films may be different. So if one of your rolls has both thicker backing paper and thicker film, there could be more pressure on the spring tensioner after the last frame, or the spring tensioner has bottomed out.

I have a 105mm f4.5 Tominon attached to an old 2A Kodak folder. I'm not sure if that qualifies as large format, but I've exposed both 70mm and 6x9 film with pleasing results, for me at least. The shutter has a top speed of 125sec and cable release only. I don't know what number shutter it is, it doesn't say. The seller had bargain prices on his items, so I snapped this Tominon up to experiment with, it was listed as covering 4x5. The 70mm negs from the old Kodak are 4 3/8" x 2 1/2" by rule measurement. The film flatness appears to be pretty good, but I usually shoot at f8 or smaller aperture opening. The sharpness on the edges and corners seem good on this expired 70mm film, if you can appreciate that I get a gross lack of quality after resizing and transferring to Photo.net, it looks terrible, but not so full size on my computer screen, I was very happy with it's sharpness right across the image, I couldn't see anything that looked soft or blurred in the extremities, I'm pleased to say. The smaller 6x9 shots on fresh film from the same lens and camera were even more magical, less coverage, which I guess would suit larger aperture openings such as f4.5, but I haven't tried that yet. The experimenting goes on. 70mm image, unedited except for spotting. Please excuse the lack of quality due to uploading to Photo.net, I've yet to get that problem sorted out.

Oh OK. Not having any pets, I've never noticed chewy cameras before. I see ebay has cuddly ones, made of soft and furry materials.

I think it's a toy camera. I've never seen a lens barrel overlap part of the self-timer lever before. The icon looks to be some kind of bird. The viewfinder "glass" looks suspicious, and the film re-wind is on the right side.