kmac

I forgot that I have another item in the mail at the moment from Ukraine, ordered on the 25th April. The tracking shows "In transit" (which can mean anything, but it at least tells me that the seller received a tracking number and the package was sent, and just maybe it has exited Ukraine already.) It's a box of 18cm x 24cm B&W film sheets I'll be cutting into three's for my 3A combination back, 3 1/4" x 5 1/2" I'll message again to update about the time it took to arrive. Presently, I'm suffering more problems with items from Japan than anywhere else.

Excellent, great job you did on that Beirax. How much smarter would it look with 6x9 NOS Kodak bellows, sold on Ebay ? ... pretty smart I reckon. I just forget the part numbers but some listings have sizes of the bellows. Other than that, you can ask the seller to send you the dimensions.

You should be right, Russia and Ukraine have agreements on certain things, mail delivery is probably one of them, grain shipments is another. Random missiles would be a concern, but it's unlikely one would fall on your Jupiter lens. I received one of those Optec extinction light meters in late March, ordered in early March. It seemed a normal Ebay transaction to me, no problems with it. Make sure the item has tracking, and generally cover yourself and your purchase.

In that case, you will get less than half the scene area in a 6x9 frame as you would from the standard 105mm lens for 6x9 When you look through the viewfinder, you'll likely see more than what the 152mm lens will give you. You could use black tape to mask the viewfinder image to suit the 152mm lens once you've taken a few shots and checked the limits of the field of view. Or simply check on the ground glass.

A 120mm lens would be telephoto for 6x9, the usual for 6x9 is 105mm. Conversely, 120mm would be slightly wide angle for Quarter Plate. All the 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" cameras I have are 130mm. So I'd guess the focal length for your camera is around 130mm. Other members know far more about this than I do. Perhaps the topic should be in the "Large Format" board. The only camera I have sporting a 120mm lens is a Zeiss 530/15 folder which takes 70mm film producing 2 1/2" x 4 1/4" images. The key dimension in all this is the 4 1/4" size, and as long as a lens is designed to cover that size, it will do the job, it just depends on whether you want tele or wide. It seems your 120mm lens will cover 4 1/4", but will it cover MP4 size ?, it might be larger, all you can do is try the lens and find out.

Fantastic Garry, I wouldn't have thought those doublets could produce good pics like those. I have incentive now to try my Kodak Jnr, it's exactly the same but 616 version, luckily I have film for it.

Oh ok, I did a search to check out the adapter, pretty nifty accessory, you must enjoy using it. Adds versatility to the 7II, no doubt.

VueScan would be the easiest way to go. And at $100 it's far cheaper than Silverfast. The quality of VueScan is not bad, plenty good enough for home scanning of family pics and images posted on the internet. You can however, by using the controls in VueScan Professional, get pretty good enlarged prints from it, but it takes a bit of learning, there's a learning curve with the abundant controls featured in the software. Updates are important for scanning software. Old Nikon native software may not be receiving updates any longer and it can go pearshaped without them, so a new software like the latest version of VueScan may be your only alternative for your old Nikon 5000 if you want trouble free scanning at low cost.

Nice shots Giovanni. Was that the new Gold 200? I just finished my first roll of the new 200, I hope to process it very soon and post a few shots. It seems you cropped your pics to panorama format, was that quite intentional ?

Nice shot, but I feel it needs straightening a bit. Rotated 2 degrees. I don't think anything else needs to be done.

Cropped out, looks good. Yes, shutter might be erratic.

There is three dots in the top right corner of your post. Click on them and you'll see "Edit", but there is a limited time of about 5 mins to use it.

Alan Marcus explained it a while ago. From memory, the several layers in emulsions need time to finish reacting after the light has done it's job of triggering the reaction. I suppose a rough analogy would be a match lighting a sheet of paper, and after the match flame exhausts, the paper keeps burning. I think I even questioned Alan at the time ... he indicated 72 hours minimum before processing ... theoretical of course. But I now put it into practice by storing my color films for at least that minimum. Before I knew about it, I had an exposed film hidden away in my fridge for 12 months. When I finally developed it, the colors were surprisingly strong and accurate. Not that the film needs 12 months, but I was quite taken aback by the sharpness of the images and saturation of the colors. I only used a Franka Solida 111 to expose the film which was Kodak Pro 160.

A month is not that long. Provided that the film is properly wrapped and stored, it will stay good for some years in a fridge. With color film, the emulsion needs a minimum of three days to fully react to the light that exposed it. The emulsion isn't instantly ready for processing after the shutter is fired, so storing the exposed film before processing will do it more good than harm. Light, heat, and moisture are the three main enemies of stored film, you can't over-do-it when protecting the films from those adversaries, the more protection, the better. Then when you're ready to develop them, make sure they are thawed for 12-24 hours.

The film needs to be tightly wound on the spool and wrapped in aluminum foil, and then sealed in a zip bag before refrigeration. C41 mixed chemicals will last up to 12 months if kept in cool dark storage. The trick is to keep oxygen out of the bottles. If you can obtain three squeezable bottles, you can gentle squeeze them till the chemicals are a millimeter from the top, then screw the caps on.

It's probably nothing to worry about. How do your images look, are they so bad the camera needs a service ?

For the 9th, a test shot from a recently acquired Franka Rolfix Mk2 with Rodenstock Trinar lens. It needs a CLA but I thought I'd try it as it is and I used a roll of Plus X Pan expired in 1983 and gave it 8mins dev in ID 11 at 1:1, instead of the 7mins recommended for fresh film. Look how it came out, beautiful - like fresh film anyway I'm sure you'll agree. The weather has been cool and overcast, and today when I developed this film, the ambient temperature was spot on 20.5C, how's that for luck? Scanner was V800. For post processing, all I did was click "Auto" on each of a few adjustments in Apple's new OS standard program Photos.

Ditto to that

Excellent write up Rick. Nice and sharp pic of the soccer nets, was that handheld or do you use a tripod for old cameras with slow shutter speeds? Although, 1/250sec is not too bad. Just lately, I've had to contend with slower top speeds than that with some older viewfinder cameras. I was baffled by that metal bracket that's hanging down from the bottom of the Isoly in photo No3 ... durr, obviously it's the "swing out spool holder" you mentioned. So many different designs for achieving that purpose, but that one looks to be one of the best for 120 spools.

Here's another link and this time the images are in black and white instead of blue ... https://www.lomography.com/magazine/255669-processing-a-kodachrome-64-in-b-and-w

No experience, but with a quick search I found this link for home processing ... https://www.lomography.com/magazine/202408-diy-kodachrome-developing-kodak-kodachrome-with-black-and-white-chemicals I have an exposed Kodachrome from a purchased camera I'd like to develop, just haven't got around to finding out how to do it in B&W until just now. They apparently come out very blue looking.

They look like pin holes in the shutter curtain.

A photo of your negatives would be good in trying to figuring it out. Perhaps the frame numbers are not as bad as you think they are.

Quite right ... so we really need more info from the OP to assess were the anomaly was in the whole process.

Your shots might be underexposed. 9:45mins at 20C is correct according to Kodak's chart, for Tri-X in D76 1:1 You may need to check your light meter for accuracy.