hunter_compton

I had my 3x4 RB Graflex Series D out at a local park last weekend, had some time to develop and scan. Film was Fortepan 400 shot at 100 and developed for 8 minutes in Kodak T-Max developer.

I seemed to have worked out the bugs in my workflow for using my 3x4 RB Graflex series D. I was having intermittent light leak issues previously, and I'm cutting down aerial roll film for it. The light leak issues were traced to the spare Paterson tank I was storing the cut film in. I was just using the tank with the rubber lid. Turns out, without the funnel and spindle, it isn't fully light tight, especially to infrared light, and the films I am using have extended red sensitivity. Ended up bagging my film in a light proof bag and then putting it in the tank eliminated my issues. I've also been experimenting with a 5" by 100' roll of Fortepan 400 by cutting it down to 3.25"x4.25". Despite being 20 years expired, I'm getting quite good results with it. The exposure latitude seems quite wide, I can shoot from an EI of 50 to 200 without noticing any significant change in the negatives.

I recently picked up a 3x4 RB Graflex Series D, as well as a 9.5"x125' roll of Plus-X Aerographic film which I have been attempting to cut down to 3.25" x 4.25" sheets. Unfortunately, based on my first few test shots, someone took the lid off the canister in the light and exposed the first few feet of the roll, but the rest seems to be unaffected. This does mean several of my first few test shots had light leakage showing on one edge, however one of my shots cut from further down on the roll turned out quite nice, so I've included it below. Camera: This was exposed at EI 50 and developed for 11 minutes in Tmax Developer 1+9. (Tmax was chosen because I was given two gallons of the stuff, and sheet film requires a lot of developer). I'm probably going to expose it at EI 80 in the future, as it seems at EI 50 I'm starting to loose a bit of highlight detail.

Not sure in the UK. Here in the USA B&H Photo carries it, the brand is film for classics. Also, Rick, while you are correct about the automatic stop on most of the Kodak Bantams, the Bantam RF has a roller that doesn't require a perforation for frame spacing, so works fine with 35mm perforated. I don't believe the Coronet Vogue uses any kind of frame spacing mechanism, and relies only on the window and backing paper numbers.

No major manufacturer currently makes this film. Either you are looking at buying old stock film and hoping for the best, or you are buying boutique confectioned film from larger master rolls or 120. You can also use normal 35mm film if you have existing spools and backing paper, but the sprockets on one side will intrude into the 828 frame.

No relation: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/35mm-kodak-panatomic-x-cold-stored.202291/

Kodak Ektars were always the highest professional quality lenses and they were always unit focusing, instead of front element focusing. Kodak's next tier down of lenses were of high quality, but not of the same optical standards as the Ektars. In the 1930s Kodak called these Anastigmat Specials, then changed the name in the late 40s to Anastar and again in the mid 50s to Ektanar. These could be unit focusing or front element focusing, but were typically four element construction of modified tessar design. Examples would be the 50mm f/3.5 Anastar on the Kodak 35RF or the 46mm f/3.5 Ektanar on the Signet 40. The next group down were called Anastigmats in the 30s, with the name later changing to Anastons in the late 40s and Ektanons in the mid 50s. These could be unit focusing, like the 50mm f/3.9 Ektanon of the Bantam RF or front element focusing like the 51mm f/4.5 Anaston of the Pony series. These were almost always triplet lenses. At the bottom of the Kodak naming convention, existing just above unnamed single element meniscus lenses were mostly two element lenses. In the 30s these went by the names Diway, Bimat, Twindar, or Kodar, with most names signifying their two element construction. In the 40s and into the 50s, just the names Kodet or Kodar were retained. There are some exceptions, like the 80mm f/3.5 lenses found on the Kodak reflex cameras, which went both by the names Anastar and Anastigmat (not special), which were four element in four group Ernostar design.

I was a Signet 35 hater for a number of years, as I had an example that had shutter issues I never could fix without the blades sticking open. Eventually, I found another example with a better shutter and completely changed my tune, this is a wonderful little camera and the lens is superb, probably one of the sharpest I have ever used.

I picked up the Ektar 90mm f/3.5 for my Kodak Ektra and after re-lubing the focusing helical took it out for some quick shots to confirm the focus was correct. For what is only a three element air spaced triplet, this lens is almost painfully sharp. I don't know why I'd expect otherwise though, I've never encountered an Ektar I didn't like. Film was FP4+ in HC-110B.

120 and 620 use the same film and backing paper, the numbers are in the same locations. This camera pre-dates common use of the 6x4.5 track numbers on the back of 120 or 620 backing paper though. Thus, two red windows to use each of the 6x9 numbers twice for the half frame format. Advance the first number to the first window, take the photo, then move the same number to the next window and take another photo.

They probably do render similarly, both are five element Heliar designs by Kodak engineer Fred E. Altman. The Medalist lens uses no Thorium in its construction though.

Richard, If the remnants of the original cement are still on the old prisms, that's going to increase the thickness of the dividing line. I'd try to remove that first before re-gluing. I believe Kodak originally would have used Canadian Balsam as cement for these prisms, try a bit of acetone to remove the old glue. If that doesn't work, Xylene will remove the old glue. Whichever solvent you use, just apply it very sparingly with a q-tip. Too much solvent will separate the bottom prism from its mount. I've used the glass glue Dan has recommended, and while it works, it's less than ideal. It is a cyanoacrylate glue too, so it can be prone to fogging glass, which can be a problem for optical surfaces. I think it's a smart idea to use a quality optical cement. Norland Optical Adhesive formula 61 (NOA61) is a glue that I have used for this purpose before. It's a UV curing adhesive, so the parts only need to be lined up and then a UV light shined on them for a short period of time. (the sun also works). However, I am sure any quality optical cement would work.

You would probably need to be more specific about what parts of the prism assembly detached. Can you include a photo? If it's just the top prism that came loose from it's mounting, it's not difficult to re-install it, as it is just held in place by a pair of screws in it's mount. Just make sure to have the small triangular metal plate or plates present on each side, as they prevent the screw from cracking the prism when tightened. You want to tighten the screws until the prism is held, but don't over tighten, you don't want to crack it. A drop of shellac or lacquer (nail polish works fine) placed where the screws enter the frame can prevent them from coming loose again. The most difficult part of working on the rangefinder prisms is keeping them clean while working on them as fingerprints or dust will show up in the rangefinder image. Q-tips, canned air and soft tweezers help with this.

Jason, bit of a late response to your post, but I had the opportunity to run some of the new Gold 200 through my Medalist I and quite liked the results I got as well. I find it to be a good compromise between Portra and Ektar in terms of saturation and contrast. I really need to run a roll through my Chevron too.

The wooden box is a loading tool that transfers a roll of film, with backing paper, onto a lightproof apron and spool. The film reel is then transferred into the silver tank with liquid where the actual developing occurs.

Would it help if you bent the first 1/4" of the leader up at a 45 degree angle or so?

Looks like motion blur. Was the shutter cocking lever hitting your finger? A good working example of a C3 should produce results like this:

Hi Luigi. I really wouldn't recommend doing anything with a Zip. It's one of the cheapest Polaroid cameras ever marketed and has a feature set to match. It only has a single element plastic lens and has an exposure system that can only work with type 87, 3000 ASA black and white film. Pretty much the only thing you could do is cut the entire back off the camera and mount the shutter board and lens on some type of instax back. The issue with this is you then have a shutter that can only work with 3000 ASA instant film, which is no longer made in any form, and a lens that isn't any better than that you would find on a contemporary instax camera. I'd probably leave the Zip as a shelf piece and either acquire a modern instax camera, or a vintage SX-70 OneStep or 600 solid bodied camera for actual use.

The old Kodak film cleaner contained Heptane and Trichloroethane, the latter of which as a CFC, depletes the ozone layer and is likely carcinogenic. As such, it is no longer in production. Kodak's current recommendation is to use >99% Ethanol to clean film.

Perhaps an overdue addendum to my original post. I wanted to run a roll of color film though this camera, but got distracted by other projects, work, etc. Anyway, I did get back to it and ran a roll of Provia 100F though my Chevron. My original handling comments remain, however, that Ektar lens sure does not disappoint.

Note, I said reputation. I may not be in agreement with that, and I concur that any 50+ year old camera should have a CLA performed for proper evaluation. However, if you visit any forums where either of the above cameras are mentioned, you will find evidence that people consider them complex and unreliable. Add to that the fact that technicians who will service a Retina Reflex are in the single digits, and you earn a reputation. I do not appreciate my words being twisted to construe points which I do not advocate.

I acquired this camera a few months ago. Overall it was in quite good condition, with only a minor scratch over the logo on the prism housing affecting the cosmetics. Functionally, like many of these cameras today, it worked but the slow shutter speeds seemed off and the automatic aperture was lagging. The latter is a problem because the aperture needs to stop down from wide open before the shutter reopens. If the aperture lags, it will not have closed when the shutter opens and closes again or will be closing when the shutter is open. This will result in overexposure. Fortunately, Chris Sherlock the Retina master came through, as he has a series of instructional videos on the Retina Reflex series on Youtube: (It should be noted that while the Retina Reflex Type 025 is easier to service than its successors as it lacks the meter coupling string, it’s still a very complex apparatus. I would encourage only advanced amateurs to attempt service.) With Chris’ videos in hand, I was able to disassemble the shutter and aperture assemblies, clean, and lubricate them to ensure proper function. I also took the opportunity to replace the pentaprism in my camera. Desilvering of the pentaprism is common in these cameras, but pentaprisms from the Minolta XG series are drop-in replacements and I was able to get a replacement for that camera and install it. The meter on my example seemed accurate, and I confirmed it was by comparing it in different lighting settings to a DSLR. With my camera now firing on all cylinders, I chose to put it through its paces. I shot some Ilford FP4+, Fuji C200 and Fuji Provia 100F in this camera to get a good idea of how it performed. In addition to the standard 50mm f/2, I also had access to the 80mm f/4 telephoto lens. Ilford FP4+: Fuji C200: Fuji Provia 100F: Overall, I am very impressed with this camera. I have never seen anything bad said about the Schneider-Xenon lenses on Retinas, and those on the Retina Reflex do not fall short, even if they may be technologically inferior to their fully interchangeable successors. Overall lens sharpness is excellent, and even wide open the 50mm f/2 shows only minimal light falloff in the corners and good center sharpness. The 80mm f/4 also looks quite good. I found the handling of the first generation Retina Reflex to also be quite good. Criticisms of later Retina Reflexes tend to center on the front mounted shutter release, bottom mounted exposure counter and oddly placed aperture control, none of which are present on this model. The bottom mounted wind lever is unconventional, but I had no problems using it by slightly adjusting my right hand grip and swinging my thumb outward. The viewfinder is slightly dim as compared to modern SLRs as it has no fresnel screen, but it was easy to compose with using the ground glass and the horizontal split image makes checking focus easy. I liked composing with this camera, as it lacks the aperture previews and meter displays in later SLRs, leading to an uncluttered viewfinder. Most photographers accustomed to SLRs will lament the lack of DoF preview or instant return mirror, but coming from a background of shooting only rangefinders, I did not miss these features. Despite being 62 years old, my selenium meter did not miss a beat. I bracketed the first few frames on my roll of Provia and found that the meter was exposing exactly where I wanted within half a stop. Some people malign the subtractive exposure counter, but I prefer those over additive counters. I can’t be the only one who likes knowing how many exposures they have left, instead of seeing which exposure number you’re on and questioning whether that was a 24 or 36 exposure roll you loaded. It’s a little bit odd to reset the counter when you get to the end, but not difficult once you understand the procedure. Now there are some criticisms I have of this camera, it may be small, but it’s heavy being made of all metal. The convertible lenses mean that half of the standard 50mm f/2 is behind the shutter making for a compact package, but the large size of the accessory lenses offset this advantage. The strap lugs are also notably undersized, and there is no hot shoe. The accessory lenses have no stop for their maximum aperture, and you need to remember to only open the lens up as much as possible with that lens attached, or your images will be underexposed. Overall though, I found the camera easy to use. The controls were positioned where convenient, and nothing required odd contortions to use. Some procedures are specific to this camera, so reviewing the manual may be necessary before each outing, but I don’t find that detracts from its usability. The images I got from this camera were great. The Schneider-Xenon 50mm f/2 is a well respected and sharp lens and while the accessory lenses I had access to were also good, their large size meant that I didn’t enjoy using them as much. I’d recommend sticking to the stock 50mm lens for this camera.

The Kodak Retina Reflex (later denoted as Type 025 to differentiate it from its successors) was the beginning of the end. It was the first SLR camera made by Kodak at their German based Kodak AG, and simultaneously one of the last models of camera to be produced by that firm. Started by Dr. August Nagel in Stuttgart, Kodak would consolidate the film but retain its leadership under the name Kodak AG. With the intention of producing a line of precision miniature cameras, Kodak AG would launch the long lived line of folding 35mm Retina cameras in 1934 along with the 135 film cartridge. While the Retina series of folding cameras are widely regarded and comparably successful, by 1957 the series was starting to falter. Competition from Japanese camera firms such as Asahi with their Pentax and Germany’s own Zeiss Ikon with their Contaflex had proven that the concept of a 35mm SLR was profitable and Kodak needed an entry into this market segment. Thus, the Retina Reflex can only be seen as a reactionary impulse to a losing battle. In a decade, the last Retina Reflex would come out of Kodak AG and the German camera industry would be supplanted by Japanese SLRs. That said, is the Retina Reflex a bad camera? Production of the original Retina Reflex began in 1957 and ended in 1959, the short production time was due to the introduction of the Retina Reflex S as its successor. Those familiar with the Retina IIIC will be at home with the Retina Reflex, as it is largely an adaptation of that camera to an SLR and the two share many components. That said, this is perhaps an asset rather than a detriment as later iterations of the Retina Reflex added additional features through questionable design choices, and in the process lost some of the ease of use and simplicity of the original Retina folders. The Retina Reflex is a leaf-shutter SLR using a Synchro Compur shutter and the same convertible 50mm f/2 Schneider Xenon or Rodenstock Heligon C lenses as the Retina IIIc and IIIC. These lenses are not truly interchangeable as with their successors, but instead use a fixed rear element and interchangeable front elements which allow for the effect of an 80mm f/4, 35mm f/4 and 35mm f/5.6 in addition to the standard 50mm. Much like the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex, the Retina Reflex is a leaf shutter SLR with a reputation for unreliability and complexity. Leaf shutters have the advantage of flash sync at all speeds, but the design of an SLR led to a high level of complexity and influenced the choice of convertible lenses in this initial model. An SLR necessitates the ability to see through the taking lens when the film is not being exposed. History would vindicate that the focal plane shutter is far superior for this application, as it doesn’t need to move until the moment of exposure, but in 1959 this was not yet determined. The leaf shutter SLR is a complex beast, it requires many actions to take place at the moment of exposure. When the camera is cocked, the shutter blades are open and the aperture is wide open. The reflex mirror is down, and a capping shutter covers the film plane. When the shutter release is pressed many actions take place in under 1/30th of a second. First the shutter blades close. Then the reflex mirror flips up out of the path of the film plane, followed by the capping shutter at the film plane. While the capping shutter and reflex mirror are moving, the aperture is stopped down from wide open to its desired position. Then the shutter blades open again for the desired duration and close again. The camera is now unwound and stroking the film advance winds the film, replaces the capping shutter and reflex mirror, opens the aperture and opens the shutter blades, preparing the camera for the next exposure. As such, there is no instant return mirror on this camera and the viewfinder is blocked out until the film is wound. The viewfinder on this camera is an ordinary ground glass screen with a horizontal split image rangefinder in the center. As compared to the Retina IIIC series, the viewfinder is larger and allows direct composition, but is not quite as bright as later SLRs with fresnel screens. The controls on the top and bottom of the camera are almost identical to that of the IIIc or IIIC. On the bottom is the right hand single stroke film advance lever, film rewind button, tripod socket, and concealed door release. Much like the folders, the door release needs to be rotated 45 degrees to expose the door release button, preventing accidentally opening the back. Starting on the left, the top plate of the camera features the rewind knob with film reminder indicator, cold shoe atop the pentaprism housing, subtractive exposure counter, shutter release button and light meter dial. Like all Retinas the exposure counter is subtractive, and so it counts down the number of exposures left. It also locks the film advance when you get to the last exposure, so if you have a Retina that doesn’t work, check if the exposure counter is at “1” and try advancing the dial by pressing down on the central lock button and moving the dial using the advance button on the back of the housing. Later Retina Reflexes moved the exposure counter to the bottom of the camera in what is widely regarded as a bad move. The light meter is the same single range selenium meter made by Gossen as used in the IIIC. Unlike later Retina Reflexes, the meter is entirely uncoupled to the aperture and the Type 025 lacks the fragile meter coupling string of the later cameras in this line. There is no match needle or settings visible in the viewfinder, and the meter reads out only in EV. Thus, the meter reading must be made and the EV setting transferred to the shutter for proper exposure. The shutter assembly is where the Retina Reflex deviates most from its folding predecessors. As opposed to a large outer dial for shutter speed and small bottom lever for aperture, the Retina Reflex has two large concentric dials about the shutter housing which control shutter speed and aperture. As opposed to the folders, the aperture and shutter speed combinations can both be read off the top of the shutter housing. Using the EV system, the shutter speeds and aperture scales are linked unless the aperture scale is pulled back slightly, which decouples it. Normal operating procedure would be to find the appropriate EV value off the light meter, transfer it to the EV scale on the right side of the shutter housing and then rotate the shutter speed ring which will transfer through the range of aperture and shutter speed combinations appropriate for the lighting level. While this is complex to describe, it’s actually quite easy in practice with a working meter. Even if the meter is defective, the uncoupled nature means that the camera is still entirely usable without it, just choose the shutter speed first and then pull back on the aperture dial and set the aperture. The shutter assembly and lenses are unit focusing, and move position based on the helical on the body at the rearmost of the shutter housing. Range markings are also visible atop the shutter housing as is a depth of field scale for the 50mm lens. The Synchro Compur offers a range of speeds from 1 second to 1/500. It is flash synced for both electronic and bulb flash through a PC socket on the body, with sync type chosen with a switch on the left of the shutter housing. The sync switch also has a self timer function and there is a button at the 5 o’clock position that must be depressed to change between M-sync, X-sync and the self timer. The convertible lenses are of a bayonet mount design. There is a lever near the lens with a red dot which when pushed in allows the front element to be rotated 120 degrees and detached. It can then be replaced with any of the 80mm or 35mm elements, which are quite massive indeed.

Tom, the camera in your first photo appears to be the post-war Universal model CX or Mercury II, which used normal 35mm film as mentioned by Glen. The pre-war camera did not have the smaller film indicator dial visible to the right of the soldier's thumb through the soft shell case. I have a Mercury II as well, but I have to strongly disagree with JDMvW's comments. The Mercury II certainly did survive the transition to standard 35mm cartridges. In fact, it was much more popular than the pre-war Mercury I, notably because the pre-war Mercury I's proprietary No.236 film was only ever offered in one emulsion, a Ultrapan Super-Speed made by Gevaert in Belgium for Universal. By transitioning to Kodak's 135 cartridge, Universal widely expanded the user base of the Mercury camera, notably because users now had a wider range of emulsions available, including the widely popular Kodachrome. If the question were to come up of which version of the Mercury is more popular, a survey of eBay listings for Mercury cameras would find that there are probably five Mercury IIs for every Mercury I listed at a given time. At the time of posting, I can find 18 Mercury II listed, and three Mercury I. Now as to the shutter, I will state that any 70 year old camera needs a CLA to work properly in this day and age, and the Mercury is no exception. That said, the rotary metal focal plane shutter is actually a very good and reliable design, the super speed CC-1500 shutter is perhaps pushing the limits of the design, but the normal 1/1000 shutter is often found working in some capacity today without any intervention, which is more than you can say for most other American focal plane shutters. This shutter was also the inspiration for the rotary focal plane shutter on the Pen F. It was tested by Harvard Observatory for astrophotography and found to be both more accurate and repeatable than its contemporary Leica or Contax models. I invite you to read Rick Olsen's material on the subject as well: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/hiw-univex_mercury.pdf I am not saying the Mercury is a perfect camera, it certainly has its flaws. The controls are too clustered around the lens barrel, the lack of a rangefinder is notable (although, perhaps, understandable given the 35mm focal length and depth of field that results) and the body alloy does not age gracefully. That said, I think it deserves a bit more respect than it gets. It's a good design that came out of a company that wasn't hampered by previous designs and thus able to innovate outside of convention. In the end, the camera wasn't doomed by it's design, but by a poor economy during the Korean war, an improperly managed company resulting in financial insolvency and cheaper foreign imports of Japanese and German 35mm cameras. I like my Mercury, the main thing that keeps me from shooting it is the fact that you get 65 frames on a 36 exposure roll and that's a bit much to shoot in a single outing. Though, I'm getting into bulk loading for the purpose of loading shorter rolls, so that may change soon.

Jason, those are lovely shots, that Ektar certainly lives up to its reputation. While I am an unabashed Kodak fanboy, I have to agree with the sentiment offered by JDM (perhaps we can offer him a Combat Graphic to soothe his woes?) The Signet 35 is a camera I have never had confidence in. I've owned one for years, and CLA'd the shutter on multiple occasions and replaced springs, but each and every time I take this camera out, the shutter fails on me. I tend to think its a problem inherent to the design, as the shutter only has two blades, which means a lot of overlapping surface area and if any dirt or oil gets on the shutter blades, it hangs up. Clearly this is not true of all examples, as your photos and those of others illustrate that they are capable of excellent images. It's a camera I really want to like. It's quite small and yet has easily accessible controls. However, when you can't be certain that every shot on your roll will be ruined, it makes you not want to use that camera.