hunter_compton

More photos from the Exakta Varex. Most taken with the Zeiss 58/2 Biotar, but the Van Gogh one was taken with the 28/4 Schneider Curtagon. Fuji C200, Japanese production.  

 

 

 

 

I also found an Exakta mount Schneider Curtagon 28mm f/4, so here's couple shots on the same roll with that lens. 

I picked up a new to me Ihagee Exakta Varex with the 58mm f/2 Zeiss Biotar, so here are some test shots from that camera after a brief CLA. Film is Ilford FP4+ in HC-110B. 

More Graflex photos: 

3x4 RB Series D w/Kodak no.32 6 3/8" anastigmat 

Fortepan 400 shot at 100 and developed for 8 minutes in T-Max dev. 

 

 

 

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. 

17 hours ago, smiffy_smiffy said:

Cheers for that reply H-C, not au-fait with boutique confectioned film , where do I find that in UK ?

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. 

22 minutes ago, orsetto said:

Perhaps the 80mm Ektar for Hasselblad renders similar to the legendary 100mm f/3.5 Ektar on the Medalist 6x9 rangefinder brick? "Compendium" notes the 80mm Ektar used innovative coating for the era, and more radioactive Thorium in its low dispersion elements than usual (possibly more than the Medalist 100mm).

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. 

 

On 3/18/2023 at 6:06 AM, Niels - NHSN said:

Those wooden tanks - are they intended for liquid?

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Much like the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex, the Retina Reflex is a leaf shutter SLR with a reputation for unreliability and complexity."

 

Not this furphy again.

 

The Contaflex series (those with a Synchro-Compur shutter, anyway) are very well made and reliable SLRs. Criticism of them for failing to work in recent decades is only a reflection of the fact that they are old and have usually not been serviced since manufacture. If they fail to function correctly it's little wonder.

 

Let's revisit that comment...

 

Much like the Rollei twin lenses, the Retina Reflex is a leaf shutter camera with a reputation for unreliability and complexity.

 

Much like the Leica rangefinders, the Retina Reflex is a 35mm camera with a reputation for unreliability and complexity.

You could make the same criticisms of almost any 1950s–1960s model camera, that has never received any servicing. Expect an M3 or 2.8F to work perfectly without ever having been attended to in almost sixty years? Dream on.

 

The biggest difference between servicing a Contaflex and M3 is you've a pretty fair chance of not needing any replacement parts to make the Contaflex good again.

 

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.