hunter_compton

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.

I have bought from this gentleman and found his products to be very good: 616 to 120 Film Spool Adapter Set/Kit (4pcs) For Antique Vintage Cameras FreeShp | eBay You will still need to cover the red window and count turns, as the frame numbers will not line up with the window on a 616 camera.

I've been working more on the Ektra when time permits. I already have it together and have shot a couple of test rolls through it (soon to come) but this is a recap of the repair and refurbishment. Fortunately, the 1943 Ektra repair manual is available though Pacific Rim: (warning - 500MB dowload) https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01346/01346.pdf Cleaning the optics and aligning the rangefinder were fairly uneventful other then being tedious. I disassembled the lens to clean the old grease off the helical and re-lubricate. It's much smoother now and collimating the focus with the body was quite easy. The optics in the top cover were also cleaned, this was somewhat tiring as the Ektra has five glass optical lenses which make up the variofocal viewfinder and the rangefinder has five prisms and six lenses and my ADHD won't let me leave a single speck of dust visible in any of them. adjusting the rangefinder is easy with one screw doing halving and another doing the horizontal alignment. The tricky part has been the Ektra's shutter, mainly understanding the mechanism, since it is similar in some ways to other shutters but it has key differences. I am not aware of any other resource for understanding the shutter either, so other than the above repair manual (which is largely text based and has few diagrams) I am flying into uncharted territory. What we know is that the Ektra uses a three drum shutter, much like a Leica, but differs mainly from a Leica shutter in setting the gap between the curtains. On the Leica, the gap is made by delaying the release of the trailing curtain. On the Ektra, the gap is made on the curtain drum before any curtains release. So on the Leica, the chain of events is that the shutter is wound with the curtains overlapping, then they stop. The leading curtain is released, then there is a delay and the second curtain is released creating the gap where they both run to the resting position. In this design each curtain is tensioned separately and the tension on each curtain determines the curtain velocity. On the Ektra, there is a gap between the curtains as they rest. When winding begins, the leading curtain needs to pick up immediately and close the gap with the trailing curtain so that the film in the film plane is not exposed as the shutter is wound. Once the leading curtain clears the film aperture the leading curtain stops moving. The trailing curtain continues to move and wind around the center of the curtain drum setting the gap. The gap is 0.030" at 1/1000 and about 1.375" at 1/25. The shutter is thus wound and the sear catch releases both curtains simultaneously, running back onto their rollers. In this design, each curtain roller can be tensioned, but the roller drum rigidly couples the two curtains and the differing inner and outer diameters of the drum regulate the curtains so that the gap starts out narrow and widens as the curtains accelerate to give an even exposure. The Extra's operation necessitates a complex shutter drum, and this is evident in the following diagram. The center portion which holds the narrow trailing curtain is rigidly coupled to the winding mechanism and speed throw-out. The upper roller for the wide leading curtain is coupled to the center portion of the drum and thus the winding mechanism by two different mechanisms simultaneously, there's a backlash spring on the center spindle which allows the wide curtain to stop and the narrow curtain to continue to wind, but not change the spacing when released. There is also a toothed gear and pawl which limits rotation in one direction only until the drum rotates and centrifugal force pushes the pawl outwards which allows the gap to change once the leading curtain is fully on it's roller, closing the gap and allowing the shutter to blackout when rewound. The lower roller for the wide leading curtain is coupled to the center drum by means of a spring which allows the roller to rotate independently but under spring tension. The manual indicates the Ektra shutter went though at least one revision, as it lists a "early" and "late" version when it was published in 1943 with the changes being how the lower roller is coupled to the drum and the late version having an additional ribbon roller. FWIW, my camera is SN 3724 and has an early style shutter. Serial numbers are reported to have started at 1000 and production was estimated at 2000 to 2400 examples. Make of that what you will. Understanding the operation of the shutter I still had to take it apart to clean the bearings and thus remove the curtains to do so. Lots more intricate work. Cleaning the bearings necessitated removing tension of the rollers, so I notated the number of turns on each roller for later, but preliminary settings are also listed in the repair manual. With the shutter cleaned and reassembled the next question was, as Greg suggested, calibration. The repair manual lists tolerances for each shutter speed, but with both roller tensions, the curtain slit width and the speed control throw-out all having control over the shutter speed and being interactive controls, the need to measure the effective shutter speed and its evenness is imperative. Kodak referenced the "Ektra shutter speed tester" in the repair manual. I have little other details on it, but the tolerance list would suggest that it output a singular or average shutter speed in milliseconds, and I believe it to be the apparatus shown below: I don't have such an apparatus at my disposal, and likely none exist at this point in time. In the past, I have used a photo-diode and bright light to output a signal to a program like Audacity to measure shutter speed. This is fine for a leaf shutter, but a focal plane shutter requires at least two measurements to ensure that the shutter is traveling evenly over the film plane. Some modern focal plane shutter testers use 3 to 5 sensors, but professional models like those made by Kyoritsu can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. With that in mind, I built my own shutter tester to test the Ektra's shutter speeds. It uses lasers and two photo-transistors biased as photo-diodes. The sensors are mounted about 30MM apart giving an effective speed based on gap width and velocity at the start and end of the shutter's travel. The key attribute is that each sensor is under an aperture of only 0.030" which is the narrowest gap of the shutter, which gives a point estimation of shutter speed. The signals are output though a stereo connector to my computer running Audacity which allows me to compare the signals and given the specs of my sound card, This allows me to resolve the shutter speed down to 0.1 ms with an accuracy of +/- 0.02 ms (1/1000 is 1 ms). With this in hand, I've been able to calibrate the Ektra's shutter to its original tolerances and reassemble the camera. I've already shot some test rolls, including a roll of Provia 100F to confirm even shutter travel and will develop and scan tomorrow.

No, you are correct. That's a mistype on my part. I should have said that the gap is at its most narrow when it starts and widens as the curtains accelerate, as this is a more accurate description of the mechanism.

Continuing to post a couple photos of the Ektra's internals, as I don't think there are any elsewhere on the internet and I want to have some archived in the event another brave soul endeavors to take theirs apart. The Ektra shutter is normally referenced as being unique, but normally the commentary ends there. Sometimes it is mentioned that it runs left to right and that the gap is preset before the shutter fires. Other notable features I have discovered are that the gap between shutter curtains is not fixed, but actually on a geared reduction that changes the gap between the curtains as they traverse the film gate with the gap growing slightly narrower as the shutter accelerates. This means the exposure is more even as the gap is widest as the shutter is moving slowest and vice versa. There is also a rack and pinion system built into the shutter winding shaft which allows the tension on each strap to be adjusted. The gear train retard systems for the slow speeds and self timer appear to be very similar in design or adaptations of those same systems on a Supermatic shutter. Overall, very unique and mechanically intricate design. I can see why it has a reputation for being difficult to service, but in reality it's different not difficult.

I've already got it apart, so more photos will have to wait. Unless you want to see some under the hood, which I'm sure you do. I got the shutter unjammed, and the curtains are in good shape with no broken ribbons or pinholes. I'm guessing it jammed when someone tried to change the shutter speed without the shutter being cocked. The curtains appear to be rubberized nylon, but they may also be silk, I'm not an expert on material science. It's working fine from 1/25 to 1/1000, but the slow speed escapement and self timer are gummed up with old lubricant and will need to be cleaned out.

If you know vintage Kodaks, you probably are aware of this camera. It's the Kodak Ektra, Kodak's 1941 attempt to produce the worlds finest 35mm interchangeable lens rangefinder camera, beating out contemporary Leica and Contax cameras. Being a Kodak collector, this is one of the cameras I have lusted over for the longest time. It's the one of the finest cameras to ever come out of Rochester and the finest American rangefinder ever made, but with only 2000 made, they command ridiculous money in the market. After a few years of watching various action sites, I finally came across one that didn't cost me an arm and leg. It's got some problems, the shutter is jammed (quite typical) but the curtains and their straps appear to be in good shape. I also need to locate the auxiliary 35mm finder window for this lens or a 50mm Ektar lens to go with it.

Hi Steve, thanks for the kind words. I'll admit to not having heard of the Tomy Kiipix until this point, but some research would indicate that it seems optimal for this kind of modification, as it has no batteries or superfluous protrusions. The body styling is quite nice as well. I may have to pick one up and experiment with mounting it on another Highlander or perhaps a J33. Can I ask whether you have experimented with yours at all? I'm curious whether it has an indicator for remaining exposures, as none of the reviews I have seen mentioned one. Also, if you have ran any film though it, how is print quality? I can imagine being manually advanced leads to some problems in even reagent dispersal, and some of the test images I have seen have horizontal lines from this.

Hi rdm, Sorry for the delayed response, this forum is kinda slow and I don't always check in. I toyed with this idea for several years and actually bought an Instax mini 9 parts camera fist to play with. The problems I found with the Instax camera involved the body geometry and roller placement, which were unsuitable for the conversion I wanted to perform, which largely involved not having this large amorphous shape hanging off the back that looked out of place. The other problem is that the film ejection on the Instax cameras is entirely electrical, so you need to retain the circuit board which also contains the auto-exposure circuits and is unnecessary for this type of conversion. The nice thing about the Lomo is that in addition to the body being boxier and easier to modify, the film advance is electromechanical, meaning I could ditch all the electronics other than the ejection motor and a reed switch, allowing the body to be cut down smaller. I'm not saying you couldn't adapt an Instax mini camera for this type of project, it's just going to be a bigger challenge and wasn't suited to the cosmetics that I wanted for this conversion.

For those asking about the use of 120 film: If you do want to modify the Chevron to use 120 film, it seems it would be quite easy, at least compared to the Medalist. The film spindles are spring loaded and the compartments have ample vertical space. A 120 film spool will fit with some resistance, but will not roll easily. If you are mechanically inclined, a bit of work with a Dremel would easily free up the space on the sides. The hardest part would be modifying the key for the take-up spool, as the slot in a 620 spool is shorter and narrower than that of a 120 spool. I'm not going to do that with my example though, as I consider re-spooling 620 film to be a trivial endeavor, requiring only a few minutes and a dark space.

Part 3: My Results My camera was purchased off eBay in an untested state. Upon receipt, I found the shutter would not fire reliably and the rangefinder was askew. In order to give the camera the best possible evaluation I spent several days stripping and cleaning the shutter, helical, rangefinder mirrors and viewfinder. Upon completion the rangefinder was accurate at all distances, the viewfinder clear and the shutter fired reliably at all speeds. Thus, I loaded up the camera with film and went shooting. I chose a slow black and white film as I wanted to evaluate the lens wide open and several of the shots below were taken at f/3.5. I used Ilford Pan F+ and developed it in HC-110 Dil. H. To say I was impressed by the quality of these images would be an understatement. Even wide open, the lens delivered corner to corner sharpness, as well as contrast even in shadow conditions. I will soon take this camera out again loaded with some Ektar 100. In shooting, I found the handling to be better than anticipated. In playing with the camera unloaded, I found the viewfinder to be a bit small and the shutter release seemed to lack solidity. However, upon actually shooting with it, I did not find these to be a problem. The viewfinder and rangefinder were both adequately bright, and all of my images are framed properly and are in focus. The shutter release and film advance were both easy to manipulate with gloved hands (which is appreciated in Michigan winters) and I had no problems with camera shake as I had feared earlier. The shutter and aperture adjustments were a bit more difficult with gloved hands but still manageable. I want to give the Chevron high praise, but one thing prevents me from doing so. Its predecessor, the Medalist is objectively better. It seems unfair to compare these two cameras, as a Medalist would likely have been out of the price range for a photographer who bought a Chevron. However, the only objective improvement the Chevron has over the Medalist is the addition of a 1/800 top shutter speed. Despite the high quality of the images, the four-element Tessar lens of the Chevron feels like a downgrade from the five-element Heliar design of the Medalist. The prismatic rangefinder and viewfinder of the Medalist are bigger and brighter than those of the Chevron. The body mounted shutter plunger of the Medalist is superior the projecting bar of the Chevron and the frame counter and revolving distance scale mounted under glass on the Medalist show a certain quality which the Chevron lacks. Finally, my biggest gripe with the Chevron is that it lacks any type of double exposure prevention, something which both versions of the Medalist and the Signet 35 had. While these comments may sound disparaging, it is important to remember that the Chevron was a camera built to a budget. It is not as feature filled or finely fitted as the Medalist, I reiterate that the image quality is superb. It is a camera which I will not hesitate to add to my list of frequent shooters.

Part 2: What is it? The Kodak Chevron is a medium format solid bodied rangefinder camera which produces twelve 2 ¼” x 2 ¼” (6 x 6 cm) images on a roll of 620 film. The first thing a user will notice about the Chevron is its striking body styling, the second thing they will notice is its weight. This is not a small camera, and weighs in at 2 Pounds, 9 Ounces (1160 grams). The camera is fitted with a Kodak Ektar lens with a focal length of 78mm and a maximum aperture of f/3.5. The lens is a four-element unit focusing Tessar design. It is constructed of high quality optical glass containing Thorium Oxide which has optical properties of high refractivity and low dispersion, allowing the construction of a lens which requires lower curvature and minimizes chromic aberration. The Kodak Ektar name signifies a lens which “is of the highest optical quality” and not a specific lens design. The lens is mounted in a Kodak Synchro Rapid 800 shutter. The Synchro Rapid 800, which had previously been used on the Kodak Tourist and in mounts for Speed Graphic cameras, is one of the fastest between the lens leaf shutters ever built with a top speed of 1/800 of a second. In order to achieve this the Synchro rapid has an unusual shutter blade configuration. On a conventional shutter, the blades need to rotate 180 degrees out of the aperture, stop, reverse direction and accelerate back into the aperture to close the shutter. This acceleration, deceleration and acceleration again in the opposite direction takes time and is the reason why most leaf shutters do not exceed 1/500 of a second. In the Synchro Rapid 800, the shutter blades are double sided and in rotating 180 degrees a single time, they open and close the aperture as one side clears it and the other promptly enters. Wollensak used this same principle on the Optimo shutter in 1909, allowing it to be the first shutter to break 1/300 of a second. The tradeoff in this design is that due to the construction of the shutter blades, the aperture opens every time the shutter is cocked. This necessitates a second set of blackout shutter blades which shield the film from light exposure when the shutter is being cocked. Adding a second set of shutter blades increases the complexity and cost of the shutter, and the Synchro Rapid 800 has a reputation for unreliability. The external controls for the camera are largely situated around the shutter. A manual cocking lever on the top of the shutter housing must be manually operated before each exposure. A milled aluminum bar protrudes from a hole in the body casting, connecting to the trip lever on the shutter. There is also provision for a cable release. Apertures ranging from f/3.5 to f/32 are visible both on the top of the shutter housing and on the front faceplate. A chrome lever under the shutter housing allows the selection of apertures. Shutter speed is set by a dial on the circumference of the shutter housing, much like a Deckel Compur design. Flash synchronization is available via an ASA bayonet fitting on the shutter housing and is continuously variable between X, F and M synchronization via a lever on the faceplate for electronic and bulb flash. The front of the lens mount is threaded for series V filters and a retaining ring is integral. The body of the camera is composed of three large aluminum castings. The shutter and lens assembly is mounted to a single aluminum helical mount which extends from and retracts to the body via an amply corrugated focusing ring. The focusing is very smooth due to a series of 50 ball bearings operating about the circumference of the focusing helical, similar to the Signet 35. A distance scale is visible on the focusing ring and a depth of field scale is mounted on the body just above it. The one remaining control on the body is the film advance release lever, which the user must press after very exposure to unlock the automatic film advance stop. The top of the camera has the large Chevron badge, and an unusual control labeled “Finder Full-828.” The purpose of this control is to adjust the viewfinder’s field of view. On full, the finder displays what will shot up on the square 620 negative, on 828, a mask drops down into the finder to display what would show up on the 28x40mm negative of 828 film. Kodak offered an adapter kit for an additional $4.25, encompassing a film plane mask and two spool adapters to allow the use of this film format. The manual makes a point that with the smaller negative size, the Chevron’s lens operates like a telephoto and that “the perspective is more pleasing” for portrait work. This seems like a weak argument, and I would contend the only practical reason for this implement was the use of Kodachrome which was available in 828 but not larger roll film sizes. The only other control on the top of the camera is the film indicator dial, which is numbered 1-12. The user loads the film and advances it to the first frame via the red window, after turning the dial to 1, the film will automatically advance the correct amount and all that is necessary is to press the release lever on the front of the camera after each exposure. Film advance is accomplished via a chrome lever on the top rear of the camera. I found that the film advance lever is nicely placed for use by my left thumb, but the fact that it takes 5-6 strokes to advance each frame makes this advance lever not so rapid. At the top rear of the camera are the viewfinder and rangefinder windows. These are conveniently placed atop each other, and it is possible to get a sight picture of both simultaneously. The rangefinder is of the split image variety, where a vertical object must be lined up between the upper and lower fields. Despite some assertion to the contrary, removing the top plate reveals that the rangefinder is mirror based, unlike the prismatic rangefinder of the previous Medalist II. However, it does not use any beam splitter, owing more in design to the pre-war Kodak 35RF than its contemporary the Signet 35. The viewfinder is atop the rangefinder and is adequately bright. In addition to the 828 masking feature, the viewfinder also has automatic horizontal parallax compensation based on distance. To the left of the viewfinder window is a small silver lever, pushing this to the left inserts a smaller mask for the rear viewfinder eyepiece. The manual suggest that this can improve the view for eyeglass wearers, however, I find that it simply makes the viewfinder dimmer. Below the VF/RF window is the red window for advancing film to the first exposure, its blackout lever and surrounding the window is a neatly designed indicator for remembering which type of Kodak film is loaded. The back is hinged on both sides and can be swung to either or removed entirely to load film. Overall, while the camera is heavy, the handling is good and the controls are conveniently placed.

Part 1: History The name Kodak, while familiar to any photographer, is not one normally associated with high-end photographic instruments. Indeed, one of the philosophical principles first put forward by George Eastman is the vast distribution and use of inexpensive snapshot cameras, the use of which ensured the continued sale of Kodak film. This philosophy has been associated with the Brownie camera and its successors, perhaps unfairly branding Kodak with the reputation that they were only ever capable of building low quality cameras. However, if one is observant of history it will be apparent that there are several Kodak cameras which challenge this assertion. These examples originate from an era or approximately 1936 to 1956 in which American photographic manufacturing was given a brief opportunity to compete on the world stage against foreign competition. The looming and destructive war in Europe and Asia, gave American manufacturers a window in which German and Japanese competition did not besiege their products. Only in the aftermath of the war was international optics manufacture once again able to displace American products. Taking advantage of this window, manufacturers such as Argus, Perfex and Clarus put their products on the market for American consumers. However, the cameras built by these companies are not comparable to their foreign competitors of the pre-war era. Perfex and Clarus have a reputation of poor quality control, and while Argus was quite successful, I doubt anyone would claim the C3 as matching the specifications of a pre-war Leica or Contax. The Eastman Kodak Company, the largest producer of photographic products in the United States at this time, was not to abandon this opportunity either. Where other companies were content to target the market for the advanced amateur or snapshooter, Kodak built a number of cameras which largely targeted the professional market, and in doing so created some of the most technologically advanced cameras to ever come out of an American factory. In 1936, Kodak announced the Bantam Special, a miniature camera designed for the 828 format, it featured a striking geometric appearance and the 44mm Ektar f/2.0 was at the time the fastest lens Kodak ever put on a still camera to come out of Rochester. In 1938, Kodak released the Super Six-20, the first camera to have aperture priority auto exposure, a feature which would not be common until the late 1950s. In 1941, Kodak released two more cameras for this intended market. The Ektra was a 35mm system camera with interchangeable coated lenses of varying focal lengths, removable film backs and a slew of other features which made it the most advanced 35mm camera of its era. The second of these was a unique solid bodied medium format rangefinder called the Medalist. The medalist was unusual in that most medium format cameras of the era were folders. The engineers at Kodak Park dispensed with delicate leather bellows, instead giving the Medalist a double focusing helical. The camera took eight pictures on a roll of 620 film, could be fitted with auxiliary sheet film backs, and was fitted with a superb 100mm f/3.5 Ektar lens. The Medalist was arguably the most successful of Kodak’s flagship products, earning a U.S. Navy contract, a contract with the British air force and a successor called the Medalist II with some small feature changes. While the Second World War proved the Medalist’s worth, the postwar market was a different matter entirely. Inflation made the production of these cameras untenable. Kodak elected to not continue production of the Super Six-20 after the war, and the Bantam Special, Ektra and Medalist II were not listed in Kodak catalogs after 1948. At the time of its discontinuation, the Medalist II had a retail cost of $312.50. When adjusted for inflation, this is the equivalent of over $3400 in 2020. Kodak’s flagship products had failed to gain sufficient traction in the market to continue their production. This was not, however, the end of Kodak’s ambitions. In 1951, the company released the Signet 35. This 35mm rangefinder camera was nowhere near as ambitious as the prewar Ektra, possessing a nice 50mm f/3.5 Ektar lens and a functional four-speed shutter. This camera did attract U.S. Army and Air Force contracts and was popular in the consumer market as well. Perhaps seeing the interest in the Signet 35, or lamenting the loss of the Medalist, in late 1952 Kodak once again attempted to introduce a flagship medium format rangefinder camera. The camera designed to fill this role was the Kodak Chevron. A dealer introductory brochure entitled Kodak Presents: The Kodak Chevron Camera provides some details of the camera’s genesis. It states that the design principles of the Kodak Signet 35 work equally well in the Chevron. It also suggests that the Signet 35 and Chevron share a common prototype, but that the 35mm Signet made it to market earlier. This is apparent in the similarity in body styling between the two cameras, with aluminum castings and strong horizontal lines being prominent features. In an introductory brochure dating from October of 1953, Kodak states that interest in a camera such as the Chevron came from “letters and conversations with amateurs, professionals and dealers” who sought out a camera that combines “the Kodak Ektar lens, the Synchro Rapid 800 shutter and a coupled rangefinder in a roll film camera at the lowest possible price.” Given the high price of the Medalist II, the introduction of a similar medium format had to take into effect cost cutting measures, evident in the Chevron from its $215.00 price (approx. $2100 in 2020), down from $312.50 of the Medalist II. I have personally been conducting a serial number survey in order to determine estimated production figures and trends for the Chevron. Currently encompassing 43 examples, I am willing to draw a few conclusions. I would estimate based on body serial numbers that Kodak produced approximately 3500 cameras. This number could be slightly higher if new data emerges, but I would believe that 5000 produced would be a maximum. Furthermore, all examples except for two seen in Kodak literature have “RM” (1953) lens date codes, suggesting that all lenses if not all cameras were produced in that year and then assembled and sold up until 1956. There is little correlation between body and lens serials, suggesting that the lenses were produced first and the cameras later assembled by pulling from stores. With only a single year of production and three years of sales, it is difficult to call the Chevron a success. Perhaps Kodak was seeking a military contract that never came. Regardless, the Chevron must be relegated to the great but short-lived line of Kodak’s flagship products. As a result of the few examples produced and their unique styling, these cameras are desirable within the collector market and regularly command $300+.

Here's a few snaps from my recently CLA'd Kodak Chevron. I'll probably post a full write up some time later this week. Film was Ilford Pan F+ in HC-110 Dil. H.

I am attempting to do a serial number survey regarding Kodak's uncommon MF rangefinder, the Chevron. If you have one of these cameras, would you please share some information about it with me? I am looking for the lens serial number with its two letter prefix and the body serial number (found on the body below the focusing helical). The purpose of this survey is to collect a database of serial numbers in order to determine patterns of production and gain an estimate of total cameras produced. It is my intention to make this information public once enough examples have been tallied. Please reply below with your camera's information. It is my intention to attribute individual examples to their owners. If you would like your information to not be made public, please DM me instead and I will add it to the list but not make it public. Thanks.

If you can't make out any markings and don't have any technical paperwork on the flash, then you are pretty much SOL. Electronic components cannot be visually distinguished in this situation, as capacitors and resistors may have the same external characteristics while varying in capacitance, resistance or voltage rating, in addition to other factors. Your only other option would be to persuade someone with the same model of flash to disassemble it in order to see what undamaged components look like, or even better, measure as, out of circuit.

Which are the parts that have failed? I'm struggling to see any obvious signs of damage in the photo. Resistors have a color band code for value and tolerance, and most poly film capacitors, such as those pictured in blue use an alphanumerical code for the value and tolerance with the working voltage stated. Clearer photos of the bodies and any markings on the parts in question would be helpful. Edit: I now see the damage to the grey capacitor and adjacent resistor. My suggestion is to remove them from the board and clean with isopropyl alcohol so that hopefully you can reveal some markings which disclose value. Barring that, you would need to find a schematic for you flash unit and determine which parts in the circuit failed, so that you know what the appropriate replacements would be.

Are we sure the camera takes 127 film? Given the size of a compur shutter in relation to the body, the camera looks much larger than that normally required for the 4x6 cm format of 127. Are there any other distinguishing markings on the body of the camera, possibly on the bed or in the film chamber?

Much appreciated gentlemen. This will help me fabricate a new part. The galvanometer may be tricky, I may have to buy a second parts camera and hope it doesn't have the same problem. One of the things I have found through research is that the IIIc is the only Retina to use this meter assembly, whereas the IIIC shares the same meter assembly as the IB, retinette IIb, IIS, reflex and reflex S.

I hate to be this guy, but since we happen to have a large number of IIIc owners here, I figured I'd ask. Does anyone have a IIIc parts camera hanging around? I have a IIIc with a dead galvanometer and missing flap on the meter cell. The selenium cell is still active though. I'd like to buy a IIIc meter assembly if anyone has one, otherwise, If anyone can measure the aperture in the flap, I can fabricate a new one.

Looking for a second film spool for a 1896 Pocket Kodak so I can shoot with it. It is visually distinct, since it has ratchet teeth on one of the flanges and one hole is threaded. About 45mm tall.

Yes, if I ever have the opportunity or desire to shoot on film this old again, I will be sure to unroll it in the darkroom and re-tape the film to the backing paper to ensure it doesn't come off in the camera.

I was antiquing this past weekend and found an interesting curiosity, a roll of 120 Kodak Verichrome film that expired in May of 1936. I paid a few dollars for the roll, the box was already torn open so being the experimental type I figured why not go further. The film was still sealed in a paper wrapper, So I opened it, loaded it into a No.2 Brownie model F and went off to see what images this film could still make 84 years after its expiration. This film probably had an exposure index of 25 to 40 when new, so I made brackets of three exposures at 2, 4 and 8 additional stops of light to compensate for age. As it turns out the middle exposures were the best. Sadly, I was not able to develop the whole roll, as the adhesive holding the film to the backing paper failed and some of the film got torn in the camera. I was able to get these two exposures off the roll though. I started with a 30 minute prewash to soften the emulsion. Development was done in HC-110 dilution A at 68f for 5 minutes, followed by a 2 minute stop, 10 minutes of fixation with Ilford Rapid Fixer and a 60 minute wash. Evident defects in the film include the fog, which progressed from the edges of the film inward, and one area on the first image where the emulsion became stuck to the backing paper. Overall, I'm impressed with how well the undamaged areas of the film turned out given their age.

carboxymethylcellulose is soluble in water, but does not dissolve easily as it likes to clump. The best solution is to first dissolve the carboxymethylcellulose in a more volatile solvent such as acetone or alcohol, then mix the solution with water and heat the mixture until the more volatile solution boils off. This is easier with acetone since it has the lower boiling point, but it is also more flammable.

Owner Vows To Rebuild After Central Camera Fire As a photography enthusiast it is very sad to see something like this happen. I live in Michigan, but I have several fond memories of visiting the store in Chicago and meeting Don on a couple of occasions. Without getting too political, I emphasize with the issues behind the protesting, however, in this case the issue is vandalism and destruction of property by wanton looters. Don has started a GoFundMe for rebuilding the store, as insurance may not cover the destruction, depending on future classifications of the rioting. There aren't a lot of businesses I would donate to, but Don at Central Camera is one I would make an exception for: Central Camera Company Rebuild organized by Don Flesch