hunter_compton

Sounds like you have a plan. Please show us your results once you have developed if you feel it's worthwhile. I love found films, you never know what you're going to get, so if you get something good its a surprise.

Looks as if you are pretty much in the same boat as myself in terms of setup. As to your developers, Ilfotec HC is basically identical to HC-110, and in fact I use the same developing times when developing Ilford film in HC-110. So, that would be my choice of developers, although that may be personal bias on my part, I standardized on HC-110 long ago and it's my preferred developer. Assuming that the film was properly exposed to begin with, and hasn't been abused in storage, I think either the ID-11 or Ilfotec HC will give you acceptable results. The HC may give slightly lower fog, but it wouldn't be a magnitude of difference. If you do use the Ilfotec HC, use a dilution that will give as close a development time to 5 minutes as possible. Shorter than this and you risk uneven development, longer development times build shadow detail but also accentuate the affects of fog on the film. I have used T-Max developer (which Ilford cites as an equivalent to DD-X) on Verichrome Pan, but it was newly exposed film, not found film, and didn't like the results. These are developers which create a good range of midtones, but since the film is compromised by age, you want as much contrast as possible. I wouldn't suggest it in this situation.

122 film was discontinued in Kodak in 1972, with the last film produced expiring in 1974. At that point in time the only film produced in that format was Verichrome Pan. Interestingly, at least to me, 122 film was originally offered in both 10 and 6 exposure rolls in the 1910s and 20s, but by the 1960s and 70s, was only offered in 6 exposure rolls. None of this is really germane to the question you asked, but I figured I would mention it. Now, since your film is very likely Verichrome Pan (further backed by the fact that it has red and yellow backing paper) you aren't in terrible shape. Verichrome Pan is highly regarded for its latent image keeping properties. As Joe said above, whatever you do in the case of film exposed a long time ago, you will be facing a latent image that is weaker than it would be when new. Best thing to do is to develop normally, or give just a slight increase in developing time (I normally give an additional 10%). HC-110 is usually recommended as being the best for found films since it does not increase fog as much as other developers, but ID-11 should also be suitable since it is similar to D-76. Here is a photo from a roll of Verichrome Pan 828 exposed some time in the 1960s which I developed last year: What is your intended plan for developing the rest of the roll? With a format this large you really have two options, tank or tray/bucket development. The latter requires less setup, but is difficult to time and execute since the film is panchromatic and thus must be handled in complete darkness. I develop more 122 than the average individual, since I have a Kodak 3A Autographic Special, so I modified a Paterson reel and spindle so as to make a 90mm reel and use two Paterson tanks, one with developer and one with fixer to develop the film, transferring the reel between tanks with the lights off. Documentation I have for Verichrome Pan suggests 7 minutes in stock D-76 or ID-11, so I would suggest sticking with 8 minutes at 68F.

Yes, the stick is the stylus, but seeing as autographic film, which is different from ordinary roll film, is no longer produced, that is a moot point. As to the bellows, they normally develop holes in the corners, which if small and few in number can be patched with a thin and flexible lightproof substance, liquid electrical tape is often recommended for this purpose. But, if too large or too many, the act of folding will open up new holes or reopen old ones, and replacement is the only further option.

Hi Czenzi, Welcome to the forum. There were two Kodak No.2A Folding Brownies, a 2A Folding Autographic Brownie and a 2A Folding Pocket Brownie. The 2A Folding Pocket Brownie is the simpler camera, the case resembles a rectangular box when folded and the film is loaded through a sliding door in the back. The 2A Folding Autographic Brownie is different in that the case is rounded (although some early examples have square corners), the bellows assembly is removed from the front to load film, and there will be a small folding door on the back to make use of Kodak's "Autographic" feature (basically a primitive date back). Now the most common shutter to find on these cameras is the Kodak Ball Bearing shutter, this shutter is very reliable, but with excessive use they can simply wear out and they are not easily fixed at that point. Odds are there is simply dried lubricant in there, which a flush with some lighter fluid will clear, but you should be aware of the other possibility. The other thing to be aware of is that Kodak cameras of this era frequently suffer from deteriorated bellows which allow light to leak onto the film. Some NOS bellows are available, but replacement is not an easy task for those not mechanically inclined. Assuming you have good bellows and the shutter can be made to work, the final issue is that by Kodak's nomenclature, a 2A Brownie takes 116 film, a format which is not readily available anymore. This leaves you to adapt another commonly available film format (like 120) if you want to shoot with it.

It is either an original Brownie or a No.1, the camera has just been rotated 90 degrees and the viewfinder clipped to the side. The way to tell whether it is an original or a No.1 is to open the back and look at the flap which will say No.1 if it is a No.1 or just "Brownie" if it is one of the originals. I would suspect it is a No.1 though because of the course grain leatherette.

Greg, I just checked my own Medalist I with a dental mirror. There should be a small second plate behind the adjustment screw bracket, this is what the stud screws into and has another set of threads to lock the adjusting screw when the stud is tightened. You could use blue loctite or something on the adjusting screw so that it doesn't come loose. The head of the adjusting screw bears on the silver button on the end of the rangefinder actuating lever (yellow arrow), when the accessory back is attached, it pushes up the couplet bar, which pushes up the link, which pushes up the adjusting screw bracket and now the head of the adjusting screw bracket bears on the protrusion on the link (red arrow). Without the stud in place, the adjusting screw bracket is probably sitting too low to bear on either of these points.

The couplet bar remains permanently in the slot in the adjustment screw bracket, it does not drop down at any point, unless the camera is being disassembled for servicing.

Mike Butkus sent me the Medalist II repair manual, so I'm uploading a diagram from one page that will assist in this discussion. If you want the full manual, I suggest going to Mike directly. The "Range Finder Couplet Bar" as you have referred to it, called the "Couplet Bar" in the manual, does not directly act on the rangefinder itself. When the camera is being used normally, with roll film, the "Adjusting Screw" pushes on the "Actuating Lever." The "Actuating Lever" is coupled to the rangefinder and distance scale. The "Stud" is a locking screw, when loosened but not fully removed, the "Adjusting Screw" can be moved in and out to collimate the lens with the rangefinder and distance scale. The "Link" is attached to the "Actuating Lever", when using roll film it serves only as an infinity lock, interfacing with a bar which prevents the shutter from firing when the lens is focused beyond infinity. Now, the Medalist is not only usable with roll film, but also with sheet film, plates and film packs using the accessory back. When using the accessory back, the "Couplet Bar" comes into play. The "Bracket" which the "Adjusting Screw" and "Stud" are attached to is mounted on a pivot. The accessory back has a pin on it which pushes into the body of the camera when attached. This pin pushes up on the "Couplet Bar" which transfers the force to the "Bracket" forcing it to lift. This needs to be done with the lens retracted into the body. When the "Bracket" is lifted, it causes the "Adjusting Screw" to catch on a projection further back on the "Link" when the lens is extended. By doing so, this ensures that the rangefinder and distance scale is re-calibrated so that the lens to film distance is correct when the accessory back is used. (The accessory back changes the lens to film plane distance which is why all of this is necessary.)

You may find interesting U.S. patents 2,543,181; 2,662,822; 2,603,565 and 2,647,056. The basic process relies on the theory of diffusion transfer reversal which was discovered by Andre Rott in the 1930s. Basically, if you take a wet, developing piece of film and press it against a specially treated piece of paper, you can get a positive print on the paper without an enlarger or any light source. This is because unexposed silver halide from the negative becomes soluble, transfers through the developer and lands on the receptor sheet, where it is reduced to metallic silver forming a positive image. Now, if you look at either Polaroid pack film or roll film (the two are the same in chemistry but different in dimensions) you have three key components. You have a negative, you have a developing pod containing reagent, and you have a receptor sheet. The negative is simple, it is like any other and through the life of Polaroid materials some common emulsions such as Kodak's Panatomic-X and Verichrome were used. Now, since no light needs to be shone through the negative to make a print, the negative was often simplified by coating the emulsion onto a paper backing, rather than something transparent like cellulose acetate. On film where the negative is recoverable, there is either a peelable lightproof backing on the rear of the negative, or like Fuji used with their instant packfilms, a black carbon layer applied to the back of the transparent negative to lightproof it. The reagent is also relatively simple, the base component is a monobath, containing both a developing agent and a fixer so that the print can develop and then be fixed so as not to be sensitive to light. Added to this is a gelling agent, normally carboxymethylcellulose, which makes this developing combination a viscous jelly, able to be used in a camera without flowing everywhere. Most Polaroid developing reagents contained chemicals to stabilize the chemical reactions over a wider range of temperatures, so that air temperature had less of an effect on the development time of the print. The third component is the receptor sheet, this is a piece of paper chemically treated to receive silver halide from the negative. The way it is treated varied. Polaroid treated their receptor sheets with some form of metallic sulfide, while Fuji uses organic polymers to increase nucleation. There is also normally a frame included in separable instant films between the receptor and negative sheets which both frames off the area of the receptor sheet which gets coated with reagent to create a neat border on the finished print, and also ensures a gap between the negative and receptor sheets to ensure all of the reagent does not get spread too thin and squished out the sides. Now, Scott, from what I gather from your recent postings, I surmise that you may have some interest in making your own instant film. As somebody who has also gone down that train of thought, I will tell you that the receptor sheet is going to be the most difficult component to source. Negative stocks are readily available, and developing reagents can be mixed from off the shelf components, but sourcing or making a receptor sheet would likely be the most difficult part of the process. The reason being that we don't know exactly what they were treated with. The late Ron Mowrey over on the Photrio forums was able to surmise that some type of metallic sulfide was used, but beyond that we don't know. If you look at one of the patents above, it gives a great number of coatings that may work for the receptor sheet, but does not state what is ideal or which one Polaroid ultimately used. Remember, the purpose of patents is to describe every possible way of doing something, not to explain how to do it. Regardless of what your intentions are, I wish you luck in your endeavors.

If it's visible on the back then it is definitely opacification failure, as the instax films are exposed from the back and then have a black carbon opacification layer that is spread from the rollers. If the back isn't completely black after coming through the rollers, then the opacification layer is letting light through. If the rollers are not even, the opacification layer won't be spread consistently. I have used a couple of instax backs to do conversions of Polaroid cameras. On the cameras I have seen, not a 210 specifically, the rollers are accessible but not easily. Normally part of the body housing needs to be removed and then the rollers themselves are retained in part of the molded plastic body by spring clips. I would guess the assumption is that the average user won't be cleaning them regularly.

I think it is important to note that on most Polaroid film which does not have a recoverable negative, the negative emulsion is coated on a paper backing and not on a cellulose negative, and thus the negative is not transparent. Thus, the negative and positive are both lightproof, as far as the chemical reaction taking place between them is concerned. On most Polaroid materials that I have seen which use a recoverable or transparent negative, there is another opaque layer which gets peeled off the negative in order to lightproof it. I should add that all color and some B&W peel-apart materials were coaterless, and didn't need to be treated after the print was peeled.

I should say that all instant film rollers I have seen (Fuji or Polaroid) are made of machined stainless steel. If yours do indeed have a coating, and it has some thickness to it (in other words not just paint) and this layer is no longer even, then this could indeed cause the issues you are seeing.

To clarify, was the film shot 8 years ago and this problem was noticed recently (not on the print originally) or is the film 8 years old and this is a defect of a print exposed recently? The two bars on the right may be a roller issue, but with the size of instax wide film and the size of the rollers I would expect to see more repeating defects over the height of the print. On the left, it seems like a plain case of opacification failure, the irregularity gives it away. The white titanium dioxide layer did not spread evenly and light was able to expose the negative while it was developing. While this could be a roller issue, I would suspect it more likely to be a chemistry issue, especially if the film is indeed 8 years old. In my experience, Fuji instant films have very good longevity (especially compared to Polaroid Originals) but I think close to a decade is pushing it a bit. If you had another instax wide camera to try, that would clear up any uncertainty as to whether it is a chemistry or roller issue.

I'm afraid I don't know who would be the best person to send this off to as I service all my own cameras. Perhaps ask on the r/polaroid sub-reddit which appears to be fairly active, as the folks there may be more knowledgeable than myself in this manner. There was a gentleman with the handle Fastcat on the SX-70 flickr page, but I don't know if he is active any more.

This is a folding SX-70 sonar model correct? Such as the SX-70 Sonar OneStep. Sounds like the interlock switch isn't making contact when the camera is fully open. The purpose of this switch is to prevent the camera from operating when folded. From your description it sounds like the camera does operate, but only when partially erect and not latched. It is not ideal to operate the camera in this condition. Do not attempt to fold the camera if any resistance is encountered as you could break the mechanism that allows the mirror to flip up and down if it has not cycled fully. Here's some instructions to fixing the interlock switch: SX70 camera S6 switch repair You will need to remove the bottom cover of the camera which involves removing the leather covering to access the four screws that retain the bottom body panel.

It's got a digital camera taking an image of ground glass placed against the film camera's film plane. Also, this was in the Q&A section and is apparently from the creator: "our idea is to be able to give a vintage look in the photos and not of the highest quality like the current mirroles or even our cell phones." Not a great product to me if the creator is representing it in Holga fashion.

I can't say whether the bellows from a 250 are compatible with the 110, but any of the other Polaroid roll-film cameras bellows should be interchangeable. Models 95, 95A, 95B, 150 or 900 should be interchangeable and the same color. You would probably need to remove the lensboard from the old bellows and re-glue it to tne new ones as the hole is likely a different size for the pathfinder's lens.

Edit: I should have said the model of my light meter is DW-68, not DW-62. That's what I get for relying on memory.

On the subject of the DW-58, I have a very similar DW-62, and it's my most used meter. I have others, but the meter is still accurate and I like the way it feels in the hand. The "Cover Closed" and "Cover Open" settings are used for reflective light readings outdoors. "Hood Off (Incident Light)" is used to make incident light readings indoors under artificial light. There is no additional diffuser, but the DW-62 came with (and this is how the DW-62 differs from the DW-58) a set of metal masks with various sized apertures that fit over the selenium cell to reduce its sensitivity and thus allow incident light readings to be made outdoors. There are also more symbols on the dial (star, club, etc.) to calibrate the dial based on the mask being used. The top of the selenium cell is a protective cover glass only and should not be opaque.

Interesting, I was familiar with the practice for 70mm film but wan't aware it was a widespread practice for 35mm. Was this a product sold pre-packaged? If you bulk load, I can see how this wouldn't be too difficult to implement. What are the advantages of this versus rewinding?

In the late 1930s, there were numerous attempts by American manufacturers to produce a rangefinder camera to compete with German imports the likes of Leica or Contax but at a much-reduced cost. The Argus C3 is perhaps the best well-known outgrowth of this trend, and the only model which was truly able to weather the post-war influx of cheaper imports. Other manufacturers whose were not able to sustain production in the post-war era either due to competition or poor management, included Clarus with their MS-35, Universal with their Mercury II and Perfex. Larger corporations like Kodak and Bell and Howell were able to survive, but their high-end American 35mm rangefinders were not sustainable in the post-war market. During this short period immediately before and after the Second World War, American 35mm rangefinder production was at its most diverse. The Candid Camera Corporation based out of Chicago introduced their first 35mm rangefinder in 1938 in the form of the Perfex Speed Candid which was a very blocky and ungainly camera. The revised model 44 that superseded it in 1939 was both cosmetically and mechanically redesigned. The model 55 of 1940 was largely similar to the 44, but had an updated slow speed mechanism that is reported to be more reliable than its predecessor is. On paper, the Perfex 55 has a list of features that is competitive with if not better than a Leica IIIc: -Cloth Focal Plane Shutter B, 1 - 1/1250 -Internal M-Sync Flash with Hot Shoe -Removable Back for Film Loading -Film Advance Mechanism allows Cassette-to-Cassette Film Advance -Wide Base (90mm) Split Image Rangefinder -Interchangeable 38mm Screw Mount Lenses -Integral Extinction Type Light Meter My Perfex 55 was bought for the whopping sum of $9 from the auction site. It needed a full CLA, the leather replaced and has some pitting of the chrome. However, the shutter curtains were in good shape except for exactly two pinholes which were easily fixed with some black acrylic paint. I did require some assistance in reassembling the shutter gearing and am thankful to Rick Van Nooij for his input and Rick Oleson for his technical notes. But how does the Perfex stand up to its claims? Well, the first thing you notice about the Perfex is its weight. With the Wollensak f/2.8 Velostigmat mounted and a roll of film loaded, the camera weighs in at a whopping 1.75 pounds or just short of 800 grams. It certainly has a solid feel to it due to its cast and machined alloy construction. In spite of the heavy weight, the camera actually feels really good in the hands. No weird hand-holding techniques or protrusions on this one. The shutter button looks to be oddly placed atop the shutter speed dial, but it doesn’t feel weird to place your index finger across the winding knob to actuate it. The shutter release is easy to depress and the shutter is quite quiet in operation with only a small “snick” at the end of its travel. One of the evident ergonomic problems of the design apparent to me is that the left rangefinder window is so placed as so that your middle finger occludes it when you have your index finger on the shutter button. Not a huge problem, and I have found that it seems to work best if you focus on holding the camera with your left hand while moving the right to focus and depress the shutter. The focusing helix is very smooth to operate. I have heard some malign the screw mount of the Perfex because it can unscrew when trying to focus using the grasping ring on the lens. All I can say is that I did not have a problem on my example, perhaps because I ensured that the focusing helix was properly cleaned and lubricated while the screw mount for the lens was clean and dry. There are some problems with having a screw mount where the lens rotates, but I did not find that setting the aperture was majorly inconvenient on the Perfex. There are 3 aperture scales set around the circumference of the lens so it is not necessary to turn the camera over to hunt for the scale depending on the focus distance. Lenses on this camera are interchangeable in theory, but have an infinity adjustment and need to be adjusted to the body they are used on. The view inside the viewfinder is…distinct. I had to admire the simplicity of the rangefinder when servicing it, it is only two mirrors and a pivoting arm, so it works very well considering how simple it is. That said, the view inside the viewfinder is different from most other rangefinders I have seen. In technical terms it is a split-mage rangefinder. However, the view you see is much closer to a co-incident image rangefinder in geometry as you still have a wide view of the scene around the rangefinder mirror in the Perfex. Loading film is easy with a removable back as opposed to a bottom loader such as a Leica. I am not sure what purpose is served by having a removable film take up spool allowing the use of cassette-to-cassette film advance. Seeing that no 35mm was ever offered in this form that I am aware of, but it is a feature I suppose. The film rewind button on the front is convenient and easy to use. Setting the shutter speed is a bit tricky. The knob has to be lifted and set into place before the film is wound on and the higher speed markings are very close together. I found that the extinction light meter built-in to the camera to be less than useful. I was using a GE DW-68 meter for all of my shooting and found that trying to use the extinction meter and calculator on the back of my camera resulted in it suggesting 3-4 stops of overexposure on average. I later found out the speeds listed on the camera are Weston and not ASA, but this would not explain the difference in exposure suggestion. Perhaps the graduated ND filter in my meter strip has faded over time. One other thing I should mention is that the design of the Perfex is not conducive to trying to squeeze extra shots on a roll. When you reach the end of the roll, the stop feels similar to when the advance stops automatically. The shutter will cock partially and can be released and the result is an underexposed frame that partially overlaps the previous frame. The Wollensak 50mm f/2.8 Velostigmat lens was a very popular offering from Wollensak during this period. It is a simple triplet, but shows good edge sharpness at f/8 and smaller. At wider apertures, it shows swirly bokeh characteristic of this type of lens. Film was Kodak Tri-X 400 developed in HC-110B: 1/100 f/11: 1/100 f/11 1/1250 f/4: 1/200 f/5.6: 1/100 f/5.6: 1/50 f/8: So, is the Perfex an American Leica? No, of course not. However, I think that it is a still a half-decent camera in its own right and it did originally sell for much less than a Leica or Contax.

I have a booklet entitled "American Standard Exposure Indexes: Film Values" dated 1952 that lists the following: Ansco Superpan Press - 125 Daylight / 80 Tungsten Ansco Supreme - 50 Daylight / 32 Tungsten Ansco Plenachrome Roll - 50 Daylight / 25 Tungsten

This is a project that I have been mulling around in my head awhile. I have always found it fun to tinker with the older Polaroid roll film cameras, my first conversion being a Model 150 converted to pack film and later a Model 95B converted to the same. However, with Fuji having discontinued FP-3000B and then FP-100C a few years back, making instant pack film extinct it was time to play with an alternative. The Polaroid Model 80 Highlander was an attempt by Polaroid to take their instant roll film technology and mate it with a product that was both less expensive and more compact than the larger 40-series cameras. I have always thought that these cameras are undervalued. Having owned a couple, they feel really good in the hand, not overly heavy like the 40-series cameras and have nice 3-element glass lenses. That said, they take 30-series Land picture rolls which were discontinued in the 1970s making their doorstop status understandable. The camera I used for this conversion cost me all of $4.00. I have seen some other conversions of the Highlander, but all involved converting to use 120 roll film, and to me that loses the instant nature of the camera, hence a desire to preserve that functionality. The Fuji Instax mini format seemed like the best option for this conversion, there are not many options left for instant film in today’s market and the image size of the Instax mini format was the closest to that of 30-series roll films without needing a mirror in the optical path like the Impossible/Polaroid Originals offerings. The back I used for this conversion was hacked off a broken Lomo Instant camera with a lot of bodywork necessary to get the film plane as close as possible to that in the Highlander. I have never been particularly fond of the Lomography trend, but to each their own, this camera was however, the cheapest way to get an instant back that took Instax mini film without spending an arm and a leg. Aside from removing the lens and shutter assembly from the Lomo camera and modifying the body, I also had to make some changes to the film ejection mechanism. The Lomo instant camera had the film pick arm coupled to the rollers all powered by an electric motor. A microcontroller determined when to stop the motor so that the film would be fully ejected but not begin ejecting another film sheet. However, I decided to scrap the circuit board as it both interfered with getting the film plane as close to the original as possible and was unnecessary since I did not use the shutter and lens assembly from the original Lomo camera. I also had to remove the gear train that coupled the pick arm to the motor as it was routed in front of the film plane and hit the body when moving. Instead, I retained the motor coupling to the rollers but put a momentary contact switch in place. The film pick arm is now coupled to a lever which protrudes from the top of the camera so that the manual of arms is to take the picture, hold down the black button and push the pick arm button until the photo has ejected. The photo ejects from a slot visible after the cutter bar is lifted. The roller motor is powered by 4: AAA batteries in a holder contained in the Highlander body where the positive roll would have originally gone. The most disconcerting aspect of this conversion was adjusting the focal length of the lens. The nature of the Instax back I used was that no matter how close you sliced it the material thickness of the back and the Instax film pack itself meant that there would be a 1/8” gap between the old and new film plane no matter what was done. There is no way to move the lens board on the self-erecting design of the Model 80 camera unlike its larger brethren, fortunately there is enough adjustment in the front lens element to make up for the offset. Even shooting at fairly large apertures, I did not notice any focusing issues, although adjusting the effective focal length of the lens may have changed the curve of distance markings on the lens ring thus they should be treated as an approximation. I collimated the lens with the marked distance settings at 8 feet expecting most shots taken to be at close range given the small image size. The Instax back is offset slightly in the film plane so that the pick arm and roller gears clear the side of the film plane body, this is possible since the Instax mini format is smaller than the original image size and I have not noticed any particular defects from doing so. In order to accommodate the offset and new image size I put a mask over the front viewfinder glass for accurate framing. I also glued a piece of 2-stop ND filter over the rear lens ring to compensate for Instax film being 800 ISO, with the ND filter in place the film behaves as if it were ASA 200. Finally, I created an instructional card which mimics that found on the roll film cameras to occupy the space that originally had leatherette on the film door on the Lomo back. (Not sure why this shows as purple in the photo, probably something to do with the lighting setup I am using, looks dark grey in reality.) Here is a test image from this camera after the conversion, sorry for the quick and dirty scan: