gordon_christie1

Old thread but thought I would add that I got a similar effect on a roll of 120 through an unused 1930s folder. I strongly suspect fine dust on the lens. It has been cleaned but I have not tried another film yet.

I'm late to this but does anyone know how to remove the finder on the coffee can (later model - not the one with the step pyramid lid). Or indeed how to get the distance wheel assembly out. The focus lever on mine refused to move and after disassembly it turns out that the distance wheel or cog is jamming everything.

I have that model but focus lever does not move. Having removed lenses and focus plate it turns out it’s the distance scale that is jamming the lens helicals. It appears to connect through the camera body (to what?) but won’t budge. So I thought I would remove the viewfinder (WLF) but I can’t see how to do that - grateful for any advice you may have. Regards, Gordon

Only 4 or so years late to this party having just bought an Agiflex with a slow curtain problem for £26 but I have to say on the subject of there having to be a pool of working cameras so don’t use a particular one in case you break it - the OP has never used his camera so he doesn’t know if it’s working or not. The argument is therefore a non-starter. If he tries the camera and it works then he might (arguably) be justified in retiring it from active service in order that it can be one of a dwindling pool of (as far as was known at the last attempt) working examples. If he tries it and it doesn’t work it was never one of any dwindling band of working cameras. If he tries it and it breaks well, it wasn’t going to be much of a candidate for the dwindling band if it only had a life expectancy of one roll of film. As camera repairers know, if you don’t use working vintage cameras, they stop working. The old grease goes solid. They rust. The lenses get fungus especially in leather cases apparently. A camera, like most machines, has a limited lifespan. It is designed to be used until the end of its lifespan. Then it might, or might not, be repairable. But at least it wasn’t wrapped up in cotton wool. It was used. A famous guitar player who shall remain nameless once said, when asked how often he cleaned his guitars, “I don’t clean them; I play the (expletive deleted) things!” As things stand he doesn’t know if it works so at the moment it’s not a camera because a camera takes pictures. And it’s certainly not a working example because it hasn’t been given any “work” to do. It’s a door stop. So IMHO it’s ridiculous to suggest that he should use another camera while this one is left in a bag. Let some light into it - that’s what it’s for. That’s what they are all for. Sorry for the rant but I feel quite strongly about this. I’ve got valuable old cameras that I use. Should I stop? Should I retire them?Absolutely not. The men who made them would turn in their graves. They didn’t make Museum pieces - they made machines that take pictures. Until they stop taking pictures and become door stops.

Thanks for reply. The serial number falls into both ranges so I suppose it’s the way the list is compiled that is confusing. On the one hand it says 4,000 serial numbered units (including the serial number on mine) were made in Germany, then it gives another block of 300 which again fall within the same 4,000 and says they were made in Canada. The info about the larger M3 engraving seems to confirm however that it is Canadian, so thanks for that. It’s only important from a resale point of view and it’s not going anywhere! As I understand it many of the famous Leica lenses were for years designed and built in Canada to exactly the same tolerances and when the factory closed all the parts moved back to Germany and were assembled there. If Leica didn’t see any difference in quality then I doubt if anyone else could!

serial number is 998-***. This falls within a batch of 4,000 from 1960 but also within a batch of 300 ELC cameras from the following month. My problem is - is it an ELC or not? 4/13/1960M399600110000004000 5/31/1960M3 ELC998001998300300

<p>Just what I needed - I understand now that when I was reading about more contrast in negatives that was to do with standard darkroom printing. Scanning is different. I need to not rush to the scan stage but first consider carefully and play with the histogram to get where I want to be. That way the resulting, inverted, image will be close to the final answer and any further tweaks can be done in software. Thank you John and (again) Tim.</p>

<p>First, I'm very grateful to you all for taking the time to help me. Thank you very much. I'll try to address the issues raised in order.<br> Tim - when I use the Imacon drum scanner I have started doing a manual curves adjustment and that does help but does not completely eliminate the problem. Still getting to grips with the software. I set it to "auto correct" the last time (not sure of the actual term used in the software) and that also helped but did not eliminate. My own scanner is so low-end that I maybe should not have mentioned it! Not too many adjustments there so I tend to deal with it via curves in Photoshop.<br> Charles - I have been thinking about increasing dev time and was even looking at stand dev't until I saw that it reduces contrast and my problem is lack of contrast at least at the scanning stage (I think). I also toyed with the idea of increasing the temperature of the developer as I read somewhere that this could increase contrast.<br> Bethe - the Imacon that I use does the inversion too. I use Photoshop invert only with my other two methods. I'm not going to name my own scanner - suffice to say it's an all-in-one printer/scanner and tea maker! Of these, the tea making function is the best. :) Your last sentence brings me to one of the points that have been bothering me - I look at the negs and think "wow! they look good" and it's only when I go through one of my digitising processes that I get discouraged. This made me think I need a masterclass in assessment of negatives. I'm still not sure I know what a good negative looks like - it is early days in my learning process though after years of digital only photography.<br> Wouter - this is encouraging (as are the other comments) because it seems to suggest that most negatives need a bit of intervention and if it's a decent bit then that would include mine.<br> Again, thank you all.</p>

<p>I process my own mono film - usually Ilford HP5+ or Fomapan 100 - in 120 size but various formats are used 56x72 / 6x9 / half frame / 6x12 / 6x6<br> What I am finding is that whether I use</p> <ul> <li>an Imacon Flextight scanner (I don't own it but have use of it with the appropriate software!) or</li> <li>my own <strong>very</strong> low-end scanner or</li> <li>an alternative method involving placing negative on light box and taking a digital photo of it with Canon 50D and Canon 60mm macro lens</li> </ul> <p>the resulting positive obtained through the "invert" command in Photoshop is very pale and washed out. I don't think it's over-exposure because my colour photos/slides come out fine (they are processed by a lab).<br> I have attached a half frame example taken on an old 50s camera but I get the same answer from a Shen Hao 5x4 with 120 backs and a Linhof Technika 6x9. The neg isn't as sharp as it could be but it's the principle rather than this particular neg that I'm wrestling with.<br> I use Rodinal - recently purchased and kept cool and dark - at 20C diluted 1+100 for recommended time with recommended agitation. I check the developer when it has been used to make sure temp hasn't changed - it does not.<br> If I had hair I would be pulling it out! Any help gratefully received.<br> http://www.flickr.com/photos/58960410@N04/32494028726/in/dateposted-public/<br> http://www.flickr.com/photos/58960410@N04/32494029006/in/dateposted-public/<br> http://www.flickr.com/photos/58960410@N04/32494029186/in/dateposted-public/<br>

<p>Big update on this - I downloaded an app called Shutter-Speed for my ipad. Does a reasonable job of estimating your shutter speeds. I have no affiliation with the app producer!</p>