murrayatuptown

Thank you

I gave it another try.

No, it doesn't seem to do anything well other than CA. Most images I desaturate and exploit the focal shifts...it's given me the old 'snapshot' look from when I was a kid. Or there is something defective other than engineering. 

Hello:

I have an Industar-24 lens in Moment-24S (MOMEHT-24C) shutter from a Moskva-5. It's been apart for awhile & I'm trying to put the back cover with rear lens on.

I've misplaced the three screws that hold the back to the shutter.

Other than 'probably same as used on Super-Ikonta-C or some Compur shutter', does anyone happen to know what thread I'm looking for? It looks like they're flathead since the case holes are countersunk).

Thanks

Wondering if anyone still finds these posts useful, I realized I just did. I searched and found my own forgotten thread.

So I'll update it.

1) I have experimented with 95/150/160/800 style shutters to understand how they work. Repeatedly cycling them while watching can allow spring retainers to creep out of position until the spring flies across the room! The shutter cocking spring is the first to go and the B/I (Bulb/Instant?) spring. So beware. I left one springless specimen permanently open, glued an M42 extension tube to the back & used it on at least one digital camera. Awaiting an M42/E-mount adapter this week to try it on another. Some would say (not ask) 'what's the point?' I like the images I got enough to keep doing it. Like Bart Simpson burning his hand on the stove...ow...ow...ow...

2) The 95/150/160/800 shutter (I haven't looked up a proper name for this kind of mechanism as I like my analogies...pinball-machine-shutter, time-of-flight-shutter, etc.) If yours bounces open a couple times after firing, it's because a small piece of foam rubber at the end of the shutter's at-rest position has decomposed. IIRC, it's inside a helical 'bumper' spring. I think there is also a magnet to capture it also. I tried various types of foam...too thin and it bounces. Too thick and it doesn't close all the way. What worked best for me was the really thin sheet wrap foam, probably no more than 1/16" (1.5 mm) thick. I used a folded piece about 1/8" (3 mm) wide, maybe 3/8"-1/2" (~9-12.5 mm) long. Not critical...the attempt that works it the one to use. Watch out for springs creeping out while testing this with the back half of the lens/shutter cover removed. (Implied steps are to remove and retain the screws holding the bellows to the rear shutter cover, which has one lens element attached, then remove the 4 (?) screws holding it to the rest of the front of the camera which serves as a combination of front 'standard', lensboard and shutter assembly).

3) If you have cameras with shutters of this type screwed up by previous invaders, or suffered the above calamity during your own investigation, and resign yourself to a permanently-open specimen for digital camera usage, you can just pivot the shutter plate slightly open and use a piece of tape or contact cement to make it stay open. Both are more or less reversible.

Does anyone remember what the II Yellow and III Red designations meant on aerial photography filters?

I have some for 6" Metrogon Lenses with these Roman numeral markings.

Red 25A requires 3 stops of exposure correction, which may be coincidental. I have seen 25A red filters without the vapor-deposited center spot filter on Aero-Ektar lenses. The red appears to my eye to be the same color.

The yellow also looks like the same color as other non-spot filters, but 2 stops of correction seems a bit much for that yellow color.

I'll take a guess that the II and III refer to the filters not having equal light transmission across the diameter...or that II and III refer to stops of exposure correction for the spectral response of aerographic black & white film under the conditions seen from an airplane (different from sea level).

One of the red filters also has a marking 3' (read like '3 feet' or '3-prime').

Thanks

Murray

Thank you.

I've reached out to UCR with a couple questions.

Murray

I have a Rochester Camera King 8x10 camera with no lens board.

I can measure a 4-1/4" square opening that steps down <1/8" (0.112") to 4", then there is the front bellows 'frame'.

I have seen these lens boards described as 3-part, but have not found pictures.

I am familiar with a single step cut on other lens boards

Does anyone have one they can show a side view of? If there was a 3rd dimension for light trap/baffle, I'm visualizing something like a recessed lens board, but for different reasons.

Thanks for any assistance...

Murray

Thanks, Dave, on confirming the film fit.

About glass plate in bottom of tray, the reason the other person did that was so it was smooth to avoid scratching bottom-placed emulsion. He drained the tray and added the next liquid, so the handling of the negative was minimal. I don't recall any wording about flipping the negative.

I can only remember that he was an African photographer living in France. His still life macros were gorgeous, on all types of film he used.

The only medical X-ray film I bought was not sized for camera film holders.

I also bought some 8x10 x-ray film for industrial rather than medical/diagnostic use. I haven't used it yet, so I don't know if it's literally 8"x10" or whatever nominal size is for the film holder. The industrial type had single emulsion. I'm told double-emulsion reduces the required duration of exposure for living things being x-rayed.

Someone told me he puts glass in the bottom of his developing tray, and uses a Japanese hake for the 'brush development technique'. He also never had any problem with the 2nd emulsion scratching. I also think he said he dumped the tray and changed the chemicals rather than moving the negative from tray to tray. Odd that English speakers call those Japanese hakes 'hake brushes'. 'Hake' is Japanese for 'brush'. They are very soft, wide brushes with a felt or other textile material instead of bristles, and thread stitching instead of a metallic 'clamp'. The non-metallic construction makes them good for alt-processes that might not like aluminum or iron.

That really does look like a surveyor's/transit tripod.

The spiked feet and no leg 'restraints' are not very good on hard surfaces, but good in dirt, turf, etc.

I bought an orange one from a hardware store that was closing...I asked what the weight rating was. He thought that was a really dumb question...'a transit'. He also couldn't think outside the box for repurposing.

It had a huge bolt with a screwdriver-style handle...I think it was 5/8"-13 or thereabouts. I had to find a tap that size to make a plate for my usage.

I finally opened the boxes today!

One Energy, two Intro's, one Tank (in a wrong box).

The Intro's have manuals and sealed plastic bags with a few red gears and a metal plate). The power cords have broken rubber bands, but one cord holds its folded shape. I suspect they never got used.

The Tank module in an Intro box had a mouse nest and some gnawing on the clear rubber tube which is taped in place. Broken rubber band with that cord also. No manual, but other than the evidence of former rodent residence, it looks clean (as in no chemical stains/residue). There is a single red gear in a sealed plastic bag with that module.

The Energy module just has some dust on the box. If the heating elements show signs of 'cooking' with use, I'd assume little if any usage. At the top of the element there is some orange/yellow material that looks more like electrical insulating varnish to me than residue...or I'm wrong.

Anyway, the point of this update is that I would like to inquire which rollers are notorious for sticking together. The Intro modules seem to have free-rolling light grey rollers. The Tank module has harder light grey rollers and softer black rollers. The gearing is pretty high (as far as my fingers are concerned) so I cannot tell whether the gears should make the 'helix' rotate continuously in the same direction, or if it oscillates back & forth over a range of motion. It rolls so far and seems to want to stop (again, based on resistance to finger rotation). If the rollers were stuck together, I would think I could not achieve a portion of a rotation of the rollers, or the soft material would pull off as some describe on the 'web.

I would like to learn how to assess the condition of the rollers or any other 'weak link' areas...to determine if these are in questionable or pristine condition. I do not anticipate using them but prefer to identify the physical condition as accurately as possible if I offer them for sale somewhere/somehow. I would rather honestly identify any problems than use the 'I don't know anything about this' excuse.

I'm on a roll now...it won't be another 11 months for my response!

Thank you

Murray

Ha...been 12 years, so I will not ask the same question.

Time to clean the garage. Haven't made use of it in the last 12 years...probably won't in the next 12.

:)

Thank you.

Been a while so I don't recall, but think I had no trouble, which surprised me...previous owner may have unglued it. I got shutter running reasonably & also found the bellows to have minimal holes (pre-war materials some believe to be more durable than later ones), so temporarily patched with black photo tape until it proves itself worth a new bellows.

I will examine the lens cells for surprises.

I think what I found were JIS M1.4x4, and they fit OK.

The lens focuses about 1/4" behind the film plane, so I can only guess a prior owner put a lens element in backward...they can't be out of order.

Thank you all.

I have not used my X-700 for film recently.

I had been using the Minolta 50/1.7 lens on adapters on a Pentax Q7, and do like it for macro work, but that is probably a poor test of a lens' capability, especially because a failure to intelligently decide whether or not to use a tripod produces operator-induced motion blur!

Some lenses at thrift stores are poorly handled or even damaged. Some of those I have experimented on rather than discard. Removal of detached aperture blades leaves me with a wide open lens and removal of the bayonet mount gives me options (admittedly weird ones) to bypass register distance incompatibilities. I have trouble simply sending injured lenses to a landfill (repurposing is more attractive than recycling). I have convinced myself I do not NEED anymore things in my 'lens morgue' on the Island of the Evil Dr. Murray (was that a movie?).

Back to the subject lens of weak pedigree. It is in beautiful condition, and of little value, so I'll keep if for I don't know what and work on thinnng the lens herd of damaged ones first.

Not sure if I have a hobby or a disease...

Thanks for the history lesson and your patience.

Murray

Hi:

A couple years ago I found a Voigtlander Skoparex 28-70 mm MD-mount macro zoom in a thrift store. S/N is 8130378. I have no idea if the first two digits mean anything specific.

I assumed it was a Cosina, as it seems like other Asian lenses feature-wise: one-touch zoom & partial macro capability.

I e-mailed CameraQuest and it doesn't sound at all familiar to Mr. Gandy. He was fairly confident it was not from Cosina.

It has no country info on it...which means little...some do, some don't.

I am trying to decide if it's actually a decent (or better) lens, and worth keeping for something in the future, or as ordinary and as a Korean Kalimar 35-70 zoom I got from the same store.

The Skoparex seems like kind of an orphan and making itself difficult to identify. I think I have only seen Voigtlander primes that carry the Skoparex wording.

I am curious if anyone has ever seen one of these; maybe it wasn't for US market, or knows if their s/n's can be associated with a year.

The Voigtlander Skoparex lettering is a bright medium blue. There are red letters 'MC' which I kept telling myself meant meter-coupled, but just realized it's probably 'multi-coated'. The lens finish is black everywhere but the bayonet. Filter size is 55 mm.

Manual focus, if not obvious.

1:3.5-4.5 aperture (to distinguish from 3.5-5.6 & other variants).

Also, the lettering font is nothing like the white-letter Voigtlander lenses.

Thank you

Murray

I must have notifications disabled...not ignoring you guys.

On other Agfa's I have used a hairdryer if I had the lens/shutter off. Most of my others had unsalvageable bellows. This one has only a few light leaks (for the time being). I think I was nervous about heat near the bellows and put a couple drops of anhydrous isopropyl alcohol on the threads.

Or everything I did was for naught because the previous owner did it & the inability to focus was actually the stripped grub screw heads.

With the scale ring off I am able to unscrew the front cell...or what I am able to remove is actually the front + middle. With a piece of ground glass in the back, I really don't see a sharp focus wide open, screwing the lens all the way in or out.. so I wonder what else is goofy on this. I assumed it was my eyesight but a quick check with a Kodak 35RF is easy to observe sharp focus. I suppose these are probably all air-spaced & potentially the front cell is still stuck to the middle one. I think I should have been able to focus on something somewhere if it's complete...it's close so probably not missing an element.

I did pick & poke the chewed slotted grub screws out, put them into a pin vise one at a time & measured the major diameter as 1.44 mm so I'm calling them M1.4. they seem to be between 3.5 & 4.5 mm long but that's including the cone point & guessing how much is missing.

I filed 2 of the 3 flat for the sake of attempting prepping for slotting but am not sure what I can accomplish myself. I didn't think about Dremel. I had ruled out razor saw (for me) someone had suggested. I left one as-is in case it reveals anything useful.

I might have found some M1.4x3 which is better than nothing.

TBD why the focus is indistinct. Lens is clear.

I picked up an Agfa Jsolette dual format (6x6, 6x4.5) camera...probably 1937.

The front lens cell distance scale setscrews/dog screws have chewed up slots, so they cannot be tightened. The dried grease in the lens cell threads has been removed, so the lens can focus, but the distance scale can't be tightened so the scale ring cannot rotate the focusing cell.

How does one go about identifying characteristics for such tiny screws, in order to seek replacements?

Thanks

Murray

Not sure if anyone of the current or future generation cares at this point, but I can back up the statements above, that the Polaroid 10-17 thumbwheel 'index' numbers do calculate to be EV (based on ASA/ISO 100). 'Index' is my term as I couldn't think of something other than EV at the time.

If you reference online the APEX formula that can be used to calculate EV=AV+TV (simplified), Exposure value = Aperture Value +Time Value. There are other offsets for film speed, luminance and meter reflection constant.

For example,

The 10 setting on a 95B, 150, 160, 800 etc. which has f/8.8 and 1/12 second parameters, calculates to AV = 6.28 and TV = 3.58. Sum gives EV= 9.86

For "17", f/35 and 1/100 second give AV = 10.26 and TV = 6.64. Sum gives EV = 16.90.

I figure this out every couple years in a spreadsheet for some project but leave the ISO offset for other film speeds for later, as I invariably add when I should subtract...& have to triple check my spreadsheet (& correct it).

I really like the EV system...you can assign an exact AV number to pinhole apertures that aren't conveniently in the preferred number series, as well as TV numbers for old shutters that had the (mostly) 1-2-5 sequence, or sluggish shutters you have actual measured speeds for.

If you do any of that kind of thing anymore...

Well, I have had two of those lens/shutter mechanisms saved for years, sure I could fix one some day. I had removed them with the grand vision of putting a different lens/shutter on and converting one to 4x5 film. Others have done it but it's more work than I wanted. I still had plans for the lens/shutter assemblies. People have converted them to 120 film for a very wide format...about 2-1/4 x 4" negative. You could find websites with various levels of elegance for methods of installing rollfilm holding and winding mechanisms.

But you still have a shutter problem.

I had opened one up to study how it worked, and repeatedly operated it to watch the mechanism operate. I also observed mine had some shutter 'bounce', closing then opening a little & reclosing a couple more times. That was easily fixed. There is a magnetic brake or 'catch' to stop the shutter from re-opening. It has a piece of foam rubber as a cushion stuffed inside. It had become brittle on one and crumbled on another...two different vintages of foam recipe on two cameras. I picked the old stuff out & determined how much thin sheet packing foam (approx. 1/16" or 1.5 mm) rolled up was needed...took me a few tries.

I didn't notice something creeping out of position and the shutter release spring flew across the room, never to be seen again. So I opened another to figure out what the missing spring looked like...thinking I would wind another from music wire. Again, a grand idea, but there is a learning curve.

I had the same thing happen on a 2nd one, and also lost the B/I release spring. (Bulb vs. Instantaneous switch).

This past week (15 years later, perhaps?), I determined to fix one again.

I began experimenting with springs from 3-1/2" floppy disks but that didn't quite work.

I decided I needed a leaf spring instead of a wire see & would epoxy a lever on to my floppy disc spring. I then noticed there was a leaf spring right where I needed one if I abandoned the 2-prong bayonet external flash connector. I removed that and bent the flash contact leaf spring until I had enough force to make the release function work.

I believe I know where your spring goes. It also looks like the brass plate is free because two screws are missing.

I just put mine back together, but will take the back off again & take photos to compare. If I can access what has come undone on yours, I'll measure & report what is missing/needed.

I have a phone that has variable video frame rate so I would like to document how this 'time-of-flight' shutter works. It's cool, if clunky. I also call it a pinball machine shutter but that's a bit of a stretch.

So now I can fix my 2nd one, but the B/I problem is a 2nd challenge.

Hopefully yours won't be too hard...certainly less work than converting it to 'modern' film.

I am probably going to 'freelens' it in front of DSLR before making a 120 camera. I abandoned that idea when I realized how many functional 120 cameras I have.

I also gave away a Polaroid 80 for the same reason.

I'll be back.

It's frustrating that a lens off the camera is easily measured, but it's nearly impossible to get measurements on the retaining ring deep inside the Bakelite box! NO luck loosening the rear lens cell with a sheet of rubber and a plastic bottle...but it would come out the back if it's threaded...not a big as I thought.

I recently got a very early Agfa Jsolette with the black Trolitan (Bakelite-like resin) top...not likely to be a high-performing camera, but cool from a historical perspective. I think it's a dual format: 6x4.5 and 6x6. The bellows is older than the horrible synthetic era, in decent shape, but needed some black photo tape patches on two folds...until I develop the skills to make a bellows.

Same with the Kodak 35RF...my specimen, despite being inoperative, is in excellent shape, so it would be nice to get running . I always liked what I got with Argus C3's.

Last summer I was also given a Graflex Reflex RB Series B with 22 and 23 backs...a 6x9 cm SLR is going to make me lose patience with zone focusing the Jsolette. It needed a rivet replaced in the pop up viewer cover....never had very good luck setting rivets...had a machinist do it for me.

Murray

I am in west Michigan.

When I (attempt to) make things, it's with hand tools, so my first reaction is making two would be twice the work! Very nice of you, but if it IS a lot of work, telling me the final dimensional details that work would help me and my files substantially!

You are way ahead of me, since you produced a CAD drawing. Every few years I want to make a CAD drawing and have to figure out what software I used the last time, if it's on the PC I currently have, and where I fell off the learning curve (and if said curve can be found).

Despite my Neander-level skills, I have an idea. (Just can't get there with a rock).

I have never seen or used the #288 tool but it looks like its ingenuity is the thin shaft that can rotate freely in the back of a camera, something that's a challenge for many traditional (2-blade) spanners...not 2-bit...

The Kodak tool probably only enters the camera body at one angle everyone learned in Kodak boot camp.

So I was thinking about how to make the 'blade' or 'bit' approach drivable with something other than pliers...like a notched-tip in an old screwdriver, or a hex-drive bit handle.

All possibly more complex steps than jeweler's files should be used for.

Thank you for your help!