Old 1 Week Ago   #201
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Here is a modern "Handy" type of camera from China. Very similar to mine in many respects. Seeing this has given me a few ideas. It utilizes the same viewfinder as my camera.

4x5 Handy type camera from China by Nokton48, on Flickr

Handy type camera from China 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #202
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcophilus Harrisii View Post
Thanks! May take me a while to organise some film and a back, but a processing tank is a good start. 70mm backs are still some of the more affordable Hasselblad types, so it's probably a good excuse to begin keeping an eye out for one, I already have the camera body and a few lenses. I lost track of this discussion for a while after the first couple of pages so I'll have to go back and educate myself more about the 70mm format. The thread's certainly got legs, I'm surprised, (but pleased), to see so much interest in 70mm.
Cheers,
Brett
Brett,

Getting a 15 foot reel and a daylight tank is not so easy. Consider yourself lucky.

I have three 15 foot reels: two are the stainless steel reels that Dan dipicted that have spokes like wagon wheels; and one is like yours.

The single reel tank I have is a Nikor non daylight tank that resembles a small stainless steel hat or cake box. I think I can cut down a JOBO Expert 3063 tank so I can create a three reel daylight inversion tank.

I shot some Rollie 400S in 120 over the weekend and processed it using Diafine. The reason I am shooting Rollie 400S in 120 is for short roll testing, as Rollie 400S is available for less than a dollar a foot in 70mm and it is fresh film.

In another thread I found out that the 400S film speed is greatly exaggerated by MACO and it really is a 80-100 ISO film. I researched this film a bit and it kinda is high contrast, where it kinda has a natural "S" curve kinda built in, so moderating contrast is required if one is going to try and use this film for full tonal range.

With Diafine, a compensating developer that moderates contrast, I had some good encouraging results. The good is that this film in Diafine is fine grained. I was able to get full tonality with a nice midrange by doing a list of tricks to effectively "pull" the film with a pushing developer.

Here's what I did. I shot off of an eight story building's rooftop around 9:30 AM under a blue cloudless sky. The lighting was mucho high key of low rise in the foreground and UES highrise in the distance. I was shooting a Plaubel 69W with a 47/5.6 with a 21mm FOV stopped down to F11.

I developed in a 500ml stainless steel daylight tank, but I used a Hewes 220 reel to resemble the tighter spacing that resembles one of my 15 foot reels. This reel fits snuggly and has absolutely no "piston" factor when inverting. Know that this is important because with Diafine I tend to underdevelop by only doing two gentle inversions per minute instead of the recommended three inversions per minute. With other films like Tri-X and FP4 I extend the development from 3+3 to 4+4, so this is what I did with this first test roll.

So here is the bad. My best negatives suggest perhaps 50-80 ISO, so effectively I'm pulling the film to get nice midrange, but sacrificing film speed. I think my next test will be in a 1 liter tank because I see traces of Bromide Drag in the sky on some negatives. Just a trace, most noticable when the negatives are wet, but I believe with just a tad of "piston" play during an inversion is enough to increase the circulation enough to avoid the Bromide Drag I see from the 500ml tank. With Rollie 400S it seems I made the negatives a bit too thin by going 4+4, and next time I will do 3+3. Know I am trying to optimize my negatives for wet printing so I want more density that for scanning.

Understand that Diafine is a two part developer. Part "A" only soaks into the emulsion, no real development takes place during this soaking, and it is really only when Part "B" is in the tank that the real development takes place.

I found that by minimizing aggitation that it makes for smaller grain, wher Tri-X is almost as fine grained as Acros.

I found that the recommended ISO's for Diafine are way aggressive. The highlights kinda get a stand development treatment, the shadow detail is inately enhanced, but the mids are controlled by ISO. I think if I cut the development to 3+3 I might get an honest 80 ISO.

I will be trying Microphen also, but instead of using the recommended 8 minutes stock and 4 inversions per minute I will try to get a compensating effect by halving the inversions to only 2 a minute and extending development to perhaps 11 minutes. Basically halve the inversions and extend development 30%. Basically I'm trying to flatten an "S" curve that is built into Rollie 400S. My thinking is if I can get 160 ISO with Microphen then I can use Rollie 400S as my medium speed film.

For a slow speed film I expect Rollie 400S in Diafine "pulled" for 50-80 ISO. These negatives are like no grain and highly detailed. Particularly great for landscape because there is an extended IR range that cuts through the filth, pollution and haze of NYC.

So far Rollie 400S is looking mighty good. I figure about $2.50 per 120 equiv plus bonus exposures when shooting 15 foot lengths.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #203
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
This 70mm spilled into another thread.

Check out my last post on the Rollie 400S and Rodinal thread in the Bill Pierce section.

Seems like I had to unwind some confusion about Diafine and my Rollie 400S testing.

I feel really good that Rollie 400S looks to be great as a 50 ISO film pulled.
I think Diafine 3+3 with two inversions will really nail it.

My hope is that I can get Rollie 400S to do 160 ISO with Microphen.

This would allow 50 ISO and 160 ISO shooting mucho cheap.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #204
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Cal,

I'm thinking about ACUFINE and ACUFINE Replenisher due to the film volume. I already have a gallon kit of Diafine, a gallon of Acufine, and Acufine Replenisher from B&H. That should be enough to fill my Kindermann 70mm tank. This is a lot of film stock so for me replenisher makes the only real sense.
As far as I know Acufine is the only developer I have ever used that has honestly boosted shadow detail. It really does raise film speed. Seems like a good match to Rollei 400S.

"Not sure how to unwind the VAT since I'm in the U.S". You insist that they deduct the VAT (about 18%) because you are NOT in the European Union.
We pay personal Income Tax, not VAT. Actually their website should make the deduction for foreign purchases, but it's not that sophisticated. SO Rollei 400S is about $80 per roll plus USA shipping

I figured it's really around 100 ISO give or take. I've read that Diafine Part A dosen't easily absorb into the emulsion of 400S, so it is good news it is working for you
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #205
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
I like this tonality a lot. This is Rollei A74/D74. A previous post here by Fotohuis:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotohuis View Post
Here an example of Retro 400S E.I. 200 in D74 1+15. Retro 80S and Retro 400S are Agfa Gevaert aviation type films and they need a semi-compensating or a bit lower contrast working type developer. HC-110 is building up quickly a higher contrast.

It is a scan from a fiber print on Fomabrom Variant 111.

  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #206
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Cal,

I'm thinking about ACUFINE and ACUFINE Replenisher due to the film volume. I already have a gallon kit of Diafine, a gallon of Acufine, and Acufine Replenisher from B&H. That should be enough to fill my Kindermann 70mm tank. This is a lot of film stock so for me replenisher makes the only real sense.
As far as I know Acufine is the only developer I have ever used that has honestly boosted shadow detail. It really does raise film speed. Seems like a good match to Rollei 400S.

"Not sure how to unwind the VAT since I'm in the U.S". You insist that they deduct the VAT (about 18%) because you are NOT in the European Union.
We pay personal Income Tax, not VAT. Actually their website should make the deduction for foreign purchases, but it's not that sophisticated. SO Rollei 400S is about $80 per roll plus USA shipping

I figured it's really around 100 ISO give or take. I've read that Diafine Part A dosen't easily absorb into the emulsion of 400S, so it is good news it is working for you
Dan,

$80.00 for 100 feet of 400S is no money. The shipping is not bad either if you bulk up and place a huge order.

Acufine is a strong developer so you can expect small grain and short times.

Diafine not only gets reused, needs no replenishment, and actually gets better with usage. I figure it takes about 25 rolls to get "seasoned," and this is when the contrast moderates a bit and the mids really expand.

I'm not so sure Acufine is the best for an innately contrasty film like Rollie 400S. Then again I'm considering Microphen, but as a one-shot. I figure any boost in film speed will only add contrast.

I was excited to use Rodinal for convenience, and it initially made sense to use high dilutions and long times to get a compensating effect, but it does seem like Diafine offers already great results. Rodinal would of been cheap as a one-shot.

I'll be doing another test using 3+3 (less development). I'll do 50, 80, and 100 ISO with my only two inversions per minute. I'll also do some exposures that are not so high key in lighting to see how it handles diffused light. I find that I can bypass flat negatives in diffused lighting by adding a little bit more exposure. For example with Tri-X instead of 800 ISO I use 640 ISO. Perhaps I'll get an honest 80 ISO and under diffused or overcast conditions I can just add some exposure by using 50 ISO. Already I'm really validating with this test an expected 80 ISO and see if 400S responds to added exposure like other films.

With Diafine when in doubt overexpose.

Once I get this nailed down, if you want you could mail me an exposed 120 roll and I can process it for you. With Diafine the cost of development is only a few pennies worth of fixer.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #207
Stefan Wood
Registered User
 
Stefan Wood is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 81
4 rolls of Fujichrome film purchased. Found a place that has a pair of extra film cassettes. Now to find a reel to develop in. Or an aerial photo place that still does film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #208
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Wood View Post
4 rolls of Fujichrome film purchased. Found a place that has a pair of extra film cassettes. Now to find a reel to develop in. Or an aerial photo place that still does film.

Stefan,

Good Going. What kind of Fujichrome is it?

Are you going to cross-process it, or use it as E6?
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #209
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Cal,

"Acufine is a strong developer so you can expect small grain and short times."

Digital Truth says seventeen minutes at 20C for Acufine with Agfa Aviphot 200 at 200-400 ISO (same film as Rollei 400S; I have a hundred feet of it). So this type of timing goes the other way. No replenisher for Microphen, so not interested. Too expensive to use without replenisher. It will be interesting to see how Rollei 400S responds to extended Acufine development. Acufine and I go way back, all the way to the 70s when doing award winning scholastic press photography. It's an old friend. Replenishment is something new with that stuff, in Ohio we only had quarts available. B&H has gallons, and the replenisher. Something new to me. Takes a lot of soup to cover those big reels.

Diafine and I have gotten along OK in the past; Having a gallon is something new. Again a nod to B&H
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #210
Stefan Wood
Registered User
 
Stefan Wood is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 81
Duplicating Film (Color Reversal E-6). Reading some old threads I should shoot at 10-25asa and cross process it. Also using a yellow filter.


QUOTE=Nokton48;2740842]Stefan,

Good Going. What kind of Fujichrome is it?

Are you going to cross-process it, or use it as E6?[/quote]
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #211
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
It was said that this one was push-processed one stop at least which helped to raise the film speed and probably increased the contrast a tiny bit. Lovely soft colors and composition in this one.

fuji cdu iso 25 C41 by Nokton48, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #212
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Cal,

"Acufine is a strong developer so you can expect small grain and short times."

Digital Truth says seventeen minutes at 20C for Acufine with Agfa Aviphot 200 at 200-400 ISO (same film as Rollei 400S; I have a hundred feet of it). So this type of timing goes the other way. No replenisher for Microphen, so not interested. Too expensive to use without replenisher. It will be interesting to see how Rollei 400S responds to extended Acufine development. Acufine and I go way back, all the way to the 70s when doing award winning scholastic press photography. It's an old friend. Replenishment is something new with that stuff, in Ohio we only had quarts available. B&H has gallons, and the replenisher. Something new to me. Takes a lot of soup to cover those big reels.

Diafine and I have gotten along OK in the past; Having a gallon is something new. Again a nod to B&H
Dan,

Good point about Microphen not being economical due to inability to replenish. I will proceed with my testing Microphen as a one shot.

Keep us posted on the Acufine results. Some film speed would be great. I would be happy with 160-200 ISO.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #213
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Well now we are getting somewhere. The lens arrived from KEH and it's a beauty. Very sharp on the groundglass, and WOW it's wide on 4x5". I dug out my Norma-Era Sinar Reflex Viewfinder and I can see the whole screen edge to edge and it looks great to me!

The optical viewfinder is on it's way from China and then I will start to use the camera. This will be a blast............

I loaded the roll of Italian Kodak 70mm respooled 2402 Aerographic into a Graphic wind-knob 6x9cm back and I'm going to shoot it in this camera. Should be a total hoot.

Norma Handy with lens! by Nokton48, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #214
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Well now we are getting somewhere. The lens arrived from KEH and it's a beauty. Very sharp on the groundglass, and WOW it's wide on 4x5". I dug out my Norma-Era Sinar Reflex Viewfinder and I can see the whole screen edge to edge and it looks great to me!

The optical viewfinder is on it's way from China and then I will start to use the camera. This will be a blast............

I loaded the roll of Italian Kodak 70mm respooled 2402 Aerographic into a Graphic wind-knob 6x9cm back and I'm going to shoot it in this camera. Should be a total hoot.

Norma Handy with lens! by Nokton48, on Flickr
Dan,

65mm Super Augulon and by going only 6x9 means using the sweet spot. FOV should be like maybe a 35mm, but on 4x5 mucho wide.

I'm looking for a Linhof Super Rolliex that's 6x9. With my 53/4.0 Zeiss Biogon I figure a 28mm FOV in 6x7, but in 6x9 I leap over into ultrawide with a 24mm FOV but limited to 120 film. 28mm FOV is great for street here in NYC, but for landscape 24mm is very useful.

Dark slides allow me to change backs for the different FOV's instead of a lens change. 28mm FOV and 35mm FOV via 70 mm CINE is big firepower.

To do 645 I have to install the mask and change the insert, and I will take out of service Super Rolliex 6x7. I figure the 53/4.0 Biogon in 645 provides a 35mm FOV which is mucho useful and offers over 120 exposures on 15 feet of film.

So with one legendary great lens I got 24, 28, and 35mm FOV's by changing formats with only one lens.

Imagine shooting an event like the Mermaid Parade, or Gay Pride all day and only having to reload once or twice. Many less missed shots.

Interesting to note that the Biogon is a lens designed with ariel shooting in mind with even illumination and super low distortion. With Rollie 400S basically I'm shooting a rebranded Ariel film.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #215
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Dan,

65mm Super Augulon and by going only 6x9 means using the sweet spot. FOV should be like maybe a 35mm, but on 4x5 mucho wide.

I'm looking for a Linhof Super Rolliex that's 6x9. With my 53/4.0 Zeiss Biogon I figure a 28mm FOV in 6x7, but in 6x9 I leap over into ultrawide with a 24mm FOV but limited to 120 film. 28mm FOV is great for street here in NYC, but for landscape 24mm is very useful.

Dark slides allow me to change backs for the different FOV's instead of a lens change. 28mm FOV and 35mm FOV via 70 mm CINE is big firepower.

To do 645 I have to install the mask and change the insert, and I will take out of service Super Rolliex 6x7. I figure the 53/4.0 Biogon in 645 provides a 35mm FOV which is mucho useful and offers over 120 exposures on 15 feet of film.

So with one legendary great lens I got 24, 28, and 35mm FOV's by changing formats with only one lens.

Imagine shooting an event like the Mermaid Parade, or Gay Pride all day and only having to reload once or twice. Many less missed shots.

Interesting to note that the Biogon is a lens designed with ariel shooting in mind with even illumination and super low distortion. With Rollie 400S basically I'm shooting a rebranded Ariel film.

Cal
Cal,
my Super Technika III came with an earlier knob wind Linhof Rollex 6x9 back (Graflex fit for 4x5). As it doesn't compensate for change in spool diameter it will result in some overlap with modern films, as a few references on the web suggest. I confirmed this for myself by sending a scrap roll of Acros through it a few times and marking the emulsion side at each end of the gate. You can, indeed, get a couple of millimetres or so overlap on some frames. I then wound a turn of garden-variety silver duct tape around the take up spool, and re-tested. Three turns seems to be the sweet spot. I've shot a few rolls of Ilford since and the frame spacing has been good: no overlap.

Rollex knob wind backs are quite a bit cheaper than later Super Rollex types, but with the steps outlined above, they are still quite usable. I keep half a dozen pre-wrapped spools in my Linhof case, and I'm always good to go. The only complication (and it's a minor one) is that with the slot in the take up spool covered by the tape, it is obviously not possible to slip the tongue of the leader in, so, it's easiest to peel up the end of the duct tape a few millimetres, and just slip the end of the leader under it to hold it in place.

I also replaced the felt in the dark slide slot and cleaned and lubricated the rollers and wind system as I noted a few small metal particles resulting from metal to metal contact near the inner boss of the knob. No other issues at all, apart from than that. I can't see why the earlier 2x3 backs would be any different to the 4x5 ones...
Cheers,
Brett
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #216
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcophilus Harrisii View Post
Cal,
my Super Technika III came with an earlier knob wind Linhof Rollex 6x9 back (Graflex fit for 4x5). As it doesn't compensate for change in spool diameter it will result in some overlap with modern films, as a few references on the web suggest. I confirmed this for myself by sending a scrap roll of Acros through it a few times and marking the emulsion side at each end of the gate. You can, indeed, get a couple of millimetres or so overlap on some frames. I then wound a turn of garden-variety silver duct tape around the take up spool, and re-tested. Three turns seems to be the sweet spot. I've shot a few rolls of Ilford since and the frame spacing has been good: no overlap.

Rollex knob wind backs are quite a bit cheaper than later Super Rollex types, but with the steps outlined above, they are still quite usable. I keep half a dozen pre-wrapped spools in my Linhof case, and I'm always good to go. The only complication (and it's a minor one) is that with the slot in the take up spool covered by the tape, it is obviously not possible to slip the tongue of the leader in, so, it's easiest to peel up the end of the duct tape a few millimetres, and just slip the end of the leader under it to hold it in place.

I also replaced the felt in the dark slide slot and cleaned and lubricated the rollers and wind system as I noted a few small metal particles resulting from metal to metal contact near the inner boss of the knob. No other issues at all, apart from than that. I can't see why the earlier 2x3 backs would be any different to the 4x5 ones...
Cheers,
Brett
Brett,

This is very helpful. Mucho thanks. It seems I have been looking at a knob wind Rolliex, but I was warned by my Linhof Consultant that the frame spacing can be wonky.

There are benefits to the early wind knob Rolliex's: lower price; smaller; and lighter. Seems like an easy fix and workaround. Thanks for the tip.

I have a Plaubel 69W with a 47/5.6 Super Augulon and shifts so I know how ultra-wide loves 6x9. This 120/220 camera has rise or shift (can only use one movement at a time) and is a 21 FOV. Having 24mm FOV in 6x9 capabilities is very useful. BTW the only limitation of the Plaubel is it has no rangefinder, but the VF'er shifts and periscopes with any of the two movements for accurate framing.

Linhof's are cult cameras. It seems there is little information available, almost like a closely guarded secrete. It takes a lot of stubborn and obsessive thinking to mine the data and put things together.

I had a plan "B" of buying 6.5X9 cut sheet film that is available for $23.95 a box for 25 sheets of cold stored FP4, but Roll film is just so much easier and less expensive. I might just buy a box or two to have fun, but for cost and practical reasons roll film is best for me.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #217
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcophilus Harrisii View Post
As it doesn't compensate for change in spool diameter it will result in some overlap with modern films, as a few references on the web suggest. I confirmed this for myself by sending a scrap roll of Acros through it a few times and marking the emulsion side at each end of the gate. You can, indeed, get a couple of millimetres or so overlap on some frames. I then wound a turn of garden-variety silver duct tape around the take up spool, and re-tested. Three turns seems to be the sweet spot. I've shot a few rolls of Ilford since and the frame spacing has been good: no overlap.
Hi Brett,

That IS great info. I have a 4x5 wind knob Rollex, and a second insert for it. I will try taping the film spool with duct tape, and then test it with a dummy roll and sharpie marker.

Lots of good info being shared here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #218
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
Dan,

I was looking at my 645 CINE last night. On the feed spindle there is only one sprocket, and there are two sprockets on the take-up side. Since I have extra spindles the thought came to mind of using one of spares that has a single sprocket to replace the double sprocket on the take-up side to make for the ability to maybe use single perf film.

The perferations would have to be on the inside to work. I know my Linhof Consultant mentioned he bought some Porta, but quickly learned he made a mistake because it was single perf.

I have extra double sprocket spindles if you need a pair to mod. Since I own two CINE's one has the single and a double, and the other a double twice. There is a single drift pin that mounts it to the shaft with the cone tapered end.

This can really open up the film choices if the perferations are on the correct side.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #219
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Hi Brett,

That IS great info. I have a 4x5 wind knob Rollex, and a second insert for it. I will try taping the film spool with duct tape, and then test it with a dummy roll and sharpie marker.

Lots of good info being shared here.
Very glad it's useful. A 6x7 Super Rollex lever wind back also came with the camera, but I quite like 6x9, it's like giant 35mm, so, although I read the spacing can be an issue with the knob wind backs, I wasn't about to give up on using the Rollex without looking for a fix first.

I did some research, and spotted a reference somewhere to shimming the spool diameter with bits of backing paper (photonet, perhaps?) but that sort of malarkey seemed too much like hard work. The tape works fine, though.

I had an old roll of Acros I use mainly for testing Rolleiflex film wind, and used that to do a few spacing checks, I used a Sharpie marker myself, actually, to mark the emulsion side at the gate. That's how I initially settled on three turns of duct tape around a spool, two was close, but three gave no overlap on any frame. I haven't actually shot a roll of Acros through that back yet. But having used a roll of it to establish the adjustment, it should be fine, of course, and, the same setting also worked well for Ilford HP5+ and should be OK for other Ilford films too. Kodak spacing may or may not need a little fine tuning, but I'm sure it shouldn't be a major issue for the following reasons.

I haven't shot a roll through the back for a few months (I've been enjoying trying out 4x5" for the first time, lately). But as I recall, the good thing was that getting the last frame onto the end of a roll of HP5+ wasn't any problem and there was still some space left. So, although I haven't tested it with Eg the Kodak TMAX or Tri-x films, if it was needed, I reckon an extra half a turn or maybe even a whole turn of duct tape would probably still be OK. If it was really necessary, you could always line up the first frame just shy of the marker and grab a few more millimetres at the start, but I reckon it probably wouldn't be needed.

The above is all for 6x9, of course, but you'd expect that finding a viable adjustment for other formats like 6x7 or even a 6x6 Rollex should also be straightforward.
Cheers,
Brett
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #220
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Brett,

I dug out my wind knob back, and ran a dummy roll through, using the duct taped spool. The result is eight evenly spaced frames. I am pleased.
I gave it four winds of duct tape, figuring that would do it.

Next I am going to try this method with my old old Plaubel Makina backs. Those are notorious for uneven frame spacing. It should work!

-Dan

DSC05849 by Nokton48, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #221
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Same duct taped spool used in 6x6 Plaubel Makina #3 6x6 roll back. Result is twelve perfectly spaced frames.

DSC05851 by Nokton48, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #222
Stefan Wood
Registered User
 
Stefan Wood is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 81
Here is the Hasselblad (but really, Kodak) 70mm cassettes I just received. Brand new, in box.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_2046.jpg (35.2 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2047.jpg (20.2 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2049.jpg (17.0 KB, 7 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #223
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Wood View Post
Here is the Hasselblad (but really, Kodak) 70mm cassettes I just received. Brand new, in box.
Nice. To find them new in the box is a bonus.

Sounds and looks like you are getting there. Best of Good Luck in your efforts!
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Days Ago   #224
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Brett,

I dug out my wind knob back, and ran a dummy roll through, using the duct taped spool. The result is eight evenly spaced frames. I am pleased.
I gave it four winds of duct tape, figuring that would do it.

Next I am going to try this method with my old old Plaubel Makina backs. Those are notorious for uneven frame spacing. It should work!

-Dan

DSC05849 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Same duct taped spool used in 6x6 Plaubel Makina #3 6x6 roll back. Result is twelve perfectly spaced frames.

DSC05851 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Looks like you are good to go now! Well done.

I don't know much at all about the Makina backs, but with the Rollex, I suggest inspecting the area around the inside of the wind knob where it rotates inside the housing. I noticed a few small metal particles there and wasn't particularly happy about that. They most likely were lubricated when new but my example had been unused for many a long year and was quite dried out. I used a combination of a dab of moly grease and a speck of oil around the inner boss. Pull the knob out as if to remove or replace the film insert and make sure everything is clean and free of dust, too. After exercising the mechanism for a few minutes I wiped any excess lubricant off from around any exposed surfaces (there should not be much of that if you take care not to be too liberal). It winds a bit more smoothly now, and no longer wears, either.

It's easy to replace the light trap seals. There are about half a dozen screws visible in the plate around the film gate; removing these with the magazine inverted will see the plate detach leaving the small rollers sitting in their slots. These do not run on pins, they're a simple interference fit in slots between the body and the plate. After cleaning with lighter fluid and gently polishing the running surfaces with some Autosol metal polish and removing the residue of this, a speck of oil at each end (I used my usual Moebius 8030) will see them actually rotating in the slots as a film runs over them, as opposed to the film being dragged around them. The light trap seals are strips of velvet on a decently thick backing. It was quality stuff and I'd rather like to locate something like it, most shop velvet has a fabric backing far too thin for sealing purposes.

If the velvet strips in your Rollex aren't too badly worn you might be able to extend their usefulness, at least pending procurement of suitable replacements, as I believe these are no longer available from Linhof themselves? You could, potentially, do this by gently peeling them out of their slots and reversing the installation direction (if their condition suggests this may be beneficial, it may not) as well as shimming underneath them to compensate for the wear with paper or metal foil. It's easy to over adjust this, so a trial assembly to see how smoothly the dark slide inserts isn't a bad idea. The seals or their replacements can be re-glued into position after cleaning the slots with some contact adhesive.

My whole Linhof kit had been unused for many years. The case had rolls of Ilford FP3 and Ortho that expired in 1961! It was all still in pretty good condition, (you can see some photos of it and information about what I had to do to get it working, again, in this thread from last year) but dark slide of the Rollex had some corrosion present in a few places. Using it as it was wouldn't have done the light seals any good, so I spent a half an hour or so attacking it with Autosol and a cloth. A few pits remain but they don't matter, as long as the high points and rough edges are removed it will still work fine.

My seals were pretty flogged. The back had been stored with the slide in place and decades later they'd compressed enough to produce visible light leaks. (I think that generally, whenever one stores an unloaded film magazine it's not a bad idea to keep the slide removed, it is apart from anything else easy to tell at a glance that one is unloaded, this way.) My wife does a bit of knitting over the winter months and during a visit to one of her favourite wool stores I noticed small sheets of black felt sold for a few dollars. Of course I grabbed a few immediately as they can be so useful for various camera sealing applications. I cut some of this to size and replaced the original seals. It's not an ideal substitute--velvet would be better, because the felt is more susceptible to fibres being cut off when the slide is inserted. I'm fairly careful not to angle the slide when inserting it, and it has not been a problem to date but I'm still keeping a bit of an eye out for a similar material to the original seals.
Cheers,
Brett
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Day Ago   #225
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
I have some fairly thick velvet ribbon that might work if it is wide enough.

I enjoy working with my hands and making unique unusual things work properly again.

It's FUN and then I have the pleasure of utilizing them.

All of this gear is from what I call "The Golden Age of Photography", back in the fifties and sixties.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Day Ago   #226
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
This just arrived, another Hasselblad 70mm A70 film magazine in perfect condition. I offered $39 and the offer was accepted. This will become "A70 #4". That will be enough for now.

DSC05852 by Nokton48, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Day Ago   #227
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
I have some fairly thick velvet ribbon that might work if it is wide enough.

I enjoy working with my hands and making unique unusual things work properly again.

It's FUN and then I have the pleasure of utilizing them.

All of this gear is from what I call "The Golden Age of Photography", back in the fifties and sixties.
I couldn't have put it any better myself.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Day Ago   #228
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,064
Here is the result of the duct taped spool, with one of my five or six 6x9cm Plaubel Makina backs. These are somewhat dodgy regarding frame spacing, so shoring this up, is HUGE for me. It's quite disapointing to have important frames overlap (especially when you are not expecting it!) The mechanism is rather primitive and archaic, as well as extremely unusual in design. But now it appears to be working beautifully so far.

Make a tick mark on the duct tape, with a sharpie marker, as you wrap it, so that you get the correct amount of tape on the spool. Easy to do.

Hurray!

DSC05861 (2) by Nokton48, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Day Ago   #229
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,099
Glad it is working out for you. I haven't noticed any issues with film flatness or light leakage from not having the spool surface flush from end to end in the rolls I have shot. I think by the time you've wound the paper round one a few turns at the start of a roll, the film has that underneath it, and, once it's wrapped off at the end the paper will seal it off, anyway. I am, admittedly, always particular about keeping the paper tight as I fasten the end, because I have developed too many rolls for other people who were careless about this point and have seen the effects of not wrapping one correctly. But I think if someone had issues with light leaks from roll on a taped spool, they'd probably have them with a standard spool because proper technique should prevent fogging. In any case it's been no problem for me, to date.
Cheers
Brett
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Hours Ago   #230
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
I have been busy testing Rollie 400S, AKA Agfa Aviphot 200.

Further testing with Diafine 4+4, but with some piston action by using a 120 reel instead of a 220 reel did not improve the Bromide Drag artifacts in what should of been a nearly cloudless sunny blue sky. I did verify that the film speed that was optimum was only 50 ISO. Too bad because Diafine is reusable without any replenishment so the cost of developer is basically almost free.

I figured out that Rollie 400S is really a fine grain low speed film in reality. Diafine usually gives me a nice 2/3rds stop in film speed, except with Acros which I shoot at box speed (100 ISO). In this regard so far Rollie 400S is somewhat like Acros in being fine grained.

So I tried Rodinal 1:50 for 11 minutes. This time I got off of the MDC listed under Agfa Aviphot 200, but they rated the ISO at 200. In my testing I got the best tonality at 50 ISO under cloudy overcast conditions. Perhaps under sunny conditions I would rate 400S at 80 ISO for less contrast under brighter conditions.

BTW these negatives have a density optimized for wet printing and not scanning (slightly more exposure for denser negatives and more shadow detail).

The Rodinal 1:50 made some truely great negatives that display large format tonality, they have that Rodinal acutance and sharpness, and the compensating effect really brought out the mids. Very highly detailed and small grain.

I used my non daylight Nikor tank and a 15 foot reel to find out that I need 2 liters of solution to cover just one 15 foot 70mm reel. For two 15 footers a gallon of developer is required. Anyways Rodinal is cheap and affordable as a one shot, but the film speed is low. Looks like a magic combination using an Agfa developer on a rebranded Agfa film. The IQ is mucho high. Rodinal is mucho cheap if one is considering a one shot developer.

Next test will be trying to get a film speed over 100 ISO with perhaps Microphen. Dan's use of Acufine makes a lot of sense for two reasons: Acufine can be replenished; and Acufine is a strong active developer. Seems like Rollie 400S likes/requires a strong active developer. I think Jan and others are correct: Agfa Aviphot/Rollie 400S is really a 80-100 ISO film.

On another thread Jan reports of only being able to achieve 160 ISO with some German active push developer. If I'm able to get 125 or 160 ISO I will be mucho happy.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 15 Minutes Ago   #231
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is online now
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,592
Dan and Brett,

I just bought another Linhof CINE. This one is a brown one with the circular Grafloc for 2x3. Only 99.00 EURO plus shipping. I don't know if it is a functioning unit because the description is in German, but I basically bought it for the 2x3 Grafloc mount.

I know that the 4x5 version and the 2x3 version have a modular design, meaning I can change the shells as well as the back mount. The idea here is to have two fully working and functional CINE's: one 645; and the other 6x7.

If the brown CINE from Germany is a functional unit, then I can have a discreet and third CINE dedicated to 4x5 by using the back plate that currently is in the 645 CINE after I convert it to 2x3.

BTW I have three Linhof's: two are Baby-Linhof's; and the third is an early 50's Tech IV that displays this wonderful patina of worn leather.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:38.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.