Author Topic: I just picked up... (Read 842499 times)

BernardL · « **Reply #3450 on:** May 07, 2018, 08:40:13 AM »

Quote

Is there anything else I can try?

toothpaste; the kind that promises white teeth contains carbon carbonate, a mild abrasive
fine alumina powder; e**y search aluminium oxide
ditto: cerium oxide

With aluminium oxide, make sure you have polishing, not grinding, grade.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #3451 on:** May 07, 2018, 10:14:43 AM »

Is it spidery trails, splotches of bread/cheese mould, or a general spattering more intense around the edges? If the latter, it may be degraded coating rather than fungus - this is one way of accounting for the lack of contrast. Methylated Spirits (ethanol) can remove some coatings, but it removes all of it, which can (partially) resolve the problem.

And use a lens hood to reduce flare, obvs.

02Pilot · « **Reply #3452 on:** May 07, 2018, 12:29:18 PM »

Black Sharpie to cover up the scratches on the retaining rings.

If the glass isn't coming clean it may be etched - fungus that's been there for a long time will do this. Since the coating is already compromised on that surface (how many surfaces have this problem?), you can step up the ladder of glass cleaning. My normal progression is: Flitz metal polish, cerium oxide, and failing those, trash. Flitz is commonly available and might work, but if it's really etched, you'll need cerium oxide, which is what is actually used to polish and shape glass lenses. That's a project, believe me (I spent many, many hours reviving an old Summar with it).

If the glass is unrecoverable without repolishing, I'd suggest repurposing. I've been toying with the idea of a TLR pinhole - maybe build something like that out of it.

Francois · « **Reply #3453 on:** May 07, 2018, 02:48:02 PM »

Mmmmm....
You can always carry an empty film can to fill at places where they have a hand sanitizer pump on the wall....
If you don't care about the multicoating, nail polish remover should strip it really clean.

Have you tried dish soap? I use this to clean eyeglasses and magnifiers...
What seems to remove most of it is the rubbing with your fingers. They're soft enough to be safe on the glass when there is a layer of liquid between them and the surface to clean.

Indofunk · « **Reply #3454 on:** May 07, 2018, 05:00:50 PM »

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of $:-\$ I'll try some toothpaste and soap first, then maybe get frustrated and use metal polish (I think I have some Brasso somewhere) and if all else fails I guess I'll repurpose or sell it with a caveat. Thanks folks!

Francois · « **Reply #3455 on:** May 07, 2018, 08:54:21 PM »

You should really give it a try.
What makes it possible to remove the fungus is from what I can tell a combination of two things. First is an oily or greasy substance that makes the fungus loose its foothold. Then is a sterilizing product that kills the leftover traces. That's why UV treatments work.

The most efficient would probably to soak the glass in bleach for a few minutes. This will oxidize all that's living on there. Just follow the usual recommendations on the bottle.

Aksel · « **Reply #3456 on:** May 08, 2018, 07:13:15 AM »

I just had to

Indofunk · « **Reply #3457 on:** May 08, 2018, 08:51:17 PM »

You guys aren't gonna believe this, but NOTHING is working

I tried soaking in toothpaste for 20min then rubbing it in with my hands before washing it off, tried soaking in bleach for an hour, tried rubbing brasso into it twice, and i don't seem to be making a difference in the haze

I definitely see a lot of scratches on the glass after my dual brasso treatment, so I know that's working

Anything else I might try before tossing the lens in the trash? Undiluted sulfuric acid? Or maybe I'll look for some cerium oxide, but if Andrej thinks that's a PITA, I'm not sure I want to go that way

02Pilot · « **Reply #3458 on:** May 08, 2018, 09:31:16 PM »

Which element are we talking about here? Is it the rear one? Is the problem in between the two cemented elements, or on an exterior surface?

Assuming it's an exterior surface, cerium oxide is just tedious, but it does work. The Summar I revived (I won't say restored, because it's still far from perfect) had a front element that was almost opaque; cerium oxide took probably 12+ hours of gently rubbing with wet Q-tips to get it clear enough for me to be satisfied.

If it's between the elements, it's probably fungus or balsam separation. At that point I'd probably throw in the towel. Probably.

Indofunk · « **Reply #3459 on:** May 09, 2018, 12:33:48 AM »

Definitely an exterior surface. If I tilt the lens so that light reflects off the surface, that's when I see the haze best. I may try cerium oxide just for the experience, or not

Bryan · « **Reply #3460 on:** May 11, 2018, 12:49:01 AM »

Leitz Summaron 35mm, f/3.5 LTM lens, glass is in great shape. There is a small dent on the outer ring but that won't affect anything.

Indofunk · « **Reply #3461 on:** May 11, 2018, 01:23:02 AM »

Quote from: 02Pilot on May 08, 2018, 09:31:16 PM

Which element are we talking about here? Is it the rear one? Is the problem in between the two cemented elements, or on an exterior surface?

Assuming it's an exterior surface, cerium oxide is just tedious, but it does work. The Summar I revived (I won't say restored, because it's still far from perfect) had a front element that was almost opaque; cerium oxide took probably 12+ hours of gently rubbing with wet Q-tips to get it clear enough for me to be satisfied.

If it's between the elements, it's probably fungus or balsam separation. At that point I'd probably throw in the towel. Probably.

Andrej, you were NOT kidding about how tedious cerium oxide polishing is!

Didn't take me 12 hours (not even nearly), but the good news is that it worked! I didn't remove 100% of the haze because my fingers gave up, but it's at least 90% gone

Most of the remaining haze is right around the edges, and I'm hoping that won't affect the image quality too much. The BAD news is that there are still a whole bunch of scratches from my battle with Brasso

So to any future aspiring fungus removers, I'd say skip the Brasso step and go straight to cerium oxide.

So to recap, all this nonsense is on the inside lens element, on the side that is closest to the FRONT of the camera. So not the last surface that the light hits before it gets to the film, but the third surface (outside of the outer lens element -> inside of the outer lens element -> *this surface -> inside of the inner lens element). How much do you think the scratches will affect the image as opposed to the haze that was there? I will find out this weekend when I put a roll through it with Jeff and Miguel!!

02Pilot · « **Reply #3462 on:** May 11, 2018, 02:59:34 AM »

I never tried Brasso, but it sounds like it has an abrasive component. Flitz is purely a chemical polish.

The stuff near the edges won't be too much of an issue. On my Summar the front element was the problem (the glass on those is about as soft as mild cheddar), and it was clearly far more damaged than yours. If you keep going with the cerium oxide you can get those scratches out, but it may not be worth it, especially if you stop down a bit. I strongly suggest you shoot with a hood unless you like veiling flare.

Indofunk · « **Reply #3463 on:** May 11, 2018, 04:22:24 AM »

Yes, Brasso is an abrasive. I mistakenly thought that Flitz was the same. Now I regret this $:-\$

I'm gonna try this without a hood (simply because I don't have one) and see how it turns out. Should have results next week, stay tuned...

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3464 on:** May 16, 2018, 05:12:50 PM »

I just picked up a Zenza Bronica ETRSi (645) with a 75mm 2.8, hood, unmetered prism and a 220 film back for next to nothing, apparently perfectly functional, and will receive it on Monday.

I don't know what film stock I want to shoot first... Maybe Ektar and HP5, since they are ~relatively~ cheap on B&H? I won't be developing and scanning for the time being, as my current setup only supports 35mm, so I will send it to the lab.

Pictures to come

cs1 · « **Reply #3465 on:** May 16, 2018, 05:38:42 PM »

Congratulations on the Bronica! How about XP2 for the first shots? Should be fairly cheap to have it developed as it's developed with the C-41 process. I'm wondering how well a 120 film will work in the 220 back. I've read that due to the thicker 120 film (paper + film instead of just film) Bronicas might have either trouble transporting the film or have trouble with sharpness because of slight differences in where the film plane is. But take this with a grain of salt, I don't have first hand experiences with 220 backs loaded with 120 film. In any case you'll love the Bronica. I sure love mine.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3466 on:** May 16, 2018, 05:54:10 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on May 16, 2018, 05:38:42 PM

Congratulations on the Bronica! How about XP2 for the first shots? Should be fairly cheap to have it developed as it's developed with the C-41 process. I'm wondering how well a 120 film will work in the 220 back. I've read that due to the thicker 120 film (paper + film instead of just film) Bronicas might have either trouble transporting the film or have trouble with sharpness because of slight differences in where the film plane is. But take this with a grain of salt, I don't have first hand experiences with 220 backs loaded with 120 film. In any case you'll love the Bronica. I sure love mine.

Thanks! Any tips as to using it, care, etc?

cs1 · « **Reply #3467 on:** May 16, 2018, 06:05:01 PM »

The ETRSi should be very similar to the SQ-A that I own in terms of build quality. The SQ-A is a tank. If you handle it nicely it shouldn't need special care. The only thing is to make sure from time to time that every lever attached sits tightly (you'll need a spanner wrench for that). I've almost lost my mirror release lever.

P.S.: I'm very interested in your experiences with the 220 back. I've been looking into this because 220 backs cost less than half of 120 backs for the SQ-A. If it works with the ETRSi it'll very likely work with the SQ-A as well. Just make sure to have an eye on the strain that you put on the film advancing mechanism. There's no doubt that it'll be higher if you crank a 120 film through a 220 back.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3468 on:** May 16, 2018, 06:12:06 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on May 16, 2018, 06:05:01 PM

The ETRSi should be very similar to the SQ-A that I own in terms of build quality. The SQ-A is a tank. If you handle it nicely it shouldn't need special care. The only thing is to make sure from time to time that every lever attached sits tightly (you'll need a spanner wrench for that). I've almost lost my mirror release lever.

P.S.: I'm very interested in your experiences with the 220 back. I've been looking into this because 220 backs cost less than half of 120 backs for the SQ-A. If it works with the ETRSi it'll very likely work with the SQ-A as well. Just make sure to have an eye on the strain that you put on the film advancing mechanism. There's no doubt that it'll be higher if you crank a 120 film through a 220 back.

I'll keep that in mind. For what I've read, the main issues are that you might lose the first frame or so, due to aligning but some tutorials show how to get around that by starting "early" (I think), and as you mentioned, that the advance mechanism feels tighter as the roll advances. I'll definitely keep an eye out for a 120 back, although my next purchase for it would be a waist-level finder.

Bryan · « **Reply #3469 on:** May 18, 2018, 03:33:26 AM »

I’m running a roll of 220 through my ETRSi right now, I haven’t run 120 through it yet but I did test it to see where I need to start the roll for when I do. When you attach the film to the take up spool turn it one rotation so the paper just starts to touch itself then go about a half inch past that. You may be able to get a 16th shot on the roll but then you will have to shoot 14 blanks to get everything spooled up. I bought my 220 back just to have an extra for 120 film before I found some expired 220.

I don’t think you will have any problems with focus because the pressure plate is behind the film so it puts the film in the same spot. With 220 film there is a small spot at the beginning and end of the roll where the paper overlaps the film plus there is tape at that location so it should be able to handle that thickness. I have only read speculation about the potential for problems, no actual examples of that happening.

cs1 · « **Reply #3470 on:** May 18, 2018, 05:53:07 AM »

I'm wondering if there's a way to convert two 120 films to 220...

Bryan · « **Reply #3471 on:** May 18, 2018, 06:01:54 AM »

Quote from: cs1 on May 18, 2018, 05:53:07 AM

I'm wondering if there's a way to convert two 120 films to 220...

You would likely end up with a splice in the middle of a frame.

zapsnaps · « **Reply #3472 on:** May 18, 2018, 10:52:37 AM »

Thanks to Chris and his freebie thread, a Ricoh 35ZF in black. It looks great sitting next to my silver Mamiya 135. I'm in London on Saturday - not for a wedding, and I'll put a roll of film through the ZF start to get to know it. I love these classic, small 35s.

cs1 · « **Reply #3473 on:** May 18, 2018, 11:07:03 AM »

Quote from: Bryan on May 18, 2018, 06:01:54 AM

You would likely end up with a splice in the middle of a frame.

Maybe but it would still be cool to have more capacity in the 220 back. It should be possible to figure out which frame will have the split frame and simply skip it. It should be in the vicinity of frame 13 in a 6x6 back, shouldn't it? I'm tempted to try this.

Francois · « **Reply #3474 on:** May 18, 2018, 02:48:15 PM »

If you want the ultimate in high capacity, try and get your hands on a 70mm back.... I don't know if they were made for your camera but if they did, it would give you more exposures than you could ever want.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3475 on:** May 18, 2018, 03:04:26 PM »

Quote from: Bryan on May 18, 2018, 03:33:26 AM

I’m running a roll of 220 through my ETRSi right now, I haven’t run 120 through it yet but I did test it to see where I need to start the roll for when I do. When you attach the film to the take up spool turn it one rotation so the paper just starts to touch itself then go about a half inch past that. You may be able to get a 16th shot on the roll but then you will have to shoot 14 blanks to get everything spooled up. I bought my 220 back just to have an extra for 120 film before I found some expired 220.

I don’t think you will have any problems with focus because the pressure plate is behind the film so it puts the film in the same spot. With 220 film there is a small spot at the beginning and end of the roll where the paper overlaps the film plus there is tape at that location so it should be able to handle that thickness. I have only read speculation about the potential for problems, no actual examples of that happening.

Interesting. I just received 5 rolls of Ektar and 5 rolls of HP5+, but I'm hunting for 220 rolls on the bay just to give it a go. I just don't feel like spending $75+ for a 120 back if the 220 works

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3476 on:** May 18, 2018, 08:07:04 PM »

It's' finally here! It looks to be in good shape, no dents or scuffs that I can see. It has a new battery, and the only issue I can think of is that the finder has some dust, which I am sure I can fix on my own. It fires at all speeds, winds fine, everything seems to be solid. The finder wiggles a bit, even though it snaps and fits into the rails as it should be but I've read that this was a common thing on these cameras.

Best $60 purchase I've made. Well, technically $100 since I threw an extra $40 for a charity drive, but still. Best $100 I've ever spent!.

Francois · « **Reply #3477 on:** May 18, 2018, 10:52:11 PM »

Jealousy $:-\$

cs1 · « **Reply #3478 on:** May 18, 2018, 11:33:14 PM »

It looks really good. And for that price it's a really good bargain. Looking forward to your first results.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3479 on:** May 19, 2018, 09:37:39 PM »

I'm trying to find a strap for the Bronica, and I'm wondering what should I get for it. Are those straps with the "triangular" metal attachments at the end the right ones? It seems that the ETR and ETRsi are a bit different when it comes to the attachment lugs, so all I read is conflicting info as to what works/doesn't.

cs1 · « **Reply #3480 on:** May 19, 2018, 09:55:46 PM »

The attachment lugs of the ETRSi look almost exactly like the Bronica SQ-A's lugs. I use triangular attachments on my SQ-A since the camera hangs with the lens' front facing down. So I suppose they should work for the ETRSi as well. One side note (since the ETRSi looks very much like the SQ-A I suppose the issue is the same): I wouldn't recommend carrying the ETRSi with a strap while the dark slide is inserted in the back. On my SQ-A the strap puts a lot of pressure on the dark slide's plastic grip when I leave it in and I believe this could damage it in the long run. Apart from that, on the SQ-A the back won't come off when the dark slide is removed so removing the dark slide also helps if you accidentally press the release button for the back (the back won't fall off and crash on the floor).

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3481 on:** May 19, 2018, 09:58:26 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on May 19, 2018, 09:55:46 PM

The attachment lugs of the ETRSi look almost exactly like the Bronica SQ-A's lugs. I use triangular attachments on my SQ-A since the camera hangs with the lens' front facing down. So I suppose they should work for the ETRSi as well. One side note (since the ETRSi looks very much like the SQ-A I suppose the issue is the same): I wouldn't recommend carrying the ETRSi with a strap while the dark slide is inserted in the back. On my SQ-A the strap puts a lot of pressure on the dark slide's plastic grip when I leave it in and I believe this could damage it in the long run. Apart from that, on the SQ-A the back won't come off when the dark slide is removed so removing the dark slide also helps if you accidentally press the release button for the back (the back won't fall off and crash on the floor).

The same mechanism, the back won't come off with the slide off, so that's a great tip. I'll aim for those triangular attachments... And hopefully, I'll find a 120 back/insert soon at a good price!

Thanks!

EarlJam · « **Reply #3482 on:** May 19, 2018, 11:18:51 PM »

Quote from: MiguelCampano on May 19, 2018, 09:58:26 PM

The same mechanism, the back won't come off with the slide off, so that's a great tip. I'll aim for those triangular attachments... And hopefully, I'll find a 120 back/insert soon at a good price!

Thanks!

Hey Miguel - I have a pair of triangular strap lugs from a Nikon F2, that you're welcome to. If interested, PM me with your address and I'll drop them in the mail this week.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3483 on:** May 19, 2018, 11:42:25 PM »

Quote from: EarlJam on May 19, 2018, 11:18:51 PM

Quote from: MiguelCampano on May 19, 2018, 09:58:26 PM
The same mechanism, the back won't come off with the slide off, so that's a great tip. I'll aim for those triangular attachments... And hopefully, I'll find a 120 back/insert soon at a good price!

Thanks!

Hey Miguel - I have a pair of triangular strap lugs from a Nikon F2, that you're welcome to. If interested, PM me with your address and I'll drop them in the mail this week.

PM Sent! Thank you!

Kai-san · « **Reply #3484 on:** May 20, 2018, 12:43:48 PM »

Here are my two last purchases, a Watson '70 bulk film loader and 14 Kodak 70mm cassettes. The loader has film in it; the label on the outside says Kodak Ektachrome 200 Professional, but the seller could not confirm it. I will expose a small length and throw it in Rodinal 1:100 to see what it is. Not sure if I will get anything if it's slide film though?
The other thing I need to figure out are the counters. There are two, one is labelled 'Wooden core' and the other 'Metal core'. Both go from zero to six and that does not fit in with a 100ft / 30,5m roll. The Kodak cassettes take 15ft, approx. 5m. I guess this is one of those loaders where you have to count the revolutions of the crank handle. I have not found any user manual on the net, so if any of you guys could help me out it would be much appreciated.

Bryan · « **Reply #3485 on:** May 20, 2018, 02:38:53 PM »

What camera uses those cassettes?

Kai-san · « **Reply #3486 on:** May 20, 2018, 03:36:37 PM »

I'm using a 70mm back for the Mamiya RB67 on my Polaroid 600SE via a G-adapter. Shown here with the 150mm lens it weighs in at 2,8 kg, a rather hefty rangefinder. You can also get 70mm backs for Hasselblad and Graflex cameras among others. The advantage is that you can shoot 60 to 70 6x6 or 6x7 frames on one roll. Bulk rolls of Rollei Infrared 400 and Rollei Ortho 25 is quite cheap compared to ordinary 120 rolls, but not to everyone's taste I suppose.

EarlJam · « **Reply #3487 on:** May 20, 2018, 04:01:20 PM »

Quote from: Bryan on May 20, 2018, 02:38:53 PM

What camera uses those cassettes?

Those appear to be for the Hasselblad 70mm back. (Image borrowed from https://www.wide-angle.nl/shop/hasselblad-70-film-magazine-for-70mm-film-6x6-for-500-series-cameras-30066/

Francois · « **Reply #3488 on:** May 20, 2018, 10:32:38 PM »

The coolest part is that those were actually sent to the moon

Kai-san · « **Reply #3489 on:** May 21, 2018, 07:23:39 PM »

Here is the 70mm back for Mamiya RB67 complete with vacuum pump.

Francois · « **Reply #3490 on:** May 21, 2018, 10:35:11 PM »

Quote from: Kai-san on May 21, 2018, 07:23:39 PM

complete with vacuum pump.

Why vacuum pump? Movable pressure plate?

Jeff Warden · « **Reply #3491 on:** May 22, 2018, 01:01:31 PM »

Sweet Bronica Miguel!

Kai-san · « **Reply #3492 on:** May 22, 2018, 01:47:45 PM »

Quote from: Francois on May 21, 2018, 10:35:11 PM

Quote from: Kai-san on May 21, 2018, 07:23:39 PM
complete with vacuum pump.

Why vacuum pump? Movable pressure plate?

To keep the film flat.

Francois · « **Reply #3493 on:** May 22, 2018, 03:04:32 PM »

That's what I was thinking. Couldn't possibly have been to take the film's blood pressure

AJShepherd · « **Reply #3494 on:** May 23, 2018, 11:16:15 AM »

Cleaning out my spam trap the other day I found a mail from AG Photographic who have a special offer on near-expiry Velvia, eight quid off, so clickety clickety and here it is.
I've not shot transparencies since Kodachrome bit the dust, so figured it would be a good chance to try Velvia.

Will probably have to send it off to be developed somewhere though, as unless I'm going to shoot a whole lot more buying a 2.5 litre E6 kit seems wasteful. Any recommendations for UK E6 processing?

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #3495 on:** May 23, 2018, 02:12:34 PM »

I send any colour here: http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/
Online prepayment and a 48hour turnaround.

Pete_R · « **Reply #3496 on:** May 23, 2018, 02:54:55 PM »

Quote from: AJShepherd on May 23, 2018, 11:16:15 AM

Any recommendations for UK E6 processing?

Same place you bought the film? http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/

Haven't used them for a while but never had any complaints when I did.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #3497 on:** May 24, 2018, 12:50:06 AM »

I am a bit disappointed at the results of my test roll of my new Bronica. The camera fires at every shutter speed, and looks clean in and out. The back seems fine, and everything works as it shoulds as far as I am concerned, however, I just developed and scanned this test batch today and I noticed that there is a dark mark on most of the frames. Only a couple do not have it (as noticeable), the rest do.

A real shame. I am sincerely hoping it has to do with my development technique, as I perhaps did not put enough chemistry in the tank (using a bigger one now, so I eyeballed it). Any thoughts?

EarlJam · « **Reply #3498 on:** May 24, 2018, 03:07:48 AM »

I don't believe a leaf shutter can cause that effect. I'd look at development technique and fluids level first.

cs1 · « **Reply #3499 on:** May 24, 2018, 05:20:39 AM »

Bronica film backs often suffer from light leaks (this is true for the SQ system and is very likely also true for the ETR system) but this doesn't look like one. It also doesn't look like something's scratching the surface. I completely agree with Earl. I'd give it another go, I'm confident that the Bronica is perfectly fine.