Author Topic: The Box Camera Thread (Read 21369 times)

cs1 · « **Reply #50 on:** February 02, 2018, 08:07:28 PM »

Ok, I think that the spring element was the cause of the problems. The shots I have now are pretty consistently sharp. However, getting stuff in focus with the closeup lenses isn't easy if you shoot at f/9. The DOP is pretty shallow. I need to try this box with a little more light. For now I think I can live with the results. Thanks to all of you for your help.

Antony: I think we need to do some more Box-Tengor talk after you shot your first roll of film. I'm very interested in what you think how the box handles and what your overall experiences are.

Francois · « **Reply #51 on:** February 02, 2018, 08:43:35 PM »

Those boxes are simple machines, you shouldn't have any problem getting it working.
The leaf spring that holds tension on the spool could easily be the culprit here. It should still put pressure on the film near the end of the roll.

Do your negatives get progressively fuzzier as you go? If so, definitely check out the leaf springs.

cs1 · « **Reply #52 on:** February 02, 2018, 09:43:04 PM »

No, I think that after tightening the leaf spring I get quite consistent results. However, I've only shot the box at f/9 so far. The manual says that you get the best results at f/11 (in terms of DOP, sharpness etc.). That's what I'll try next time. I've also got a nice and sharp 1-2m closeup. So that lens is working as well.

mikec · « **Reply #53 on:** February 03, 2018, 02:45:48 PM »

It seems to me that Zeiss pushed the envelope a bit too far with the 56/2 Box Tengor in regard to what can be expected from pressed metal construction. I had better luck with the somewhat simpler and sturdier 54/2 model. Even then, I got some inconsistent results until I took a more disciplined approach to using the camera with a tripod and a cable release. It was useful for me to examine the image on a ground glass at the different aperture and distance settings to get a better idea of actual performance. Also, if you look at the real dof possibilities on something like DOFMaster it is pretty clear that the marked dof ranges on the cameras are wildly optimistic. My conclusion was that the closest you could get with the camera was about five feet, and that fast film and a small aperture was good insurance.

Margaret by Mike Connealy, on Flickr

There is a post on my blog summarizing my experience with my three Box Tengors.

cs1 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 03, 2018, 05:43:15 PM »

Mike, thanks for the link and the excellent writeup in your blog! You confirm what I already thought. I think that f/9 is overly optimistic. I've still got some Ilford HP5+ left which I'm going to test in the next few days at EI 1600. I'm curious how that will turn out.

Anyhow, it was great to dig for a solution for my problem because I got to know the Tengor really well. One thing that I'll definitely put s stop to is the double exposure prevention mechanism. I've got two reasons for that: (1) I sometimes want to expose at 1/15s or even longer by releasing the shutter more than once but that's impossible and (2) sometimes for no apparent reason the double exposure prevention kicks in without releasing the shutter.

AJShepherd · « **Reply #55 on:** February 03, 2018, 10:49:57 PM »

I did use the Box Tengor this weekend, might not be able to develop the film until midweek though. Weather wasn't ideal (Looked like the sun was breaking through the cloud when I went out, not so much when I got to where I was going) so I mostly shot at f9, tried different focus settings, and was very slow and steady when I operated the shutter.
The other thing I found was that sometimes my reflection in the top of the viewfinder made the image in the viewfinder hard to see.

I'd tried running a roll of backing paper through to practise. The leaf springs on mine seem pretty firm, and the rollers looked clean.
Looking forward to see how it comes out, will try to develop it by midweek (joys of working from home!).

Francois · « **Reply #56 on:** February 03, 2018, 11:04:03 PM »

Quote from: mikec on February 03, 2018, 02:45:48 PM

Also, if you look at the real dof possibilities on something like DOFMaster it is pretty clear that the marked dof ranges on the cameras are wildly optimistic.

Lets not forget that when this camera was made, enlargements were a rare thing. On a contact print, even the OOF frames probably look fine.
Also, when they designed the lens, they probably used a larger than the current standard circle of confusion which affects the depth of field directly.

cs1 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 04, 2018, 06:29:52 AM »

Antony, the viewfinders on my copy are also quite "frackled" and also quite foggy. For composing the shot I have to shield the viewfinder from incident light with my hand most of the time. I found that putting a little lubricant on the axle that operates the little lollipop shielding vastly improves the operation of the shutter release.

François, you're perfectly right WRT prints. However, I have a number of shots that are very sharp, a fact that tickles me to see what I can get from the box.

Francois · « **Reply #58 on:** February 04, 2018, 02:42:18 PM »

Using a bigger than usual COC wouldn't prevent making tack sharp photos, it would just make the focus range identifying marks more liberal than they would be on another camera.

AJShepherd · « **Reply #59 on:** February 07, 2018, 08:12:07 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on February 04, 2018, 06:29:52 AM

I found that putting a little lubricant on the axle that operates the little lollipop shielding vastly improves the operation of the shutter release.

What did you use for that, I just developed the film I shot and have pretty epic camera shake on all but two frames!
I guess it's either that or use a cable release!

cs1 · « **Reply #60 on:** February 07, 2018, 08:41:11 PM »

Normally I wouldn't use oil on optical stuff like lenses or so but for this box I actually used Ballistol which is an oil that supposedly doesn't become resin.

cs1 · « **Reply #61 on:** February 08, 2018, 04:48:27 PM »

I forgot to mention: don't expect wonders from lubricating the mechanism. It stays pretty firm because the spring that moves the shutter release back is quite strong (and it probably must be because of the way the shutter and all the surrounding mechanics are designed). However, I realised that you can actually press the shutter release really slowly (which actually gets easier after lubricating the mechanism). In the beginning I was afraid that the shutter might get stuck and stay open for too long but if you reach the critical point when the shutter fires, it doesn't matter how quickly the release is pressed, it'll fire properly at ~1/30s. Funny enough, using a cable release also puts some circular momentum on the box (I can describe it more accurately) which can result in blurriness. I found the downward momentum of a carefully pressed shutter release easy to control by pressing the box against my chest (which is more difficult with a release cable).

cs1 · « **Reply #62 on:** May 11, 2018, 09:39:22 PM »

I'd like to write a short note about a box I got a little while ago: the Altissa Periskop 1:8 Box camera. The Altissa Box was manufactured by Altissa Camerawerk Dresden (in Dresden

). It's a special little box: it's 6x6 and it has an eye level viewfinder. It has two speeds, 1/25s and B, and two apertures, f/8 and f/16. The box was manufactured in the 1950s. There seem to be different variations of the Altissa Box and my copy seems to be a later model. It has a lovely art deco look, it's a beautiful box and looks very different from most other boxes I've seen. The box is quite small being a 6x6 box. It fits on the palm of your hand. The shutter is a very simple rotating shutter. To open the box's shutter mechanism you unscrew two screws underneath the two dials on the face plate. The front opens by lifting the lower part of the face plate. You can now easily reach the shutter mechanism, the aperture and the lens. I haven't seen this box very often in Germany. I wouldn't say it's rare but it seems like it's not as common as e. g. Agfa boxes. It sells for an average of 25-30 € on a well known auction site (some people take even more which is quite ridiculous). I got my copy for 7 € because the shutter release button was sticky and it was unclear at the time if I could fix it. However, I was able to clean an lubricate it and it works nicely now.

I had some concerns regarding the image quality because 1/25s is really slow especially if you want to shoot without a tripod. However, it was no issue at all. For some reason the position of the shutter release button helps. You can hold the box nicely at eye-level and fire the shutter without shaking the box.

My conclusion: the Altissa Box is an absolute gem! If you have the chance, get one. It's so small that you can take it anywhere without much of a hassle and the image quality it produces is excellent, very individual and quite characteristic.

Marsh by C S

Untitled by C S

Francois · « **Reply #63 on:** May 11, 2018, 10:46:49 PM »

That and the fact that it just has that unusual look to it

AJShepherd · « **Reply #64 on:** May 12, 2018, 09:39:15 AM »

That Periskop is a very odd but cool looking camera, almost looks like the viewfinder was added as an afterthought!

I did stick a drop of Ballistol on the pivot in the Box Tengor, and while the shutter still requires a firm press, it's a much more smooth action than it was originally, just not got around to trying it again since. Need to buy more film!

cs1 · « **Reply #65 on:** May 12, 2018, 09:47:24 AM »

François, the look is oddly pleasing, I agree.

Unfortunately, my photo of the box doesn't do it justice. There're much nicer photos on the net that show its beauty.

AJ, you're right. The viewfinder looks like a "last minute add-on" because it's made from a separate piece of metal which looks like a "hat" for the box. I'm looking forward to seeing shots with you Box Tengor. I have an older Box Tengor model sitting around on a shelf which I got for 5 € in Leipzig from a very nice guy who had to move his photo studio and had to get rid of some old cameras. I definitely need to try it soon. The shutter release on the older model is much less tense than on the new model.

AJShepherd · « **Reply #66 on:** May 19, 2018, 07:11:44 PM »

The oil seems to have done the trick, as I ran another test roll through on Friday and got some decent results, posted a few in the 18 - 20 May weekend post, but here's another:-

Negative Space by Antony Shepherd, on Flickr

cs1 · « **Reply #67 on:** May 19, 2018, 07:49:34 PM »

That are great news! I'm glad that the oil worked! The closeup in the weekend thread is also brilliant not only because you took it with a box but mainly because it's a really nice composition!

AJShepherd · « **Reply #68 on:** May 20, 2018, 02:30:26 AM »

Thanks, I picked the closest focus distance and paced it out to be sure, so I was really happy with that shot!

cs1 · « **Reply #69 on:** May 27, 2018, 01:25:04 PM »

The Voigtländer Brillant

A few weeks ago I found a lovely little box camera at a yard sale. It's a Voigtländer Brillant.

Voigtländer Brillant (Front) by C S

Some of you might see this camera and say "what's a TLR got to do with the box camera thread"? Bear with me, things will become clear in a moment.

The Voigtländer Brillant in the above form was made in the 1930s (some websites say 1932-1937). My copy is the earlier variant with a zone focussing scale which makes it more than 80 years old. It shoots 120 film in 6x6 format. It's got three exposure settings: 1/50s, 1/25s, and B. The viewfinder is not coupled with the distance dial which means that this is indeed no real TLR. Furthermore it only has these three exposure settings I mentioned earlier as well as only apertures f/8, f/11, and f/22. This makes it a sophisticated box camera with a TLR look. The lens is quite sophisticated because it consists of at least two elements.

The Brillant looks absolutely stunning. It's very well built and I personally find the look of it quite exquisite.

Voigtländer Brillant (Side) by C S

Voigtländer Brillant (Bottom) by C S

There's an oddity about this camera which some of you may already have realised by looking at the two pictures above: it's got an exposure counter at the side as well as a little red window for looking at the exposure number on the film's paper. At first I asked myself why Voigtländer went through all the trouble of adding an exposure counter mechanism if they already have the little red window on the bottom of the camera. But upon closer inspection I came to realise that this makes perfect sense because the little window at the bottom aligns with the numbers on the film's backing paper that's meant for 6x9 exposures. However, this camera shoots 6x6. So the secret behind the mechanical exposure counter is quite simple: you wind the film until you see the "1" in the red window on the bottom, you then reset the mechanical exposure counter at the side to "1" (there's a small switch on the side for that) and after that you don't pay any attention to the counter at the bottom any more (after all it only counts 6x9 exposures) but only to the counter at the side. My theory is - and I have no proof whatsoever that this is actually true - that back in the 1930s, a lot of films might only have come with exposure counters on the backing paper for 6x9 exposures and Voigtländer needed to make sure that you still get the spacing for 6x6 exposures right. In any case this is a charming little feature / oddity that makes this camera so lovely.

Apart from this, the Voigtländer has the best viewfinder of any box that I've seen so far. It's absolutely brilliant.

Voigtländer Brillant (Viewfinder) by C S

It's such a pleasure to frame shots with this viewfinder.

Some words regarding my copy of the Voigtländer Brillant: I go it with its original leather case and leather strap (both a little beaten up but still in good shape); when I got it I also saw that the shutter seemed to fire properly but the lenses had a lot of haze or fungus (they're so small that I really couldn't say what it was). So I disassembled the front lens to give it a proper cleaning.¹ I didn't expect to get any satisfying results when shooting with it for the first time but the cleaning must have worked. Yes, the results aren't the best I've ever seen but they're quite good for such an old box camera. They have the same dreamy look like the photos that François gets from his DYI lens.

The only flaw that I have with my copy is that the shutter release lever doesn't return to the starting position by itself but this doesn't have any negative influence if I don't shoot it on "B". Here're three shots taken with this camera:

River by C S

Twigs by C S

Summer meadow by C S

To summarise, I'd say that the Voigtländer Brillant is a very lovely box. Especially the fact that it has an absolutely brilliant viewfinder makes it very attractive in my eyes. Also, I like that it shoots 6x6 so that you get more exposures per film. The zone focussing seems to work well. I've shot portraits of my kids and I really liked the results. Your subject is clear and sharp while you have a very pretty unsharpness in your background. I can definitely recommend this camera if you can find a decent copy.

Sorry if I forgot to mention anything in this quick and dirty writeup. If you have any questions regarding this camera, please let me know.

¹ If you ever want to try this yourself, it's quite easy. You need to unscrew the two little pins that keep the front lens element from focussing beyond the zones that are found on the scale. Then you turn the front lens element clockwise (!) 1.5 rotations and after which you can remove it. Make sure to memorise the position in which the lens came off. Remove the three screws of the front plate and you're in business. The front lens of the viewfinder can easily be screwed off counterclockwise.

John Robison · « **Reply #70 on:** May 27, 2018, 05:20:41 PM »

Wonderful writeup cs1. I've wondered about the Brilliant for some time and It's nice to hear from someone who actually has one.
The closest I've had to this camera is a Kodak Duoflex IV that had a 3 element lens with scale focusing of the front element. The lens was a 72mm f8 with waterhouse stops to f16. Only had one shutter speed though, about 1/50 and also 'B'. Unfortunately it only took 620 film and I was too lazy to respool. The film chamber was really tight, even for 620 metal spools, so no 'trim to fit' for 120 either. I've always thought Kodak came up with this spool size just to curtail competition and force customers to buy their film.

cs1 · « **Reply #71 on:** May 27, 2018, 05:48:05 PM »

I'm glad that you enjoyed it. There's a lot that I don't know about this box. For example I have no idea how common it is and what the availability is today. I haven't seen it at all "in the wild" here in Germany, neither on flea markets nor on garage sales. That's why I picked it up when I saw it on this yard sale, it simply caught my eye. I agree that the fact that it takes 120 film is very nice. I still need to figure out whether or not I'm going to keep it (Mrs. S is very GAS tolerant, however, my camera shelves aren't that big and I don't want to stack up on cameras that I don't shoot; the number of box cameras grew steadily over the last few months so I need to part with some of them). This camera really is too pretty to just rot away on a shelf, if I don't keep it I hope that I'll find someone who'll give it a good home.

mikec · « **Reply #72 on:** May 27, 2018, 06:34:53 PM »

Voigtlander made quite a few versions of the Brilliant. Mine is an early model with a steel case and a 7.7 3-element Voitar. Later models had plastic cases and some of those had Compur shutters and Skopar lenses. There was even a focusing model which was later copied by the Russians and sold in great numbers. The Brilliant is one of my great favorites because it so far exceeds expectations with its results.

chevy by Mike Connealy, on Flickr

I should add that my favorite depiction of the Brilliant is Nelly Kate's pen and ink drawing. Her music is super too.

cs1 · « **Reply #73 on:** May 27, 2018, 06:55:34 PM »

Wow, is that a shot taken with the early Voigtländer Brillant model? It's fantastic. I think that my lens is much softer due to the haze or fungus which I thought I had removed. It's a really lovely box in any case.

The next box I really need to shoot with soon is a Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengor 54/2 that's been sitting on my shelf for a while. I have high hopes for it because I seem to have trouble taking photos without camera shake with my other Box-Tengor 56/2 (AJ knows this problem as well). The Box-Tengor 54/2 and 56/2 have quite different shutter release mechanisms. The one on the 54/2 reminds me of the one of the Agfa Synchro Box which isn't prone to induce camera shake at all. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

cs1 · « **Reply #74 on:** June 17, 2018, 02:35:43 PM »

It's official: cs1 is unable to take consistently sharp images with Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengors.

I've tried the Box-Tengor 54/2 yesterday and I have no idea why but the results are exactly like with my other Box-Tengor 56/2. There's a lot of unsharpness which is hardly just camera shake (and I measured an average shutter speed of 1/45s which is quicker than most of my other boxes which don't suffer from this problem). Of 8 shots there's one that's sharp so this box *is* capable of taking sharp images. But I don't seem to be. Just to be perfectly clear: I know what to expect from a box in terms of image quality. However, I've never had any issues with my Agfa, Altissa, or Voigtländer boxes. The Box-Tengors just don't seem to like me.

So I'm giving up on trying to extract a nice image from the Zeiss Ikon Boxes. I really don't want to spoil the fun that I have shooting the other boxes. If anyone's interested in a Box-Tengor 54/2 and/or a 56/2, please let me know. I'll probably be putting them up on a well known auction site soon, I don't see a good reason why they should clutter up my shelves.

Bryan · « **Reply #75 on:** June 17, 2018, 03:27:02 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on June 17, 2018, 02:35:43 PM

It's official: cs1 is unable to take consistently sharp images with Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengors.

I've tried the Box-Tengor 54/2 yesterday and I have no idea why but the results are exactly like with my other Box-Tengor 56/2. There's a lot of unsharpness which is hardly just camera shake (and I measured an average shutter speed of 1/45s which is quicker than most of my other boxes which don't suffer from this problem). Of 8 shots there's one that's sharp so this box *is* capable of taking sharp images. But I don't seem to be. Just to be perfectly clear: I know what to expect from a box in terms of image quality. However, I've never had any issues with my Agfa, Altissa, or Voigtländer boxes. The Box-Tengors just don't seem to like me. So I'm giving up on trying to extract a nice image from the Zeiss Ikon Boxes. I really don't want to spoil the fun that I have shooting the other boxes. If anyone's interested in a Box-Tengor 54/2 and/or a 56/2, please let me know. I'll probably be putting them up on a well known auction site soon, I don't see a good reason why they should clutter up my shelves.

I sent you a PM about the 56/2.

mikec · « **Reply #76 on:** June 17, 2018, 03:52:31 PM »

I had the same problem trying to get consistent results from my three Box Tengors. My 54/2 was a little better in that regard, but what ultimately worked for me was to consistently use a tripod and a cable release. I was happy with the outcome after learning to stick to that strategy, but it kind of defeats the idea of simplicity one is pursuing by choosing to use a box camera. I haven't made any more pictures with the Box Tengors in a long time, but I did use my Ansco Panda and my Hawkeye Flash later to make a lot of pictures that I liked.

cs1 · « **Reply #77 on:** June 17, 2018, 05:08:22 PM »

I can relate to what you say about hauling a tripod with you all of the time with the Box-Tengors. It really is diametrically opposed to what I'm looking for in a box camera.

I'm pretty convinced that the shutter release mechanism of both the 56/2 and the 54/2 is to blame. The release just isn't smooth at all on both these boxes as opposed to e. g. the Agfa Synchro Box which has a fabulously smooth release. Even the Altissa Periskop which almost feels a little flimsy due to its small size (6x6) has a smoother shutter release. And you can successfully shoot at its 1/25s shutter speed without any problems.

Francois · « **Reply #78 on:** June 17, 2018, 09:40:39 PM »

Maybe using a short monopod would be enough support?

cs1 · « **Reply #79 on:** June 18, 2018, 05:31:13 PM »

Yes, maybe you're right, François. But a box is supposed to be "lovingly" pressed to the chest when firing the shutter and that affectionate embrace should be perfectly sufficient to get a shot without blurriness.

The Box-Tengor is a diva and wants to be put on a tripod and keeps me at a distance. I won't have that.

cs1 · « **Reply #80 on:** February 10, 2019, 01:03:02 PM »

Originally I wanted to use my Agfa Synchro Frankenbox to shoot some pinhole photos for the "Let's see some... PINHOLE" thread. Unfortunately I realised that I had damaged the light seals of the pinhole module (I repaired it after the photowalk) so I had to resort to shooting classic box camera photos. Since I'm not aware that we have a dedicated "Let's see some... box photos" thread, I "declare" this thread to not only be the box camera but also the box photo thread.

Please feel free to post box camera photos whenever you feel the urge to do so.

It's been a while since I shot with my Altissa Periskop (a 6x6 box that is utterly brilliant) and when I shot it yesterday, I remembered why I liked it so much. It's a lovely little camera which handles exceptionally well for a box camera. The following shots are on Fomapan 100, dev'ed in Caffenol-C-H (RS).

Klusfelsen by C S

View towards the Kluskapelle by C S

Tree at the foot of the Steinberg by C S

Forest track by C S

Kai-san · « **Reply #81 on:** February 27, 2019, 09:34:00 PM »

I've never been a fan of box cameras, but the other day I picked up a Coronet Rex Box No 2 on an impulse (I blame you lot

). I'm not sure the model name is correct, but that's basically what I can read from the camera. Searching for these on the internet turned up quite a few variations of the Coronet Rex, but none looked like this one. So it can be from the 30's, 40's or 50's, I do not know. What I do know is that these were made in Birmingham, UK. The shutter didn't work and the viewfinders were very dim. I ripped it apart and started working on it. The shutter was easily fixed, the spring shown in the second picture had jumped off. The divider between the viewfinder and lens compartment was loose, so that had to be glued in place. The "mirrors" for the viewfinders turned out to be pieces of bent metal with chrome finish. I covered the back of them with black tape and did some touch up paint with matte black inside the two compartments. Cleaned mirrors, viewfinder glass and lens and assembled again. The viewfinders are now nice and clear, so I reckon I'm ready for testing with film.
Oh, and when I look at the first picture I remember that I have to polish that rusty nail between the viewfinders and paint it black.

Francois · « **Reply #82 on:** February 27, 2019, 10:52:02 PM »

You'll see, box cameras can be a pleasure to use.
And since they're all so simple mechanically, they're easy to repair. That's a big plus in my book.

cs1 · « **Reply #83 on:** February 28, 2019, 07:37:27 PM »

It's a lovely looking box, Kai. It looks like it has the usual revolving shutter. I think that I can also see a mechanism to switch it from 1/25s or 1/30s to B, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a "pull out thingy" on top of the box? I'm also wondering whether or not it has a fixed aperture or also a second aperture. Looking at the mechanism I don't see anything that would hint at a second aperture. Are there any other levers other than the film advance, the clips that close the box, the shutter release and the shutter mode selector? EDIT: Oh, hang on, there seems to be a slide on the top center of the camera for a second aperture -- is that correct?

I've seen a box that looks exactly like yours on a dutch camera museum website. They say it's from 1945. It's quite an interesting box. How does the shutter feel and operate? Fantastic little box. Very nice find.

Kai-san · « **Reply #84 on:** February 28, 2019, 08:54:07 PM »

Thanks CS1. The silver rod you see at the top in the second picture can be pulled up from the top of the camera, that's the B setting. No shutter speed selector, I should guess it operates at 1/30th of a second. I guess that means 100 ISO film on a nice day, otherwise 400? There is no aperture setting on the lens and no additional levers. There are a couple of models that look very much like this one, the difference is the name plate around the lens. The strap on the top is real leather, maybe that points to an earlier date than the 50's. The "No 2 Box Camera" text is stamped into the ring around the film advance knob. By the way, that knob is very hard to push in or pull out, any tips on how to improve that? Lubricating it doesn't seem to help, although I have not tried grease.
The shutter has a good resistance, you cannot set it off by accident. Not very ergonomic, though.

Francois · « **Reply #85 on:** February 28, 2019, 09:04:25 PM »

I'm pretty sure it dates back to before the 50's.
In the 50's there was plenty of bakelite, punched tin and metal take-up spools.
My guess is that it would date to before the 1940's

Kai-san · « **Reply #86 on:** February 28, 2019, 09:34:47 PM »

I do not know when those wooden spools went out of production, this has an old fashioned Agfa logo stamped into the metal rings on each end. No plastic in this camera apart from the red film window at the back. It is at any rate the first camera I've had to open by pulling out a handful of nails.

Francois · « **Reply #87 on:** February 28, 2019, 10:43:09 PM »

A lot of the early Kodak Brownie cameras were built similarly.

cs1 · « **Reply #88 on:** March 01, 2019, 05:28:34 AM »

Regarding the film advance: it's fine that it's hard to pull out since it keeps the film tight. It should also only be turnable in one direction so that the film is always tight but can't accidentally wind back. These old boxes normally have a simple but clever spiral mechanism in the film advance that makes the lever only move in one direction. I fullheartedly recommend using Fomapan 100 or 400 in a box camera because of its tolerance towards under- and overexposure. And yes, the standard exposure time normally is 1/30s, for pre WWII and shortly after even more likely 1/25s. The standard aperture often is close to f/8 or f/11.

Kai-san · « **Reply #89 on:** March 01, 2019, 10:58:07 AM »

I'm afraid the wind knob on mine can be turned in both directions. I agree that it should not be too loose, but this one requires a set of pliers to pull out. I will check if it's possible to dismantle the wind mechanism, but it's very compact. Fomapan sounds good, I believe I have both 100 and 400 in the fridge.

cs1 · « **Reply #90 on:** March 01, 2019, 04:21:51 PM »

Could you post a closeup picture of the inside of the box that shows the winding mechanism? I have a suspicion what's wrong but it heavily depends on how the mechanism actually works. If it works like I suspect, the spring inside the winding mechanism has twisted and it now blocks the shaft of the winding lever. I suspect that you can twist it in both directions because you're not only twisting the lever with its shaft but instead twist the whole mechanism that contains the shaft and the spring. This should normally be crimped or tack-welded to the box. This is only guess work but if you can post a closeup it might be possible to check whether this theory holds up. If it does, I'd remove the mechanism, reposition the spring (this should free the lever so that you can pull it more easily) and glue it back together (unless you can tack weld).

Kai-san · « **Reply #91 on:** March 01, 2019, 07:09:14 PM »

I removed the mechanism from the box, it's kept in place by two prongs that are bent to each side. I think there is a spring inside, but I cannot access it due to the fact that those two prongs are crooked and then the crossbar that is pressed into the axis is another hindrance. The prongs cannot take much more bending before they snap off, and then I will have a real problem. I think I shall have to leave this as it is.

cs1 · « **Reply #92 on:** March 01, 2019, 07:42:44 PM »

Yes, it all looks rather fragile. Just to be sure that I understand you correctly: though the prongs are almost straight now you can't slide the round part over them? Or is the crossbar the only thing that actually keeps you from removing the washer-like round part? If the latter is the case, you should be able to remove the crossbar with tweezers, it's very likely only jammed into the slit of the shaft. You can put it back and squeeze the shaft back together (maybe add some epoxy if you want to make sure that the crossbar stays put).

If you can't remove the washer, hope is still not lost. This mechanism looks like most mechanisms that I've seen on boxes. I think that I have a broken box somewhere. I'll find it and try to show you how the spring / spiral sits in the cylindric part of the mechanism. If you know what it looks like, it could very well be possible to reposition it with a very small "L" shaped tool by sliding it in from the side and twisting it 90° without putting strain on the washer or the prongs. Let me browse around my spare parts stuff, I'll try to locate a box. Please give me until tomorrow to locate the box.

Kai-san · « **Reply #93 on:** March 01, 2019, 08:32:21 PM »

I have tried to remove the crossbar, but the thing is really solid. Anyway I cannot get the round dish over the prongs, they are too twisted and in addition very solid. There is a little hole in the dish, I've tried to manipulate the spring through it but I cannot see what the spring looks like and how it works. If you can provide a picture of such an arrangement that might help.

cs1 · « **Reply #94 on:** March 01, 2019, 09:41:17 PM »

Ok, if you can't get the washer over the prongs then there's no sense in removing the crossbar. So it's good that you didn't remove it.

I've found a mechanism that looks very similar to yours. I've attached two photos of it. I'm sorry for the quality, I had to use my phone as a macro camera and I had to illuminate the inside with the LED flash and with an LED head torch so that you can actually see something (thanks to my wife for holding the torch

). Basically, there's a spring that spirals all the way from one circular end to the other of the cylindrical part of the mechanism. At the end that is closer to the inside of the camera (that should correspond with the "washer side" of the mechanism that you have in your photos) the spiral's wire is bent so that the bent part basically dissects the spiral's circular profile in two halfs. That's the piece of wire that sits in the slit of the winding crank's shaft. My guess is that this spiral is dislocated. I'd try to make an L shaped tool with a little hook ant the shorter L part and I'd try to realign the dissecting part so that it's parallel with the crossbar and that the spiral winds all the way from one circular face of the cylinder to the other. Does this make any sense?

I really hope that this helps you fix your box camera.

cs1 · « **Reply #95 on:** March 01, 2019, 09:49:17 PM »

P. S.: What I forgot to ask: can you unscrew the winged crank from the shaft? If yes, re-alining the spring might be pretty easy by using two very small watchmaker's screwdrivers (one at the one side of the shaft's slit and one at the other) which you push down until the dissecting part of the spring is all the way at the bottom. With a little bit of luck the spring will "spring" into the correct position and you're done.

If the crank turns easily with the unaligned spring there's a good chance that the film won't stay flat on the focus plane. If you don't have any luck with realigning the screws otherwise, I'd actually risk breaking the prongs, realign the spring and glue everything back together with epoxy. The whole alignment procedure is much easier with the washer off.

cs1 · « **Reply #96 on:** March 05, 2019, 05:18:44 PM »

Hi Kai! Just a quick note: I'm currently restoring another Altissa and I'm having almost the same problem with the winding mechanism. The spring wasn't dislocated, however, the cylinder and the washer weren't clamped together anymore and I had to glue the cylinder and the washer back together. I used epoxy for that. I'm currently painting the box and I'll glue the cylinder back in as well afterwards since all the holding clamps were gone when I got the box. I'll let you know how that worked out. Maybe epoxying might be an option for you as well.

Kai-san · « **Reply #97 on:** March 05, 2019, 08:36:52 PM »

Hi CS1, thanks for your support. The last few days I have not had the time to work on this camera. What I can tell you is that the wing "nut" on the outside of the camera is not possible to remove. I had a quick look at the spring, it's much thinner than yours and it's made from a rectangular wire. I need to study it closer and try to figure out how it's supposed to work. Regarding film flatness I'm not so worried because this camera has a "brake" on the take-up spool as well. I hope to get time to look into it the next few days.

cs1 · « **Reply #98 on:** March 05, 2019, 08:51:38 PM »

You're welcome, mate, I'm glad that you're getting into box camera photography, so I'm happy to help if I can.

In your case I wouldn't bother with the spring either and trust the "brake" on the take-up spool as long as the winding knob is easy enough to move.

Francois · « **Reply #99 on:** March 05, 2019, 09:13:57 PM »

Somehow, box cameras never seem to stop amazing me by their reliability.
Last night while listening to the radio, I picked-up a 1924 Kodak Rainbow Brownie I have and checked the shutter speed just for fun. Even after 96 years it still reliably clocks at 1/25 to 1/32... average at 1/31 of a second... Incredible