1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the Amateur Photographer magazine online community.

    Why not create an account and take advantage of this free resource.

The results are in...

Discussion in 'Classic Models & Marques' started by philipbowman, Jan 15, 2002.

  1. philipbowman

    philipbowman Well-Known Member

    Well, it's good news and bad news.

    The good news is that, as expected, the Rollei Steve L offered me has produced some beautiful transparencies (which possibly more by luck than judgement seem better exposed than those I took on my EOS for metering!). I shall get them scanned and on my web site as soon as I can.

    The bad news is that the trannies from the Pocket Kodak are ghastly. So bad I can't even begin to work out what's wrong. The subject is just about recognisable under a haze of fog and what looks like the outline of something hairy (!). I'll get some of those scanned up for suggestions, but I reckon it's unusable for normal use. I'll try giving the lens a good clean, and also try not exposing a frame but leaving the camera in daylight (to see if it's a problem with light leakage). Any other suggestions welcome.

    Anyway, Steve will be getting a cheque soon, and I shall be ordering lots of nice 120 film (used Provia 100F for the tests, thanks for the recommendation)...

    Phil

    Phil Bowman, Watford

    "Don't point that Moot at me, Moriaty..."
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Looks like you're trying the obvious. I think you said you had seen some pinpricks in the bellows - if so, and if the lens is clean, then that's your problem.

    Nick NRIPN
    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
     
  3. philipbowman

    philipbowman Well-Known Member

    Well, the lens appears cleanish, though not perfect. I tried looking the wrong way through it at my fingers in the film plane, and they appeared clear. Certainly not so dire to produce the images I see on my lightbox, but that might just be the nature of the lens.

    I noticed there are places that advertise replacement of bellows. Has anyone had this done, and would it be worth bothering on a camera that only cost me £16? (If the lens is OKish, and it can be made to work, I wouldn't mind spending more money than the thing cost to get a working pocketable 6x9 camera, but there are limits).

    Thought I might try another test film with the body in my changing bag - one arm in to operate through one armhole, the lens poking out the other. (Nothing if not imaginative, me :)

    Phil

    Phil Bowman, Watford

    "Don't point that Moot at me, Moriaty..."
     
  4. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    I had considered this on a similar camera that I have of the 6x9 size, but the estimates I was given was that it was cheaper to get another camera than to have a bellows made.

    Diane IRIPN
     
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I would agree, for such a camera. But there is another alternative to make the camera usable - black tape. Tape over the suspect areas, and the camera will at least work. It may make folding more difficult, though! And it won't work if the bellows are too bad.

    Nick NRIPN
    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
     
  6. philipbowman

    philipbowman Well-Known Member

    > the estimates I was given was that it was cheaper to get another camera than to have a bellows made.

    Diane,

    I'm not too surprised, but the problem is finding another camera with a perfect bellows as well as everything else. If I could show the lens was at least capable of producing reasonable images (even if with a little "character"), then that's half the battle.

    What sort of prices were you quoted? I may call some of the places for a ballpark figure, and decide from there. I'm not really one for keeping old cameras just to look decorative (although I appreciate many people do). I want them to be decorative and work, even if just occasionally. (shouldn't buy on eBay then, should I?!)

    Phil

    Phil Bowman, Watford

    "Don't point that Moot at me, Moriaty..."
     
  7. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    "Damn you ebay!!" (Homer Simpson)

    "Shut up Eccles!!"
     
  8. philipbowman

    philipbowman Well-Known Member

    :)

    Phil Bowman, Watford

    "Don't point that Moot at me, Moriaty..."
     
  9. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    Well, I won't say that, as I've bought several cameras off of eBay. None were older than 1948 though.

    I believe I was quoted > $100 [It's been a while so I really don't remember]. And that was a place in Vermont who specialize in fixing older cameras.

    Diane
     
  10. philipbowman

    philipbowman Well-Known Member

  11. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Oh my! It's a double exposure as well!

    Nick NRIPN
    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
     
  12. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    I took some b/w pics with the 6x9 I tried and the negs are really dark. I think there's a couple of salvagable pics, but I'd say that you have some light leaks.

    Diane
     
  13. philipbowman

    philipbowman Well-Known Member

    Nick,

    No, they all look like that, and I'm sure I didn't double expose any. I think the "double exposure" effect must be coming from multiple pinholing through the bellows, which is why I think it'll need replacing if the camera is to be usable.

    Phil

    Phil Bowman, Watford

    "Don't point that Moot at me, Moriaty..."
     
  14. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Well at least you've got your entry for the Turner Prize sorted!

    Nick NRIPN
    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
     

Share This Page