Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Equipment > Cameras - medium format

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11th March 2022, 08:22 PM
BuzzNL's Avatar
BuzzNL BuzzNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 146
Default Dipping my toe into medium format!

I recently stumbled upon this well-used Zeiss Ikon Nettar, which I could purchase for less than the price of a roll of film because it didn't work properly. That would either make it a very affordable way of trying medium format, or a nice piece of decoration in case I couldn't fix it...



It's a 518/16, the 6x6 version with the 75mm f/4.5 Novar lens and Velio shutter.
The problem was quite simple, the double exposure prevention system kept jamming the shutter release.
A quick clean & lubrication of the mechanism got it back in good working order. Bellows are light-tight and all shutter speeds seem to be close enough.
I've put two rolls through it so far and it produces some nice images!

However, the first roll didn't get wound tightly around the take-up spool during film advance in the camera, resulting in light leaks all over the second half of the roll when I took the roll out of the camera.
I've used Fomapan 400 and the empty spool was a Kodak "Spool made in England" I found inside the camera.
Inspection showed that the metal springs of the camera still gave enough tension to the supply spool, so I wound the backing paper back onto the Kodak spool and ran the film through the camera again onto the Foma spool. No problem, tight as it should be.
Then I ran the film through the camera again, from the Foma spool to the Kodak spool. Problems were back.

The second roll I shot was also Foma, and I used my empty Foma spool with it. No problems whatsoever!

Long story short, as I've never shot medium format before in my life, is this a known issue when using 120 spools from different manufacturers, or was it just bad luck with this one (possibly very old) Kodak spool?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11th March 2022, 11:02 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,084
Default

It's certainly 'known' about mixing 120 film spools and I only use take up spools of the same brand as the film, you soon get a decent supply.
Although, I've never tested the theory, my advice would be, to stay consistent with the same brand of film and take up spool.

Enjoy your 'new' camera. You'll soon learn to love medium. I've never met anyone who hasn't!
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11th March 2022, 11:46 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,478
Default

I think that in theory at least the spools' diameters are all the same and while the opening for the stubs can be either straight or crosses this should make no difference

Presumably the film makers realised that in many cases the users might change rolls from say Ilford to Kodak to Foma or in those far-off days Agfa as well so if the spools' measurements were different then problems would arise. So standardisation was in everyone's interest

So might one of the spools be worn in some way or longshot here, is it possible that the "dodgy" spool was a leftover 620 spool which is thinner but otherwise is the same as 120 spools

I am fairly certain that in my Agfa Isolette I have used different films and simply used the previous maker's spool as the new take-up spool so that a Kodak spool was take up spool for an Ilford film.

I never noticed a problem but what was the case on at least one occasion was that the wind-on knob did not wind the film on tight enough and I should have pulled the end of the backing paper before sealing the film.

It only resulted in some black streaks on the edges of the film beyond the frames

However to be on the safe side it may be worthwhile using two spools from the same maker in each case on a just in case basis

Well done in getting and then repairing a camera for what turned out to be a bargain price

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12th March 2022, 04:46 AM
Uwe Pilz's Avatar
Uwe Pilz Uwe Pilz is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Leipzig, Germany.
Posts: 241
Default

Mixing spooles is "allowed". I am sure you solve that problem. May be trimming the springs will help.
I tried using a folding camera too, I thought a smaller and lighter camera would have it's value in some situations. But I was not very succesfull with it and eventual gave it up. The most important problem was the shutter. I have no problem using 1/30 with my Rolleiflex and the Cord I had. But with the folding camera I got unsharp results and had to switch to 1/60 or better 1/125.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12th March 2022, 09:20 AM
BuzzNL's Avatar
BuzzNL BuzzNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 146
Default

The problem being the use of different branded spools was the only explanation I could think of as well, but couldn't find any other user experience on this online. So I thought I'd just ask!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
you soon get a decent supply.
Although, I've never tested the theory, my advice would be, to stay consistent with the same brand of film and take up spool.
I'm sure of that self-solving supply issue!
Noted, whenever possible I'll try to do so.

Quote:
Enjoy your 'new' camera. You'll soon learn to love medium. I've never met anyone who hasn't!
Thanks! The amount of detail in these Megatives is really impressive compared to 35mm.
I'm still working on getting used to the guess-focusing though.
I've found a distance measuring app for my smartphone which gives me somewhat reasonable results using the phone's camera.
It's far from accurate (12 meters measured could very well be 9 or 14 meters), but close enough to get a reasonably accurate focus on the Nettar when choosing an appropriate aperture.
Plus, my shoes measure exactly 30.5cm (that's one foot, right?), so when I want to focus closeby I simply count steps...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
So might one of the spools be worn in some way or longshot here, is it possible that the "dodgy" spool was a leftover 620 spool which is thinner but otherwise is the same as 120 spools
I've just double-checked, the Kodak spool also has '120' marked on it. But, the inner dimension (width where the backing paper goes) is slightly different. You can't tell this by eye, only by precise measurement.

Kodak spool: 62.4mm
Foma spool: 62.5mm
Foma backing paper: 62.7mm

This is as accurate as I could measure using my regular vernier caliper(s?). But it would explain the issue.

Quote:
Well done in getting and then repairing a camera for what turned out to be a bargain price

Mike
Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uwe Pilz View Post
Mixing spooles is "allowed". I am sure you solve that problem. May be trimming the springs will help.
That's the first thing I've checked indeed, after gathering information online.
People stated that the springs on the supply spool or the back plate springs might nog give enough tension to keep some tension on the film while winding on. But that all seemed to be in good condition.
I've given them a tiny bend for some extra tension, but that didn't solve the issue when using the Kodak spool with Foma backing paper.
Luckily my second roll from Foma to Foma spool went through without any issues.
Time will tell and after shooting a couple more rolls I'll probably gain some more insight on this.
For now I'll just swap rolls in my dark bag just to be on the safe side!

Quote:
I tried using a folding camera too, I thought a smaller and lighter camera would have it's value in some situations. But I was not very succesfull with it and eventual gave it up. The most important problem was the shutter. I have no problem using 1/30 with my Rolleiflex and the Cord I had. But with the folding camera I got unsharp results and had to switch to 1/60 or better 1/125.
I find the size very convenient ideed. It easily fits in my coat pocket, where my Olympus OM-1, one of the smallest 35mm SLRs around, still is too big for that.
I've shot the first roll of Fomapan 400 at 200 handheld and kept my shutter speeds at 1/50s or above with very sharp results.
The second roll (Fomapan 100) I've shot entirely on a tripod, so I could also test the slower shutter speeds. Everything up to the slowest being 1/10s seems to have given decent and uniform exposures.
Shooting handheld simply requires a faster film I think, at least in my hands.
Next time I'll probably order some HP5 or Delta 400 which I can also push a stop with confidence if necessary. I didn't dare that with Fomapan 400 (first time I've ever used this film as well).


I haven't made any darkroom prints yet though.
I've also just purchased a Meopta Anaret 80mm f/4.5 enlarger lens and a 75mm f/4.5 Belar, which both fit my Opemus 5 enlarger.
They were sold as a pair and were the best option I could find for sale locally at this moment so I just went ahead and bought them.

The Anaret is supposed to be the better one of the two, having 4 elements in 3 groups and a rounded 6-blade aperture, where the Belar most likely has 2 elements in 2 groups and a square 4-blade aperture.
I've bought them intending to only use the Anaret, but what's the real practical difference in use between an 80mm and a 75mm lens?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12th March 2022, 09:27 AM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,489
Default

I am also wondering if the Kodak spool was for 620 film. If I am correct, you could load a 620 film in a camera designed for 120, but a 120 would not fit in a 620 designed camera. The flanges are similar, but the 620 spool core is much thinner. That would allow room for the 120 film to unwind when removed from the camera. If it turns out to be a 620 spool, you could sell it on eBay, as people seem to be looking for them. As to the original question about differences between 120 spools, I have used films from Ilford, Kodak and Fuji in my 120 cameras without any problems. The only issue I can recall was with an old colour negative film made by Agfa. I tried it in a Lubitel TLR, but it was very difficult to wind the film advance. It was as if the film and paper combination was too thick for the mechanism.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12th March 2022, 11:43 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,478
Default

Buzz, assuming your vernier calipers are accurate and I suspect they are then the difference of 1mm between Kodak and Foma is I feel within the kind of measurement range that meets the definition of a standard width. I'd be surprised if 1mm makes enough difference to explain the light leak effect.

It may be however that you are better sticking to the same maker's spools in each case.

By the way I don't think you said whether the light streaks are confined to the edges only. If they are then personally I would not be bothered

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12th March 2022, 11:46 AM
BuzzNL's Avatar
BuzzNL BuzzNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmuir View Post
I am also wondering if the Kodak spool was for 620 film. If I am correct, you could load a 620 film in a camera designed for 120, but a 120 would not fit in a 620 designed camera. The flanges are similar, but the 620 spool core is much thinner. That would allow room for the 120 film to unwind when removed from the camera. If it turns out to be a 620 spool, you could sell it on eBay, as people seem to be looking for them. As to the original question about differences between 120 spools, I have used films from Ilford, Kodak and Fuji in my 120 cameras without any problems. The only issue I can recall was with an old colour negative film made by Agfa. I tried it in a Lubitel TLR, but it was very difficult to wind the film advance. It was as if the film and paper combination was too thick for the mechanism.
Alex
Well, the spool is marked 120, so that would make it 120 I'd say.
The center of the spool has the same diameter as the Foma spool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
Buzz, assuming your vernier calipers are accurate and I suspect they are then the difference of 1mm between Kodak and Foma is I feel within the kind of measurement range that meets the definition of a standard width. I'd be surprised if 1mm makes enough difference to explain the light leak effect.

It may be however that you are better sticking to the same maker's spools in each case.

By the way I don't think you said whether the light streaks are confined to the edges only. If they are then personally I would not be bothered

Mike
The difference is 0.1mm as I measure it. 1mm would be a lot and that would certainly be visible to the eye.
Light leaks are all over frames 7 to 12, from top to bottom. The last half of the roll was wound a bit oval around the spool so that would make sense. Like the backing paper is just a tiny bit too wide to fit on the Kodak spool.
I'll stick with the Foma spool for now and exchange rolls in my dark bag until I get a bit more feeling for things.

Last edited by BuzzNL; 12th March 2022 at 11:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12th March 2022, 02:28 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,489
Default

If you use an empty spool from the same manufacturer as the full one, you would expect it to work properly. Unloading in a bag is a good precaution. When loading, it is a good idea to load the film in position before you undo the tape. It also helps to keep a thumb on the film as you unroll it to attach to the empty spool, and as you wind to the start point. Apologies if you already know that.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12th March 2022, 03:00 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,427
Default

The netter is a pretty good folder, Zeiss cameras were very nice, and the Novar lens, although a triplet, is one of the best of them, I have a couple of Zeiss cameras with the Novar lens and they perform well, Kodak did make their spools slightly thiner as film and backing paper got slightly thinner, I have seen the same thing happen with a camera I bought with an old Kodak spool, it was ever so slightly thinner than Foma or Ilford spools and were fine for Kodak films, which were made for the spool, but not with orthey film, it was, I think, a Kodak trick to keep you ucing Kodak film, and no other. Have fun with the Netter, MF and folders can become addictive
Richard
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

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

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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Medium Format John King Sale or Wanted 0 16th August 2013 12:57 PM
Medium Format Sales petemcarthur Sale or Wanted 3 3rd July 2013 02:38 PM
Medium Format prints hilly Monochrome printing techniques 5 31st October 2010 03:35 PM
35mm vs medium format jonsparkes Photography in general 22 21st June 2010 04:25 PM
Medium Format for sale outremer Sale or Wanted 3 9th March 2010 05:58 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.