Here is a quick tip
list on letters for the HELP! desk:
Please confine yourself to only one question per letter. Both postal
letters and e-mails are fine, although we prefer e-mail as the most
efficient form of communication. Send your e-mail queries to editorial@shutterbug.net
with Help in the subject header. Although we make every effort, we cannot
promise to answer every HELP! letter.
When sending a response or suggestion that refers to a published letter
please include the month and page of the original question.
All postal letters to HELP! must be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed
envelope to be considered for reply. We will respond to e-mail queries
with an e-mail.
George Schaub
Editor
Rebel 2000 Pre-Flash
Regarding the question on Canon’s pre-flash using the Rebel 2000
and the ex420 flash unit on page 198 in the August 2003 issue. Please
do not compare this camera to your EOS A2. The whole subject of using
or disabling the pre-flash is a very extensive one, and varies with
different flash units and camera models. There are many articles written
about this, which can be found on the Internet. Also, “the camera’s
pre-flash is normally a focus assist light” is erroneous—or
at the very least, confusing. Placing the lens in manual focus mode
does not disable the pre-flash, which is always used to help determine
the correct exposure. If one wishes to bypass perusing the Internet
for many helpful articles, just call the Canon help line at (800) 828-4040.
They know the limitations and solutions for each combination of flash
and camera.
Lowell Crist
via Internet
Thanks for sending your very
excellent comments about the pre-flash light on the Canon (and most
other brands of AF cameras I’m sure). As you indicate, the Canon
help line should be able to assist this reader and others with Canon
technical questions.
Honeywell Strobe
Specs
Q. I need values of the capacitor (dead) to replace it in a Honeywell
No. 180 high-performance power pack, or parts list. None are shown on
part.
James Huris
Darien, IL
A. Heiland/Honeywell
electronic flash units have not been around for many years. My files
show several firms that work on older models of electronic flash units
and power packs; possibly one or more of them can provide the information
you seek. Please be aware that some of these listings are years old
and the telephone area codes may have changed: Robal Company, Inc.,
1545 No. Wilcox Ave., Hollywood, CA 90028, (213) 466-8662; Larry Light,
737 Steward Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90038, (213) 469-0972; TW Technical,
514-2 California Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15202, (412) 766-1669; House of
Batteries, 776 W. 19th St., Costa Mesa, CA 92627, (714) 642-8222; Amglo
Kemlite Laboratories, Inc., 215 Gateway Rd, Bensenville, IL 60106; Glastronic
Sales Co., PO Box 391, North Lima, OH 44452.
Rollei Filters
Q. I am looking for filters for my Rolleiflex 2.8E Xenotar lens. If
I find filters made by Rollei they are very, very expensive. Can you
tell me if there is a secondary market for these? Years ago I was able
to get filters for my Rolleicord from a company called Spiratone. Do
they still exist?
Harry N. Wellhouser
Solana Beach, CA
A.
I assume you are looking for either bayonet mount filters or a bayonet
mount adapter to use regular round series sizes of filters on your Rolleiflex.
Although a few dealers and mail-order firms still carry filters, in
recent years I have found the following firm to be a good source for
most any type of adapter ring or reasonably priced filter. Just contact:
The Camera People, PO Box 1069, Bayfield, CO 81122; (970) 884-6045;
fax: (970) 884-4481; www.camerapeople.net. Sorry, I lost track of Spiratone
years ago after they relocated from New York City to the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, area. They used to be an excellent source of odd photographic
items. If any reader has had recent contact with them, I would appreciate
getting a current address.
Hawkeye Query
Q. I have an old box camera that belonged to my aunt, mother, or grandfather.
It was made by Blair Camera Co., Rochester, New York. It is a No. 2
WENO Hawkeye. I was wondering if it was worth anything to some collector.
The shutter still works on it.
Allen J. Bard
Rensselaer, IN
A.
My current, 11th edition of McKeown’s Price Guide to Antique &
Classic Cameras, 2001-2002 shows your box camera that uses 101 size
film to produce 3.5x3.5” images was made from 1904-1915. They
show a price of $30-$50 for it. This old rollfilm size has been unavailable
for years.
Glass Plate Processing
Q. I recently came into possession of glass plate negatives that can
be developed. Can you please refer me to any place in the Washington,
DC area that may do this?
Paul McVinney
Alexandria, VA
A. Are
these exposed glass plates, or unexposed? If they are quite old exposed
plates, the latent image may be very weak and may not be salvageable.
If they are relatively fresh and unexposed raw film, you will first
have to obtain the very specialized holder needed to accommodate them
for exposure, probably in a view camera. I exposed and processed many
hundreds of 4x5 glass plates when doing experimental lens testing in
the Engineering R&D department of Argus Cameras way back in the
late 1950s. Each plate had to be very carefully processed separately
by hand because of the sharp edges and fragile glass. But who can process
glass plates today is something I really don’t know. I suggest
you contact the Photo Marketing Association International, 3000 Picture
Place, Jackson, MI 49201, (517) 788-8100, and ask them. They have subgroups
including the Society of Photofinishing Engineers and also a directory
of member processing laboratories. I would think a non-automated lab
that does custom or industrial processing could provide the lab work
you seek. They have geographical breakdowns of these member labs, so
you should be able to locate one in the DC area and if one can do this
work. You might also want to check the Photo Lab Showcase ads in a recent
issue of Shutterbug and contact some of them to determine if any can
assist you.
Long Roll Film Sought
Q. During the 48 years I was associated with the law I accumulated a
library of about 750 books primarily on the Naval War. I thought I could
develop a written memorial to the ship type I served on. That was the
“easy” part. How about pictures? I was advised that photographs
of interiors, on board, underway, and pier side would be necessary.
Two problems. Any existing ships may only be found in Uruguay, Portugal,
or Taiwan. The other problem, and the main reason I am writing to you,
is I was advised that a medium format camera would be ideal for shipboard
studies. Medium format means Hasselblad. Accordingly I now have an entry-model
mechanical 501c, which I had to upgrade with an eye-level exposure meter
finder. The standard lens was too narrow in field and I replaced it
with a Zeiss Distagon f/4 40mm, which cost more than the camera, lens,
and film back. The film back was replaced with two 70-exposure film
backs. I was in business! Not quite yet! Bulk film, acquired from B&H
had to be loaded in a darkroom, which I did not have. This problem was
not amenable to improvement. My local camera store informed me Kodak
was no longer furnishing bulk film for the 70-exposure backs. What to
do? I was told that I had to bite the bullet and invest in three 24-exposure
backs. I asked Hasselblad in writing for their input, but I have received
no reply as of this writing. The reason I wanted to use 70-exposure
backs is that the ships, though small, are packed with equipment and
compartments which can best be photographed with a 200 watt-second flash
and several exposures are needed to give the feeling of “being
there.” If push comes to shove, I can use 24-exposure backs, but
if there is a reliable outfit from whom I can obtain bulk film and
load 70-exposure backs, that would, I believe, solve my problem.
James S. Oneto
Ellicott, MD
A. I
assume you are referring to long roll 70mm film backs, not 70-exposure
film for your Hasselblad. I was not aware that this size film was becoming
difficult to obtain, but with all the changes and advancements in digital
imaging, I’m sure other little used film formats are going to
become increasingly difficult to obtain as well. My suggestion would
be to contact Kodak’s hotline at (800) 242-2424 and ask where
70mm film is still available today. In addition, I wonder whether a
good 35mm SLR with an ultra-wide angle lens, probably 20-24mm, would
not give you the quality of images you seek? Prints for reproduction
in a book do not have to be enlarged much, so even 35mm negatives should
be able to produce the needed quality. I realize you have a major investment
in medium format equipment, but 35mm is much more portable. This probably
does not fully answer your dilemma or questions. If any readers working
with 70mm format with their Hasselblads write me with any suggestions
or ideas, we will put them in touch with you.
1950s Kodaks
Q. Members of my family are in possession of two antique Kodak cameras—Kodak
Pony II and Six-20 Brownie E. I would appreciate if you could let me
know of any interest that people might have in acquiring these cameras.
Ramesh Daga
Chennai, India
A.
My 11th edition of McKeown’s Price Guide to Antique & Classic
Cameras, 2001-2002 shows your Six-20 Brownie E is a box camera made
from 1946-1953. It is a metal camera that uses 620 film and has vertical
stripes on the front by the lens and finder windows. It also should
have flash contacts for plugging in an external flash. The value is
$12-$20. The Bakelite-body Pony II was made from 1957-1962 and has an
identical current value.
Half-Frame Repairs
Q. I’m hoping that you can help me with a problem. Many of our
members use the Yashica “Samurai” and we were told by Yashica
that none of the repair departments are doing any servicing of this
camera now. This is a real blow. I’ve tried many outlets in the
UK, Europe, and U.S.A., but nothing has come up. Please, have you any
repairman in the U.S.A. who can service, etc., our “Samurai”
cameras? Thanks for the “plugs” you have given us.
Fred and Pam Adcock
The Half Frame Group
Gloucester, England
A.
I just spoke with a person at Kyocera, the importer of Yashica/Contax
products in the U.S.A. Although they do have some Samurai parts, they
do not do repairs. But, they told me this firm does: Nippon Photo Clinic,
920 Broadway, Suite 703, New York, NY 10010; (212) 982-3177. You might
want to contact them to determine if they can fix your members’
half-frame cameras.
Tri-X Modern Developing
Times
Q. Has Kodak gone mad? They’ve changed Tri-X 400 to a new version
“400TX,” with changed processing that doesn’t work.
The development chart wrapped around the film canister tells us to develop
with HC-110 Dilution B, at 20ÞC for only 33/4 minutes, down from
71/2, which had been my old reliable for decades. I did as instructed,
meticulously as usual, and lo and behold, weak negatives—drastically,
grossly underdeveloped! To say I am outraged is speaking mildly. Those
shots were treasures of my 3-year-old granddaughter and her kitten and
are totally unusable. Kodak suggested, in print so tiny I needed a magnifying
glass to read it, that development less than 5 minutes might be unsatisfactory.
Gee, thanks Kodak. Then what business do they have recommending 33/4
minutes in their published chart? I think this is egregious irresponsibility
on their part. They suggest we do our own testing to find a usable development
time that might be satisfactory. Why should we have to do their work
for them? It will cost us good money for the test film and chemicals,
not to mention the time needed, none of which should be necessary whatsoever.
And how to go about this? I have never seen in myriad photo books and
three college courses any instructions on finding your own developing
time. Well, I have vented my disgust and wonder if you have received
other complaints. For me, it is enraging to look at that strip of 24
useless almost negatives and think of the lost expense, time, and effort
in getting good shots for the family albums, shots that cannot be recalled,
with more time and expense ahead.
Frank Lewis
Roque Bluffs, ME
A.
I sympathize with you but this just helps drive home the point that
before you undertake first use of any new product, be extra careful
to read the small print. And in this instance, even better, actually
process a roll of non-critical film prior to processing something that’s
not replaceable. It does seem that Kodak is expecting quite a bit of
experimentation on the user’s part instead of providing a good
benchmark processing time to try on the product instruction label. I
suggest you give Kodak’s information hotline, (800) 242-2424,
a call and explain your problem to them. Hopefully, they can give you
better, more accurate, time/temperature suggestions to use in the future
with their new 400TX in HC-110 developer.
Depth Of Field Query
Q. Recently I took some wildflower pictures here in Texas. I used my
Rebel 2000 and the 28-90mm lens that came with it. I swear I shot 98
percent of my pictures at f/8, f/11, or f/22. But when I developed them,
there was an obvious plane of focus in the pictures and everything out
of this plane was out of focus. I know I used an aperture with a lot
of depth of field (I set it manually myself) so what happened? Would
my problems be solved if I buy the 200mm f/2.8 lens? HELP! I need lots
of depth of field for projects. Thanks.
Matthew Schott
San Antonio, TX
A.
First, the depth of field will be considerably less if you switched
to a 200mm medium telephoto prime lens (or a zoom lens including 200mm
focal length), so I don’t believe that would help at all. If you
were taking your wildflower pictures at apertures of f/8 to f/22 you
should have a good depth of field, especially at f/22. Were you shooting
in aperture priority mode when you set the aperture yourself, then the
camera selected the correct shutter speed? This would be preferable
to using program automatic mode when a wider open aperture is often
chosen. Try using aperture priority at f/16 or f/22, and also switch
over to manual focus and manually set the focus for a plane about 1/3
back from the nearest and furthest points you want in sharp focus, to
get the greatest depth. If the shutter speed the camera selects is not
suitable for handheld exposures (typically 1/125 sec or faster), then
use a tripod. You could also activate the depth of field preview on
the camera to see an approximation of depth of field before you shoot.
The obvious plane of sharp focus you obtained is typically a result
of shooting with the lens about wide-open, probably f/3.5 or f/4 on
your zoom lens. I’m puzzled that this happened at the small apertures
you said you were using.
TLR Film Wind
Q. I have a technical question I want to ask. I have a vintage Ciro-flex
with my TLR. The old-style film for this camera isn’t made anymore.
My question is, with modern film how many turns of the film advance
knob is required to advance the film for the next exposure?
Arthur De Cesare
via Internet
A. Boy,
that’s a difficult TLR question to answer. I really don’t
have any idea how many turns it would take to advance the film the proper
distance for the next exposure as I have never used this TLR and my
Rolleicord IV has internal measuring of the film advance distance. Your
older camera should allow you to advance the film with the camera back
open. If so, you could load an expendable roll of film and then make
a pencil mark on the paper backing at the bottom of the mask opening.
Now wind the film forward until it just clears the top of the opening.
Keep track of how many turns of the winding knob it takes to advance
the film past the mask. Just to be safe, you might want to add a half
turn extra. This might give you only 9 or 10 exposures per roll, instead
of the normal 12 square exposures, but at least you should not have
any overlapping. If any reader has a better technique or method of estimating
the number of turns and lets us know, we will pass on the suggestion
to you.
