Simon Wyss

Var så god.

It’s always possible but you won’t see an image because the subcoating remains substantially opaque, a thin layer that contains manganese dioxide. This acts as a countermeasure to stray light reflected by the base plastic or antihalation agent. It must be bleached and thus made soluble. The clearing bath dissolves it out the film like the fixing bath dissolves the remaining silver compounds.

Indeed. A high-contrast recipe isn’t necessary. A HQ rich developer will do fine. Dichromate bleach, though, a clearing bath, then under water for second exposure with incandescent light. Same developer again, rinse, and fixing bath

Svema OC 50 probably

Sometimes I wonder . . . As stated a Paillard-Bolex H reflex finder camera bears the word REFLEX. There is one model of which a reflex version never existed, the H 9.

22 degrees The Eyemo could be had with various shutters.

Attention, side finders are frequently found with Reflex models. They are a useful accessory for situations when the reflex view is dim.

A Paillard-Bolex H reflex finder camera (1956 to 1969) is lettered Reflex. A Bolex H reflex finder camera (from after January 1st, 1970) bears the designation Reflex or SB or SBM or EBM or EL. The Bolex 16 Pro have a reflex finder, too. This one reads H 16 M. No Reflex

Also disassembled parts. Finder must be complete. PM

Joking aside, the lenses look worse than they probably are. Wrap each in a plastic bag, and put them in protective boxes. A pro can work them up. The camera body may need to be replaced. Decisive is the state of things inside, how much rust there is and where, quality of mainspring, wear on gear train. The rest can be groomed. It’s a REX 1 from between 1956 and 1960.

Wonderful, I’m awaiting an order in order that I can note six grand on the bill.

https://www.filmvorfuehrer.de/topic/24892-darf-ich-vorstellen-kiew-16-alpha-die-leichteste-und-lauteste-federwerk-reflexsucherkamera/#comment-278877 Pretty straightforward, screws in film chamber. Why don’t you first remove the handgrip?

That’s a Bell & Howell Filmo 70-DL, released in 1951.

As always, a well maintained triplet gives better images than an out-of-whack complicated or zoom one. The very sought-after Hypar by Goerz are triplets, nothing more than a Trioplan by Meyer or a simple anastigmat from Wollensak. Bausch & Lomb made triplets and Zeiss Triotar is a three-glass lens, too. The classic set of primes on a Paillard-Bolex H-16 are three triplets, the YVAR 25-2.5, the YVAR 15-2.8, and the YVAR 75-2.5 or -2.8. When working with black-and-white film and filters triplets can be rewarding because yellow filters cut off ultraviolet, violet, and blue light. Almost all triplets are optimised for the spectral range from green to red, not blue. Result: tack sharp pictures. The Tessar design is unique with tele lenses, you have that snap-in focus, as photographers liked to say. The other interesting four-glass construction is the Petzval lens. That one got modernised again and again. The B. & L. Animar 26 mm, f/1.9 is a young Petzval, very sharp in the center. The Kodak one-inch anastigmat, f/1.9 from the twenties is a descendant of the 19th century Goerz Celor but slightly asymmetric. Strong character My favourite focal length is the double of normal, that is two inches or 50 mm for 16-mm. film. The TTH Ivotal are four-glass designs of stunning quality, the 2-inch being a champion. Rare are Gundlach Radar and Krauss, Paris. Krauss had a 25 mm, f/1.8 Rexyl. No idea of its construction. Hermagis Perlynx is another important four-elements lens offering even illumination across the image. Finally all the Ernostar cine lenses, a group of phantastic four-glass optics. Examples: Eumigar on Eumig C 16 or the Schneider Xenoplan

Yes, the reversal films got adapted to a potassium permanganate bleach bath instead of a potassium dichromate one. Let’s hold apart Tri-X reversal, abbreviation TXR, and Tri-X negative film, abbreviated TX by Kodak. Equally Plus-X negative and Plus-X reversal, PXN or PXR