116 and 616 cameras

[Glenn Thoreson]

Joseph, I still have a nearly full roll of 70mm Tri-X for sale if you can use it.

[josphy]

Nah, thanks though, Glenn.  That just seems like way more trouble than just using 120 film to me.  I don't even have any backing paper.  Actually a couple weeks ago I saw a bunch of 616 film going on Ebay, and I was really tempted to buy it and get some 70mm film, but it was like around $15 per roll, so I decided that was more than I wanted to pay just to get some more 616 spools/paper.

[Peter Evans]

That link works for me, Peter.  I take it the jpeg isn't coming up for you?

Right.

Hmm, that's odd. Mozilla does have a setting to prevent the display of images hosted by sites other than that of the main page; but it can't be as simple as that, because I do see most of the images here.

Anyway, it seems to be some problem at my end. I'll investigate it; meanwhile, sorry for having wasted your time.

[LarryD]

I never worry about waisted time. That is why I am a member of this most wonderful and intertaining place. All hail the great bald master.

Another baldie.

Larry

[Don Day]

Peter, I didn't have anything to add to the articles--I just wanted to relocate them for easier reference later on.  But doing so involves cutting and pasting and cleanup with new pointers, and  I just don't have much time to futz with that right now.  The photos are still on Photobucket, and I won't remove them... I hate link rot too.

By the way, this is what a "nibbling tool" looks like in action:


Has anyone tried making one of these adapters yet?

[Peter Evans]

Mysteriouser and mysteriouser. I still don't see the images that I said before that I didn't see. (Can you parse that?) But I can see the image in the new message.

Could it be a matter of the particular site that's hosting the image? Those I can't see are hosted at photobucket and the one I can see is hosted at photobucket.

Maybe I can see them all if I use a different browser. There's no big rush for me personally as I don't have a 116 or 616 camera. Still, I've been linking material such as this to Camerapedia's article on 116 and 616 film; of course IFF some writer here were kind enough to release his particular message (and photos?) as GFDL, I'd just paste it straight in. And you'd all be able to edit.

[ImageMaker]

Haven't had the urge to try this; first, I have only two Paterson type reels, just enough for my tank if set to 35 mm, and second, I have nothing that can shoot 116/616 except one box camera (though I might try reloading the one roll of 116 backing I have, if I ever get around to rerolling it to 616 and, assuming it survives that, shooting and processing the existing film).  What I really need is to get enough leeway in the budget to buy some Exeter paper so I can make up a few rolls; I've got three spools, I think (not counting one I cut up to make a 120 takeup adapter, still unfinished), and while I'm not a huge fan of Efke film, the 100 foot rolls of 70 mm aren't badly priced at J&C.

[LarryD]

100 feet of 70mm would last me .. let me see.... 200 years?  

Larry

[Don Day]

Peter, based in what you are seeing in my other post, here is the whole set rendered in the syntax that works.  I'll definitely use these links whenever I move those articles.



Larry, that roll of 100 feet equals 30.5 meters, which at 1 meter per roll will yield 30 eight-exposure 116/616 reloads for your $49.99 investment ($1.66/roll, or 21 cents/shot).  Now, I can blow through 240 exposures in no time on my digital camera, but processing this film one roll at a time definitely paces my throughput with film.  I'm probably at the 2-year pace at the rate I'm going.  What's this "200 years" business for a professed fixer-sniffer?

[ImageMaker]

Don, I suspect it's a matter of many cameras demanding attention, and those that require less work to feed getting a (natural) preference...

[wlewisiii]

This is slightly OT, but one other option when you have a 116 camera is that, as far as I know, the lenses will cover 4x5. I have a B&L Rapid Rectilinear off of a Kodak 3A in a Kodak ball bearing shutter that I have mounted on a Speed Graphic lens board. It's hardly the world's greatest lens, but it is far better than I originally expected.

Just a thought to keep in mind.

William

[Peter Evans]

Peter, based in what you are seeing in my other post, here is the whole set rendered in the syntax that works.  I'll definitely use these links whenever I move those articles.

Yup, now I see them all.

All this excellent advice really must go somewhere other than in a mere message thread. (No offense to Craig, of course. Indeed, it might go elsewhere on this site.)

[ImageMaker]

William, if you stop down a bit, you can sometimes cover 4x5 with a lens originally sold for negatives as small as 6x9 cm.  I've got an Agnar (common triplet originally from a Billy or Viking), 105 mm, that barely covers 4x5 when stopped down to f/22 or f/32 and focused in a little from infinity (fifty feet seems okay, and certainly a hyperfocal setting of around 12 feet seems to avoid even the soft corners); I've got it mounted in a board for my Speed Graphic.  Similar lenses from 116, 124, and postcard cameras should do at least this well, and most of the folders newer than the "Ball Bearing Shutter" era have the shutters mounted with the standard retaining ring, which makes them easy to remove from the camera and mount on a board.

[Don Day]

All this excellent advice really must go somewhere other than in a mere message thread. (No offense to Craig, of course. Indeed, it might go elsewhere on this site.)

That would be the "Technically Speaking" forum--see the description there.  Still, I agree that the phpBB facilities are a bit weak for collaborative publishing, as it were, and that a Wiki component might be the Next Big Thing for Nelsonfoto, if and when it can be justified. (I know, more bandwidth, cost, and support work for Craig, so don't push too hard for it--we can make do.)