Minolta Hi-Matic E first roll...

S

sebino

Member
Local time
3:47 AM
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
31
Hello, used Kodak BW400CN Professional ISO 400 for my first roll since I got it at a bargain for under $3 at a local CVS. Many of the photos have this purple color on top. Is this some light leak? I had them developed the cheapest possible since it was my first roll with the camera - local CVS. Some pics look very rough (see second pic attached) looks kind of like a super old photo/image full of small dots.
Also, the light on the camera use to come on with fresh batteries then it didn't anymore, but the shutter works. Can I continue to shoot this way? will my photos come out?

purple.jpg


rough.jpg
 
There might be a little light leak at the bottom of the camera. But Kodak BW400CN often has a strange color cast when not properly developed, and most minilab operators seem not to know (or care) how to properly set up the processor for it. Your exposure looks close, though, at least in the first shot.
 
Most CVS clerks don't know anything about how to desaturate BW400CN so that it comes out B&W. Every once in a while you can find a clerk who can set the scanner properly, but you have to ask them ahead of time. And you have to understand that the resolution of the scans you get from them is not the best in the world, thus your scans will look somewhat grainy.

PF
 
If you are using batteries with adapters, you should use SR44 silver-oxide batteries, LR44 alkaline batteries do not work as well. The light on the top of the camera indicates that the scene is not too bright for the maximum shutter speed. The light may not come on if you are shooting the lens wide open in daylight.

The photos look like the film was not processed properly. BW400CN usually looks much better than these samples. If you scanned these yourself, it might be a good idea to adjust the settings a little, I sometimes have to do a little playing around with my scanner when using different types of films.
 
Thanks. No lights in VF and no light on top anymore but shutter works and fires. One side I have a brass slug and the other 2 stacked 675 hearing aid batteries at 2.8 volts. Will I get photos exposed properly without any lights??
 
Shutter firing but no lights means low batteries and probably off exposures, if I remember the instruction manual correctly.
 
Zinc-air batteries need a little airflow to function properly. Try taking the batteries out of the camera and let them sit in the open for about 30 minutes, they may give a better charge then, at least temporarily. You might consider drilling a small hole in the battery cover to let more air in.
 
Persevere, it's a good camera with a great lens.
When I had one I used a 3V lithium battery and conductive spacers.
 
sebino said:
Anyone? don't want to wast a roll of film and developing fees.
Click to expand...

What's it worth to you to learn your gear and become a better photographer? I mean literally what is the economic cost you're willing to pay? A few rolls of film, or a few batteries?

I cringe at the type of people who think they can have other people fix their problems for them without expending a bit of critical thinking and reason things out for themselves. Even though there might be plenty of people out there who have gone through this very same problem, you won't learn what they learned unless you too figure it out for yourself. Sometimes, in life, there are no shortcuts.

You know, at CVS you can have them develop the film only, no printing, and keep the roll uncut, for around $2. Take the negatives home, evaluate them under a magnifyer and light table and decide for yourself if it's worth going to a locally-owned custom lab that might charge a few more dollars but do a much better job, or if the camera might have a problem. Better yet, have the roll developed only at a custom lab, then take a look at the negatives, they should have been properly processed, no blemishes or artifacts. If the colration on top is still there, it's your camera at fault.

If you suspect the camera has a problem, and you don't want to get it repaired (which is costly on old cameras, you need to have it sent to a specialist who knows how to fix that specific model), don't get wedded to a problem child camera. Cut your losses, move on and get a better film camera that's in good working order. There are lots out there to choose from.

/Grumpy Old Man out...

PS: On these old cameras the light meter is sucking juice out of the battery as long as the lens cap is removed and light is striking the sensor. So keep the lens capped when notin use.
 
JoeV said:
What's it worth to you to learn your gear and become a better photographer? I mean literally what is the economic cost you're willing to pay? A few rolls of film, or a few batteries?

I cringe at the type of people who think they can have other people fix their problems for them without expending a bit of critical thinking and reason things out for themselves. Even though there might be plenty of people out there who have gone through this very same problem, you won't learn what they learned unless you too figure it out for yourself. Sometimes, in life, there are no shortcuts.

You know, at CVS you can have them develop the film only, no printing, and keep the roll uncut, for around $2. Take the negatives home, evaluate them under a magnifyer and light table and decide for yourself if it's worth going to a locally-owned custom lab that might charge a few more dollars but do a much better job, or if the camera might have a problem. Better yet, have the roll developed only at a custom lab, then take a look at the negatives, they should have been properly processed, no blemishes or artifacts. If the colration on top is still there, it's your camera at fault.

If you suspect the camera has a problem, and you don't want to get it repaired (which is costly on old cameras, you need to have it sent to a specialist who knows how to fix that specific model), don't get wedded to a problem child camera. Cut your losses, move on and get a better film camera that's in good working order. There are lots out there to choose from.

/Grumpy Old Man out...

PS: On these old cameras the light meter is sucking juice out of the battery as long as the lens cap is removed and light is striking the sensor. So keep the lens capped when notin use.
Click to expand...

I'm new to film cameras so trying to get as much info and help as I can so yeah if someone can help me fix my problem, why not. I don't fix cameras and never have so wouldn't even know where to begin. Thank you for some of the ideas you mentioned. I want to try and get it fixed. Looks like someone on another forum mentioned that wires get corroded and need to be re welded or replaced. I tried a brand new set of batteries (SR44) and it worked for a day and now shutter doesn't even work anymore.
I have no idea what I need to weld looking at the inside:
e1.JPG
e2.JPG
 
Jeez, could you post those pictures a little larger, so everyone would need a 72 inch monitor to see them? Please downsize them (800x600 is fine).

PF
 
sebino said:
I'm new to film cameras so trying to get as much info and help as I can so yeah if someone can help me fix my problem, why not. I don't fix cameras and never have so wouldn't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...

I avoid any old cameras whose shutter depends on non-common batteries to work properly. It's okay if the camera has a meter, but it has to have a manual shutter speed settings.

This decision has helped me enjoy my hobby of using old cameras a lot more, because chasing around battery problems is not my idea of fun :)
 
shadowfox said:
I avoid any old cameras whose shutter depends on non-common batteries to work properly. It's okay if the camera has a meter, but it has to have a manual shutter speed settings.

This decision has helped me enjoy my hobby of using old cameras a lot more, because chasing around battery problems is not my idea of fun :)
Click to expand...

Which rangefinders don't depend on non-common batteries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom