mconnealy
Well-known
Before we moved to Albuquerque we lived south of Hatch in southern NM. During that time I maintained a website about New Mexico Rock Art; there were many sites not far away. I guess the closest to where you will be in January would be the Three Rivers site north of Alamogordo. I took the site off-line about twelve years ago, but Mike Eckman has kept a copy available as part of his vintage cameras site: Sacred Places: New Mexico Rock Art.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Vince,
Lovely environmental portraits! I'm enjoying every photo you post from the Ermanox.
I made four exposures with the Mamiya Press 23 Super onto cut-down Ilford Harmann Direct Positive paper (the limit of my film holders) the other day. Two scenes, at ISO 3 and 6. I'm processing them in a moment to see far off my EI is with the processing chemistry and methodology I have in mind, and whether it works at all. Hopefully, *something* works ... LOL!
Shooting instant film seems so consistent and reliable at this moment. LOL again!
G
Lovely environmental portraits! I'm enjoying every photo you post from the Ermanox.
I made four exposures with the Mamiya Press 23 Super onto cut-down Ilford Harmann Direct Positive paper (the limit of my film holders) the other day. Two scenes, at ISO 3 and 6. I'm processing them in a moment to see far off my EI is with the processing chemistry and methodology I have in mind, and whether it works at all. Hopefully, *something* works ... LOL!
Shooting instant film seems so consistent and reliable at this moment. LOL again!
G
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
"Shooting instant film seems so consistent and reliable at this moment. LOL again!"
Vince, there's a thought... You could cobble together an Instax back for the Ermanox. Go for the weirdness, in emulation of Salomon's sense of humor! No water worries, either.
Vince, there's a thought... You could cobble together an Instax back for the Ermanox. Go for the weirdness, in emulation of Salomon's sense of humor! No water worries, either.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
How feasible this is depends on how much depth (register) there is between the back mounting flange and the film plane. I tried to do this with Instax SQ on a Hasselblad 500, but the very least amount of register I could design into the back was around 7-8mm because of the design of the Instax film pack cartridge, way way too much—the Hasselblad back register is about 2.5-3mm. That additional back register makes it impossible to achieve infinity focus.
Someone's made a good Instax SQ back for the Mamiya RZ67 camera, possible because the RZ back register is about 8mm. I briefly considered acquiring one of those cameras and backs, but have another Instax SQ project underway already.
G
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Think about it... The INSTANOX, an "instant classic"! I see a Kickstarter campaign waiting to happen. A 3-D printed Ermanox replica with an Instax back. The Lomo crowd would beat a path to you door. Riches! Fame! I'll be glad to handle the PR and marketing, for a small cut.
Whaddaya say, Vince?
Whaddaya say, Vince?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I'm going to be a letdown this time -- don't think that's happening as I have enough weirdness going on right now
I had for a very brief instant (ah pardon the pun!) a Leica Sofort, which I won as a first-place prize for a photo that was chosen in a juried exhibition at the Leica Store in DC a few years ago. I thought it was interesting for a short while, but I wasn't particularly thrilled with the results, truth be known. I ended up selling it, and honestly I don't regret it. Instant photos aren't really something I'm pining to do, though having said that I do have a Canon Selphy printer that I used in New Mexico to give people a very nice 'instant' dye-sub print of the image I took of them with my Leica Monochrom. Might be a bit difficult to do that with the Ermanox -- unfortunately I don't think the printer has a slot to plug in the glass plate
Vince,
Is this the same or slightly different model?
Is this the same or slightly different model?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
In general it looks the same, though I’m assuming the lens is measured in feet? Is the red rectangle in the viewfinder something that was added by someone?
Does this one work?
Does this one work?
the focus scale is in meters.
The red rectangle appears to be hand enscribed.
Not working, will have it overhauled. Needs new curtains and probably more.
Be kind of nice to adapt a 120 back for it,
and or an instax back if that is possible.
The red rectangle appears to be hand enscribed.
Not working, will have it overhauled. Needs new curtains and probably more.
Be kind of nice to adapt a 120 back for it,
and or an instax back if that is possible.
DougK
This space left blank
I think you're getting the hang of the camera just fine, Vince. Great portraits!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Many thanks Doug -- my problem now is finding the time to get out and do more photos!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I have a Graflex '23' back that's for my Pacemaker 2x3 camera, and I just held it up against the back of the Ermanox just to see. I suppose it's possible to adapt anything to anything (maybe?), but the 127 back works fine for me (I've been lucky enough to find two of them). Guess you'd have to cut the Graflex mount off, then somehow affix maybe a glass plate holder onto the roll film back, making sure the film plane is the same. Seems like a lot of work (as if overhauling the camera itself wasn't enough!). I appreciate the intention to make it easier to use from a film accessibility standpoint, but I actually prefer it the way it is with glass plates and the optional 127 back, though admittedly I do wish there were more/cheaper options for 127 film (and I find cutting 120 film down to be a stressful activity!). Just a personal preference.
If you're planning on selling it or if you have any accessories, let me know!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
So here's a really weird thing, speaking of roll film backs....
On both of my Rollex-Patent 127 backs, they have an arrow indicating the direction of rotation for the takeup spool, but the arrow's direction means that the film would be wound outside of the paper, not the inside as all other roll film backs would normally go. So far I've been advancing the film opposite to what the arrow indicates, but just for the fun of it I tried advancing a bum roll of 127 in the direction of the arrow to see what would happen. At the end of the roll it appears that there's enough paper to fully cover the end of the film, but of course the black side of the paper would be on the outside (and the sealing tape would be on the inside of the roll), plus if you had a number of different kinds of film that you shot and you threw them in your bag, you'd have to keep track of which film is which. Think that would be an issue as far as keeping the film from fogging/being exposed? I wonder why they wanted you to advance the film that way? Think it might have something to do with film flatness and keeping the film tight on the spool? All the Rollex-Patent backs I've seen have the arrow pointing in that direction.
On both of my Rollex-Patent 127 backs, they have an arrow indicating the direction of rotation for the takeup spool, but the arrow's direction means that the film would be wound outside of the paper, not the inside as all other roll film backs would normally go. So far I've been advancing the film opposite to what the arrow indicates, but just for the fun of it I tried advancing a bum roll of 127 in the direction of the arrow to see what would happen. At the end of the roll it appears that there's enough paper to fully cover the end of the film, but of course the black side of the paper would be on the outside (and the sealing tape would be on the inside of the roll), plus if you had a number of different kinds of film that you shot and you threw them in your bag, you'd have to keep track of which film is which. Think that would be an issue as far as keeping the film from fogging/being exposed? I wonder why they wanted you to advance the film that way? Think it might have something to do with film flatness and keeping the film tight on the spool? All the Rollex-Patent backs I've seen have the arrow pointing in that direction.
mconnealy
Well-known
I have 120 Rada and Rollex roll film backs for my plate cameras. On both of those the advance knob only turns in one direction. Here is what I blogged about the Rollex when I first began using it:
"Because of the way the film back is constructed, the film feeds onto the take-up spool against the existing curl of the film. That means that when you remove the roll from the holder, the film and the paper backing spring outward and unroll. So, it is a good idea to perform that operation inside your light-tight film changing bag. Because the Rollex is a bit rougher in its design than the Rada, I think it is going to be a little more difficult to get it leak-proofed..."
I did eventually get the Rollex back working ok; the light leak fix was just to put a piece of black tape over the slot for the slide after the back was mounted on the camera.
"Because of the way the film back is constructed, the film feeds onto the take-up spool against the existing curl of the film. That means that when you remove the roll from the holder, the film and the paper backing spring outward and unroll. So, it is a good idea to perform that operation inside your light-tight film changing bag. Because the Rollex is a bit rougher in its design than the Rada, I think it is going to be a little more difficult to get it leak-proofed..."
I did eventually get the Rollex back working ok; the light leak fix was just to put a piece of black tape over the slot for the slide after the back was mounted on the camera.
mconnealy
Well-known
In giving some thought to the construction of the roll film backs I think they were designed to keep the long dimension as short as possible for the sake of compactness. In order to make the film advance as it would in a normal roll film camera, the the film-holding tubes would need to have been flipped over and extend outside and past the long dimension of camera body.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Thanks for the info Mike - the advance knobs in my backs turn in either direction, so I wasn’t sure if the original intent of the designers was to change a roll of film in a darkroom, or if the film being on the outside of the backing paper as you rolled it would still result in the roll being light-tight if you removed it in daylight. There is a piece of spring steel that presses against the underside of the roll (the takeup spool side), and it seems to - seems to! - hold the film taught.
I have a roll of Delta 100 in my other Rollex back loaded this way, so we’ll see if it actually works as originally intended.
I have a roll of Delta 100 in my other Rollex back loaded this way, so we’ll see if it actually works as originally intended.
mconnealy
Well-known
Sorry for the multiple replies. The loading of the film in the back is a bit counter-intuitive, so I loaded and ran a roll through one of my backs and made a picture.
With the film loaded you can see that turning the advance knob clockwise winds the film against the curl, but the paper is still wound up so that it is on the outside when the film is fully wound on.
With the film loaded you can see that turning the advance knob clockwise winds the film against the curl, but the paper is still wound up so that it is on the outside when the film is fully wound on.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Sorry for the multiple replies. The loading of the film in the back is a bit counter-intuitive, so I loaded and ran a roll through one of my backs and made a picture.
With the film loaded you can see that turning the advance knob clockwise winds the film against the curl, but the paper is still wound up so that it is on the outside when the film is fully wound on.
Yes that's the way I normally have it arranged on my other roll film backs (Graflex etc), and it's the way I had originally had it oriented in the Rollex backs. But - not sure if your Rollex back is this way - the directional arrow on the Rollex back has the film on the takeup spool going counterclockwise. As a result, the film ends up being on the outside of the spool, with the paper on the inside. Here again, when I did the 'dry run' yesterday that way there was seemingly enough paper at the end of the roll to effectively cover up the film, but of course then the sealing tape was on the inside and the paper that faced outwards was the black side.
Nokton48
Veteran
Rerolled HP5+ from bulk 46mm would seem to be to be a more modern emulsion and the benefits that might accrue from using such in some cases.
I think RADA made backs and holders that might fit your camera. They made them for everything else!
I think RADA made backs and holders that might fit your camera. They made them for everything else!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Rerolled HP5+ from bulk 46mm would seem to be to be a more modern emulsion and the benefits that might accrue from using such in some cases.
I think RADA made backs and holders that might fit your camera. They made them for everything else!
I'm cutting/re-rolling Delta 100 in 120 format right now, but it's an incredible butt-pain (at least I find it to be). I'm using that 120//127 cutting kit from Claudio Bettio at Camerhack which should make it easier, but it's not. Could be just me!
To my knowledge Rada only made 120 backs -- I think there is one other company (Suydam) that may have possibly made 127 roll film backs though I haven't encountered one, but the Rollex-Patent seem to be the 'most' common. I say that in the relative sense, as pretty much any 127 back is tough to find, and finding one that specifically will work with the Ermanox is even tougher. Bear in mind that although yes, it is a 645 format and some might think that the roll film back would be 120 format (and I do wish it was), but the frame is 6cm wide by 4.5cm high, which is not how a typical 120 format/645 back is oriented, hence 127.
I actually do have one other roll film back that came with my Goerz Vest Pocket Tenax and it's beautifully made, but it takes 102 film! How's that for oddball?!