Rangefinder Stereo Cameras

[Vince Lupo]

Very exciting news - Heidoscop is all done. Light leaks have been (hopefully!) all fixed, everything is adjusted and good. I just found tonight a replacement hood mirror and that should be here next week. This is going to be one very beautiful camera.

The Revere is also done - apparently the viewfinder and rangefinder are a lot clearer now and Frank is going to set the rangefinder tomorrow.

Hopefully both cameras are going on a road trip next week!

 

[Vince Lupo]

I've also posted this in the J. Lane Dry Plate thread....

First plates!


First Plates2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


First Plates1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Not bad for the first ones, just taken in my backyard -- the good news is that there aren't any light leaks in the Voigtlander!

A bit of emulsion came off a couple of the exposures (the little dots you see in the images are just light reflections from my ceiling lights), so I really need to be careful when handling these plates. Other thing is that I should ask Jason if I'm using the right fixer.

The exposures look a little thin, so maybe for the next round I expose at ISO 1 instead of ISO 2. Development could maybe even stand to have another minute (right now it's D76 stock at 9 minutes tray development). Speaking of tray development, I don't think this is the best method if I'm trying to do multiple plates at one time. I'm going to look into perhaps some Kodak 4"x5" hanging racks and some Kodak development tanks. That might be the better way to go, especially for washing and drying afterwards.

The one unfortunate thing is that I'd love to just be able to make contact prints of these pairs as-is for my stereo cards, but since the left is the right and the right is the left, I can't do that. Will have to print them individually and then mount them onto a card.

As far as the initial loading of the plates went, I only shot four exposures, but loading wasn't too hateful (in a Photoflex Changing Room). Two of the plates were a bit tight to load into the septums, but I've since run a thick flathead screwdriver along the inside grooves of the septums so it should be better. I'll likely take one of these already-processed plates and test all the septums with it so that I'm not fighting with them when loading. Nice thing is that I've had a lot of experience loading Grafmatic backs, so it's pretty much the same idea.

Not bad for a first outing - I didn't expect them to be perfect right out of the gate, but I'm pleased with what I'm seeing so far.


Voigtlander Stereflektoskop2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[Vince Lupo]

First Stereo Card! by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[mothertrucker]

You might try finding a self-transposing printing frame like this so you don't need to cut the print in two and reverse it.

Something like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/KODAK-STEREO-SELF-TRANSPOSING-PRINTING-FRAME-FOR-THE-STEREO-BROWNIE-cks-199072-/143183053299

You basically block one half, print, then slide the whole plate over, print the other half. the frame should help keep things aligned.

 

[Vince Lupo]

You might try finding a self-transposing printing frame like this so you don't need to cut the print in two and reverse it.

Something like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/KODAK-STEREO-SELF-TRANSPOSING-PRINTING-FRAME-FOR-THE-STEREO-BROWNIE-cks-199072-/143183053299

You basically block one half, print, then slide the whole plate over, print the other half. the frame should help keep things aligned.

That's an idea - hopefully I could find one for less than $260 🙂

 

[Vince Lupo]

If you're going to look at stereo images, may as well do it in style....


First Stereo Card with Viewer by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[mothertrucker]

Rangefinder Stereo Cameras

That's an idea - hopefully I could find one for less than $260 🙂

No kidding. This seems like something you could rig up with a 3D printer. They seem pretty hard to come by thus the pricing!

 

[Ambro51]

.....like a ride in a Model T! Congratulations on getting it all together start to finish. The focus seems fuzzy? Can you put a ground glass on the focal plane and check? Those lenses should be the poster child for “pin sharp”. Hmmmmm. If you cut ektachrome 4x5 up, you’d get two strips of transparency color film. Hmmmm 🙂

 

[Vince Lupo]

.....like a ride in a Model T! Congratulations on getting it all together start to finish. The focus seems fuzzy? Can you put a ground glass on the focal plane and check? Those lenses should be the poster child for “pin sharp”. Hmmmmm. If you cut ektachrome 4x5 up, you’d get two strips of transparency color film. Hmmmm 🙂

Yes they are a bit soft. They may not be in focus because the mirror is about half desilvered (making it difficult to focus and the focusing lens may be out of calibration, or I’m focusing on the back of the mirror) and I need to send the camera in to Frank for him go over it completely. It would seem odd to me that the focusing lens would be out of calibration, however I’m pretty much testing the camera as I received it, so it likely needs some attention. I have a new mirror coming in this week, but not sure if that will strictly remedy the situation. I do have a ground glass yet for some reason either the B and T are not functioning or I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get them to work. At the moment I’m just thankful that neither the camera nor the plate back has any light leaks.

Not sure about cutting up 4”x5” transparency film, however I do have some Ilford Direct Positive paper, so that will be interesting to give a try.

The Revere and the Heidoscop should be back tomorrow - everything is fixed and working great. The only thing Frank could not replace was the semi mirror in the Revere, as he didn’t have any on hand.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Both cameras arrived back from repair and they in super shape. No more light leaks in the Heidoscop and everything is ready to go.

Well there was one thing I just had to add to the Heidoscop -- a spirit level! And if you're going to add a spirit level, well it may as well be a Leitz DOOLU. Not sure if the chrome ones are more desirable than the black ones, but I got it for a super price with the original box - hard to resist 🙂


DOOLU by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[Ambro51]

Remember., you can point stereo up or down, just Never tilted side to side. I’ve got a Wollensak 10 (high end version of the Revere 33), and really dislike the attention that little level in the viewfinder demands. I’ve held the Realist perfectly level without that gizmo).

 

[Vince Lupo]

Doing my part for the global economy....


Macris Boucher1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Macris Boucher2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Macris Boucher3 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

It arrived today from Europe and it's quite the camera. Ergonomically it's very nice and comfortable to use (the fact that it's a fixed-focus helps), and you can see quite a bit of handwork throughout the camera. Viewfinder is super-sweet, the lenses are excellent, shutter speeds sound good (1/4 - 1/200 or thereabouts), three Waterhouse-type aperture settings, and of course takes 120 film. It came with that black leather case (needs a little bit of attention as well as a shoulder strap) as well as a cable release that appears to be specific to this camera. The outer thread on the shutter release button is smaller than what you'd see on a Barnack Leica, so I better not lose this cable release!

Speaking of 120 film, I ran a roll of FP4 through it and I discovered that the camera had light leaks. I narrowed the light leaks down to the right side of the camera where the dark slide would normally enter. Knowing that I'd never need to remove the back to load film, I took some Permatex RTV gasket material and rubbed it into the inside crevices of the back and into the area between the back and the camera body (you can hardly notice that I even really did anything inside the camera back). I ran a roll of Delta 400 through it - light leaks fixed! One thing I did find, however, was that due to the fact that it’s a fixed focus, the closest I can reasonably get sharp (even at f/18) is about 6 feet. Even though the focal length is not marked on the lenses, I believe they are 65mm.

Other thing that was a bit of an effort to figure out was how to pace the numbering of the frames. If you look at photo #3 you'll see this crazy conglomeration of hand-etched numbers. The seller didn't think they had any relevance to the actual framing, but I ran a dummy roll of film through the back and drew off the frames with a Sharpie on the film itself. When I ran the roll of FP4 through, I used the spacing that I thought would work - well it didn't work. Then for the roll of Delta 400, I thought what the heck, let's try lining up with those numbers that are on the back. 1 with 1, 2 with 2, 3 with 3 and so on (and note that the way the red window is situated, I'm reading the 6x9 numbers). Developed the roll, and every pair of frames was perfectly lined up. Seems those French really knew what they were doing way back then.

I'll post a result from the camera soon.

 

[Vince Lupo]

First one from the Nil Melior:


Macris Boucher Uncorrected by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Corrected and reversed:


Macris Boucher Corrected by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

As you can see from the uncorrected version, it looks like the exposures are different. So I guess the shutter speeds aren't exactly the same. The camera will likely end up going to Frank at some point, but overall things look pretty good. Stereo effect is pretty nice!

 

[farlymac]

Sweet looking camera, Vince, but what I see in the corrected/reversed version is the backwards 3-D you mentioned before, while the uncorrected version looks right.


PF

 

[Vince Lupo]

Sweet looking camera, Vince, but what I see in the corrected/reversed version is the backwards 3-D you mentioned before, while the uncorrected version looks right.


PF

I just double-checked the 'corrected/reversed' version with my Lite Owl viewers and it looks correct to me (just to confirm, this is the bottom pair we're talking about). Those daffodils are close to the camera, the buddha is behind them and everything else looks like it's where it supposed to be.

Besides, if you look at the 'corrected' version, there's more on the left side of the left frame than there is on the right one.

 

[Vince Lupo]

In correspondence with the seller, he is pretty convinced that the camera has only one shutter but with two holes. If that’s the case then the seeming difference in exposures isn’t a result of the shutter but of something else. Perhaps I still have a light leak on the right side?

 

[Dwig]

I just double-checked the 'corrected/reversed' version with my Lite Owl viewers and it looks correct to me (just to confirm, this is the bottom pair we're talking about). Those daffodils are close to the camera, the buddha is behind them and everything else looks like it's where it supposed to be.

Besides, if you look at the 'corrected' version, there's more on the left side of the left frame than there is on the right one.

Agreed, the "correct" set views properly when free viewing using the "wall eyed" method (eyes "looking through" the images as if they were far away) and would view properly in either a Holmes or Brewster style viewer if printed to the proper size and spaced correctly. The top "uncorrected" set will work when free viewing using the "crossed eye" method.

 

[farlymac]

I just double-checked the 'corrected/reversed' version with my Lite Owl viewers and it looks correct to me (just to confirm, this is the bottom pair we're talking about). Those daffodils are close to the camera, the buddha is behind them and everything else looks like it's where it supposed to be.

Besides, if you look at the 'corrected' version, there's more on the left side of the left frame than there is on the right one.

Like Dwig says, I'm using the "walleyed" method to free view them, and the bottom "corrected/reversed" set to me looks like the trees are closer than the Buddha head. When I view either I'm lining up the heads to match. It could be that using the owl viewer they look correct, but I don't have one. I think. Might be one hidden in a box around here somewhere.

PF

 

[Ambro51]

Make in ID notch in your film opening. Take a triangular file and on the bottom right make a little notch. Then you’ll easily know which image mounts to the left....the one with the little notch. This was accepted practice back in the day. In fact, stereo cameras of different makes positioned and shaped these differently so you Can tell what brand camera took what stereo image. Clever eh?

 

[Dwig]

Make in ID notch in your film opening. Take a triangular file and on the bottom right make a little notch. Then you’ll easily know which image mounts to the left....the one with the little notch. This was accepted practice back in the day. In fact, stereo cameras of different makes positioned and shaped these differently so you Can tell what brand camera took what stereo image. Clever eh?

I learned a variation of this when reading an old book discussing techniques centered on sheet film cameras. The "trick" was to notch the flap at the end of the holder, giving each holder in you kit a different notch pattern. That way, when, after processing a batch of sheets, you found that one had developed a light leak you would know which holder was at fault.


I did this to my 35mm film cameras as well as my sheet film holders. I don't remember seeing a post WWII 35mm stereo camera that didn't do this to mark one of the pair.