There is no Joy in Mudville-Rolex 20 red window is gone

[venchka]

My wife wagged home a Rolex 20 from one or her estate sale gigs. I was excited! An entry into the realm of 6x9 folders! 🙂
Last night I was examining the camera. Shutter works. Film transport is intact. With the back open and working both shutter speeds (1/50 & Bulb) I noticed white light coming through the hole on the back. Poking around for the red plastic, my finger went through the hole. YIKES! The red filter is gone.
I am open to any and all suggestions for a replacement red window. HELP! Please?

Wayne

 

[DominikDUK]

Red litho foil (ruby lith) might help.

 

[venchka]

Rubylith was the first thing that came to mind. I used to work with it all the time in a previous life. I haven't seen any in a hundred years. I'll go on a Quest for some Rubylith. Thanks!

Wayne

 

[sevo]

It might be that it never had one - there have been cameras that had a bare (or clear glass) peep hole. Following the introduction of fast pan film, light traps had to be 100% effective in any case, so that the red window was a useless, merely traditional, decoration.

 

[tunalegs]

The Foldex most certainly should have a red window. Some of the later ones had a dark green window though.

 

[rodinal]

How about a piece of ROSCO gel filter like the one used for cine, TV and theatre lights ?
For the amount needed, you can surely get enough just from their color sampler.

 

[venchka]

It might be that it never had one - there have been cameras that had a bare (or clear glass) peep hole. Following the introduction of fast pan film, light traps had to be 100% effective in any case, so that the red window was a useless, merely traditional, decoration.

It was there. Nothing left now but the hole where the red covering used to be.
You do bring up an interesting point. Given all of the pre & post WWII folders and Brownies in use, do the red windows actually work? I know that my 1956 Brownie Hawkeye Flash camera was capable of using color negative film when new. I guess I answered my own question.
In search of red tape.

Wayne

 

[mortalenema]

I use red tail-light tape. I put a small square of scotch tape (the smooth/shiny kind) on the sticky side of the red tape, and stick the red tape on the inside of the camera. That way, there is no exposed adhesive side in the window. Never had a problem.

 

[venchka]

I use red tail-light tape. I put a small square of scotch tape (the smooth/shiny kind) on the sticky side of the red tape, and stick the red tape on the inside of the camera. That way, there is no exposed adhesive side in the window. Never had a problem.

Thanks! Great idea.

Wayne

 

[farlymac]

Plastic file folder tabs are good for a material source too. But with today's films, you still need to block the window between each frame winding, or you'll have number shadows on all your pics.

I use painters masking tape (or gaffers tape), with a piece of black electricians tape sandwiched between two layers of the masking tape (the masking or gaffers tape are not very opaque). Make a pull tab by folding over one end of the masking tape. Quick, simple, and doesn't leave much residue behind.

PF

 

[sevo]

Plastic file folder tabs are good for a material source too. But with today's films, you still need to block the window between each frame winding, or you'll have number shadows on all your pics.

This is no general issue, but a matter of defective film. Don't buy THAT film, then!

Which one, by the way? According to the Internet, Efke and Lucky had a reputation for not fully opaque backing paper, but none of the films I ever had actually displayed it. All the examples of number print through which I personally suffered had other causes: Ilford had a bad batch of backing paper in the early 2000's, where the ink chemically affected the emulsion, but that happened in storage. Foma sometimes had physical print-though, with the lettering ink appearing on the film itself (by way of a offset transfer from the presumably not fully dried backing paper).

Light leakage from the red window issues with modern fast film generally take the form of light leaks from the edges - these often can be addressed by re-tightening the pressure plate.

 

[farlymac]

This is no general issue, but a matter of defective film. Don't buy THAT film, then!

Which one, by the way? According to the Internet, Efke and Lucky had a reputation for not fully opaque backing paper, but none of the films I ever had actually displayed it. All the examples of number print through which I personally suffered had other causes: Ilford had a bad batch of backing paper in the early 2000's, where the ink chemically affected the emulsion, but that happened in storage. Foma sometimes had physical print-though, with the lettering ink appearing on the film itself (by way of a offset transfer from the presumably not fully dried backing paper).

Light leakage from the red window issues with modern fast film generally take the form of light leaks from the edges - these often can be addressed by re-tightening the pressure plate.

Sevo, it's actually more an issue that the newer films are more sensitive to a broader part of the light spectrum, besides the issues you mention. So just using a red window is no longer acceptable practice. I prefer using cameras that have blinds built in in on the frame window, but a Rolex 20 won't have that feature.

PF

 

[sevo]

Sevo, it's actually more an issue that the newer films are more sensitive to a broader part of the light spectrum, besides the issues you mention. So just using a red window is no longer acceptable practice.

The spectral sensitivity has not increased since the forties (when IR film hit the generally accessible shelves after WWII) - if any, we now have fast film with a less exaggerated red sensitivity, as many films among first wave of (then super-fast) ISO 100-200 film were superpanchromatic, with a strongly elevated red response.

The backing paper/laminate used by more reputable brands is 100% opaque - if the camera construction prevents light spills around the paper edges, any window colour would be no issue, regardless of how long it is exposed.

 

[Muggins]

I found something packaged in clear red plastic in the supermarket when it happened to me...

Adrian

 

[Denverdad]

I will be curious to hear how the Rubylith material works out if you decide to go that route. Although I occasionally find a scrap of something-or-other that will work, I am still on the lookout for a consistent supply of a material that I can depend on to do the job well, since I seem to be encountering missing or broken red windows with fair regularity on old cameras these days. Maybe the Rubylith is a good choice.

At the same time, I have to admit that I have often recommended using a red file folder tab, as someone suggested above. However, after finding a good supply of the stuff and finally trying it out, I found that it was far from ideal. The real issue was the color - although the red seemed about right at first glance, I found that it was a rather weak red, being lighter overall and actually having more of a magenta tone compared to the deeper red color found on most cameras. All of that might just be my particular supply though.

 

[sevo]

As I said, the red colour has been essentially decorative ever since panchromatic film became standard - any camera that relies on the window actually having a red filter will not work any more unless you use (by now almost extinct) orthochromatic film. Arguably the red window will add some - maybe five to ten stop - attenuation, but that does not really change matters given that red window exposure times count into many seconds even if you are very disciplined at opening it only for transport (and into days or even years for the ones that can't be closed).

Fortunately, 120 folders only appeared at around the same time as panchromatic grew into the standard at least for high quality film, so you can generally assume that the transport window has a reliable light trap mechanism and does not depend on the window being red. I only am familiar with a few (originally very cheap) Bakelite box type cameras around that lack a light trap, but these have very dim dark green or brown windows - bright red would not have been enough even back in the thirties.

 

[Denverdad]

Sevo - no arguments from me regarding window color being technically irrelevant. My comments about the odd shade of the material I found has more to do with whether it will "look right," or how well it matches the original. Granted, not everyone cares about that, at least not for every camera. But for reference, here is a picture showing a piece of the red file folder tab material on the left, with the window from a Holga on the right for comparison.

As for the density of this particular material, I doubt it comes in at any more than one or two stops. Of course as you pointed out, with a well designed camera it isn't going to make much of a difference anyway. But as someone with a certain penchant for bottom-tier cameras such as primitive older folders, some box cameras, simple "lens tube" viewfinder cameras from the 50's, and even Holgas and other "toy" cameras, I do in fact come across many cameras without any sort of light trap. Many of these tend to provide quite generous opportunity for fogging if any light makes it into the back, just because the film path is so poorly controlled - e.g., no pressure plate, lots of room around the film edges, etc. To be honest, just as a matter of habit I never take any of these out in bright conditions without a piece of opaque tape across the window for added protection (unless it has a built-in slide/cover for the window). Now I can't say for sure whether all of them actually need this extra measure of protection, but let's just say I am suspicious. Ah, such are the concerns of a bottom feeder I guess! 🙄

 

[venchka]

A miracle happened! I moved a box to clean the apartment. There on the floor was the red plastic disc from the Rolex 20. It is back on the camera. Held in place with clear tape. Now I can enjoy some 6x9 folder fun!
Thanks for all of the very detailed help!

Wayne

 

[mortalenema]

Hahahahahahaaaaa! Yes!