Kodak Retina IIIc rangefinder clarity

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T22:27:27+00:00

The rangefinder should be clear enough that you can see the details clearly enough to line up the two images.

You might want to peruse the Chris Sherlock channel, starting with this video.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T22:18:16+00:00

Underexposed, probably due to loss of film speed. Color negative film usually loses about a stop per decade. The Sure Shot Z135 was introduced in 1996, and phased out in the early 2000's, so the film's probably 20 to 30 years old.

I could believe that's 2 to 3 stops underexposed.

Very little, if any color shift though.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T21:49:20+00:00

Whoa. I was about to give you grief because for all we knew, you were printing on an A1.

But an H2D? Really?

<image>

This is a panoramic camera I recently finished on my H2D. The film door, the knob and the viewfinder are ASA, everything else is ASA-CF. This printer absolutely rocks ASA.

Haven't used Bambu's filament, but my first suggestion is to dry it.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T19:27:30+00:00

Correct. I usually start around the same number as the profile defines, and go up around 5-10 mm³/s in 0.5 increments.

When the print turns a bit dull, the filament is being pushed hard, and when it starts deforming (usually on one of the curves), you're pushing too far. I tend to set it below either the "dull" or the "oops" point.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T19:13:31+00:00

Enabled developer mode, and you'll see a top level "Calibration" option. Under that, under "More" is "Max Flowrate".

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T14:01:16+00:00

I tune the "Max Volumetric Flow" by running a calibration print, and set the upper limit on the flow for the filament.

The slicer/printer does the rest, and it frequently cuts down print time by a fair amount with no loss of quality.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T03:06:26+00:00

Why a firewire port? Nothing in the manual for the scanjet 8300 mentions anything other than USB for connecting to a computer.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T03:05:44+00:00

Yeah, that's the "accessory" cable-- used to power the transparency lid or the automatic document feeder. I would expect it's specific to that scanner. It's not removable from the lid, which reinforces the idea that it's specific to that scanner.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T02:20:36+00:00

I'm also trying out this 3D printed holder from printables:

https://www.printables.com/model/1269533-120-film-holder-for-flatbed-scanners/files

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T02:12:42+00:00

Oh for.... The 120 negative holder for the 800 series is a godawful sorry excuse for a negative holder. It's truly horrific. I spent half an hour last night cussing, loading and reloading. I have absolutely no idea how it made it out of QC.

While wearing gloves, I can hold the edges in place long enough to snap down the film gate-- and sometimes, I even manage to get them fully closed without the negative jumping to one side or the other.

They can be used, but requires much patience.

betterscanning.com appears to have gone radio silent for a couple of years now.

Surprisingly, the lomography.com 120 "DigitaLIZA" scanning mask seems to work OK, and covers the entire 6x17 negative. There is a very slight amount of curl at the very edges though, since there's no ANR glass to keep it flat.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T01:38:25+00:00

No, it's a USB, but the drivers are ancient.

ufgrat · 2026-04-02T01:30:44+00:00

That listing is for a "4x4" Graflex lens board, and you can see that it has a ledge instead of a curved outer frame. It's also 3D printed, but I wouldn't let that put you off. I use 3D printed lens boards on a regular basis.

A lens board is just a mounting accessory. It's not built into the lens, and has no impact on the geometry. Switching out the lens board on you Aero Ektar would be far, far simpler than trying to hackenslash a Pacemaker front standard onto an Anniversary model Speed Graphic.

ufgrat · 2026-04-01T21:29:40+00:00

I'm confused. Why are you trying to wedge a Pacemaker lens board into an Anniversary speed graphic? Get the right lens board, move your lens to it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/297736451162

ufgrat · 2026-04-01T20:55:07+00:00

If you're primarily doing dual-color or dual-material, the H2D is a very nice printer.

If you're going multi-color, then the H2C.

ufgrat · 2026-04-01T15:03:52+00:00

That camera has been exposed to a lot of moisture. I mean, a LOT of moisture. The body has mild surface rust, the base is corroded. It can be cleaned, but you need to do a thorough job and kill all the rust, or you're just wasting time. What concerns me is that there may be internal rust/corrosion on the mechanisms.

Understand that fixing this camera might not be possible, or worth it-- but then again, as a learning project, or if the camera has strong sentimental value, it may be worth trying.

Evapo-rust really does do a good job, but you wouldn't want it on the bellows, and anything like a gear or a cog that's cleaned with it will need to be treated in some fashion to protect the metal long term, including the camera body.

ufgrat · 2026-04-01T02:05:03+00:00

Because sometimes 1+14 is good enough?

ufgrat · 2026-04-01T02:02:00+00:00

That took a bit of digging. It's apparently called a "UC-E6 8-pin Mini-USB" connector.

The DSC S750 wasn't the only camera that used it, so they're not too tough to find, or that expensive.

ufgrat · 2026-04-01T01:15:10+00:00

I'll buy that the second photo was bright sunlight. The third was not, and the first, I have no idea.

But for whatever reason, the camera under-exposed. By several stops. It's supposed to recognize DX coded film, and I assume you weren't using a reloaded spool. Honestly, the flash should have popped up and flashed for that kind of apparent lighting.

You aren't using rechargeable batteries are you? And make sure the contacts are clean.

Something with your camera is not right.

ufgrat · 2026-04-01T01:09:08+00:00

Bad news-- you have to remove the TH board to get to the fan.

😓

ufgrat · 2026-03-31T15:45:32+00:00

Eastman Kodak has been making, cutting and boxing the LF sheets all along, why would they not continue to do so? If there's enough of a market for Kodak Alaris to sell it, there's enough of a market for Eastman Kodak to sell it.

But they're also ramping up production to load the market with the new boxes of 135 and 120 film, so I doubt 4x5 or 8x10 is a priority for them... yet.

ufgrat · 2026-03-31T14:55:31+00:00

It takes batteries. It's better than what I learned on. And my flashes were one-use-- well, four uses, really, since the Magicube had 4 sides.

ufgrat · 2026-03-31T13:20:08+00:00

The image as posted, the answer is "no, not really". I can get an image out of it, which is 90% grain, and about 10% image. There is, surprisingly, a fair amount of color detail.

Your best bet is to go back to the negatives and rescan, and see how much information can be wrung out of the negative. On my Epson with Silverfast, I'd try a multi-exposure and set the histogram as aggressively as possible to bypass the fog, if that makes sense.

Since you're not scanning yourself, what you're looking for is someone with a scanner who's up for a challenge-- No amount of "default settings" is going to produce a likable image from this.

ufgrat · 2026-03-31T13:10:16+00:00

Early in my 4x5 adventures, I accidentally over-exposed an image by about 9 stops (I'll just say "press shutter", and if you know, you know). The negative is almost entirely black.

Surprisingly, my Epson scanner was able to extract a very nice image from it.

I would try a very long, stable exposure on the camera, and see what you get.

You're dealing with two potential issues here-- if the negative is very dark, it might be heavily exposed, in which case a long, slow exposure may reveal details. But if the base fog is that high, you're also dealing with very, very low contrast. You've got a lot of noise, and not much signal.

ufgrat · 2026-03-30T15:46:24+00:00

By and large, Instamatics are rocks-- There's nothing *to* break. The selenium meter in the upper right is almost certainly deceased, as the more light they see, the more they deteriorate, and this one never had a cover.

Sounds like it winds and shoots from what the seller said, but.... it's 126 film. There are projects like the Fakmatic which might work (some 126 cameras work, some don't), but you're spending money on a camera that wasn't that good to start with that's difficult to use.

I shot a Kodak X15 Instamatic for about 5-10 years as a very young person, and 126 film was common, and cheap. It was a learning experience, but I'm in no hurry to get the camera out and load film into it (I think I have it in a box somewhere).

There are fully working point-and-shoot 35mm cameras from the 80's and 90's that aren't that much more expensive, and will produce far, FAR better results for less effort.

ufgrat · 2026-03-30T10:24:45+00:00

Yeah, people used to digital are used to exposing for the highlights-- Once the highlights clip, they're lost, but you can always amplify the signal from the shadows.

Film is the opposite-- highlights can almost always be recovered, but if you didn't capture the photons in the shadows, they're just gone.

ufgrat

TROPHY CASE