 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2005Weird Camera or Lab Problem
The camera is a Sputnik. For those who don't know, it's a Soviet era Medium Format stereo camera. It takes six 6x6 stereo pairs on a roll of 120 film. Although they are notorious for various problems, this one has been tuned, does not leak light, and the shutter, aperture and focus are all matched. The film is fed through the camera from right to left, so odd frames are the left frame of a stereo pair, and even frames are the right frame. I just picked up two rolls of E100G from the lab with a very strange problem. I suspect a problem at the lab, but I can't think of what it could be. On the roll that I shot first the first six frames (i.e., the first three stereo pairs) are fine. Frames seven through nine (the fourth stereo pair and the left frame of the fifth stereo pair) are completely clear. The edges of the film are fine, so I can read the frame numbers and the manufacturer's markings. There is no separation between the frames. Frames ten through twelve (the right half of the fifth stereo pair and the sixth stereo pair) are also fine. On the second roll (which I shot after the other roll) about 3/4 inch across the leading width of the film and the edges of the filme are fine, but the entire image are of the roll, all the way to the end, is clear. There are a couple of spots that have very faint images, but other wise the film is clear, again with no frame separation. The two shutters on the Sputnik are linked together. The left shutter has no timing mechanism and is driven by the right shutter. I could imagine the link breaking in such a way that the left shutter is stuck open, but that doesn't explain why the last three frames of the first roll and the first 3/4 inch of the second roll are fine. The camera is at home, so I can't check it until later. Does anyone have any idea what would cause this? I've seen just about every problem you can have with a Sputnik, but I've never even heard of anyone having a problem like this.  SignatureBrian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship. reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan NAR# 54438 | > The camera is a Sputnik. For those who don't know, it's a Soviet era > Medium Format stereo camera. It takes six 6x6 stereo pairs on a roll [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > every problem you can have with a Sputnik, but I've never even heard > of anyone having a problem like this. From reading your website, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the shutter mechanism of this camera. All I ca reccoment is to fire the shutters through the open back and visually verify that they are both sychronising. That is the only possibility I can think of. "Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@panix.com> wrote > The camera is a Sputnik. For those who don't know, it's a Soviet era > Medium Format stereo camera. It takes six 6x6 stereo pairs on a roll > of 120 film ... http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ Great site, weird camera. So many good ideas and design work and so many faults that stick out like a sore thumb. If only they had made a second and third generation of the design, where they sat back and said - what would we have done differently, what doesn't work so good, what breaks, what happens if we stand it on its head ...? In engineering you always have to solve a problem twice: the first solution solves the original problem, the second solution solves the problems created in the making of the first solution. The Soviets seem to have been great at starting things but they never seem to finish them. Maybe if they had ten-year plans instead of five. I have heard their engineers were scared of modifying a design once they got it working to a proletarian standard - failure got one not only a pink slip but a ticket on the Trans-Siberian. Also explains why so many Western designs were copied: there is a low chance of failure if one clones something already proven to work. There is wonderful site on the history of the FED factory: http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_A.htm SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >"Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@panix.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >have done differently, what doesn't work so good, >what breaks, what happens if we stand it on its head ...? The Sputnik could be thought of as the third generation. The Heidoscop (a plate camera) and the Rolleidoscop preceded it. Someone recently had a pair of Mamiya 7s siamesed (literally cut up the bodies and then join them to form one camera). From what I've heard he takes spectacular stereo pairs with it (and even has a MF stereo projection system), but think about the cost of Mamia 7s and their lenses, and then imagine the cost of machining and manufacturing to have a pair siamesed. The Sputnik's main problems are light leaks and internal reflections from the shiny Bakelite that the camera was manufactured with. Flocking the interior and making lens shades goes a long way towards solving most of the Sputnik's problems. The really finicky bit is keeping the shutters, apertures and focus in sync. The focus and apertures have a tendency to drift in use because of poor design. In over five years of using my camera I've had it adjusted twice. >In engineering you always have to solve a problem twice: >the first solution solves the original problem, the >second solution solves the problems created in the making >of the first solution. When doing so you have to be very careful to avoid the second system trap. >There is wonderful site on the history of the FED factory: >http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_A.htm That's a nice site, but it doesn't mention the 35mm FED Stereo. I think those were still in production until fairly recently. SignatureBrian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship. reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan NAR# 54438 | Brian '3D' Reynolds <reynolds@panix.com> wrote > Someone recently had a pair of Mamiya 7s siamesed (literally cut up > the bodies and then join them to form one camera). From what I've > heard he takes spectacular stereo pairs with it (and even has a MF > stereo projection system), but think about the cost of Mamia 7s and > their lenses, and then imagine the cost of machining and manufacturing > to have a pair siamesed. A pair of Mamiya Universal/Press/23's might be a cheaper alternative for MF stereo. Cut-em with a hack saw, they are indestructible and there is no plastic. Knowing the 3D crowd it has already been done ... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >Brian '3D' Reynolds <reynolds@panix.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and there is no plastic. Knowing the 3D crowd it has already >been done ... It would be even easier to start with a 6x12 back. But then you're stuck with lens synchronization issues. I already have a pair of Lubitels 166 Universals (that's how I got started in MF stereo) and a pair fo Yashica Mat-124Gs. Remembering to set both cameras to the same settings, and then firing both shutters at the same time can be difficult. The big advantage of the Sputnik is that all the controls are synchronized, and it even has flash sync. SignatureBrian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship. reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan NAR# 54438 | >>"Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@panix.com> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > That's a nice site, but it doesn't mention the 35mm FED Stereo. I > think those were still in production until fairly recently. Correct! The FED stereo was made from approximately 1987-2000(September?). Derek > The Sputnik could be thought of as the third generation. The > Heidoscop (a plate camera) and the Rolleidoscop preceded it. In a way, yes... Rolleiflex TLR grew out of Rolleidoskop, by cutting off the other lens and rearranging the rest to vertical shape. Sputnik grew out of Lubitel TLR by doing the reverse. But Lubitel was based on a cheap Voigtländer, not Rolleiflex. -- Lassi |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.