Bessa I 6x9 red window - HELP!

[pbromaghin]

I need help. I just loaded my first roll into my new Voigtlander Bessa I 6x9 and I plan to take it out for its maiden voyage tomorrow. Notice the 1s in the lower right red window (it seems Acros gives no warning that the number is coming). In the Ikonta 6x45, when the number is in the right window, the edge of the film that will be exposed is within the left window. But on the 6x9 Bessa, the edge of the exposure area is another couple of centimeters to the left.

Is there enough film to the left of the window that the first exposure will get a full 6x9 shot??

BTW, the left window on the Voigtlander is blocked so there is no visibility to the film backing paper there.

 

[darinwc]

Just expect to have a little overlap on that frame. No biggie. Lots of real estate left on a 6x9 negative.

-I have a roll from another Bessa drying right now. Frame #4 I advanced a bit too fast and have the same thing.

 

[BAC1967]

The second window is probably for use when using a mask to shoot 6X4.5.

 

[darinwc]

Oh the left red window only opens if you have the mask inserted.. there is a little nubbin on it that engages something.

 

[darinwc]

The frame spacing using the red window is very narrow. The bottom space in this is the normal gap. The top is my mistake.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Just expect to have a little overlap on that frame. No biggie. Lots of real estate left on a 6x9 negative.

-I have a roll from another Bessa drying right now. Frame #4 I advanced a bit too fast and have the same thing.

The second window is probably for use when using a mask to shoot 6X4.5.

Both of these are correct. In fact, you're only a couple millimeters past where you should be; if you remember to wind about half that much too far on frame 2, by frame 3 you should be back to centering the numbers in the window. Or, you could just wind each frame for the rest of this roll the same amount past -- there's plenty of blank tail on 120 with 6x9 (a couple inches).

That auto-block for the second red window is a nice feature that I've never seen on a lesser dual format folder. The only one I 've owned that I have the mask for is a Welta, and you're completely on your own to a) remember you're shooting 6x4.5, or b) remember you're not shooting 6x4.5, as well as c) use the correct framing lines in the glassless frame viewfinder.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Is there enough film to the left of the window that the first exposure will get a full 6x9 shot??

Simple answer to your question: Yes, there is enough film to the left of the window so that the first exposure will be a full 6x9 frame.

TL/DR: I use a Zeiss 6x4.5 just like the one you show. And I have always been bothered by the start point of the film. Because it is too far. I end up with a large empty space at the beginning of the roll, and the last shot is so close to the end that I often end up crimping inside an exposure when loading and find it hard to attach a clip for drying.

Taking a roll of 120 backing paper, I measured how far the actual film start is from the 6x9 '1' marking. 120mm. Considering that the 1 is actually inside the frame edge 10mm or more, this leaves a leader of 40mm or more with a camera like your Bessa. And explains why the Zeiss is such a pig with last frame spacing- there could easily be one, maybe 2, frames in the unused film area when you first load.

Go shoot. I'll be curious to hear what you think of the Bessa I.

 

[pbromaghin]

Thanks all! Great info and knowledge from Photrio, as usual. The complaint about Acros numbering is just a minor bother, unexpected from Fuji. My real concern was that there wouldn't be enough real estate for the first picture. Colorado is opening up and so I'll be heading to downtown Denver this afternoon to pick up a pizza and some Japanese groceries (two months without Mellow Mushroom and Gramma Mary is running short of all those things beyond my midwestern farm-boy pallet). It'll be fun to try the Bessa out on some urban landscapes. It took 8 years to find just the right 6x9 - top of the line lens and shutter with depth of field scale in a simple zone focusing body- so this is long anticipated. It may be the last camera I ever buy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Taking a roll of 120 backing paper, I measured how far the actual film start is from the 6x9 '1' marking. 120mm. Considering that the 1 is actually inside the frame edge 10mm or more, this leaves a leader of 40mm or more with a camera like your Bessa. And explains why the Zeiss is such a pig with last frame spacing- there could easily be one, maybe 2, frames in the unused film area when you first load.

One of the issues with 6x4.5 (only) cameras that use the 6x9 frame track is that you have to leave a lot of leader to get the first 6x9 frame number to a ruby window in the relatively narrow camera. Realistically, these are 15-on-120; to avoid the short tail you'd start with 1 in the second window. Newer 6x4.5 cameras, like my Daiichi Zenobia, use the 6x4.5 frame track and don't have this problem, but Zeiss cameras from as late as 1948 used the 6x9 track to start the auto-counter on a 6x6 or with two windows for a 6x4.5 only camera. which inevitably means you've got about half a 6x9 frame left blank at the start.

One way you could avoid "wasting" a frame would be to use film that has dots before the numbers (Kodak and .EDU Ultra do, for certain) and wind to the first dot instead of the number; on 6x4.5 that's about half a frame. You won't be able to tell at a glance what frame you're on, but you'll see the number as it goes by when you wind (before or after exposure, according to your method). As long as you do it the same way every time you'll still get even frame spacing, you'll just be transferring blank film from the start of the roll to the end. I use this method for loading my 1948 532/16 Super Ikonta B, in which I've modified the stop wheel to allow 12 on a roll, instead of the 11 (started with the 6x9 track) the camera was designed for; I've actually found I need to use the second dot instead of the first or I get a short leader (on 6x6 -- first dot should be just about right on 6x4.8).

 

[pbromaghin]

One way you could avoid "wasting" a frame would be to use film that has dots before the numbers (Kodak and .EDU Ultra do, for certain) and wind to the first dot instead of the number; on 6x4.5 that's about half a frame. You won't be able to tell at a glance what frame you're on, but you'll see the number as it goes by when you wind (before or after exposure, according to your method).

Thank you. I'm going to try this on the 6x4.5. Only 1 shot left on the 1st roll and I know what it's going for tomorrow. I only wish I had tried more variety of shots on this first roll. 8 isn't a lot.

 

[bunip]

I love Voigtlander's Bessas (I and II) because they have the biggest 6x9 negative compared to Zeiss and Agfa. You get almost 87mm wide negatives and this is why if you're not so precise on winding every time to the same point you get overlapping frames.

 

[thuggins]

A lot of this talk is nonsense. There is no issue with overlapping frames on a Bessa, of for any 6x9 (or 6x6) ruby window camera. The spacing is determined by the backing paper numbers. Only cameras with automatic counters can display spacing issues. I have seen dual window 4.5x6's where the gap is slightly larger on every other frame, but never an overlap.

That said, the distance from the edge of the first frame to the start of the film does vary due to the placement of the ruby window with respect to the film gate. On the Cyclope the first frame just misses the tape, but the Cyclope has unusual constraints due to its design.

 

[bunip]

If overlapping is nonsense I don't know. As you can see in the picture above with bessa I and II overlapping can occur due to the widest image area that leaves less space between frames. If you wind not as precisely every time (with the numbering in the middle of red window) you get overlap. If you use other cameras (zeiss for example) with narrower frames this overlapping is uncommon.

 

[darinwc]

A lot of this talk is nonsense. There is no issue with overlapping frames on a Bessa, of for any 6x9 (or 6x6) ruby window camera. The spacing is determined by the backing paper numbers. Only cameras with automatic counters can display spacing issues. I have seen dual window 4.5x6's where the gap is slightly larger on every other frame, but never an overlap.

That said, the distance from the edge of the first frame to the start of the film does vary due to the placement of the ruby window with respect to the film gate. On the Cyclope the first frame just misses the tape, but the Cyclope has unusual constraints due to its design.

If you over-wind one of the frames using the Ruby window, the frame will overlap the next.
I know, it's my own fault when u do and I need to go slower. But sometimes you needeminder!

 

[thuggins]

If overlapping is nonsense I don't know. As you can see in the picture above with bessa I and II overlapping can occur due to the widest image area that leaves less space between frames.

I have a Bessa and it does not overlap. I have many ruby window cameras and none of them overlap. They cannot overlap because the spacing is set by the backing paper, not the camera. 6x9 has the largest gap between frames compared to square or half frame formats as there is less overall "dead" area with 8 images as compared to 12 or 16.

If you wind not as precisely every time (with the numbering in the middle of red window) you get overlap. If you use other cameras (zeiss for example) with narrower frames this overlapping is uncommon.

Yes. If YOU screw up, YOU will have a problem. That's not the camera's fault. As noted above, you have to really screw up with 6x9 due to the comparatively large gap. You need to be mindful, but certainly not "precise". Your reference to "narrower frames" is unclear. If you are referring to the ruby window, those tend to be pretty consistent in size. Older Voigtlanders have heyhole shaped windows, which allow you to see the number coming up. If by "narrower frames" you mean the format (6x6 or 4.5x6), this claim is the opposite of correct. The more frames per strip, the less gap between them.

All of us who use ruby window cameras have lived with the quirks and challenges. Kodak Ektachrome is a royal pain due to the numbers being a light grey and proceeded with a tiny "KODAK" instead of a series of dots. To make matters worse there is only one row of numbers for 6x6 and 4.5x6, so you really have to hope they lineup to the window. I am also firmly convinced that there is a fundamental law of physics that causes one (and only one) double exposure on every roll.

 

[pbromaghin]

. I am also firmly convinced that there is a fundamental law of physics that causes one (and only one) double exposure on every roll.

I thought it was a minimum of 1 and more likely 2.

 

[pbromaghin]

Found another surprise. I finished the Acros and decided to shoot TMY-2. Advancing the film, I never saw anything in the red window!

I rolled the film through, respooled it in a dark bag and loaded it again, this time keeping the door open. It turns out that the red window is about 1/4 inch higher than the numbers on the film. I will post pictures tomorrow, but the red window is that much above the red windows on the Zeiss 6x4.5 (you may be able to tell from the OP picture). Do the Bessa I owners out there know what films I can and cannot use? So far, Acros is ok, and TMY-2 is out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It turns out that the red window is about 1/4 inch higher than the numbers on the film

That's an interesting development, probably related to Kodak having to re-source their backing paper a few years ago. New paper must have the 6x9 track closer to the edge than the old. It should be possible to predict this if you have access to old backing papers and know what film they came from...

 

[pentaxuser]

Found another surprise. I finished the Acros and decided to shoot TMY-2. Advancing the film, I never saw anything in the red window!

Do the Bessa I owners out there know what films I can and cannot use? So far, Acros is ok, and TMY-2 is out.

Bad luck on this. So as far as I can see there is no way to know what is happening with a Kodak film. However it may be that Donald Qualls is suggesting that there is a way round it but I confess I cannot work out what is

Can you help here with further clarification,Donald?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not really, I was just suggesting that if you had access to backing papers (of known origin) you could measure how far from the edge their 6x9 frame track runs and how wide it is and determine that way whether the Bessa will show the framing in its ruby windows. Given Kodak seems to use the same paper for all their 120 now, it might well be "Fuji yes, Kodak no, Foma yes, Rollei ???" or similar.

@pbromaghin Do you have any idea what the date was on the TMY-2 you tried? I've got five new rolls of TX400 in 120 and a couple cameras that use the 6x9 track, but haven't loaded any yet

 

[pbromaghin]

Thanks for the responses. I do remember seeing some backing paper shown on a website and I can try to hunt that up again. Of course, like Pentaxuser says, that might not mean much for Kodak. The date on the wrapper is 05/2019.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The date on the wrapper is 05/2019.

This is the new backing, then. We know Kodak changed their backing supplier five years or so ago (there were wrapper offset issues for a short time), and the paper was changed again (by the same supplier, AFAIK) to correct the offset problems.

We also know the Bessa's window is further from the film edge than your Zeiss (which probably has the same location as my 532/16, which uses the 6x9 track to start film for 6x6). I've got a Voigtlander older than yours (late 1920s), a Welta 6x9/6x4.5 with the frame masks that uses two windows on the 6x9 track, an Ansco Shur-Shot Jr., a Kodak Bullseye. I think that's everything I own with a 6x9 track window. I'll try to check them soon for distance from edge; it may be something specific to the generation of Bessa you have.

 

[pbromaghin]

I just did a search on the google and there are lots of examples to see and comparisons made. It's getting interesting.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Good (or bad) news is, there may come a day when all 120 backing paper is made by the same factory, then it'll all match. Hopefully it'll still work in all our cameras when it does...

 

[pbromaghin]

Found a 2016 thread that pretty much says it all about the issue. It seems there are 3 positions for 645 and 6x9 and Kodak eliminated 2 of them. They also made the ink on the remaining rows a lot fainter and harder to see.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...per-not-aligning-with-red-window.140801/print