Folders with auto spacing

[xya]

there is a very simple solution for correct spacing on a less known camera, the certo super sport dolly.

having advanced the film via the red window to "1", you lift the advance knob and put the number "1" at the index mark. after each photo you make one full term plus the way to the next number (except 11 and 12, where it's less than a full term, the roll being thicker). on the picture it is on "4". works like a charm. I don't know why other camera makers didn't use the same system.

 

[xya]

There is probably something wrong with the counter on mine, then, as it doesn’t work consistently. Do you know if there is a service manual?

I have not seen one yet....

 

[Helge]

All Super Ikonta models have coupled rangefinder; as far as I know, only the B versions have frame counters; originally, I believe, this was done because in tween-Wars Germany Zeiss couldn't count on their customers being able to get 120 film with a 6x6 framing track. All 120, ever, had 6x9 numbers, so they designed around that. The Super Ikonta A (6x4.5) has dual windows on the 6x9 track, as is common for early 6x4.5 cameras, and the C version (the prototype for the Moskva 3, 4, and 5, as well) used the original 6x9 (Moskva 5 had a 6x6 mask and alternative window on the 6x6 track, but was made from the mid-1950s when that was standard). Another (rather uncommon and fairly expensive) frame-counting 6x6 is the Suzuki Press Van -- the dual format, 6x6 and 35mm version had frame counting from a start mark (no red window offered or needed, and it switched to 36mm frame size in 35mm mode) and coupled RF.



A frame counter is much less complex, has fewer and more robust parts than a leaf shutter, and none of the parts need to operate in a few (tens of) milliseconds. Yet we have thousands of leaf shutters from a century ago that still work, within reason. As for RF, the oldest example I have is the Kalart on my Anniversary Speed Graphic, which I've been told is vintage ca. 1938 -- and not only does it still work, I was able to adjust it with just a set of precision screwdrivers to match the lens I mounted on the camera. That RF, the one in my Super Ikonta B (with its very functional frame counter), as well as all my 1950s to 1970s vintage 35mm RF cameras, and the ones on a couple Polaroids I own or have owned, have given no problems. Even in cameras where the leaf shutters don't work, for one reason or another.

I'm a lot less worried about shutters, frame counters, and rangefinders failing than I am about the electronics in more modern cameras.

Nevertheless auto framing is one of the features in folders, that is often reported as faulty or flaky.

Apart from worn out, misaligned or broken mechanisms, film thickness and length of leader paper, has changed over the years, sometimes making the auto feature not work as intended.

Having the auto spacing skip one frame by design or accident is just not worth it.
It’s always inconvenient and just plain stupid.

Auto spacing is right at the bottom of my checklist when looking for a folder.
I’d rather have even double exposure prevention than auto spacing.
And I’d much rather have better optics and a rangefinder than auto spacing.

One of the great charms and advantages of 120 film is exactly the printed numbers.
It makes framing and advance absolutely sure, almost free not to speak of compact to implement on any camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Honestly, I'd rather not have double exposure prevention. I learned to advance film immediately after exposing before 1970 -- but on the (very) rare occasion when I want a double exposure (I think I've done it twice in fifty years) I don't want to have to fight the camera. An example is trying to get a double out of nearly any 35mm. The only ones I have in which that's easy to do are my Jubilette (Compur shutter. no interlock, manual advance release), and my pair of Pony 135 (similar shutter, manual advance release) -- and maybe my Motormatic, if I'm not shooting with the motor wound (and I'd have to go look to be sure). OTOH, even with the protection in my 532/16, it's easy enough to shoot a second time on the same frame (same way I make the exposure if I forgot to cock the shutter and the body release locks: a fingertip from the side of the bed on the release lever). Old Duaflexes make it impossible -- and Brownie Hawkeyes make it easy.

All versions of the RB67 have easy double exposures, if you want them; the older versions have little to prevent it, but even the ProSD allows easily defeating the interlock. In large format, interlocks are unheard of.

For my money, interlocks are for people who aren't paying attention to what they're doing.

FWIW, I've never had a problem with the frame counter on my Super Ikonta -- the spacing isn't perfect, because it's old and has some wear in the gear train and stop wheel, and yes, film is thinner now -- but not so much that it overlaps. By today's standards, the f/2.9 Tessar isn't that great a lens (a little soft, especially in the corners, if you shoot wide open), but it gets the job done and the camera is lighter and much more compact than my Reflex II, not to mention quicker to operate.

 

[MattKing]

One of the great charms and advantages of 120 film is exactly the printed numbers.
It makes framing and advance absolutely sure, almost free not to speak of compact to implement on any camera.

Except for those film manufacturers (Kodak primarily) that, due to problems with modern emulsions, ink and backing paper, have been forced in recent years to change how many (and where) the sets of numbers are being printed on the backing paper, and how visible the numbers are.
As an example, about 105 years ago Kodak designed the then new 120 film format and a camera for it. As of about 5 years ago, if you have one of those cameras it won't work with Kodak film, because the row of numbers that used to match up with the window on that camera are no longer printed on the backing paper.
I know - made obsolete 100 years after manufacture - damned planned obsolescence!

 

[baachitraka]

My Holga 120 does that...err it dosen't.

 

[Donald Qualls]

about 105 years ago Kodak designed the then new 120 film format and a camera for it. As of about 5 years ago, if you have one of those cameras it won't work with Kodak film, because the row of numbers that used to match up with the window on that camera are no longer printed on the backing paper.

This must be a very long-term plot on the part of Voigtlander -- my 93 year old Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera has a little extension on the red window that widens the range of 6x9 framing track positions it can show -- with the result that I never even noticed the change in Kodak film (well, okay, that might also have been because I hardly ever shoot Kodak film due to costs, though the next roll that camera gets is likely to be brand new Tri-X).

 

[Helge]

Honestly, I'd rather not have double exposure prevention. I learned to advance film immediately after exposing before 1970 -- but on the (very) rare occasion when I want a double exposure (I think I've done it twice in fifty years) I don't want to have to fight the camera. An example is trying to get a double out of nearly any 35mm. The only ones I have in which that's easy to do are my Jubilette (Compur shutter. no interlock, manual advance release), and my pair of Pony 135 (similar shutter, manual advance release) -- and maybe my Motormatic, if I'm not shooting with the motor wound (and I'd have to go look to be sure). OTOH, even with the protection in my 532/16, it's easy enough to shoot a second time on the same frame (same way I make the exposure if I forgot to cock the shutter and the body release locks: a fingertip from the side of the bed on the release lever). Old Duaflexes make it impossible -- and Brownie Hawkeyes make it easy.

All versions of the RB67 have easy double exposures, if you want them; the older versions have little to prevent it, but even the ProSD allows easily defeating the interlock. In large format, interlocks are unheard of.

For my money, interlocks are for people who aren't paying attention to what they're doing.

FWIW, I've never had a problem with the frame counter on my Super Ikonta -- the spacing isn't perfect, because it's old and has some wear in the gear train and stop wheel, and yes, film is thinner now -- but not so much that it overlaps. By today's standards, the f/2.9 Tessar isn't that great a lens (a little soft, especially in the corners, if you shoot wide open), but it gets the job done and the camera is lighter and much more compact than my Reflex II, not to mention quicker to operate.

There is the very common situation, of you having wound the film just before taking a shot (as you should) and then deciding not to take it after all (which indicates a good photographer), waiting some time and forgetting whether you wound the film or not.
That is in user interface design parlance called a mode error. Something to be avoided at all costs.

As you mention, on most folders you will easily be able to trigger a double exposure, by using the release on the shutter itself.
Then there is no mode and nothing to get confused by or forget.

Shaming the user for human nature, having normal cognition and “not paying attention”, is unfortunately a cheap old trick from lazy engineers.

 

[Helge]

Except for those film manufacturers (Kodak primarily) that, due to problems with modern emulsions, ink and backing paper, have been forced in recent years to change how many (and where) the sets of numbers are being printed on the backing paper, and how visible the numbers are.
As an example, about 105 years ago Kodak designed the then new 120 film format and a camera for it. As of about 5 years ago, if you have one of those cameras it won't work with Kodak film, because the row of numbers that used to match up with the window on that camera are no longer printed on the backing paper.
I know - made obsolete 100 years after manufacture - damned planned obsolescence!

I haven’t had any problems with red window cameras.
I bet the problem could be worked around easily if you insist on shooting hundred year old 6x9 cameras though.
Wind a bit further.
Blind wind and sacrifice a frame to be sure.
Write your own marks in a darkroom from a template.
Etc.

 

[Donald Qualls]

having wound the film just before taking a shot (as you should) and then deciding not to take it after all (which indicates a good photographer), waiting some time and forgetting whether you wound the film or not.
That is in user interface design parlance called a mode error.

This is the exact reason I was taught to wind immediately after exposing -- not to mention it avoids forgetting to wind before if you have a sudden opportunity and are concentrating on (scale?) focus, exposure settings, framing and timing. I'm aware of the arguments about why to do it your way (opening the folder may "suck" the film away from the pressure plate, resulting in any unsharp image -- pretty much the only one that might hold any water and I don't think it does). I'm also aware that, with film that just came out of a tightly rolled supply and might have been so rolled for a couple years before use, even if still in date, the difference in flatness is likely negligible. Doing it my way, with a 6x9 folders, I've had many very sharp images first exposure after opening the camera (which is the one that "ought to be" unsharp, by that argument).

 

[abruzzi]

The Zeiss Super Ikonta 532/16 arrived today, and it doesn't work. At least film advance doesn't work. I reread the manual to ensure that I am doing the correct thing, but the film advance is locked, and the only thing that unlocks it, is pressing and holding the shutter release and simultaneously turning the advance. I'm a little baffled by how the linkage is supposed to function. I've been testing with a roll of backing paper without film, which I'm glad I did. What I've done so far, is load the film, cock and depress the shutter. While holding it depressed, I can advance the film until the "1" is visible in the window. The I close the window, and while still holding the shutter depressed, I press and advance the frame counter past "11". Then I can release the shutter and finish advancing until it stops at "1". If I cock the shutter now, it fires correctly, but it doesn't release the advance. The only way I can get it to allow me to advance is to hold the shutter down and turn the advance wheel, but that doesn't advance the frame counter.

If I can't figure out whats wrong, this is going back.

 

[hsandler]

This is the exact reason I was taught to wind immediately after exposing -- not to mention it avoids forgetting to wind before if you have a sudden opportunity and are concentrating on (scale?) focus, exposure settings, framing and timing. I'm aware of the arguments about why to do it your way (opening the folder may "suck" the film away from the pressure plate, resulting in any unsharp image -- pretty much the only one that might hold any water and I don't think it does). I'm also aware that, with film that just came out of a tightly rolled supply and might have been so rolled for a couple years before use, even if still in date, the difference in flatness is likely negligible. Doing it my way, with a 6x9 folders, I've had many very sharp images first exposure after opening the camera (which is the one that "ought to be" unsharp, by that argument).

Another reason to wind after unfolding and just before taking the shot is that there is less chance of dust from inside the bellows settling on the unexposed film. This is more of an issue with the first few rolls in old used cameras that have been sitting around, but those are precisely the cameras I buy.

I'm not a fan of auto stop winding on old Zeiss cameras. I had a Super Ikonta IV which worked perfectly; however, frame spacing was a problem because Zeiss designed the winder for the specific thickness of their house brand film and backing paper, so thin modern films (I like Fuji Acros) cause issues.

 

[Helge]

This is the exact reason I was taught to wind immediately after exposing -- not to mention it avoids forgetting to wind before if you have a sudden opportunity and are concentrating on (scale?) focus, exposure settings, framing and timing. I'm aware of the arguments about why to do it your way (opening the folder may "suck" the film away from the pressure plate, resulting in any unsharp image -- pretty much the only one that might hold any water and I don't think it does). I'm also aware that, with film that just came out of a tightly rolled supply and might have been so rolled for a couple years before use, even if still in date, the difference in flatness is likely negligible. Doing it my way, with a 6x9 folders, I've had many very sharp images first exposure after opening the camera (which is the one that "ought to be" unsharp, by that argument).

Unless you pay too much mind to unimportant things (like rigorous winding discipline), and no matter at what time you wind the film, there will invariably be situations where you are unsure whether to wind or not.

You might not have had time to wind. You might have shot a series where you forgot to wind after the last, etc.

Double exposure prevention, is in line with auto erection and self timer in usefulness. Mundane and taken for granted often. But very useful.

 

[Helge]

Another reason to wind after unfolding and just before taking the shot is that there is less chance of dust from inside the bellows settling on the unexposed film. This is more of an issue with the first few rolls in old used cameras that have been sitting around, but those are precisely the cameras I buy.

I'm not a fan of auto stop winding on old Zeiss cameras. I had a Super Ikonta IV which worked perfectly; however, frame spacing was a problem because Zeiss designed the winder for the specific thickness of their house brand film and backing paper, so thin modern films (I like Fuji Acros) cause issues.

There are other good reasons besides the ones already listed.
Off the top of my head:

The film will suck moisture more readily and potentially buckle, if out of the roll for a long time.

The first and last frame will be unnecessarily exposed to imperceptibly small light leaks. This is especially bad for these frame as they are the ones most likely to sit longest.
IE after loading the camera is prepared to shoot, but is in transit or just sitting. The last frame will tend to be saved for that special “thing” or until a suitable pit stop for roll change is in sight.

 

[Helge]

The Zeiss Super Ikonta 532/16 arrived today, and it doesn't work. At least film advance doesn't work. I reread the manual to ensure that I am doing the correct thing, but the film advance is locked, and the only thing that unlocks it, is pressing and holding the shutter release and simultaneously turning the advance. I'm a little baffled by how the linkage is supposed to function. I've been testing with a roll of backing paper without film, which I'm glad I did. What I've done so far, is load the film, cock and depress the shutter. While holding it depressed, I can advance the film until the "1" is visible in the window. The I close the window, and while still holding the shutter depressed, I press and advance the frame counter past "11". Then I can release the shutter and finish advancing until it stops at "1". If I cock the shutter now, it fires correctly, but it doesn't release the advance. The only way I can get it to allow me to advance is to hold the shutter down and turn the advance wheel, but that doesn't advance the frame counter.

If I can't figure out whats wrong, this is going back.

It might have a feeler that feels for the bump where the film starts.
Try with real film, if all fails you can take both rolls out in the dark and rewind by hand.

 

[Alan9940]

I'm not a fan of auto stop winding on old Zeiss cameras. I had a Super Ikonta IV which worked perfectly; however, frame spacing was a problem because Zeiss designed the winder for the specific thickness of their house brand film and backing paper, so thin modern films (I like Fuji Acros) cause issues.

If you tape about a 3 inch length of old backing paper to the beginning of the film, spacing shouldn't be a problem. I've done this with my Super Ikonta III for years with no spacing issues.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Double exposure prevention, is in line with auto erection and self timer in usefulness. Mundane and taken for granted often. But very useful.

And there you put double exposure prevention with two other features that don't matter to me. I have auto-erecting cameras, but my favorite 6x9 is "fully manual" -- open the bed and pull out the front standard to the infinity stop. And I've probably used self-timers (more often an Autoknips than a built-in, because I always seem to be using a camera that doesn't have one when I need one) about as often as I've made intentional double exposures.

It might have a feeler that feels for the bump where the film starts.
Try with real film, if all fails you can take both rolls out in the dark and rewind by hand.

I have a 532/16, my "walking around" 6x6 -- it does not have a film feeler. You load the film like any 120 camera, advance to put the 1 in the red window (which is on the 6x9 track, meaning you can't just continue to use it, unless 8 on a roll is acceptable for a 6x6 camera), push down the counter wheel and rotate until it stops at 1, and then the counter is set. After frame 11, it goes free and you wind through the tail. Nothing very complicated about loading it.

 

[hsandler]

If you tape about a 3 inch length of old backing paper to the beginning of the film, spacing shouldn't be a problem. I've done this with my Super Ikonta III for years with no spacing issues.

I tried this using masking tape rather than backing paper, and while it did help, it didn't solve the problem completely, as the winder was designed for the thickness to build up gradually at a certain rate, while adding the tape adds all the missing thickness at the beginning, so spacing was too much at the beginning, and then decreased to normal later. I tended to lose part of the last frame. And it was just another fiddly thing which varied with film type. Anyway, I ended up selling the Super Ikonta IV, as the prices on the used market were just too good as a seller to resist. I recently bought these two Nettars (a 6x6 and a 6x9) with simple red windows, which I actually prefer. Here's some camera porn with them, just because.


The age of chrome by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

 

[grat]

As an example, about 105 years ago Kodak designed the then new 120 film format and a camera for it. As of about 5 years ago, if you have one of those cameras it won't work with Kodak film, because the row of numbers that used to match up with the window on that camera are no longer printed on the backing paper.

I recently shot a roll of Portra 400, and it appears to have three rows of 6x9 numbers (along with 1 each of 6x4.5 and 6x6). They're now gray instead of black, and a pain to read through a red window, but they are there. Watching some videos for the Brownie 2, it looks like the window would use one of those rows (the second one, maybe?).

Did Kodak revert the change?

 

[MattKing]

I recently shot a roll of Portra 400, and it appears to have three rows of 6x9 numbers (along with 1 each of 6x4.5 and 6x6). They're now gray instead of black, and a pain to read through a red window, but they are there. Watching some videos for the Brownie 2, it looks like the window would use one of those rows (the second one, maybe?).

Did Kodak revert the change?

What was the "Develop Before" date of the film?
They tried a number of different things when they were struggling with the problem. The single row of 6x6 and 6x4.5 numbers indicates that yours is one of the changed backing papers, but whether it is the most recent (final?) version, may depend on that date.

 

[xya]

I have a simple rule: if shutter cocking and film advance are linked, I usually do this immediately after taking a picture. a camera like the fuji GS 645 would even be dammaged, if folded without shutter cocking. if they are not linked, as in most older cameras, I advance the film, but I do not cock the shutter. older shutters are better stored uncocked. if they have short speeds, the short speeds have to be set before cocking. and you don't know for your next picture. a moskva 5 must not be folded with cocked shutter, it hits the mechanism. and if I have a doubt about having advanced the film or not: I just advance and eventually lose a photo...

 

[grat]

What was the "Develop Before" date of the film?
They tried a number of different things when they were struggling with the problem. The single row of 6x6 and 6x4.5 numbers indicates that yours is one of the changed backing papers, but whether it is the most recent (final?) version, may depend on that date.

02/2022. It's a *very* new roll of film, purchased a couple months ago.

 

[Helge]

I tried this using masking tape rather than backing paper, and while it did help, it didn't solve the problem completely, as the winder was designed for the thickness to build up gradually at a certain rate, while adding the tape adds all the missing thickness at the beginning, so spacing was too much at the beginning, and then decreased to normal later. I tended to lose part of the last frame. And it was just another fiddly thing which varied with film type. Anyway, I ended up selling the Super Ikonta IV, as the prices on the used market were just too good as a seller to resist. I recently bought these two Nettars (a 6x6 and a 6x9) with simple red windows, which I actually prefer. Here's some camera porn with them, just because.


The age of chrome by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

The postwar Nettar is the smart mans choice.
You want to stop down when shooting folders for a number of reasons.
If there is not enough light, create it if indoors or use a tripod (which needn’t be big or heavy because the folder is very light).

Now I have some Ikontas with Tessars, but only because I had them for the same price as a Nettar, and to tell you the truth I can’t see the difference in resolution, edge sharpness or vignetting.
Not with a really good scan and not with darkroom printing.

With the Nettars you can choose a good condition body from a much larger pool, structurally and cosmetically, without paying out of the nose.

At 3.5 or 2.8 you have such a small DoF that it’s really going to be very hit and miss whether you hit the sliver of space.
Even, or perhaps especially with a rangefinder (Because you chose to trust blindly a pretty fuzzy, ambiguous instrument for the close range (where it really matters) without measuring with a tape or laser RF).

4.5 on a Novar is actually very respectable in the middle two quarters of the frame.
Blur and separation is what you want or have to work with at those apertures anyway, just don’t put your subjects interesting parts right up against the edge of the frame.
Stopping down to 5.6 quickly tightens up the whole frame.
And at 8 it’s superb while still giving nice pleasing DoF separation with close ups.

You never ever need to worry about separation with a Novar either. Something not very uncommon with the Tessars.

 

[Alan9940]

I tried this using masking tape rather than backing paper, and while it did help, it didn't solve the problem completely, as the winder was designed for the thickness to build up gradually at a certain rate, while adding the tape adds all the missing thickness at the beginning, so spacing was too much at the beginning, and then decreased to normal later.

Yep, I tried all the tricks, including the masking tape, but the old film paper backing is what solved it with my Super Ikonta III. I wouldn't say the spacing is perfect, but I haven't had an overlapped frame in years. I suppose the individual camera's transport mechanism could make a difference in what works or not. Anyway, the backing paper trick is certainly fiddly, but I love the small size of this camera when running the trails in the desert; stuff it in a cargo pocket or a small hip pouch and I'm good to go!