[pure-silver] Re: Mercury I and Direct Positive paper
- From: <mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:19:52 -0800
My first 35mm camera was Mercury. I bought it in a pawn shop in NYC 56 years
ago. I still have one print remaining from that time. The camera worked
excellently. I really appreciated the fact it was half frame with 72
exposures to the roll, because film and processing was my biggest expense.
The rotary shutter went to 1/1000 sec. In my eyes the camera was a treasure.
For two summers I packed in my saddle bags while horse back riding up an
down the Teton valley in North western Wyoming. My father passed away and I
inherited his Rollei TLR and the Mercury sat unused. At that time I started
processing and printing my 120 negatives. I recently gave the Rollei TLR to
my daughter.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:11 AM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Mercury I and Direct Positive paper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chauncey Walden" <clwaldeniii@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:19 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Mercury I and Direct Positive
paper
> On 1/12/2011 2:47 PM, Martin magid wrote:
>> A couple of months ago I got a Mercury I cameta at an
>> estate sale for a very low price, had it CLAd by my usual
>> repair guy, got an extra spool and a flash unit from the
>> internet, and love the looks and smoothness of operation
>> of the camera. Everything works. The camera was made to
>> use Univex 200 film, a 35 mm rollfilm with a paper
>> backing. I could probably wind some 35 mm film onto the
>> supply spool, but decided to try it out with a strip of
>> Direct Positive paper (from Freestyle) across the film
>> plane. I attached a 10" length of the paper to both
>> spools, and took photos at increasing exposures.
>>
>> The best photo, slightly Photoshopped, is at
>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/12103-1217/?saved=1>
>>
>> All comments and suggestions are welcome. I will next
>> wind a roll of 35 mm film into it, but probably won't
>> know the results until after March 1.
>>
> Hi Marty,
> I have never used anything but regular 35 film in my
> Mercury II. Perhaps it was designed for it. I just pulled
> a sheet I shot on Ektachrome and they are sharp as a tack
> and perfectly and evenly exposed. These were surprisingly
> good cameras.
> Chauncey
If this is the camera with the rotary focal plane
shutter they were designed to use standard 35mm film. I
think they were half-frame. The manufacturer, Universal
Camera Co. specialized in making cheap cameras for the mass
market. They also made binoculars under contract for the
Navy during WW-2 and possibly other things. The company went
through several re-incarnations but did not survive. I have
not looked for history on the web but there proabaly is
some.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
