[rollei_list] Re: ...Rolleikin
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:58:34 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 7:41 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: ...Rolleikin
BTW Richard, your detailed explanation about the Rolleikin
working is
very interesting, I always thought and think it's a very
ingenious
accesory. I only use it with the 2.8C because I have the
"Rolleikin C"
set dedicated to cameras with 35mm film counter from factory
like the
2.8 C,D,E and firsts Tele-Rolleiflexes and then it does not
include
the film counter knob. I'm thinking about to buy a set with
this
counter to use with the 3.5F and 'cord IV.
According "The Practical Accesories" booklet, Rolleiflex
above sn
1100000 and Rolleicord above sn 1137000 can use the
Rolleikin 2
versions that include the double picture size back. Firsts
cameras
above the mentioned numbers were still provided with the one
size
picture back, but they can receive the double size back to
work with
the Rolleikin 2. Earlier cameras can use the Rolleikin 1
with the
special back.
Carlos
Rollei sold a replacement back for older cameras so
that the Rolleikin could be used with them. This is not to
be confused with the first version of the Rolleikin which
came with a replacement back. I've forgotten the details.
The Rolleikin is a very ingenious and elegant device.
Its simple and reliable and easy to install.
The problem when buying a Rolleikin is that most of the
kits are missing the counter knob and those with it are
expensive. I was lucky to find a Rolleicord IV which already
had the knob on it. In fact the fellow I bought it from
wanted the knob back! I have a Rolleikin for this camera
and one for my 2.8E which came with the knob from the
factory.
One must be careful in composing when using the
Rolleikin, at least on cameras like mine the parallax
correction is no longer effective. Rollei compensates for
this by limiting the area shown by the finder mask to one
that insures that everything visible on the ground glass
will appear on the film but precise vertical composition is
not possible. The same for the sports finder mask but those
are not expected to be precise to begin with. I think in
cameras with removable hoods that the accessory mask moves
with the parallax compensator.
BTW, the wedge idea will not work with 220 film because
the film runs pretty much the full width of the rollers.
There is probably another way to inactivate the roller but
I've not figured out how to do it.
A note on early color film: Kodachrome and Agfacolor
became available for 35mm cameras sometime in the late
1930s. Kodachrome was initially available only in 16mm
motion picture film (1935) but the method of processing it
was changed about a year later and other sizes began to be
available. The name Kodachrome was used earlier for another
type of film. Agfacolor was also a recycled name. The
mulilayer film was also released sometime in the late 1930s.
It was a much more sophisticated film than Kodachrome but
the color quality was not as good as Kodachrome. Agfacolor
was a "modern" color film in that the "couplers" or dye
precursors were incorporated in the emulsions. Agfa used
very long chain molecules attached to the dye molecules to
prevent their wandering in the emulsion. Kodak had problems
with accomplishing this so that Kodachrome had three plain
B&W emulsions with the couplers in the processing solutions.
This resulted in a very complex pocessing system where
Agfacolor was no more complex than modern films. Kodak
eventually found another method of sequestering the
couplers; the use of encapsulating them in an oily resin.
The color developer had alcohol or other solvent in it to
allow access of the developer to the dye couplers. Kodak
used this method for Kodacolor and later for Ektacolor and
Ektachrome. Agfa and others used the Agfa system and both
types of films were on the market for many years. I now
can't remember which system survives but think its the Kodak
system.
Another BTW, until Ektacolor and Ektachrome were
released in the late 1940's Kodak made Kodachrome in sheet
film up to 11x14.
Kodak had begun to make special versions of Kodachrome
for duplicating purposes by the late 1940s and some was used
by Technicolor for camera originals where the big color
separation cameras were either too big or too slow although
late Technicolor was about as fast as Kodachrome, about
equivalent to ISO 10. The main difference in these special
films was contrast. Normal Kodachrome is quite high in
contrast, intended for direct viewing or projection, the
special version for duplicating was much lower in contrast.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
