RE: Re: Zero Image 6x9

I've got a Zero 2000 (6x6) camera - and it's great fun. Having said that
I've experienced both the loose take-up winding that David has found and
also 'lens' flare.

The take-up spool first - it seems to be related to the tension on the
spring that puts pressure on the mid-point of the take-up spool (I
believe that the 6x9 uses the same system). The looseness seems to occur
if the spring is not at right angles to the spool - it's held by just
one screw so it can pivot. Alternatively, I heard from another owner
that bending the spring slightly to apply greater pressure to the film
as it winds on also solved the problem.

The lens flare that I got when shooting into the sun (but with it
falling just outside the frame) looked like it was some sort of
refraction or interference from the (relatively) rough edge of the
pinhole. It's hard to describe but gave a rather atractive rainbow halo
effect around where the sun was - I couldn't think of anything else that
would cause it. If anyone wants to see it, please drop me an e-mail to
gazinwsx@yahoo.co.uk and I'll scan it.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
[mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com] On Behalf Of David E
Stichweh
Sent: 17 September 2001 21:43
To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Zero Image 6x9

Following the discussion of lens flare with the Zero Image 6x9 leads me
to relay a
problem I have with my new 6x9. Film wound through the camera does not
wind tightly
on the take-up spool. Film is so loose it sometimes binds and I cannot
wind the last
few frames. Needless to say, loose winding leaves film edges open to
light leaks.
Anyone else experience this problem? If so, have you found a solution?

David

pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com wrote:

> Send Pinhole-Discussion mailing list submissions to
> pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pinhole-discussion
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> pinhole-discussion-admin@pinhole.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Pinhole-Discussion digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: "Lens" Flare... ZeroImage 6x9? (DAlfrey@aol.com)
> 2. Who we are? (Guy Glorieux)
> 3. Re: Who we are? (Jeff Dilcher)
> 4. Re: Determining exposure beyond..................... (Bill
Erickson)
> 5. Who we are? (lva)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: DAlfrey@aol.com
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:03:06 EDT
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] "Lens" Flare... ZeroImage 6x9?
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> In a message dated 9/17/01 9:30:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
> root@hiddenworld.net writes:
>
> << I think they mean "internal" reflection. Does anyone know
> if the newer cameras are less susceptible to flare?
> >>
> I have a Zero Image Multi Format which allows for 6cmX9cm images and
have
> exposed films in the 6cmX9cm mode, and never had any problems with
flare .I
> purchased my camera in the early part of 2001 .
> Hope this may be of help .
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:57:57 -0400
> From: Guy Glorieux <guy.glorieux@sympatico.ca>
> To: Pinhole List <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Who we are?
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> Hey, Gregg!
>
> If you are around and have some free time, what about building a space
> on Pinhole Visions for those who want to identify themselves more
> permanently? Just a thought...
>
> Guy
> "Peace on earth to goodwill men and women"
>
> P.S. For those who don't know me yet, check my exhibition
"Fragments...
> Dreams..." on Pinhole Visions at
> http://www.pinholevisions.org/exhibits/Glorieux/
>
> ...-;) -:)
>
> P.P.S. We need all the -:)) 's we can get these days...
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:18:54 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jeff Dilcher <root@hiddenworld.net>
> To: Pinhole List <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Who we are?
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> I like that idea.
> I'll include an ascii art self portrait of myself...
>
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Guy Glorieux wrote:
>
> > Hey, Gregg!
> >
> > If you are around and have some free time, what about building a
space
> > on Pinhole Visions for those who want to identify themselves more
> > permanently? Just a thought...
> >
> > Guy
> > "Peace on earth to goodwill men and women"
> >
> > P.S. For those who don't know me yet, check my exhibition
"Fragments...
> > Dreams..." on Pinhole Visions at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/exhibits/Glorieux/
> >
> > ...-;) -:)
> >
> > P.P.S. We need all the -:)) 's we can get these days...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
> >
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> From: "Bill Erickson" <erickson@hickorytech.net>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Determining exposure
beyond.....................
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:19:21 -0500
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> I've had no experience with ilford HP%, and each BW film has it's own
> requirement. my general advice is expose longer than you think
necessary
> and it'll probably be OK. The reciprocity failure you're trying to
> compensate for in fact buffers the overexposure error.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rune Tallaksen" <tallaks@alfanett.no>
> To: "Pinhole-Discussion" <pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 11:01 AM
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Determining exposure
> beyond.....................
>
> > Hi list!
> >
> > Can anybody help me with how to determine exposure when correcting
for
> > resiprosity failure when the measured esposuretime exceeds that of
the
> table
> > from the filmvendor?
> >
> > For instance when using Ilford HP5 Plus, the film data sheet gives
the
> added
> > time for resiprosity failure until initial measured 35
secs(corrected for
> > pinhole f stop). How can I calculate the "correct" exposure time
beyond
> this
> > point? Tiral and error until now has not been satisfactory for me.
> >
> > Any help will be appreciated.
> >
> > Rune
> > Norway
> >
> > __\/__
> > ./ ^ _ \.
> > |\|(o)(o)|/|
> > #------------------.OOOo--oo--oOOO.--------------------#
> > # Rune Tallaksen #
> > # #
> > # #
> > #---------------------------Oooo.----------------------#
> > .oooO ( )
> > ( ) )/
> > \( (_/
> > \_)
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> > Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> > unsubscribe or change your account at
> > http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
> >
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:23 +0200
> From: "lva" <lva@pamho.net>
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Who we are?
> Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
>
> > Hey, Gregg!
> >
> > If you are around and have some free time, what about building a
space
> > on Pinhole Visions for those who want to identify themselves more
> > permanently? Just a thought...
>
> Pictures of the members of the list would also be great. When I read a
> good post, I always wonder how the person looks like who's written the
> text.
>
> Greetings from Sweden
>
> Brahma
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
>
> End of Pinhole-Discussion Digest

_______________________________________________
Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
unsubscribe or change your account at
http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
Received on Mon Sep 17 17:58:13 2001