Rolleiflex TLR questions

[Uhner]

A few months ago I bought a Rolleiflex TLR and I have two rather trifling questions regarding this camera.

I have unsuccessfully tried to identify the model of the camera because I can’t find any serial number on the body. One possibility that might explain this is that my example is made up from parts from different models. My guess however, based on the features and details of the camera, is that it is a 2.8 E2 or E3. It has a removable focusing hood, a Gossen selenium light meter and a 2.8 Zeiss Planar taking lens with serial number 34967xx in a Synchro-Compur shutter. It lacks several details of the F models. I wonder if anyone recognise the model of this particular camera?

My next question concerns another small, but rather odd problem. On a few of the several hundred exposures that I have made with the camera so far there is a three millimetre high, perfectly vertical and uniform part of added density on the base of the negatives. I might add that there is no apparent fogging outside the exposed part of the film. What is going on here?

[tony lockerbie]

Hi, I don't have a list of Zeiss serial numbers to date your camera but there will be a number on the top just behind the name plate as you look down from above. If I had this number I can give you the exact model and date it was made. Also this serial number will be prefixed by the model no. anyway, such as 2.8f ..... or 2.8e..... etc. The lightmeters were available as an option on all these cameras and could also be retro fitted by the factory.
The fogging may be caused by one of the shutter blades "hanging" a little, ie, not closing as quickly as the others. I had a similar problem with a Voigtlander Bessa and it took ages to work it out because, like yours, it was very intermittent.
A shutter CLA would cure that problem for you. How are the slow speeds?
This is where any problem usually surfaces first.
Hope this helps, Tony

[Uhner]

Thanks Tony. Apparently its time for a CLA…

I have a Rolleiflex Automat that has the serial number where you indicate – but on my 2.8 there is nothing but smooth, black metal to be seen.

[dpurdy]

On my old 2.8E2 which I wish I hadn't sold the serial number is actually below the taking lens, and it clearly states E2 235something. There is no way you would miss that so I think you must have as you say a camera with a new faceplate or something. If you have managed to make several hundred exposures and the lenses agree and you get sharp images then I guess I wouldn't worry about that too much. I can't quite imagine your verticle mark. Is it in the image area, Is it always with the same batch of the same film? I don't see how a shutter hanging up would cause a verticle mark.

the body of an E2 or 3 was made to be able to use the optical glass back. If your camera has a chrome pin about in the middle on the right side of the film gate as you are looking in the camera with the camera back open then the body is from E2 or E3 or the earlier Fs.

[Nick Merritt]

The added density on certain negatives that you mention is odd -- and it would not be caused by the shutter, since this is a leaf shutter and not a focal plane shutter as with the Bessa. Yes, I would recommend that it's due for maintenance, and maybe the repairer can tell you just what model your camera might be. But your theory that it has been assembled from more than one, Frankenstein's monster style, might be right.

[luvcameras]

Here is my Rolleiflex TLR Price and Info Guide

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm

Body Serial #'s are usually on the front, top edge of the Waist Level Finder or under the taking lens.

If your camera's serial is below taking lens, its an E2.

Dan

[Rolleiflexible]

Here are two charts of Rolleiflex serial numbers for identifying and dating your camera:

http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm

http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm

Another site with useful identifying information:

http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead...ollection.html
http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead...ollection.html

If the camera has a removable hood but no coupled exposure meter, then it's an E2 or E3. If it has a removable hood and a coupled meter, then it's probably an F.

Regarding the strip of added density: Does it run across the bottom of the frame, across the bottom of the image? As in this image?

http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...00&ppuser=5854

If so, then it is flare that occurs in images where you have a strong light source in the frame. (In the linked photo, it is the back wall, which has a ton of light bouncing off of it.) What is happening is that light escapes across the bottom of the film gate and reflects off the chrome roller below it, and is bounced onto the bottom of the next frame of film. So it never happens to the first frame on the roll, but can appear as a sliver of exposed area above the last frame of the roll.

There's no good fix for this. I have lessened it by placing a sliver of gaffers tape on the bottom film gate, immediately in front of the roller, in an effort to block the light from hitting the roller. But you have to be careful not to put in too much or you risk scratching the film.

This is a subject that has roiled the Rollei Users Group over on Yahoo -- a couple of people take it personally over there if you suggest that any aspect of the Rolleiflex might be less than perfect. All the same it is a great group of photographers, and you should join if you are shooting a Rolleiflex: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rolleiusers

Sanders McNew

[Uhner]

Many thank for all your answers.

Sanders: you are spot on. The added density ‘runs across the bottom of the frame, across the bottom of the image.’ I checked my negatives and the added density only seems to appear on frames following after an exposure of a strongly backlit scene.

I might add that photographing a backlit scene does not equate that the following frame will have the strip of added density. I recently travelled in Transylvania, which apparently is the land of backlit scenes, and on 15 exposed rolls of film from that trip I have only found three negatives with added density.

[Rolleiflexible]

Uhner, you are right -- it does not happen in every frame. It is most likely to happen when the light source is unimpeded at the top of the frame, so, if the backlight is in the center or bottom of the frame, it will not likely bleed into the next frame. Film spacing can save you occasionally. If you shoot a lot of backlit subjects, you should try my fix of laying a thin strip or two of black tape on the bottom of the film gate, and see if that helps. Sanders

[dpurdy]

Ah the Rollei roller reflection. Personally I don't think it is a matter of light quality as much a light quantity. I believe the light is always there but usually not enough to cause the density. I personally don't think the light has to be flare light. I know for instance that the Planar and the Xenotar flare differently yet when you do a side by side film test (which I have done) the roller reflection mark is identical from both. For me fortunately the spacing on my film usually puts the mark just outside the image.

The FX with the black rollers does not have this problem.

I think it should be looked at like messy black edges and polaroid paper, just part of the art.
Dennis