Traveling Lubitel (directors cut)

Kev M said:
Nothing unusual Tom, Joxby never got his travelling Cack back from when he sent it out and this one has gone relatively smoothly compared to the first time it did the rounds.
Click to expand...


Cack...Cack !!, waddya mean Cack, it wasn't that bad...:LOL:
 
lubitel should be with you today?

i asked my mum to post it as i was away camping but she didnt get round to it and then i was working.

i messaged kev to apologise and sent it special delivery so it was there quicker and to save any more hassle.

sorry guys. :bang:
 
Camera has arrived safe and sound with me. Will try to develop and scan sometime this week if possible.
 
Well after much faffing (I'm having trouble with all of my reels at the minute, for some reason the film goes on so far then jams, any ideas?) I've developed the film. There's a heady mixture of nice shots, heavily over exposed, heavily under exposed, film wound on without firing, film not wound on far enough/too far for the next frame etc etc.

I'll try and get them scanned tomorrow.
 
:popcorn:

Congrats on a quick turnaround for a change
 
I hope that it turns out OK Kev.

I am sorry if I am to blame for any of the above problems mentioned in Kev's last post.

I AM EXCITED THOUGH.
 
I should be able to get it scanned tonight, won't take long as there's only about 3 "photos" on there. I have to confess to making a slight mess of the developing though. I've been using the colleges patterson tanks all weekend which take 500ml per film. About 10 seconds into development I remembered that my Jessops tank uses 600ml so I quickly made up some more and poored it in so you can see a slight line where part of the film is under-developed. Soz.
 
not to worry, it gave people a chance to have a wee play with a new (old) camera which i for one appreciate.

lets hope we get something out of it mind!
 
Inspired by the fact that the lubitel actually made it home Im wondering if people would be interested in a travelling Kiev rangefinder. I could load it with colour 35mm so it's easy to process and gives a few more chances of getting exposures. I've got a 35mm f2.8 lens to stick on it as well?

Can't wait to see the results of the lubitel btw, nice to see the TLR getting a go (y)
 
Kev M said:
I should be able to get it scanned tonight, won't take long as there's only about 3 "photos" on there. I have to confess to making a slight mess of the developing though. I've been using the colleges patterson tanks all weekend which take 500ml per film. About 10 seconds into development I remembered that my Jessops tank uses 600ml so I quickly made up some more and poored it in so you can see a slight line where part of the film is under-developed. Soz.
Click to expand...


I think we need to get Aleksandras Babi to give us a good translation of how this ruski thing works.
 
Well they're scanned but they're on the PC with no internet so I'll transfer them to the laptop and post them tomorrow. I think somebody/people have opened the back at some point as there's some funny things going on with the film and there are some frames wrecked by what appears to be fogging.

I only hope that whoever has opened it up has only wrecked their own shots and not those of the people either side of them (if it has been opened of course ;))
 
Ok here goes. First up are scans of the strips so you can see exactly what I had to start with. Then there's the frames that had recogniseable photos in them. They#re straight scans as I'm a bit pushed for time to do any PP on them. Apologies once again for cocking the development up.

3886705342_5598239d0c_o.jpg


3886705314_6beecfce00_o.jpg


3885908399_b1a5710403_o.jpg


3885908419_8b52f3f908_o.jpg


3885908435_f9ea5609de_o.jpg
 
1.
3885908355_c9f66c11e3_o.jpg


2. Cheeky little double exposure here.
3885908295_ec10049a20_o.jpg


3. Apologies for chopping the corner off, I don't normally do it but this film just wouldn't load onto the reels.
3886705558_40fd985677_o.jpg


4. This one's a bit spooky, I think the neg got fogged by somebody opening the back a bit.
3885908597_33a5d232e3_o.jpg


5. This one's a bit weird. The negative is ****ed but in the scanner software you could just about make out what looks like a body in shorts/skirt (black?) and top (black?) with a hand rail leading out to the right. Came out pony in the final scan though.

3886705624_3aa7dd1270_o.jpg
 
Looks like youve done a great job trying to rescue that lot Kev... ;)


Certainly provides some food for discussion... :thinking: ... reckon it needs to do the rounds again so peeps have the chance to improve/try again... :shrug:


Maybe the pass the parcel bit will be speeded up next time... :naughty:





:p
 
#4 is my little girl outside our garage door. I can't help on the others though.

I think that the problem is the winding on mechanism, it's not clear and seems to miss numbers out. Also I think you have to state more clearly about the firing of the shutter.

Thanks for the opportunity.
 
i think number 3 is mines?!

it looks like the picture i took so guessing it is.

a thanks to kev for being so generous and letting us use his camera for this.
 
Thanks for the scanning and lending Kev, was great fun! No 1 is mine, haven't a clue about No 2! Loving No 4, Tiler, it's wicked! Thanks again!
 
:LOL:


:puke:


I gotta say, once you know how to shoot it, its easy.
But when you get it for the first time, there is no trial run, there's no faffing with buttons to figure out what does what, you just have to shoot it as best you can.
In that respect, its not easy and its likely to have more than its fair share of cock-ups.
Well done to the peeps for giving it a go..:)
 
the results i got from my voigtlander, which this is based on seem to have come out much much better which i find surprising!

still to get the scans back but the negs looked properly exposed, only one out of 24 didnt come. i never used lightmeter either, just went with a rough guestimation. :wacky:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top