From: xtnphoto@skypoint.com (Tom Nelson) Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Subject: Re: Photographing lasers! Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 "Eugene A. Pallat" eapallat@oriondata.com wrote: > Do a double exposure. One well lighted to show the equipment and the > second in a dark room with fog to show the laser beams. Bingo. Except laser techs won't let you use smoke or fog machines because it gums up their optics. Use a piece of tracing paper for your exposure of the beam. Run it along the beam with all the other lights out and it'll expose only a moving spot that's illuminated by the beam. Exposure is determined by how slowly you move the paper...
From photopro@writeme.com Wed Dec 3 02:24:29 CST 1997
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: homemade strobe slave?
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 20:33:24 GMT
Radio shack cat no.276-1657
assorted cadmium-sulfide photocells
Seems to work in the right lighting conditions.
Just use them to short across the pins on the slave flash.
When the camera flash fires, the resistance in the photocell drops,
and the slaves fire.
Can't beat the price $1.99 for five.
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:01:13 -0600, Allen Cheuvront chevront@vector.net wrote: >A number of years ago, I built several studio slave sensors from a >circuit I found in an electronics hobbyist magazine. I have since lost >the circuit and the specs for the components (all 2 or 3 of them). The >critical part was a lascr or light activated silicon controlled >rectifier. I do not know where to find one, nor exactly it's part >number. Several of these are still in use, primarily on an old Bowens >system, and I'd like to build more. If anyone has information on this or >another more modern equivalent, I'd sure like to hear from you!! >tia >a cheuvront
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Richard Davis" DrDagor@worldnet.att.net
[1] Slick Trick for Carryring 4x5 Film Holders
Date: Tue Apr 14 12:28:32 CDT 1998
Here's a trick for packing 4x5 film holders.
The insulated zipper bags sold for taking 6-packs of pop and beer on trips
and picnics are exactly the right size for 4x5 film holders. Plus, the
insulation helps protect the holders and offers a little bit of thermal
insulation. Each bag will take about 5 or 6 film holders. These things
are available all sorts of places, but you can get them cheap at Wal-Mart,
K-Mart or Target--big discount stores.
--
Also, putting the film holders inside resealable food storage bags within
the insulated holder provides great protection from dust.
Bill - billochem@aol.com
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: ulformat ulformat@teleport.com
[1] Re: Slick Trick for Carryring 4x5 Film Holders
Date: Tue Apr 14 21:19:38 CDT 1998
Yep, been using them for 7 years in the 8x10 size.
20 can "Arctic Zone" brand holds 7-8 8x10 holders
(now if I could only get this off-the-shelf in a 12x20 size :-)
Don
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
don't know what size mine is but mine holds 10 holders, a polariod
back, two lenses on boards, a meter and a lupe. Carry my super graphic
in my other hand and off I go! Like you said it's padded, has canvas
cover, has an over the shoulder strap and really works great.. And
cheap! Use one for all my photo outings and it doesn't *look* like a
camera bag.. Who'd steal a soft sided cooler?
--
From: steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com
well I had some "blown" shots kinda like what you saying before I
started pushing on ground glass while I was pulling the dark slide so
film holder didn't "lift" from the camera while I was pulling it..
Also I had some wierd reflections from some shiny bellows clips that I
fixed by painting them flat black.. I would look through the camera
like the film see's and hopefully you'll see the problem.(that's how I
found those shiny clips)
--
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
I use Calumet wraps for the 4 lenses I carry in my backpack. They are out
into a couple of plastic tupperware-like containers.
--
Take a junk Bay-III filter and a junk 52mm filter, remove the glass
from each, and glue the b-3 inside the 52mm. It is almost a perfect fit.
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998
===================
Three years ago I needed to replace the checkered grip on my 135mm
Zeiss Tele Tessar. Marflex said I needed 3 rings of checkered material
at $10 each plus shipping! I called Nikon and ordered checkered grip for
their 360-1200mm zoom lens for $4.50. (This lens looks like it has more
checkered grip than any other Nikon lens.) I have enough material left
over to do 3 more Tele Tessars! How much do you need for your 50mm,
Tony... 25mm by 20mm? Send me a private email with your address and I'll
send you some for free.
R. Bender (A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user. Formerly known as
Mamiya645@aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998
Thanks.....were thinking along the same lines...I had a Soligor 90-300 zoom
with fungus, so I took it's diamond grid rubber ring and cut the pieces I
needed. Other than the seam where to two ends of the strip meet, it
indistinguishable from my other 50mm Rolleis. Was the diameter of the
Nikon part correct for the Rollei 50mm lens? I had to cut strips and wrap
it around the ring, because the diameter of the piece I had was too big to
keep it as a ring.
BTW...if anyone is interested...I have a SL35M that until this week had a
dead meter. I finally got it working all the time by cleaning some
electrical contacts which are accessible under the lens mount and
positioned at about 7:00 o'clock. There are three contacts that I cleaned
with a fine sandpaper material. It's the thin mylar material with one
side rough. I slid it between the contacts to clean each surface and
it's been working fine for the past 3 days.
regards,
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998
Aaron,
This is a common problem.
Use some electrical contact cleaner onboth contacts and use a pair of needle
nose pliers to slightly crimp the flash cord connector so that it fits
tighter.
That should do the trick.
Bill
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998
Peter
The company is called Paramount, I have several of their cords.
They make all varieties, Nikon screw-in, Koni screw-in, etc.
Mine are pc screw in to household, fits my studio strobes and
Norman. I believe they make all sorts though and will make
any custom. Check your local camera store, will probably have to
order, but they are quick to deliver and cheap.
Rick
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998
Paramount makes them (have for years) for many others.
You can call or write. They will make them to your specific needs, KO
screw PC, length, coil vs. straight, etc.
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998
Yes.
They are terrific but not the least expensive. I was able to
acquire a cord from Midwest Photo Exchange for my ASA adapter
on an older post-war Konica I 35mm camera which at $18 was half
of what Paramount wanted. Ironically it was a paramount cord.
From: "Jose Lopez Jr." josepj@earthlink.net
Just recieved a catalog from Focal Point Industries Inc.
e-mail: info@fpointinc.com
They sell a 4x5 first surface mirror for $30.00.
Yes, a regular mirror will give you a double image.
Jose
From: "skgrimes" skgrimes@ma.ultranet.com
Using an ordinary mirror will not distort the image or disturb the focus.
The risk is that you will see a somewhat confusing double image of two
reflections: the reflection from the front surface of the glass and the
more prominent reflection from the silvering on the back of the mirror.
An ordinary glass supplier should be able to help you with this. They often
have mirrors which work both ways i.e. reflect from either side in which
case one side is first surface. The other thing to try is "one way glass"
which is 75% silvered glass which makes a good first surface mirror.
SKG
From: hmp793g@nic.smsu.edu (Howard Petefish)
Mike, after unzipping my duffel-style bag I can mount my Bender-style
monorail camera on a tripod ready to shoot in less than 3 seconds!
How? I leave the camera on the monorail with the Bogen quick-mount
plate attached. For transport the camera is suspended with lens
attached, inverted in a small plastic waste basket with cutouts for
the monorail, and this basket is centered in my High Sierra bag with
room on either side for film holders, other lenses, dark cloth, meter,
etc. This arrangement may not work if you insist on using a back pack,
but for short trips is it great. I also constructed my tripod using
padouk and walnut to match the camera woods. It is sort of like an
improved Zone VI lightweight. Only problem--it won't fit in the bag!
Howie,
www.1-offwooddesigns.tierranet.com
From: mike@patsy.hunter.cuny.edu
Richard, I agree, the more weight you can add to your tripod, the better.
As long as you can find it on location, and don't have to carry it with you.
It doesn't matter if it's rocks, water bags or a case of Sierra Nevada Pale
Ale, mass is all that matters. Those Collapsable 5 gal. water jugs weigh only
a few ounces, but can be filled with about 40 lbs of water, really convenient
if theres a hose or faucet handy.
I do think that it is very important that the weight must touch the ground.
if it's windy, this will prevent the ballast from swinging in the wind, and
rocking the boat, er, tripod.
This trick can make marginal tripods acceptable, and decent tripods,
Bombproof.
Mike Pencak
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Also a good trick for those museums that do not allow tripods.... just
get
a 1/4 x 20 Eye Bolt at your hardware store, screw into tripod socket,
connect string to bolt, step on string and lift up.... instant, cheap,
light Monopod.....
--
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
On a similar line and perhaps not so well known.. A piece of cord (of the
type used as a curtain draw string)with a loop at each end. One end loop
goes
over the center bit of the tripod where the legs meet. The cord hangs
down but
not quite reaching the ground. Your foot goes in the other end loop and the
cord stretches to reach the ground applying a downward force which steadies
the tripod. It does work in practice to steady a lightweight tripod.
Des
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998
The 3.5E has a ground glass screen, while the 3.5/2.8Fs (later models) have
a plastic fresnel screen that is much brighter all around especially to the
corners.
You might be able to find one of these later screes, but it would be
difficult I think, as it is sought after by persons such as yourself.
Beattie makes something called the Intens Screen Plus for the Rollei TLR
for somewhere between $100 and $130. There is a size difference in the
screens between the Es and the Fs. You must make sure that for a 3.5E you
get the earlier screen that is smaller. I have also heard good things of
Maxwell screens that are brighter than Beattie screens. I am not certain of
the price or the performance as I'm not really familiar with them. I have
some Beattie screens in my Rolleis and they certainly are a LOT brighter,
similar to the later fresnel screens that Rollei issued on their cameras
after '59. You must also make certain that after replacing the ground glass
screen with the new fresnel screen that the image on the new screen
coincides with the focus on the film plane. This can be out of adjustment
due to a difference in thickness between the new screen and the old screen.
The result of this will be that what you see in the finder will no longer
be in synch with the focus of the taking lens on the film plane. Adjusting
the focus of the viewing lens is the best way to fix this problem.
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998
pascal@liman.Rutgers.EDU (Ligdas Pascalis) wrote
Pascal-
Try Maxwell precision Optics on Decatur, GA at 1.404.244.0095
you won't be disappointed. He manufactures the Hi-Lux focusing screens
and will give you a few stops of brightness. Good luck.
Regards-
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
A lower technology method, for testing the slower speeds, at
least:
When the shutter opens, start saying "Tea for two at one."
With some practice, 1/4 second falls on the "for" syllable,
1/2 second falls on the "two" syllable, and 1 second falls on
the "one" syllable. ;-) This also works for timing bulb
exposures.
- Larry Whatley
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998
There is a product called Novus Plastic Polish (Minneapolis) that is
specifically made to remove scratches from plastics. (1-800-548-6872 toll
free) It wil also polish paint. It comes in 3 grades. Use grade 2. This
polish is abrasive , but is so fine an abrasive that it will polish plastic
to a smooth, glossy shine. I have used it on the screens and other plastic
things with great results. BUT not on the fresnel side. Only on the smooth
side!
...Todd
From: "David Foy" nomail@this_address.please
Fungus spreads in the adhesive layers that bind multi-element groups, which
is what nourishes it. Getting rid of it involves separating the elements,
cleaning off the old adhesive, and re-cementing. It's almost always
uneconomical, and if the fungus has etched the glass, which is usually the
case, the etched elements have to be replaced.
What is often called "fungus" on glass surfaces is really cloudiness from
atmospheric deposits. Ed Romney's cure for this haze has always worked for
me -- 50/50 household ammonia/drugstore hydrogen peroxide, swabbed on,
allowed to do its work (you'll sometimes see foaming) and rinsed off with
water (remove the lens from the camera or shutter first).
From: cbsivlp@ibm.net
The material I use for that kind of photograph can be found in bags that
mattresses
are packaged in, or the kind you get when you pick up your dry cleaning.
Both
of
these materials are clear when you look through them, but the picture is
blurred
because of the material these bags are made from.
Patrick G Horneker
From: Allen Greenky spamblock@see.signature.below
That is the easy way, you can get pica tape in most any graphic arts
supply. Trying to think rectngle while looking into a square window was
always a problem for me, which is why I choose to go 645. What a lot of
photographers do is go to square format prints. This makes wedding albums
unique and avoids the vert/horz problems. I was always running into
problems croping a square neg into 5x7 format. I just started charging the
same for 8x10's and 5x7's and pointed out that they were only an inch or
so bigger than a 5x5.
BTW, 5x7 is much narrower than 8x10/4x5 it translates into a 3 1/2 x 5.
To avoid the spamblock in the headers, fix the address below
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Regards,
Wes Massengill wrote:
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998
From Nikon Digest:
Hello all,
I currently own two Nikons, N2000 and N70. Being somewhat of a
tight-wad and having a fairly decent understanding of electronics,
I've made my own remote cable. I just had a hard time justifying
$70.00 US for a simple switch that I can fabricate for under $1.00.
It seems to work nicely at this point but I'm concerned that the
resistor value that I've used (1K ohm) to activate the metering and
auto-focus may not be absolutely correct and end up causing some sort
of failure in the future. I've looked around the web and Nikon digest
archive (which is voluminous) and haven't really found anything definitive
on the subject. Does anybody have any insight on this resistor value?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Scott
From Nikon Digest:
The Nikon remote cable for the newer cameras that I disassembled (MC-12)
uses 3 diodes in series ( Voltage drop = 0.5 each so they are silicon
diodes) to activate the meter/camera systems. Shutter trip is activated by
a contact closure.
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998
I got a letter from a fellow stating he's used a 1K resistor on the
shutter-release cable he made from Radio Shack parts, to activate the
autofocus; aanother switch without, to fire the shutter. Says it works for
him...
Regards,
gil
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998
Hi, Nikonuts --
Just made myself another shutter release cable for my N70, and in testing
it noticed the camera DOES focus before the shutter will fire. Don't need
the 1K resistor some folks mention to accomplish the focus. The test is,
first focus on something close, then aim at something far & hit the cable
button. Should work for you, if it works for me, I'm thinking.
Besides, don't you usually focus first (maybe even putting the camera/lens
on Manual afterwards) & then use the shutter-release cable?
Regards,
gil
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998
Warren,
This is true with most cameras using solid-state switches to trigger flash.
Unfortunately, flash makers never standardized polarity on studio units.
They did on hot shoe units, so no problem with them.
I solved this and some other problems in my studio years ago by just
getting rid of synch cords completely. All my flash systems are connected
to Wein infrared triggering systems. The little triggering unit is an
infrared flash unit with hot shoe, so it works on any camera with a hot
shoe. It also comes with a cord, so you can hook it to cameras without hot
shoe.
This has the added advantage to me that when I am teaching my lighting
workshops I can have three sets going at once and they don't trigger each
other. I use the multi channel Wein system, and could theoretically have
five sets going at once if I wanted.
No synch cords to trip over, either!!!!
Bob
From: "Richard Davis" DrDagor@worldnet.att.net
Whether you need one or not depends on your application. If you are doing
black and white with little shift--e.g. portraits--the filter isn't
essential. But if you are doing color interiors for Architectural Digest,
you better get one.
The difference between the $800 filter and the $400 filter is that the
expensive one is matched to your particular lens, while the other is just a
pretty good approximation. If you did a test, you would probably see less
than 1/3 stop variation with the $800 filter, and no more than one stop
with the $400. With no filter there can be as much as 4 stops difference
between the center and the extreme edge of the image circle.
Some time ago I tried to get people interested in figuring out how to make
our own center spot filters. I didn't get any takers. Anyone had more
time to think about it?
From: evphoto@insync.net
IMHO, The Heliopan CF filter works just fine, and if you really think you
need one try Lens&Repro; in NYC. but I have a question for you: have you used
the lens yet? I shot with mine for years before getting the CF filter. And
then the only reason I bought one was because I shoot 6x17 panoramics on a
camera that let's me shift. I am primarily an architectural photographer who
shoots mostly transparency films. The 90mm Grandagon is a beautiful lens
with lots of very even coverage
From: kirkfry@msn.com
If you were the salesman you would too. Try it without. I've used a 90mm
for years without a center filter, however, not for chromes where it may be
more critical. With negatives it tends to even out as there is a bit of fall
off in light out at the edges of you image in the enlarger.
From: "Patrick Bartek" bartek@skylink.net
The image circle on that lens is so big (236 mm), that unless you're
using radically extreme movements, you DON'T need a center filter.
The salesman just wants a bigger commission. Filters have VERY high
profits on them.
By radical movements, I mean swings/tilts greater than 25
degrees or rises/shifts greater than 30 millimeters or so or a
combination thereof.
I have a 90 f8 Fujinon SW with a 100 degree image circle (219 mm) and
routinely use 15 to 20 degree swings or tilts and up to 25 mm rises or
shifts without a center filter and have experienced no noticeable fall
off or image clipping.
If you plan to buy say a 75 f6.8 Rodenstock or wider (f4.5 ones
are less of a problem because of the bigger image circle), you should
consider a center filter. I have the 75 f6.8 and without any
movements, it has very apparent falloff -- about 1 to 1 1/2 stops to
the corners. I bought a used center filter for it and no more
hotspot!
Later...
--
From: jdb@jdb.sc.scruznet.com
I'd recommend that you work with the lens some and see
whether the illumination falloff is too much for your use.
I know that for the Schneider SuperAngulon 47mm f5.6 XL,
this looses 3 stops at the corners versus the center. So I got the
center filter to help for this extreme example (Note that the center
filter does not compensate for all of the light loss; my CF
compensates for about 2 stops worth). Also remember that using
a CF cuts light at the center infavor of the edges (that is how
it compensates). So you have a very dark image, even when
wide open (f4.5 would be f 11 to 18, I would guess).
For the 90mm lens on 4x5, I would think the loss would be much
less and that you could get by without the filter. Note that on
b and w, you and burn and dodge as needed. For trannies, this is
not possible.
I repeat: try first without the filter and see if there is any negative
impact for your type of shooting.
jdb
From: bobsalomon@mindspring.com (Bob Salomon)
Their is no difference in correction between the Heliopan and Rodenstock
filter as far as exposure is concerned. But unlike anyone elses center
filter the Rodenstock center filters that are currently made are the most
color neutral of any center filter.
The fall off of modern wide angle lenses is 1 1/3 stops center to edge
(except for the some wide coverage Schneiders which need special filters).
The center filters will correct this fall off to almos 0. If you buy the
very dense 9.9 factor Heliopan filter rather than the standard density one
there will be no fall off at all.
Center filters need to be stopped down at least 2 stops to work. If you do
this with our Rodenstock and our Heliopan center filters you will see no
difference in the correction between the 2 filters.
This was proven in a test in Shutterbug a few years ago in an article by
Leif Ericksenn who did comparisons with Schneider, Rodenstock and Fuji
lenses with Rodenstock, heliopan and Schneider filters. There was no
difference regardless of which filter was used on any lens.
Bob
--
The easiest way is to simply put one layer of black electrical
tape. I have this on my straps and it doesn't look that bad.
Saves the wear on the camera. If this doesn't work for you,
suggest you go to Radio Shack and get come heat shrink tubing.
Cuti and place it over the clip and use a heat source to shrink
fit it to the clip. Should look form fitted if that's what you
are looking for.
Peter K
On Rollei straps:
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998
> Regards,
>
>Mario Nagano
>nagano@canalvip.com.br
>nagano@mail.regra.com.br
Another great source of alternate lens caps is your local drugstore. I've
been able to find pill bottle caps to fit almost any camera. You have to
use the non child proof ones. Sometimes they come in black which looks
really official.
I've also found 35 mm film cannister caps that fit my f3.5 50mm Elmar nicely.
Terry
From: "Steve Shapiro" sgshiya@redshift.com
The 'How To' was great, and ...
From: Jarrell Conley jarell@mindspring.com
From: Roy Adkins raa1@ra.msstate.edu
Before I actually bought a manufactured soft box I tried many homemade
solutions. The one that worked best for me was building a box out of white
foamcore board (highly reflective, but doesn't color the light) I would then
cover it with wax paper, to get the light even more difused you can place a
layer of wax paper in the middle of the box paralell to the outer layer.
Hope this helps.
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998
Jeff and others, An idea for a cheap lens hood that should cost less than
a dollar, see http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/page4.html
I bought a soft black rubber pipe cap at the Home Depot last weekend that
should work just fine after I cut the back out to fit over the bayonet.
Mark Walberg walberg@simmons.swmed.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998
Mark Walberg wrote:
This works well, the auther Greg Erker is a fellow stereo photographer
and this method was developed for a Sputnik MF stereo camera...
Another inexpensive solution is to get a Bay I to Series V adapter.
Series V lens hoods are usually a buck a piece in your neighborhood
photoshop junk bin. This also allows for the use of cheap Series V
filters as well...
Eric Goldstein
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Yes. There are adapters from the various Rollei bayonet sizes to standard
series sizes. Tiffen might still stock them, but old camera stores are
your best bet. When an old camera store near here went out of business
about ten years ago I went to the auction and bought all of their series
adapters and filters for a song (the song was "A Boy Named Sue", they gave
me the stuff if I'd promise not to sing again!).
Anyway, I sold this stuff off via ads in Shutterbug, and only have a
handful of filters left. But there must be other old stores around which
still have a lot of this series stuff that once was popular.
Bob
Hi Dan,
I made a case for my 4x5 monorail, which fits inside a Kelty backpack. I
used the urethane foam you want but I got mine from discarded packing of
old PCs. I believe it's generically referred to as "hard-charcoal" foam.
I did my case four-ply. It's lined in the outside with heavy tent-making
material (also man-made), this wraps an inner shell of the "corrugated
plastic" used in crates by the Post Office. Then I carved the gray foam
to exact shape of the view camera (in two halves that close into one
another) and lined the foam halves with black felt. The two halves are
closed with a heavy-duty plastic zipper.
Regrettably, the only part that is not very durable is the foam, as it
tends to get powdery over time. (It has not happened on mine yet, mind
you, but I've seen it in other uses). If you intend to put a lot of work
into the project (like I did mine) you may want to consider the
material's longevity (i.e. check out the alternatives, below).
Another suggestion, places like REI carry all manner of buckels, straps,
bindings, etc. even arnesses to carry the bag as a backpack.
HTH,
Dirk
From: Kerry Thalmann K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
guran.c.ellqvist@telia.se wrote:
Hi Guran,
Can you verify that there is no out-gasing from this foam that could
possibly damage lens coatings? It certainly is inexpensive and readily
available. I am worried about the potential for out-gasing, however.
Kerry
From: ed romney romney@edromney.com
To bypass the problems described below why not have your camera fire a
small pocket strobe and trigger the big one held off camera with a
slave unit? . I love to do this. I learned to synch multiple flash
bulbs long ago mostly from studying Gordon Parks's excellent book
"Flash Photography. Later I transferred the technique to 283 Vivitars. I
had a Metz once but liked Vivitar better. Nothing looks any better than
a picture shot with more than one flash . I have shot many groups and
banquet pictures with more than a hundred people in some of them using
multiple flash or strobe. Incidentally a simple No 5 bayonet base bulb
puts out more light than almost any strobe a man can carry and they fire
on 3 to 4.5 volts easily. Best wishes... Ed Romney
[Ed. note: the vivitar 283 and some other strobes put up to 150 volts or
more across the firing contacts - that's okay with mechanical contacts
(actually, not so fine, since they can pit from sparking and dirt), but
bad news for electronically fired cameras, which can fry if such high
voltages are pushed thru them. This is one way around this problem...]
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
A friend of mine crates the art at a major museum and uses a material
called Ethafoam for this purpose. I have a little around to pad out some
tool boxes that I use for my gear. I don't know if there is any chance of
residual chemical fumes leaching out of it, but if they're using it to
pack artworks, I guess that it is probably reasonably inert.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Hi,
Just keep in mind that the packing may be intended to be used for short
periods of time. Just so long as you don't leave items in permanent
storage, it should not be a concern. BTW, I e-mailed the place that had
the Temper foam and asked them if they had samples. Well they sent me a
box full of 3x3x18" rectangles of the stuff. It comes in 4 color-coded
grades of compressability and being that it is used in prosthetics it is
inert . It definitely is worth considering. It's the only foam that I
know of that's supposed to absorb energy like a gel and it feels like
it's organic.
Check it out,
Dirk
Addendum:
Okay here is the site for Temper foam:
http://www.keesgoebel.com/t.foam.htm
Dirk
From: Tsun Tam ttam@cybernex.net
Check www.porters.com. They carry two sizes of steel 'copy boards.' These
can be used successfully with the 'rubber refrigerator magnets' to hold
the print down. The magnets are thin enough so that they do not cast any
shadows from the light source.
From: stefan poag stefan@icon-stl.net
If you do your own printing, why not use the enlarging easel? I use the
easel; it holds the prints perfectly flat, they line up perfect each time.
I move the easel blades in to a half inch or so of the edge of my print
and he print very flat. I use the enlarger column from a broken durst
entarger as my copy stand.
When I get the over the place where the easel blades intrude into the
picture with polyester photo tape.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
An electric shaver cord or a TV cheater cord has the same hole placement and
size as a bipost.
Your lens may be coated. But it isn't multi coated.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Unfortunately this is probably an ASA bayonet connector. There were a
couple of different sizes of bayonet flash connectors, the ASA is the
smaller of the two and was used on several Kodak cameras. I don't know if
anyone makes an adaptor for these. I managed to find an original cord at
a swap meet but have seen few others. I makshifted a connector for a
larger bayonet connector (on an old solenoid) out of a pilot lamp socket.
Not very satisfactory but works. I am surprized that a Compur shutter
would have one of these, most of them have either bi-post or PC type.
This is a very late Ektar, the last of them were mounted in
Synchro-Compurs. I also doubt that it is multi-coated, they quit making
them too soon but it will still have an effective coating and is an
outstanding lens. It should be stopped down to f/11 or smaller to get the
corners of a 4x5 sharp.
Kodak serial numbers after about 1938 have code letters for the year of
manufacture. The key is the word CAMEROSITY standing for the numerals
1,2,3, etc. These are the last two numerals of the year. Thus a lens
numbered RS-111 was made in 1947.
---
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Boris,
I used my 35mm Cannon as a light meter for quite a while. The distance
to the film plane does not make a difference. What matters is using
equivalent lenses. In other words, if you are using a "normal" lens for
4X5 such as a 150 to 180 (162 is exactly normal for 4X5) then you must
use a lens for your 35mm camera that is around 50mm. Most matrix meters
are reallty quite good and I got excellent results this way. In fact my
results suffered when I got a good spot meter until I learned the proper
way to use it. I still do a sanity check when spot metering by using my
35 mm to make sure the "average" isn't to far off from where I am
metering. I am still learning! Also, be sure the ASA is set correctly on
your 35mm to match the sheet film you are using.
Here is a link about various metering methods....might be helpful:
http://www.bigbenpublishing.com.au/photography/metering.html
I have also begun using and old Weston Master selenium averaging meter
and it seem to be a helpful tool for checking light values. I inherited
mine from a relative, but they are not expensive (available used).
Best Wishes,
Dave
Boris Kozintsev wrote:
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
The AF Nikkor 50 1.8 used rear element-up can also be a very useful, and
relatively inexpensive, loupe.
Wilson
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998
The waist-level viewing hood from a Pentax 67 is not bad and costs about
$100 new.
Larry Kalajainen
From: evphoto@insync.net
Hi there Chuck, briefly: The highest battery powered flash generally
availible will be the Balcar Concept units, sold through Calumet
(1.800.CAL.UMET or www.calumetphoto.com) these are 1600 watt/second per head
units and you can plug up to 4 (totalling 6400w/s) into one control unit.
(oh, by the way all of this stuff is very pricy.) Next down the
powerscale is
the Hensel Porty (call Strobesmith in New York City 1.212.255.1118) and the
Comet PMT, both of these are 1200w/s. For my money I would go with the Porty,
as I have heard nothing but wonderful things about it: reliable, semi
waterproofed, controllable in 1/10 of a stop steps, and 100 flashes at full
power with a full charged battery (talk to Strobesmith about that) very
controllable, and you can modify other strobe (like Profoto) heads to fit it.
Why would you want to do that you wonder, and the answer is: long throw
hi-intensity reflectors), and rugged. I have rented the Comet PMT on three
occaisions. the first time the unit developed a short and I got nowhere near
the number of flashes I was supposed to get per fully charged battery. The
second time was fine. The third time i was on an industrial job and the
capacitors blew so violently the case cracked.
The next step down that i know of are the Norman 400B and the 400 w/s
version of the Lumadyne system. The Lumadyne is unique in that you can mix
and match control, fast recycling and battery modules to get nearly any
combination of power, recycling times, and capacity you might need. The
problem is weight and size. By the time you built a 1200w/s set up you
would have spent nearly as much as you will on the Hensel Porty, and
probably not have near the capacity or recycling time. Having said that,
my Lumadyne has been extremely reliable. Norman and Lumadyne both make a
200w/s unit as well. The final entry in the highpower batterypowered flash
field is a very interesting unit made by Dynalite called the Jackrabbit
Uni400. This unit is interesting because a. it runs off of both 110AC or a
battery called the Jackrabbit (the best, IMHYLO) b. it takes standard
Dynalite reflectors (like a sports reflector) and it is reasonably priced.
Given your application you
should also seriously consider an LPA Pocket Wizard, a 16 channel digital
remote radio trigger has method of fool proof triggering of your flash.
And finally have you considered Flashbulbs? I bookmarked a site of the WWW
last month that looks interesting: http://www.meggaflash.com/flash.htm
Better lighting next time,
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998
Y'all,
I know that this might tweak the beaks of a few purists, but what the hey!
I took a couple of those triangular split rings that are so common- they
gave me a couple at the camera store free!
I slipped them onto the strap anchors on the camera by rotating them onto
the post that the forked strap hardware would normally grasp. Once on they
are almost invisible, and by pushing them up from the bottom, I slip the
narrow nylon strap of a Tamrac strap through the ring. The buckle is plastic
and does not appear to be in a position or of a material that would scratch
the viewfinder, at least mine hasn't. In fact, other than the rings there is
no metal on or near the camera!
The nice thing about the Tamrac strap is that it has quick release snaps, so
I can take the strap off if I mount it on the tripod, and the strap, though
narrow at the camera, has a wide padded non-slip leather portion that is
quite comfortable.
If my description is too vague, let me know and I will take a couple of
photos and post them to you individually or to a website
Dan'l
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Rainer Leuschke rainer@u.washington.edu wrote:
Randy:
If you have an old fashioned gas oven, with a burner thats always on;
not the modern type which doesn't, place the gel on a baking sheet in a
thin layer and place near the top of the oven - nearest the burner. With
the oven turned OFF the heat generated should dry out the silica overnight
(8-12 hrs). However, if the humidity is Very high, this does not always
work 100%. In that case, just leave it in longer.
IMPORTANT: Put a note on the front of the oven so that no one accidently
turns it on!
- Tom
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Hello
So: anyone successfully re-genned these babies? How?
put them a pan over a slow fire, swirl the content occasionally, wait till
they turn blue and let it get cool.
works everytime,
From: jc@hh.ffei.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford)
cbabing3@swbell.net wrote:
Alternatively, you could look at using the same method used for some
1x telescope finders ("telrad") and (I believe) bombsights.
Take a piece of glass at 45 degrees - look through it to the target.
It also reflects light from an illuminated overlay (LED dot, crosshairs or
whatever, superimposing it on the target. You can compensate for the
focussing problems caused by the different distances by using the appropriate
strength diverging lens to increase the apparent distance of the overlay.
or, as another alternative, tape a laser pointer to the lens barrel (or
fix it to the flash shoe, or whatever) to put a red dot on the target.
--
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 10:39:43 -0400
From: Rus Hardy
I use avery labels. They are available for both laser and inkjet and
work quite well. I'm typing this from my field office and don't have
the labels with me , but I think they are Avery 5267. I you'd like I can
let you know for sure when I get back.
Hope this helps.
Warm Regards,
rec.photo.equipment.misc
David Jaremy wrote:
David,
There several different concepts of projected backgrounds, you have
your scene machine slide projectors, with special split image prism to
project the slide im age directly on the plan of the camera view. This is
a major set up requiring a very heavy tripod, the camera/projector set up
must be perfectly aligned perpendicula r to hte background. The lights
must be shielded to avoid spill on the background screen. The major
drawback is that the set up never truely looks realistic for the reason
that the lightingin the background image can never be the same as the stu
dio lighting on the subject, no matter how much you try. This remains the
same even if you resolve other problems like black edge around the
subject, washout glare on the background, light spill, and throwing your
back out moving the damn thing around . Oh yeah, the thing costs a
fortune, unless you find one from someone who either went broke or gave it
up in disgust. One more drawback, a large portion of your clients just
don't get it and don't understand that the image can't be seen during the
shoot, or they just can't into the mood of the tropical beach scene or
whate ver you are projecting. There is something to be said for good
realistic props, and the fact is, a good true prop works on the client
better than a cheap fake prop that just might look better on film than the
real thing.
The other concept of projection is casting shadows on a background with a
light on the side with some kind of go-between. Popular things to use are
plants or spec ial projector lights with metal disks inserted to project
patterns or silloutted images. This adds depth to the image.
esq uire at rico chet . net
From: focusoninfinity@webtv.net
Try the Pilot Photographic Marker, extra fine. Writes very smoothly and
dries instantly. Definitely the best I've worked with.
From: antispam@here.not (john r pierce)
Cliff Kotnik cos.kotnik@mci2000.com wrote:
Even a very 'long' telephoto lens doesn't make a terribly powerful
telescope, certainly not by astronomy standards. Camera lenses are
optimized for a relatively large image size so much of the aperture is
wasted on a typical astronomy eyepiece. An 800mm lens with a typical 25mm
'plossl' eyepiece will be about 32X and will require a 220mm aperture (or
f/3.5) to achieve maximal light gathering in nighttime conditions (i.e. a
7mm eye pupil diameter). A good telescope objective has a significantly
smaller 'circle of confusion' then a typical camera lens but doesn't need
to generate as large of a prime focus image (the 24x36mm image of 35mm
film requires a 44mm diameter image to fully cover the film... a typical
telescope eyepiece needs only a 20mm or so image)
-jrp
From: Ken Rice krice@admin.vhs.davis.k12.ut.us
Someone asked about plans for building a vacuum frame, since the cost
of shipping a used one from almost anywhere to New Zealand would be
high.
The most common type of frame has a metal frame (sorry for the
repetition) containing a relatively thick sheet of glass. These would be
tough to build.
But, there is another type that is easy to build. This can be used
either as an easel for the enlarger or for making contact exposures.
The base is a box about one inch thick containing wooden baffles that
allow air movement around them, but will hold the the top rigid and
level. The sides are solid except for an entry tube, which will be
adapted to the hose of a vacuum cleaner (or one could use a vacuum pump,
if one is available, but a household vacuum cleaner works quite well.
(if possible, place the cleaner in another room to contain the noise.)
The back of the box is solid (Masonite or another brand of composition
hardboard is ideal -- use 1/4" thickness.
The top needs to have a lot of holes to allow air to move downward
into the box, lowering atmospheric air pressure at the top surface. My
first attempt used peg board. Bad idea. The holes were large enough to
allow the material to dimple down into the holes, and my baffles were
inadequate -- the top pulled down instead of being level.
In my opinion, the best material for the top is steel -- what is
called perforated sheet metal. It's pre-painted black and the holes are
very small -- around 1/32nd", and spaced very closely forming a sort of
screen pattern. But it needs to be well supported by the baffles.
It's also quite expensive if you're forced to buy a full sheet. It's
worth making some phone calls to sheet metal shops, etc. to see if you
can find a remnant.
To use the vacuum box, one places the photosensitive substrate on the
top, covering it with the negative (or whatever the original is); then
cover the sandwich with a sheet of clear plastic. This flexible sheet
can be clear drafting acetate, or polyester, and needs to be smaller
than the top, so that enough air can go into the box to prevent the
vacuum cleaner or pump from failing.
Then one turns on the vacuum, being careful to keep everyting aligned.
The rapidly moving air creates a low pressure zone, allowing the
atmospheric air pressure to press down the material and holding it in
tight registration. It is considered good practice to wait for a minute
or so to get all of the air to bleed out before turning on the exposure
unit.
There is a variation on the design using a glass top. If interested,
let me know and I'll try to explain it.
By the way; I've been having trouble with posting. If you see this
post, I'd really appreciate a brief note saying that it showed up on
rec.photo.equipment.large-format.
Cheers,
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998
I used a new, old style 110 volt computer fan instead of a vacuume
cleaner. It was $25 at the surplus store. It is completely quiet and
will not burn out when you achieve a complete seal.
From: "K and J Darling" thedarlings@ix.netcom.com
The light meters in cameras and "reflected" hand held light meters, as well
as the sensors in automatic flash units, are calibrated to produce an
exposure than averages all the tones of an image into a theoretical gray
tone of about 18% reflectance. That is, the meter presumes it's looking at
a subject that's reflecting 18% of the light striking it, and the meter
gives an exposure that renders the subject as that 18% gray.
The gray card is that theoretical 18% subject the meter "thinks" it's
looking at.
All this means certain things:
If you fill your viewscreen (or the meter reading area) with a white
object, the setting it gives you will render that white object as an 18%
gray--obviously not an accurate exposure.
If you fill your viewscreen with a black object, the setting it gives you
will render that black object as an 18% gray--and that's not accurate,
either.
If your viewscreen contains a ligh source, the meter will try to average it
out across the view to an 18% gray, which is likely to underexpose
everything else in the scene and darken the light source. Not accurate,
either.
If you fill your viewscreen with a gray card, your meter will give you a
setting that renders the gray card as the same shade of gray (presuming
your meter is working properly). That will be an accurate exposure FOR THE
GRAY CARD. In most cases, this will be a good exposure. However, there
are reasons why other things in your scene, things that are much darker or
lighter than the gray card, will still be exposed improperly (and there are
things you can do about that). You can compare a gray card reading with
other common objects to learn how much to alter meter readings to expose
them correctly.
For instance, a person's palm (any race if not very, very dark) reflects
about one stop more than 18%. You can meter your palm (if it's in the same
light as your subject) and open up one stop for a reading that should be
about the same as with a gray card. Green grass is about the same
reflectance as a gray card, as is wetted concrete. You should endevor to
get a feel for those things that you want to reproduce at that tone.
If you're shooting color negative film, shooting one frame with the gray
card also gives a custom printer a good reference for precise
color-corrected printing.
There is a lot more to it...I'd strongly advise getting a book on the Zone
System to learn what really happens when light strikes film through a lens.
From: aljnospam@alumni.caltech.edu (Allen L. Johnson)
The currently available adapters (I got mine a year ago from Adorama) have
a 10mm eyepiece behind a roof prism image erector. The down side of this
item is that you can't really use aperature above f2 due to the vignetting
of the erector. Wonderfully sharp with good optics, however. Also, with a
macro lens, you get a long working distance ~25 power magnifier, depending
on the macro lens. Expect to pay somewhere from $50-$100US.
Allen
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998
Yes, the "easy out" is a special tool that could help. However, I am not
sure they come in a size this small.
There are other options. The simplest approach is to get the broken piece
to come out by turning it in the normal direction. You could use some
sort of probe, such as an X-acto knife or jeweler's screwdriver, to coax
the piece to turn. You would press the tool against the piece you want to
turn, at an angle that would cause it to turn in the desired direction.
It might even be possible to use a fingernail or finger if enough is
sticking out.
The "easy out" is is something like a screw with reverse threads. Another
option is to find a small screw with reverse threads. With both, you screw
them in in reverse, and, once tight, they cause the normal screw to
reverse.
Other options for stuck screws which are not available to you are heating
the outside piece with a torch or sawing off the outside piece of two
jammed together pieces. I just mention these two techniques for your
amusement. By the way, did it fail on the job?
Peter
Lionel F. Stevenson camera@mailer.isn.net
From: jans@imagina.com (Jan Steinman)
mpb9954@rit.edu wrote:
Hi Molley! What'cha do is buy a set of magnetic air-vent covers and use a
office-quality paper cutter on them. I bought a dozen from Damark for
$29.95. (I think that's the correct quantity and price...) This ends up
being over 6 square feet. Hope this is helpful!
From Nikon Digest:
Yesterday I received my brand new N90s, 24-120D and SB-28 and have started
reading the owners manuals.
Although I can't quote it exactly right now, there is a statement in the
recent N90s manual about the potential for damage if the camera is
connected to flashes employing over 250 volts. I suspect that this refers
to trigger voltage. Although I haven't followed the evolution of flash
unit circuitry, I'd also suspect that any system utilizing 250 volts in the
external trigger circuit is a pretty old, but very powerful flash. Perhaps
those of you who are closer to this could identify those units.
I've enjoyed reading this group and will have a few questions of my own
shortly unless the SB-28 manual answers them first.
Steve MacLeod
From Nikon Digest:
Can't assume it's only big powerful flashes; I have a tiny peanut flash that
has over 250 volts trigger - I've put a label on it to be sure I only use it
on old, tough Nikons. You have to measure to be sure.
Neal AndersonNF@ncsc.navy.mil Panama City, FL
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 98
A neat solution to the problem of mounting a camera to a monopod is to use
the Bogan 3232 swivel. It rotates in one direction about a horizontal
axis, but that is usually all you need from a monopod. I use it with a
Really Right Stuff quick release plate which normally lives on on my Hassy
and their B-2 Pro which lives on the Bogan 3232.
This set up is described in the Really Right Stuff Catalog (PO Box 6531,
Los Osos, CA 93412/ Phone 1-805-528-6321). Highly recommended if you use
Arca-Swiss Style ball heads.
Len Eselson
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998
From: "Per Ofverbeck" elgenper@hotmail.com
Hi all,
I use a Hasselblad with 80, 180 (and sometimes a Mutar 2x), and I have
thought about a monopod at times, so I follow this thread with interest.
However, I use and love the waist level finder, and have no plans to
even own anything else. Will that be compatible with using a monopod?
Completely compatible. Actually, it's easier to use a waist-level finder
with a monopod than it is to use an eye-level (typical 35mm) type. I
don't need a six-foot tall monopod with the waist-level! (Tho I bought
one anyway; that 80-200mm f/2.8 Tokina AT-X for my OM-1N is pretty damn
heavy.)
How do you support the camera end of that combo while looking through
the magnifier? Probably stupid questions, but any comments would be
welcome to lessen my confusion.
When using most lenses, you just attach the 'pod to the camera body. If the
lens is "heavy," chances are the manufacturer knows it and put a tripod mount
on the lens. (That Tokina lens, BTW, is the only one I own that has a tripod
mount.) This is done so that you can attach the tripod/monopod to the camera
and not worry about wrecking the lensmount by hanging ten pounds of glass off
of it as you hold the camera body.
Monopods have the following other useful feature. If someone's trying to
steal your stuff, whack 'em over the head with a monopod five or six
times. Make sure they're dead, because dead men can't sue. (Their heirs
are another story.)
-andy
Andy Peters
From: baldycotton@mindspring.com (baldycotton@mindspring.com)
It's not that it CANNOT be touched, but rather it shouldn't be touched.
The glass is as thin as onion skin, and will break at the slightest
pressure, altho I have cleaned mine with one of those terrific cosmetic
brushes they sell at the pharmacy for a cupla bucks. If a little dust or
stain is on it, ignore it. It's not part of the picture taking process
anyway. If it's so bad that it actually interferes with you view, you can
have it professionally cleaned or replaced for not a lot of money.
Dave
From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@cl-sys.com
You need to be very, very careful if you touch it because the silvering is
on the top of the mirror glass and not beneath it. I recommend you simply
hit it with some compressed air. They sell cans of the stuff at your local
camera store. Good shooting.
Fred
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman-Ruether)
Um..., generally your advice is SO good...!
But with this one, I take exception...;-)
Blowing into the VF system is the quick way to
drive annoying dust onto the upper (inaccessible)
surface of the viewing screen - and it is then
removable only by a technician unless the viewing
screen is user-interchangeable. And that "canned
air" is still ozone-layer unfriendly, the can
claims notwithstanding... (a brushless large
bulb hand-blower [which *should* be available
at your local camera store, but often isn't
since it is so cheap and doesn't need
replenishment...;-]), does the blowing jobs
quite well, when appropriate...
Some (Nikon...) SLR mirrors can be cleaned
(but at the risk of adding a couple of fine
scratches) by breathing *up* onto the surface,
then wiping off the mist with a VERY lightly
applied fresh cotton swab, twirled slowly as
it is moved on the surface.
David Ruether
From: bob@bobshell.com
Fred Spira is the founder of Spiratone. He was getting up in age and wanted
to retire, so he shut down and sold off his inventory.
Since I have not heard otherwise, I assume that Fred is still alive and well.
Bob Shell
dugan@nixspam.com (Dugan) wrote:
From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink)
"don ferrario" don@ferrario.com wrote:
I launched one myself, and maintain a second, and if that didn't take so
much time already, I would start a Mamiya list myself (as well as a Kowa
list, and probably a dozen more....8-))
The best solution is to have a small, willing provider, (read: not likely
to charge you for this service, as you must run the list software on their
server). Be sure they will also exist in a few years from now....or
else make sure you run the list on your own domain name....8-))
You then need to pick software, like ListProc, ListServ, Majordomo or
Mailman. I personally prefer Majordomo, but Mailman has a slick web-based
subscription interface (yes less easy to maintain).
Requirements: good (fast) helpdesk/sitemaster at your provider, lots of
time, an indestructable sense of humor, and lots of patience.
--
Willem-Jan Markerink
From Nikon Digest:
I hope that this gives you at least one idea. I am finding that Jubilee is
getting harder to find, so I order it, by the case, directly from Johnson
Wax. (Which I have absolutely no connection with !)
73, & Happy Shooting.
Alan
From Nikon Digest:
Ian,
I have used in the past an essence called Mirbane. It has been used for
many years to protect entomological displays preventing the mites to eat
our precious pinned insects.
FWIW after a superficial browse in the net I have only found one link to
a supplier in Mexico:
http://www.cosmos.com.mx/pqs/____44cj.htm
but there must be anyone in your country. A local taxidermist or museum
supplies dealer might be able to sell you a bottle.
Be careful as it's quite toxic (and smells like the hell). Just soak a
piece of cotton wool, put it in an open glass vial and leave it in the
bag to protect. I would strongly recommend don't leave your Nikon stuff
in the presence of the product as I don't know if its vapour might
affect some camera part.
BTW, the bad news are that I used this system in furniture pieces; but
in my case (an old house) I quickly realized that the real problem was
moisture. I got rid of the mites only for a time (mites do have
long-lasting, resistance biological forms). So at last I got rid of that
house :-(
May be some desiccant could be helpful, or as a worst case, discard the
bag if the mites appear only there. Mites inside a camera are a serious
problem; I heard several years ago that the only treatment is to leave
the camera for days in absolute vacuum.
Sorry for the long post and the bad news... I hope that it will be
helpful to protect your Nikons.
Roger
- --
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
I agree with the Nikon School
You need to remove the hood, affix a filter and then replace the hood or
leave it off while you use the filter if that's appropriate. It's not
difficult or particularly time consuming.
I'm still on the side of the instructor on this issue. I don't think
instinct is a good guide in this situation because I don't think a
viewfinder is as good a place to see flare as a finished photograph is.
Good shooting.
Fred
From: art@WAstateResident.oz.net (Don Smith)
There's a few listed at:
Mainly in the Darkroom area, what are you looking for? I'll add it.
Don
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998
With ALL Compur shutters, be they on Hasselblad, Contaflex, or Rolleiflex
cameras, or even on Leica-Compurs, the factory answer is to store them
cocked.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998
At 03:52 PM 8/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
I've posted a more complete answer to a later post. It makes very little
difference in these shutters (late model Compur) since the motor spring is
under considerable tension even when not cocked. Furthermore there is
only the single spring and not much strain is put on anything when the
shutter is cocked.
There are many spring applications where springs are under constant
tension or compression. Auto suspension springs are an example. It is the
bending of the spring which will eventually wear it out from metal fatigue.
Some types of spring metal are very resistant to fatigue.
----
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998
At 06:37 PM 8/26/98 -0700, you wrote:
There is some controversey as to whether springs become damaged by being
left under tension for long periods of time. Certainly, if a spring is
tensioned beyond its elastic limit it will be damaged but for less than
that perhaps not. The cycling of springs will eventually weaken them from
metal fatigue but that comes from bending and unbending.
I think it is probably wise to leave old style shutters untensioned
when they are to be unused for a long period of time.
There is the further consideration with older type shutters that they
speed should not be changed while they are cocked (although it is really
only the highest speed which is a problem).
Also, roll-film cameras tend to have better film flatness if film is
wound not long before exposure. That way it tends to be under some
tension. After a time it relaxes and may bow.
Since Marc has posted that Compur recommends leaving its later (?)
shutters tensioned I will have to go along with it. The springs in these
shutters are flat spiral springs, like a clock motor spring, and are
partially wound up when they are installed. The difference in tension
between the cocked and tripped state is less than wiht most other types of
shutter springs.
----
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
At 12:19 AM 1998-08-27 -0700, bills wrote:
The "old shutter" is the rim-set and Rapid series used until 1950 or so;
the "new shutter" is the Synchro-Compur and later which were first
developed immediately prior to the Second World War but which did not enter
mass production until around 1950.
Marc
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
The easiest way to tell which kind of shutter you have is to see if there
is some resistance when going from the next-to-highest speed to the highest
speed. Older shutters have a booster spring and you can feel it being
compressed when the speed dial is moved. The later shutter does not have
this spring and the speed dial moves smoothly to the highest speed.
----
From Medium Format Digest:
Sunpak makes a relatively cheap ringlight (around $200US)- the DK 12 that
is specialized for MF. It has interchangable modules and works in TTL. One
caveat, extra filter size adapter rings run about $30US. Ambico plastic
filter rings work just as well with a little filing and cost $3 each.
Rob
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998
Why even bother?
Just use the plain white printer paper. Once, just once, compare a
reflected meter reading between an 18% gray card and the plain white bond
paper, which should come in at about 90% reflectance, or about 2.5 stops
more exposure required than the meter will read. The difference in
reflectances between the two will be maintained forever, as long as both
the 18% gray card and the white paper are kept clean. If the white paper
gets dirty or yellows, just get a new sheet.
Alternatively, the palm of your hand should read 1 stop higher than the
gray card, so just use your palm and dial in one more stop than indicated
by the meter.
From: kd9fb@xnet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
For a good page take at look at:
http://idiom.com/~elight/earthlight/photo_tech_notes/zone_system_p1.html
For 35mm a gray card can be very useful in high contrast situations. For
instance, shooting a tree in the snow. They aren't magic. You still need
to carefully consider the subject.
When shooting B&W; a gray card can be indispensable. For color work
outdoors, I have sometimes found it best to meter something green, such as
a patch of grass. Then underexpose by 1 stop, but that is my preference
when shooting chromes for saturation.
From: "John G. Walter" jgwalter@erols.com
An 18% gray card is nothing more than a tool that will allow your light
meter to make an accurate reading under any lighting situation. A light
meter reads any subject as if it were an 18% gray. Therefore if you are
reading, for example a bright sky, your meter will read an underexposure,
and visa-versa for extremely dark objects. Knowing that this 18% gray is
in the middle of a range of "zones", a photographer can then assess the
values of other tones in a subject. Hence, the "Zone System".
I am not familiar with your N70, but I think that class of Nikon has a
number of "Program" modes which really have nothing to do with the metering
technique. It's possible that you are referring to measurement methods
such as "spot", "center-weighted" or "matrix". These are merely areas of
your viewing screen in which the metering takes place. With the exception
of matrix metering, which I believe averages values from various areas of
the screen into an approximated exposure, the other two read everything as
if they were 18% gray, and are differ only in their degree of preciseness
of area.
Another excellent use for a gray card is as a standardization tool for
accurate color reproduction. I always insert a gray card into a scene to
be used as a reference later for accurate color balance. Generally I
include the gray card in one frame and then make an identical exposure on a
second frame without the card. This way a printer, for example, can
balance the gray card frame, and then work from the other one with the same
information.
From: "K and J Darling" thedarlings@ix.netcom.com
Frank,
Sorry if it wasn't detailed enough. I hope the additional details below
help.
----------
Not really, but light differs in color content. Tungsten lights, including
halogen, contain more yellow and red than sunlight. Florescents lack in
specific spectral areas, notably red, compared to sunlight. Open shade is
lit by the sky, which has absobed much of the red light, rendering it
bluish. Sunlight between 10 am and 2pm is what daylight films and exposure
meters are calibrated for, though, so it is better to use sunlight. Yes,
the card and the test scene should be lit evenly. In the test scene, make
sure you have the gray card (try to set it vertically parallel to the
camera, but tilt it if necessary to avoid specular highlights), a card on
which you mark your exposure settings, and perhaps something with various
colors, like a color swatch chart or a bowl of fruit. If you can get a
human to sit for the tests, that is ideal so that you can see the effect of
exposure changes on skin tones.
Set the camera on manual, of course. Start metering at the nominal setting
(take the meter reading with the gray card filling the viewfinder, then
move back to take in the entire test scene but use the close-up meter
reading as your nominal reading), then vary it by half stop increments of
over-exposure and under-exposure for each shot you take of the test scene.
You can do that the way that is easiest for you: Vary the aperture, vary
the shutter, vary the film speed setting, or a combination. But mark the
changes on a card that is visible in your test scene, e.g., "meter
reading", "+1", "-1/2", et cetera. Under- and over-expose as much as three
stops in either direction from the meter reading.
If you vary the film speed setting, you will have to make another closeup
reading at that setting. It's probably easier, then, just to vary the
aperture and shutter speed. But remember that when you've changing the
aperture and shutter speed, you're effectively changing the exposure index
of the film, and you're going to integrate the results of the test into
you're working methods by adjusting the film speed accordingly.
When you've completed the series of shots and have gotten the film
processed, compare the shots on a lightbox to your gray card. The shot
that is closest in tone to the gray card presents your "true" film speed.
If the correctly matching image is, say, the shot that is 1 stop over the
metered exposure, then cut the film ISO speed in half when you set it on
your camera (yes, it may mean overriding the automatic DX indexing system
on the camera). If it's, say, the shot that is 1/2 stop overexposed, then
increase the ISO speed by 50% when you set it on your camera. This film
speed adjusted according to testing is called the "exposure index," or EI,
as opposed to the ISO film speed.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Kirk
rec.photo.technique.misc
Yes you can,
Meter any part of the scene that is a middle tone of it's color (e.g.
mid-tone grey = mid-tone blue = mid-tone brown = mid-tone green) and
you have your zone IV value. Alternately you may meter other colors
and assign them tonal values +1/2 stop for dark-light 'color'; +1 stop
for light 'color'; +1 1/2 stops for light-light 'color'; -1/2 stop for
light-dark 'color'; -1 stop for dark 'color'; -1 1/2 stops for
dark-dark 'color'. Generally I meter a straight mid-tone, dark-light
tone, or light tone, and shoot chrome film.
Here's how it might work for you:
Now lets use it on another common element in an image -grass:
If the grass is a healthy lawn it is probably close to a mid-tone
green, just meter it and go with that exposure. If it is a little
lighter open up 1/2 stop, etc.
You can do the same thing for extreme situations -such as snow. Meter
it and open up 2 stops (extremely-light 'color').
Use a spot meter or the spot meter feature in your camera to take
readings. If you have neither, just walk up to the area you are
metering or use your longest zoom lens to isolate the area you want to
meter.
There is an excellent discussion of this proceedure in John Shaw's
LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY book, Amphoto publishing.
Bruce Brown
From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
Both my Weston Master II and my Director Products Corp. light
meters will read IR if the daylight perforated cover is replaced
with a no.87 gel, as will the internal meter of my Olympus OM-4.
No need to reinvent the wheel, just put a gel over a standard
light meter then find a film speed setting that makes the reading
match a known-good exposure. That film speed setting will vary a
lot depending on the response of the individual meter, and as I
don't have any of mine handy, I can't tell you what I use :-(
Besides, individual preferences for the grain/contrast/halation
of infrared make any authoratative number meaningless -- do you
prefer the film exposed at 25, 50, or 200?
I seem to recall some more extensive discussion of this off of
W.J. Markerink's excellent IR web page, and I know it's been
discussed on the IR mailing list. Anyway, the IR page is at
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
--
Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
From Medium Format Digest:
Keep Your Boots Muddy
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998
One thing at a time ( I am assuming you don't have a TTL setup. ie. manual
all the way). You didn't mention what kind of flash you have, but most
assuredly, you'll have to remove it from the hot shoe and trigger it with
a PC chord. This is because you are so close to the subject that the
lens' barrel will interfere with the flash. You'll either need to
buy/make a bracket for the flash to hold it.
Next, you'll have to figure out the effective f-stop that you are using.
When you put extension tubes (or bellows) behind the lens, the marked
f-stop on the lens barrel is no good. First, figure the magnification.
Magnification = Extension / focal length
This is accurate when the lens is focused at infinity. When you turn the
focusing helicoid to closest focus, it is not accurate, but for a
non-macro lens (with a more limited helicoid) its close enough. Now that
you know the magnification, figuring the effective f-stop is easy.
f-effective = marked f-stop * (Magnification + 1)
So, with the 10, 20 & 30 mm extensions all together, your 55mm lens has a
magnification of 60/55 or close to 1X, so if you set the lens aperture to
f/16, the effective aperture is really f/32. With me so far?
Next, you'll have to calibrate the flash output. Probably it's best to
start with the Guide Number and run an exposure sequence on either side,
with slide film. Look at the results and pick the best for you.
Start with the flash Guide Number (GN) for the film ISO.
The aperture you need to use (that is the effective f-stop) is given by:
f-effective = GN /flash to subject distance
If you have a flash with variable power settings, they come in real handy
for this work, if not, work it in reverse. Compute how far the flash must
be to let you work at the desired f-effective.
Hope this helped some.
--
Human Eye - in Photographic Terms - new page with
notes previously here and others on how the human eye stacks up as a lens
and f/stop terms etc....
From: lencook@my-dejanews.com
The shutter is located near the diaphragm. As the shutter begins to open,
the WHOLE film area is exposed all at once, NOT a dot in the center. As
the shutter opens wider, the light on the film gets BRIGHTER not bigger.
Again, the whole piece of film is being exposed all at once, not just the
center. When a shutter is fully open, if the diaphragm is fully open as
well there is no obstruction in the light path through the lens.
To the film, the shutter looks pretty much like the diaphragm. The light on
the film is not formed into a shadow with a shape, it is brighter or darker,
depending on the size of the opening(s)in either the shutter or diaphragm.
If, on the other hand, the lens is set at a very small aperture, say, f16,
as soon as the shutter started to open, the light on the film got as
bright as it is going to get. The relatively tiny hole in the center of
the diaphragm is completely uncovered as soon as the shutter blades part
even a tiny bit.
Transparency film, in fact, will show overexposure if conditions call for
1/500 @ f16 or 1/500 @ f22. The tiny aperture, as above, gets uncovered as
soon as the shutter blades begin to open. The blades must then traverse the
rest of the radius of the lens barrel, stop, and make the trip back to the
closed position. All the while, the exceptionally bright light has been
exposing the film through the tiny aperture. The result is overexposed film,
because the shutter blades had to spend too much time traveling outside the
aperture. Neg films don't usually show the overexposure as clearly.
Have I muddied the waters sufficiently?
From: kdb@total.net (K.D. Beausoleil)
Mine are 2 cents Canadian:
Check the screw (or the joint) between the camera body and the head on
the tripod. I have Nikon equipment, a Manfrotto sturdy tripod and
Manfrotto ball head. Always used shutter release, but had the fuzzies
even so. Turned out that the camera was wobbling on the head, and a
rubber washer solved the problem, and just in time -- I was about to
give up photography.
Cheers,
From: ed romney romney@edromney.com
coolphotog@aol.comnospam (CoolPhotog) wrote:
Yes, they degrade but mainly from lack of use..I have a pocket strobe
dating to the 1970's that is still fine, but I turn it on fairly often.
Any electronics tech can replace the capacitors but they are very compact,
and finding ones that will fit may be hard or impossible. Of course you
can use bigger ones for studio use. I traded for a dead ringlite from a
customer about 1980, gave him a book for it. I replaced the cap with a
giant computer grade capacitor bought at a ham radio flea market and
mounted it in a plastic box and it has been fine ever since. Saved me
$150+ ! I do many of my camera illustrations with it. Mouser Electronics
and other firms advertising in Nuts and Volts Magazine
http://www.nutsvolts.com may be helpful for strobe parts. My repair
manual explains how strobes work and has safety warnings and a schematic.
Best wishes... Ed Romney http://www.edromney.com Also ham radio
N4DFX 75meters ssb
From: "Paul Skelcher" skelch@erols.com
I have a few 283s that are more than 15yr old. For close up- lifesize-
photography where flash to subject distance is small, and output needs to be
spot on for correct exposure on slide film, the flashes are becoming
unpredictable. Even calibration with a flash meter produces inconsistent
results. Time to dump them I guess.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999
I just got a beautiful black Rollei 35S that was mint except for a missing
screw. Its the one on the end near the film advance lever That holds the
top plate on. I've had 4 different Rollei 35s with this screw missing, is
there a design flaw here?.
Having had the same problem before I knew how to solve it. I went to a
thrift shop here and bought a couple of pairs of beat up reading glasses
for 50 cents each. I dismantled them and saved all the screws. Sure enough,
one of them was a perfect fit. You have to have one that is fairly short
and is threaded full length. I saved the rest of the screws for future
emergencies.
Another source of tiny screws for cameras is old calculators.
I hope this helps someone else with similar problems.
Terry
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 99
I've had screws vibrate loose on many older cameras from time to time. I
doubt it's a design flaw, just mishandling or vibration damage. None of
my Rollei 35s have ever been missing that screw.
Lock it in place with a dab of fingernail polish.
Godfrey
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Try "Small Parts Inc." in Florida. Working from memory here, but I am
pretty sure that is the name.
Nick Lindan
From: Brett Palmer PalmerB2@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.edu
That is correct:
http://www.SmallParts.com
Another possibility is S. LaRose, Inc. This company sells clock
repair parts, but regularly features "grab bags" of assorted tiny
screws, and other sundries:
http://www.SLaRose.com
Brett Palmer
From: "Alan Rosenberg" alleyro@earthlink.net
Most glass stores carry the acid etched.. Take a T-square and draw with a #2
pencil on the frosted side.. The lines you need for composition.. You can
also order extra clear glass and have it cut for neg carriers.. you can you
frosted on top for condenser enlargers.. They will grind edge so you will
not get cut I use 1/4" on my Besseler 23C II Never have neg curl again..
Color edge with black marker to avoid light leaks. Use Gaffers tape to mask
off glass.
From: Ray Harman ray@rharman.demon.co.uk
Avery now make specific 35mm slide labels.
Ref No: J8657 25
These are from their speciality Ink Jet range.
Size 11mm x 46mm 42 labels per sheet.
--
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999
Jan Decher wrote:
I played with a functioning Contax 645 at Camera World in Oregon this
weekend. It is on tour. The camera is impressive. Extremely well
dampened mirror action it seems to me. Auto focusing works great. But
there is a huge problem; the lenses. They looked great in the pictures
I've seen of them. I heard they were much cheaper than comparable Blad lens:
They look like cheap Vivitar lenses made in the mid seventies(not series
one). Sure this glass inside is possibly state of the art but all
wrapped up in the most insulting package you could imagine. There is no
comparison in the mf world that I can think of. Pentax or Kowa or any
lenses looked better than these. And the prices the rep read off to me
sounded just like blad prices, no cheaper.
In other words I am looking at $2000 glass that looks like $200 glass.
You could say "It's not how the lens looks its how the picture looks
that counts". and to that I would say "(&^%^**%$%& $%%# @*&%^&" no
really. You shell out two grand for these mouseburgers.
Something with the words "Zeiss" on it deserves better.
I'll go for the Pentax.
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999
Check around and see if you can find a Star-D Professional Tripod. It's
a GREAT knock-off of the TILT-ALL, and is just terrific for the RO. You
can find them for roughly $60-100 based on how flexible the seller might
be! I've used them professionally for 25 years! SUPERB. Bob Erdman.
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999
Scott,
For a tripod at a reasonable price, I would recommend the Slik 300DX.
I also have a Bogen which is good and solid, but the Slik is the best deal
for the money and very sturdy. Runs about $89 new in the stores. See it at
http://www.tocad.com/12d.html
...
From: "Laird Allshouse" lairda@penn.com
I stumbled upon just such an epoxy last night in an old Hosfelt Electronics
catalog. The product is conductive silver epoxy, used to repair circuit
boards.
Laird
>Keith Wiebe keithw@southwind.net
>There was a company that made conducting epoxy to repair the rear
>windshield defroster terminals. At one time it could be ordered through
>Ford but that was about 6 yrs ago. You might try an independent parts store
>or even a windshield shop for some of the epoxy. (It was silver in color).
>Keith Wiebe
>
>Laird Allshouse lairda@penn.com wrote in article
>> My Yashica Mat camera's meter no longer works. The problem is due to a
>> broken battery terminal.
>>
>> For those not familiar with this camera, the battery sits in a small well
>on
>> a flexible metal terminal which is cast into the plastic of the camera.
>The
>> terminal snapped off flush with the entry into the plastic.
>>
>> I think that I can forget about any soldering or other mechanical
>connection
>> of the terminal, since soldering would melt the plastic and the space
>seems
>> too small to even get a tool in there to clear the plastic from the
>> conductor remaining in the camera body.
>>
>> I have hopes that there is some sort of conducting liquid which I might
>drip
>> down into the cavity. This liquid would hopefully seep in around the
>> conductor remaining in the body, thus creating a larger conducting area
>in
>> the bottom of the well. Then, perhaps, I could epoxy the battery
>terminal
>> down against the conducting liquid (now dried, of course) and bring this
>> meter back to life.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me whether such a conducting liquid exists, or suggest a
>> better approach. This camera is otherwise mint, and takes great photos.
>>
>> Laird
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Mike Johansen mschaal@san.rr.com wrote:
The lens_to_film_plane_distance is the lens focal length plus the
extension required for focusing closer than infinity. For subject
distances further than 10X the focal length, one can substitute
the focal length if the value need not be exact.
If you ignore the distance between the nodal point of thick lenses,
one can use the following formula to calculate subject to film plane
distance (D) for a particular magnification (M) and focal length (L).
From NikonMF list:
There is a product from Tetenal called "Kameralack", and comes in both a
glossy and matt finish, 100ml per bottle. Don't know where to get it in
the USA, but perhaps start from www.tetenal.com for a clue.
PaulS :)
[Ed. note: infinity related to focal length...]
Yadri,
Last I heard, infinity was considered to be 100x the focal length of the
lens for large format.
So for the 120mm thats 12,000mm, or 472.44" or 39.37 feet. For the 180mm
its 59.05 feet. the
90mm should be 29.52 feet.
Randy
From: Todd & Sharon Peach tpeach@gte.net
tc@tccom.com wrote:
I've lived in "rain country" all my life and never resorted to this. If
it's raining, I keep the camera under my coat when I'm not shooting. I
use an ordinary cotton hankerchief to wipe down the larger water drops
after exposing the camera to the rain. Use a UV or other protective
filter to keep water from spotting your front element.
I have seen others use trash bags or any other plastic bag that is
handy. You either cut a hole on the bag or wrap the bag around your
filter/lens hood. Secure with tape or rubber band. Some folks only
make the bag big enough to cover the camera, others leave it large
enough to cover their head, which addresses the problematic area of
seeing through the viewfinder.
If you cover your head with a plastic bag, remember, "this is not a
toy."
-Todd
Owner, Manual Focus Nikon Mailing List: NikonMF@onelist.com
From: Tammy Spratt trevor92@earthlink.net
Kirk has a couple of options for rain protectiion...I did not see the
Tenba rain covers on their website but it is in the catalog if you ask
for it or you could just call and ask...
http://www.kirkphoto.com/straps.html
No, don't work for them...just remembered seeing the raincovers in the
catalog.
Tammy
From: Allen Brown browna@hevanet.com
I was looking for rain protection for my camera this winter, and found
no camera shop in my area that carried any. Apparently, there is little
demand for rain covers in my area, which is surprising considering I
live in Portland, Oregon, where it has been known to rain from time to
time.
In any case, I found that Ewa-Marine makes rain capes as well as soft,
underwater housings or bags for cameras. Their rain capes, start for
under $20 (if I remember right), with their "hurricane" cape going for
under $100. Their underwater bags are more expensive, starting at
$150-$200. As I wrote, no one in Portland, not even cameraworld.com,
had the capes or bags, but stores could special ordered them. If you
want to check out the Ewa-Marine Web page go to
http://www.ewamarine.com/home-II.htm .
Tenba also makes rain covers. B&H; Photo sells these on-line, with
prices ranging from $30-$60. B&H;'s site is at
http://www.bhphotovideo.com .
Finally, in "Nature Photographer," I came across an ad for "Camera
Slickers", which are rain covers. They ranged in price from $25-$30. I
found no WWW site for this company, and when I called and asked for more
information, they simply sent me a Xerox copy of their ad, so I still
know little about them. Their phone number was 1-800-741-1449.
If you find out some more information about rain covers, I would
appreciate you letting me know.
---------
From Nikon Mailing List:
To wit, Popular Photography (US camera magazine) measured the trigger
voltage of a popular flash, the Vivitar 283. One made about ten years
ago had a trigger voltage of about 211 volts. A new one only used about
10 volts as a trigger voltage.
For those interested, the article in question is in the 5/99 PopPhoto, on
page 60.
regards,
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
After reading the article I measured the trigger voltage on my flash units.
I just picked up a Coolpix 950. It has a 3 prong connector like the one on
my SB-16. The manual list several Nikon Speedlights that can be used with
it but the SB-16 isn't on the list. Is there any reason I couldn't use it?
If so, what cord would I need? Thanks,
From: ted andresen sfk8suz@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
If you camera has a split image view-finder and you are not satisfied by
the clarity of your pictures, this may help you.
In optics the split image is what is known as a virtual image. This is
opposed to the image that you see on the matte surrounding the
split-image circle. The image on the matte is a real image. That is, it
is the same image that would be formed on the plane of the film when the
reflex mirror is raised.
Unfortunately, the clarity and the apparent distance of the split image is
effected by the accomodation of your eye. If you happen to wear classes,
especially for distance, you may have a problem getting well focused
images on the film if you use the split image view finder to attain
optimal focus.
A good way to see this phenomenon is to focus on an object first with
glasses and then without glasses. You will find the that split images are
not aligned in both positions. The effect is due to the glasses.
All this seems to point to using the matte for focusing. However, you
should test this carefully before you make a commitment to using the matte
as your primary focus. In fact, it may not be a good indicator of optimal
focus if the matte is not the same 'optical' path distance behind the lens
as the film plate. To investigate this I suggest that you perform an
experiment that will require that you take three photos of a set of
vertical lines. In the first photo the top image should be slightly to
the left of the lower image. They would be aligned in the second image,
and the upper image would be to the right in the last photo. When you get
the photos back, you'll be able to see which split image position gives to
the optimal focus.
Ted Andresen
Floating habitat homepage: http://members.aol.com/Tjacmc/
Editor's Notes: Ball Head Lubrication Tips page
now contains notes from thread on ball head lubrication...
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999
I've been using Taprell Loomis albums, which hold 5x5, 10x10, etc. I get
them
mail order from Tyndell Photographic @ 800-82-smart. They have several
different styles. If I recall, their album to hold 152 5x5 prints is about
$21.
What do you recommend to store 5x5 proof prints ?
Any mail-order source for such albums, and square frames
(8x8, 10x10, 16x16, 20x20). Thanks much, in advance.
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999
Susan,
I stand corrected, as there IS a web site for Taprell Loomis albums.
www.tap-usa.com
It has a nice map of the US showing contact info for dealers in the different
states.
Peter
From Nikon Mailing List:
The May issue of Popular Photography has an article by James Bailey on
possible damage to AF cameras when using electronic flash. "Nikon F4 and
newer Nikon AF cameras have a sync voltage of 250 volts or less. Higher
voltage could fry the camera's electronic circuitry". He also mentions
that Wein makes a "safe sync" hot shoe with PC connector that transmits
only 6 volts to the camera's sync contacts, model # 990-550, lists for
$45.95 (acts as a buffer between the flash and camera). Not being an
electrical engineer, I have a question about the power sources. I have
used the Quantum Turbo high voltage power pack with SB-24 and SB-25 flash
units on the F4. The Quantum Turbo specs indicate 8.6 V battery, but an
article states that internal flash batteries (AA's) provide low voltage
for the microchips in the flash and the Turbo supplies the heavy power for
flash recycling. I think I read somewhere that the stepped up power for
re- cycling is well over 250 volts. Could this recycle power damage the F4
or later Nikon AF cameras (F5 or F100)? I also have a Quantum 1 which I
use with the SB-24 and SB-25 with the F4. Also have used the F4 with
Sunpak Monolight MS-4000 studio flash units (specs show high voltage level
360 V DC). I have used the Metz 60 CT-1 flash with the Mecamat 60-30 in
the F4 hot shoe, but I believe the Metz Dryfit battery is charged at 6V. I
am concerned about possible damage to Nikon F4 or F5 cameras. Any
information or advice will be appreciated.
Thanks, Bob Ennis
From: Mel Brown melbrown@eatel.net
Michael wrote:
Michael, except for the most critical work, the light loss of a lens at its
closest focusing distance is generally insignificant.
If you want to calculate it out, here is a formula:
eif = ((ed/fl) + 1)^2
There, eif = exposure increase factor, ed = extension distance (how far the
lens is extended from its infinity focus position), and fl = lens focal
length.
To convert eif to stops, use:
f = log(eif)/log(2)
By the way, your guess is fairly close; extending a 100mm lens by 25mm
would require 0.64 stops more exposure.
Mel Brown
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999
The little posting I sent the other day generated lots of questions to
me regarding possible damage to various AF cameras from high flash
trigger voltages. So, I thought I would make one more posting on this
subject.
Pre-AF cameras had no problems hundreds of volt to trigger a flash.
However, the electronic filled AF cameras of today are more sensitive.
To wit, Popular Photography (US camera magazine) measured the trigger
voltage of a popular flash, the Vivitar 283. One made about ten years
ago had a trigger voltage of about 211 volts. A new one only used about
10 volts as a trigger voltage.
They also listed the maximum safe trigger voltage for some cameras. They
implied these values came from the manufacturers.
So, even a brand new Vivitar 283 is not safe to use on an EOS! (small
dig at Canon)
I measured three flash units I had available:
*********************************
To measure your own flash, do the following:
Use a volt meter with a rating of at least 20,000 Ohms per Volt.
Set to DC scale, starting at 1000 volts, to be safe. Turn to lower scale
as required.
Turn flash on and let come up to ready.
*** Point unit away from you!***
Touch one probe to side contact (would normally be touching the side of
the hot shoe).
Touch the other probe to the center contact of the hot shoe. Note
reading.
If you have a PC cord unit, simply use the outside and center contact on
the PC cord.
*******************************
I have been told by Speedotron (maker of studio strobes) that older
studio strobes (with an H plug) use high trigger voltages. Newer ones,
with a 1/4 inch phono plug, use low voltage triggers.
If your flash exceeds the Nikon recommended 250 volts, you can use a
Wein Safe Sync to lower the voltage to 6 volts. This was tested by the
magazine and worked as advertised.
Sorry about the slightly off topic post, but safety of our person and/or
equipment takes priority, and I do use these flash units on my Nikon
cameras (F through F5).
Colin
From: zeitgeist greenky.wa@mindspring.com
PMaszak wrote:
It would help if you told the group where you were, then someone
who lived there could give more precise info.
In most urban cities, there is a professional camera
store/supplier with a rental department. Many photographers
find that it doesn't pay to own $50K of gear if it is only
used a couple days a week or per month. So a good rental
place can usually supply you with a good range of stuff,
though only two or three flavors, hasselblad and mamiya or
bronica are typical.
I live in Tacoma and must drive up to Seattle to rent most
things I need. There are some camera stores around here,
but they either don't rent pro gear, or the items available
are taken out of the used camera display and so it's
availability is not a sure thing. Often times there are
repair and used camera dealers (independents as opposed to a
retail store,) around who can rent their stock
From: ac955@torfree.net (Tom Sapiano)
When you apply a teleconverter to a lens, you are magnifying the centre
of the image. The lens is designed with tollerances for 1X
magnification. Even at 1X their are few lenses that can resolve the
resolution of some of the slower films. When you apply a teleconverter,
any flaws are magnified, resolving power is decreased (since you are only
using the centre of the lens), etc. The more you magnify it, the more
these problems come into play. A 1.4X telecoverter will almost always
give you better images than a 2X teleconverter (as shooting without a
teleconverter will provide better images than with a 1.4X).
With that said, some of the higher end lenses are designed with this in
mind and are produced to higher tollerances, this decreases the
degredation of the image, but it is still there.
Also, even with the fastest lenses, two stops light loss is a big
pentalty (f2.8 becomes f5.6). This degrades your ability to see through
the viewfinder (much darker) and slows down autofocus (if the
lens/teleconverter combo allow it) quite a bit. This is why most people
stick with 1.4X converters.
Christopher J. Christian (cjc2@bellatlantic.net) wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
Not necessarily easy to find, but might be cheap if you did find,
is a screen from a late model Yashica TLR. Maybe you could find
a junker with a good screen. Also, the screens in the Chinese
Seagull TLRs are pretty good, and most of the shutters die in a
year or so, so these should turn up at photo swap meets cheap.
Bronica screens for their SQ cameras can be adapted to fit Rollei
with a little trimming with a jeweler's saw.
Good luck.
Bob
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
"Chris Newman" chrisn01@sprynet.com wrote:
About the only practical way is to compare it to a known good meter.
Selenium cell meters should be checked at both ends of the scale since
they tend to become non-linear with age and will often read right for
low ligh but low for stronger light. A reflected light meter can be
checked against an incident meter by using an 18% gray card although
there are some errors that can creep in. A good deal of care is
required in comparing meters with different shapes of light diffusers
or reflected light meters with different acceptance angles.
I am able to get agreement among several meters of various ages,
among them a Luna-Pro (my standard), a Sekonik L-28c, a General
Electric PR-1, the TTL meter in my Nikon F-1 and the meter on a
Rolleiflex 2.8E. I have a couple of other old Selenium meters which
have the common non-linearity reading low for bright sunlight (by a
stop or more) but right in low level light.
---
From Nikon Mailing List:
No the maximum trigger voltage to not cause damage is 250V.
NO.... this is wrong.
If you only touch one terminal of a device that is not grounded, then
you only define the ground (this is the basis for isolating
transformers used for safety), current does not flow. If the device
is grounded, then you take what ever potential is relative to your
ground (not necessarily the same).
The actual voltages within flash units can be much higher, but the
sync pin voltage (relative to the sync return) can be a few hundred
volts or just a few volts. With an ISO shoe the return path is
protected by the shoe so that unless you try you *should* not get a
shock. PC cords on the other hand are a great source for shocks (and
I can personally assure you that they do hurt - and should be handled
with care even if the flash is turned off - especially if you have a
weak heart).
NB As with all "electrical advice" on the internet -- it is important
that you note that the above is NOT SAFETY ADVICE.
Be careful about the use of the term "safety" here - the 6V limit is
for camera protection not for your safety - plenty of people get
serious burnt every year from 6V and 12V lead acid batteries (as used
in cars etc.) due to high current (not high voltage).
Andy Shaw
From Nikon Mailing List:
AD noted:
Speaking from experience, you get zapped. I used to get the tinglies
regularly using Vivitar 283s with high-voltage batteries on my F3s back
when nobody worried about trigger voltage.
- --
From Nikon Mailing List:
Andy,
Thanks for clarifying some things for me, espicially my comment about
defining safe for the camera and safe for the user. But speaking as
someone who was knocked out and still bears a scar on my right eyebrow
from a shock delivered through the sync cord to ay Nikon F (camera
survived with no problems) from a Speedotron 800 w/s pack directly
connected via PC cord to the camera, I am a bit wary so whenever
possible I use an LPA Pocket Wizard to isolate myself from that
potential hazard. Before anybody asks, I was in my studio, not standing
in water and the pack semed to be grounded through the mains.
I also just got off the line with Nikon USA and the confirmed that you
are right that the maximum camera-safe trigger voltage for cameras at
least as far back as the F4 is 250 Volts. I apologize for spreading a
false rumor about the limit of camera safe trigger voltage being 25
volts.
I want to make completely clear that the above is NOT SAFETY ADVICE.
SAFE FOR THE EQUIPMENT DOES NOT MEAN SAFE FOR THE USER.
Yours respectfully,
Ellis Vener
From Nikon Mailing List:
Myron at Nikon USA mentioned that "older 283 units had trigger voltages as
high
as 600 volts..." Please be clear about this, he said older, not recent or
current Vivitar 283 units. I am hazarding a conservative guess that "older"
refers to units made more than five years ago.
John Albino wrote:
...
From: "Michael S. Briggs" MS.Briggs@cwix.com
Chris Newman wrote:
As others have said, the absolute calibration of a meter is somewhat
unimportant, since any change in the zero-point can be compensated for
by determining an effective film speed in testing the combination of
meter/camera/film/development. That said, an absolute test can be
useful, e.g., to check that a meter hasn't changed.
Richard J. Henry gives such a test in his book "Controls in
Black-and-White Photography", pp. 176--179. Briefly, one needs a GE
White 100 W bulb rated at 1585 lumens. Mounted in a horizontal position
and viewed from 29 feet 2 inches, a tripod-mounted meter should read EV
15. The wall voltage must be 118 volts.
The book has an extensive discussion of light meters and their
calibration.
--Michael
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999
Hello Hasselblad List Members,
Flash duration is an issue. The new "Photovision" training tapes give
some bad advice on this topic, and I wanted to give details. From a high
level, if you set your Gossen Luna Star F flash meter at 1/1000 and
measure a lengthy flash, such as a Manual full power flash from a Sunpak
522 or Metz 60 CT1, your reading will be low. Thanks to Joe McCary on
this list for publishing his results on this same topic, in which he
showed that a Hasselblad shutter at 1/500th will not get as much exposure
with studio strobes as it will at 1/125th. Joe used slide film for his
test.
The advice on the Photovision tapes was to set your meter for 1/1000 when
reading for the flash exposure. The meter in the fellow's hand looked to
be a Gossen Luna Star F, the same meter I use. Having used this meter
myself, I know that it has a nasty habit of giving the ambient reading as
the flash reading, which was probably the reason for this advice. The
situation that confuses it is "mottled shade" where the tree is thin and
there are some areas of full light and some shadows. When you set to read
flash, then move the meter quickly from shade to sun to shade, it reads
the brief sunlight as a flash, even if the flash has not been fired. In
some situations, where a short flash duration is used, setting the shutter
speed to 1/1000 will make sure that the ambient is not confused with the
flash. The problem is that the meter is smart enough to detect the flash
duration relative to 1/1000, and only reveal the exposure you would get
within the 1/1000 period.
To repeat my results, fire a flash like the ones above or a studio strobe
at full power at a Gossen Luna Star F set for flash reading at 1/1000,
indoors in a dimly lit room. Then repeat this with the flash meter set
for 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60 and 1/30. You should note that the flash
power is under-reported at 1/1000, but reports the same with the shutter
speed (capture time) set to any duration which is longer than the flash
duration. With the shorter duration of 1/8th power, 1/1000 is fine.
The topic of flash duration is one of those that flash makers tend to
obscure, because it is both difficult to report and something they do not
want the customer to assess negatively relative to their product. Both
Sunpak and Canon have provided some data on this topic. The manual that
came with my Sunpak indicates that the max duration on full power is
1/400. The manual with my Canon T-90 suggests that 1/125 may be required
by some studio strobes, even though 1/250 is offered by the camera. While
I like my Novatron 600VR power pack, only a vague hint is given as to the
flash duration in the user manual, and no particular shutter speed is
advised.
Having watched the Photovision tapes a few weeks ago, I used this bogus
"fool the meter" technique on two recent jobs. In both, my meter was
reading 2.8 with 100 Fuji Reala when the flash was probably f5.6 or f8.
The Sunpak 522 flash is small enough that, at worst, I was r stop over the
ambient when I was hoping for 1 to 2 stops under, so the results are
printable. However, I think that the "fool the meter" technique with the
1/1000 setting is more likely to "fool the photographer" with a false
reading. The technique I suggest is to use the meter at either the actual
shutter speed or at least a speed no shorter than the flash duration.
Once you understand the capability of the meter to measure flash relative
to duration, it can be a way to roughly gauge flash duration.
It would be good if the flash durations were available. As some of Harold
Edgerton's (sp) work with high speed flash showed, they can be valuable
for stopping motion, and less so at long duration. I have a call into
Novatron in Dallas, to try to get their engineer to report some duration
fugures.
In defense of the "Photovision" tapes, they are very nicely made and full of
valuable information. It is not unusual for advice that works for one
photographer to be less applicable to another's technique.
I would be interested to see if others reproduce the same results using other
flashes/meters, etc.
Peter
p.s. I will refrain from discussion of flash trigger voltage, also
under-reported and even more widely variable among flash makers.
p.p.s This is a resend. My return address was changed by our admin
folks, once again.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
So, a related Minolta question . . .
The Leica R4, as I recall, was based on the Minolta XD-11's electronics
(and maybe the R3 was based on the XE-7 or some such -- my memory is
foggier there -- and Leica used a few Minolta lens designs in the past
(not to mention the CL/CLE collaboration). So the question is this: Is
Leica still working closely with Minolta on SLR designs? I haven't kept up
-- the R8 (I missed the R5, 6 and 7 -- if there were such things --
completely) an original design or is it borrowed technology as well.
rec.photo.technique.misc
black glass, paint the backside and clean the top surface
and it will reflect the shape of the object, place a very
large softbox above, or aim a soft spotlight at a white
ceiling and move it around till you get the effect that
works. works in color or b&w;
NikonNurse wrote:
From: maimthemime@once.com (Maim the Mime)
Mftrd by Rockland Colloidal as I recall (I bought it freq from
Freestyle in Calif) it is great fun.
Not always easy to use because it is an emulsion which is solid at
room temperature (or it would run off of the paper!) but liquid at
much higher temp. Consequently, its container must be heated in a
double-boiler until it becomes liquid, then the emulsion is painted
onto the receiving surface in darkness or very dim safelight, then
must "set" till hardened again. This is not always as easy as
expected because it must setup in darkness of course but it needs an
airflow for evaporation, but a filtered airflow to reduce dust. also,
the light-sensitive silver in the emulsion will begin to fog if too
much heat is applied or for too long.
I developed (sorry) a respect for paper and film manufacturers after
coating my own for a few years. It's not easy at all to keep it
consistent, so the "hand-crafted look" helps to hide the
imperfections. I found my photos were best printed onto coated chunks
of coal. ;^)
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
I own the T-3, TC and FS-1. The last does not require mercury meter
batteries.
Of the three, I think the T-3 [and probably the T-4] to be the most
rugged. It is built like a battleship. Three new FS-1 that I bought in
1963 jammed in motorized film transport. The one I have now did then, but
seems to have "cured" itself. The TC is rugged, compact and a gem, but
doesn't have quite the versatility of the T-3.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
....
I would go with the FT-1. I think that parts and service are still
available from Konica (along with, of all things, the TC-X). The
FS-1 apparently had some reliability problems. The TC was the same
as the T4, except that it has fewer features, which led to it being
more reliable. And the T3 was a real workhorse. The T3, T2, T and
the A, A2, A1000 and A3 all used PX-675 mercury batteries, and the
T4 and TC used 625 mercuries for which there are the CR-9 adapters,
but I have not had a chance to try them out.
From Leica Mailing List:
Roy Feldman wrote:
Silver cleaner.
Robert
From: "Tony and Arlene Sanchez" tonyarl@ix.netcom.com
Hello:
The 75-150 and 70-210 Series E (I have or had both) use felt (as in the
cloth) instead of grease to provide friction. I have no idea why Nikon did
this. Even cheap after-market lenses use grease. Good optics, though.
- Tony
rec.photo.misc
The Phil Davis book has complete instructions for using your spotmeter
as a densitometer -- Beyond The Zone System.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
I cut the bottom off one of the black ones, it makes a great eyepiece
shield to keep light from getting into the viewer to mess up my meter
readings when shooting macro shots of jewelry.
EJKowalski
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
Check Edmund Scientific www.edsci.com. They sell the U.S.A.F. Optical
Test Pattern Resolving Power Chart for $18.95.
Jim
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000
I recently did some weight calculations that may be useful. Camera
body+TTL
prism+three lenses+120 back if applicable: very wide angle, normal and
portrait telephoto lenses:
I once carried an RZ with prism, three backs, three lenses, etc. It will
put color in your cheeks on uphill climbs. Makes you look for good
pictures
near the car. Makes beautiful images! I now used a light 4X5 with four
lenses and it's much lighter. When time permits nothing beats large format
for quality at 16X20 and up.
But you miss some pictures. In general I find that moving up in format
always means giving up some images for better quality. It like trading
content for image quality. Not always a good trade.
andy
.....
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000
I'm not sure that cameras really have an inherent bias towards left or
right handiness. The classic 35 mm Exaktas (produced from 1936 through
1970) are not generally thought of as left-handed cameras, yet the shutter
release and film advance were both on the left, the opposite of virtually
every other 35 mm SLR. 2 1/4 square TLR's follow no pattern at all. Here
are some examples (focus hand shown first, followed by shutter release
hand): Koni-Omegaflex and Kalloflex-right, left; Yashica D-right, right;
Ansco Automatic Reflex and Rolleiflex-left, right. The Mamiya C330 is
completely ambidextrous with dual focus knobs and dual shutter releases..
Peter Caplow
Sweetpea wrote:
From Rollei Mailing List;
Not at all, the grid is fixed and can - well, MUST - not be removed. This
is, in fact, one of the very basical points in photogrammetry.
In photogrammetry you can use three different kinds of cameras:
- metric (one of the most famous was the Carl Zeiss Jena UMK, many
kilograms of top quality steel and glass in 13x18cm). These cameras were
built expressly for this job, and were top quality and top^2 price. As far
as I know, no firm still makes metric cameras (only possible exception:
Wild, but I am not sure, maybe they sell cameras assembled from spare
parts).
- semi-metric (normal cameras modified like the Rolleimetric, with a
r,seau plate - the glass full with crosses). Very few companies in the
world perform the transformation - at least reliably.
- and - wait for it! - non metric (normal cameras, of the highest quality,
of course).
To be transformed and used for photogrammetry, a normal camera must be
fitted with the r,seau plate and calibrated , i.e.: - the focal length
(Ck) must be measured up to the 3rd decimal figure (e.g. 75.068); this
also means that you can no more focus (while focusing, the lens-to-film
distance varies, and together varies the focal length). Usually the lens
is fixed at the hyperfocal distance for f/5.6. Some cameras are allowed
focusing in steps (i.e. the Rolleimatric 6xxx)
- the position of the intersection between the axis of the lens and the
film plane, also called principal point (PP), must also be known within an
accuracy of few (very few indeed..) microns
- the position of the small crosses in relation to the principal point
(PP) must be measured (within microns again)
- the radial distortion curve must be known
Now I think it's clear why the transformation of a normal camera in a
semi-metric camera is a very expensive job. Rolleimetric cameras are top
quality and over_the_top price. That's why softwares for photogrammetry
have been developed which can use a normal camera, performing a sort of
"self calibration". In fact I currently use my unmodified Rolleis ('flex
3.5B and 'cord V) with my software, for my job, and I am very satisfied
both for the quality of the pictures and for the accuracy of the measures.
Ciao
From Rollei Mailing List;
Have you tried http://babelfish.altavista.com?
I've used this in the past to help translate a german user
manual to english and it worked well enough for me to figure out
the rest on my own.
Sanjay
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999
This is quite common on many lenses and I have heard it referred to as
zoom creep. I have seen it posted that it is worse with push/pull zoom
control as opposed to rotary control rings.
What I do is have a wide rubber band near the edge of the ring. When I
want to increase the friction of zooming, I nudge it over so it covers
the ring and the fixed part of the barrel. I have three zooms with
different positions of the rings relative to the focus ring. The rubber
band also quickly identifies the zoom control relative to the focus
control.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998
The effect you describe is not seen because a leaf shutter is located near
the center of the lens front to back, in addition to being in the center.
So if there is any extra exposure, it works like a smaller F-stop
exposure. You will not get any more uneven exposure than would occur at a
small F-stop. And most lenses get more uneven as they use larger
apertures, if at all.
The effect is logorithmic, and when the aperture is open (say 2.8), 1/4 of
the light comes from the area smaller than F5.6, and 3/4 from the "annular
ring" around it. Or 1/16 from the F11, and 15/16 from the area around
that. Or 1/64 from the area inside of F22, and 63/64 around it, where you
might get an effect. It all gets "drowned out".
There is sometimes a little extra exposure (this I learned from the little
paper sheets that used to come in the rolls of Kodak film). If you set
the lens to a small F-Stop (say 22) and set the lens to a fast shutter
speed, say 1/500. And I begin to realize that I could measure it by using
a phototransistor and and the $100 digital scope that connects to my
computer that I bought from Radio Schack.... But I digress. But the
point is, that a leaf shutter will take some time to move the distance,
and at a high speed and a closed down F-Stop, there will be a little extra
exposure. (To be masked by the reciprocity effect? The mind boggles!).
I used to calculate these things when I used a Braun Paxette....
It is not a stupid question though.
Enter your name here wrote in message
From Rollei Mailing List;
Hi, Andre,
Yes, those self adhesive labels are really nightmare to our Rollei-babies.
I use hair dryer, not too close to the label itself in order not to damage
the camera, to blow the self adhesive. When the label is warm, the
adhesive will be soft and easy to be took off.
Best Regards,
Ming-Sung Lin
.....
From Rollei Mailing List:
......
Ferdi
For shame! As a pharmacist, YOU of all people should know of the best
product of all for safely removing adhesives from sensitive surfaces:
PDI Adhesive Tape Remover Pads which are available from surgical
pharmacies (pharmacys?)
They are safe and will remove the most aggresive adhesives.
My daughter tells me that they are best gotten from hospital pharmacies.
Jerry
Date: 10 Aug 1999
Hi!
Bob Wheeler bwheeler@echip.com wrote:
Bob,
You're so gracious. What about the rest of my post? Since you've started
a new thread, I'll just reproduce it here, for your perusal. Surely,
someone genteel enough to apologize for a typo would have the DECENCY to
explain his incessant criticism of another's work.
Bob, don't you see that your stubborn unwillingness to openly debate the
mathematics of my diffraction calculations not only makes it plainly
obvious to third party observers that your criticisms are unfounded, but
worse, shows them what you're made of?
I would consider myself privileged to know you if you could just bring
yourself to admit that we discussed this offline, in great detail, that we
discovered why you thought I was off by a factor of 2 and that it was a
simple mistake on your part (not realizing that I was comparing spread
function diameters instead of radius) and that you would now like to
retract your denouncements of my work. Please consider just how marvelous
such an act of honesty would be seen in the eyes of others.
I will not publish our "private communication" without your permission, so
this last appeal is my only hope of defending my work. If it was just any
knucklehead finding fault with my math, I wouldn't care so much, but it's
Bob Wheeler. Please act in accordance with your reputation.
Mike Davis
Date: 13 Aug 1999
from: flexaret@sprynet.com (Sam Sherman) 8-12-99
All Minolta manual focus SLR lenses should fit all such cameras - BUT-
Some early ones will not work with the stop down mechanism on later
cameras. The preset lenses will work on all Minolta manual focus SLRs. MC
and MD lenses will work on all later Minolta manual focus SLRs. MD lenses
will work fine on the earlier models. MD lenses work on XD11, XD5, for
shutter priority and X-700 for program. That's probably it for what is
special about the MD group. The lenses have an added finger on the
aperture ring, which when the lens is set at its smallest aperture,
activates an external lever on MD cameras to key in the graduated stop
down mechanism for Shutter Priority. This will allow the camera to stop
down anywhere from full open to the smallest aperture and those in between
as governed by the exposure mechanism.
Minolta's brochures of the day explained how the MD lenses had special
parts and superior design to allow for this shutter priority, giving the
impression to all Minolta users that the MD lenses were somehow better
than the MC lenses and imply everyone should upgrade to this new design
even if they did not own an XD11 etc. --- Sheer Nonsense!
I crafted a small part to fit in the XD5 external lever and fool the
camera into thinking that it had an MD lens set to its smallest aperture.
I then tried a series of MC lenses on this camera, setting them to the
smallest aperture, and they behaved fine in "Shutter Priority" just like
MD lenses - no special construction etc. All it took was fooling the
camera into thinking it had an MD lens. Just like buyers were fooled into
thinking that they needed MD lenses for MC cameras.
Be careful when you buy. A good tale was the Exakta VX1000TL - the same
exact camera as the Exakta VX1000 only a small TL was engraved on the
front plate, implying that this camera somehow worked better with the then
new TTL meter prisms. VX1000 owners were encouraged to trade up to the
new, improved TL model - which only differed in the engraving of two
letters. I wonder how much more they could have charged if they engraved
an extra 12 letters??
- Sam Sherman
From Rollei Mailing List:
Actually no camera with a focal plane shutter can possibly synch at 1/2000
second. Olympus, Nikon, Canon and maybe others play some slight of hand
to make it appear that they do. When using the high speed synch on these
systems the flash fires in stroboscopic mode producing a sequence of
flashes
very fast with a duration as long as the shutter's curtain travel time.
This gives exposure over the whole frame, but at much reduced power
output, and due to the long duration of the flash it does not have the
action
stopping capability it would have if it really did synch at 1/2000 second.
It is essentially the same effect press photographers used to get with the
old long-burn flashbulbs, but those had a lot more real power.
The fastest true flash synch on a consumer camera is the 1/1000 second
you can get on the Rollei 6000 series cameras with the PQ-S lenses.
Bob
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999
Go to a camera store, anyone even Kits Konsumer Kameras in
the mall, and look at their expensive diffusers and bounce
deflectors, then go cut some thing simular out of a white
plastic milk jug. If you think about it, or try a dozen
different ways of cutting up the jugs, you can use the
bends, angles and corners of the jug the way is is and just
tape in place.
I've been telling people over and over to bounce the flash
off the side walls, Spectrum just dropped a cool idea, place
a reflector card near you, on a stand or prop it on
something nearby and bounce your flash off it. That would
be more appropriately directional and the foamboard would be
more efficient.
However, the concept of much too bright is different than
what a bounce card or diffuser is intended. The flash
seeming too bright is most often the result of cheap labs
printing for an averaged exposure. Most often the neg is
fine, or at least printable with much better results if
someone was actually paying attention in the lab.
Cheap flashes are not the most reliable in their exposure
and your could be over exposing which could be correctable
with adjusting the ISO or stopping down from the flash's
recommended f/stop.
The effect to to much brightness is often a result of a
brightly lit subject, but no light on the background, giving
you the "bride in the coal mine" effect. A background that
is double the distance from the flash as the subject will
loose two stops which is closee to black. TTripod and a
slow shutter speed can help, especially if your subjects
co-operate. a second flash slaved and used either as a
feathered key.
what journalists do alot is bounce the flash off the
ceiling, but put a small white card at an angle so it throws
a portion of the light at the subject, but most heads to the
ceiling and bounces both at the subject and the background,
since only a smaller part of the light is aimed at the
subject, it doesn't get that much more light than the
background (within reason)
adyhawke1969@my-deja.com wrote:
hehehehe, well, ok, for close ups it would put enough light
(1/2 lengths etc) but for groups? and do you know what red
eye is? but the main problem is that kind of light
basically sucks. It could work as a fill with a slaved
flash as a key.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
This is important.
...
The Olympus was designed to be as small as possible and the prism housing
was made quite small so the photodiodes are physically closer to the
prism.
I'm not quite familiar with the guts of the OM-2 but, if I remember
properly, some of the diodes sit on either side of the eyepiece.
A result of making the camera as small as possible...
Yes, but not enough to seriously affect the readings.
Yes, partly.
Yes, if you like, but it won't help when you pull your eye away from the
eyepiece.
Get some black masking tape, a professional photolab or art store might
have some, or some electrical tape. Fold over a short bit (so you have
something to grab it with), cut off a couple of inches of it and put it on
the bottom plate of your camera. When you intend to shoot something and it
looks like stray light might affect your readings, take the tape and cover
the eyepiece.
Pierre
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
....
I wonder where you have got this idea from. I saw it in your Nikon F60
post before, but honestly, I thought it was a mix up or a large typo typo.
I strongly suggest you are a victim of a misunderstanding.
Magnesium (wich, incidentally, cannot be used on its own, but only in
alloys) and aluminium, wich also usually is alloyed to achive specific
propertys like surface hardness and tensile strength are the two most used
"semi-exotic" alloys for all kind of machine parts and construction
elements where strength/weight ratio is important. Titanium may be
"better" in many respects, but then, we would use good money unwisely,
especially in budget cameras.
I won't pretend that aluminium and magnesium castings are cost effective
vs polycarb castings (hint, they are not, as the necessary the machining
is costly) but the precision and trueness achievable with these materials
is most likely superior to cast polycarbonate. Weight is also not far from
really exotic composite materials involving carbon fibre and/or
aluminium/magnesium honeycomb reinforced structures, so it could be said
that these (traditional) materials are still a good compromise between
really advanced composites and "cheap" precision cast polycarbonate.
If plastic is good enough is another matter completely. A camera designed
for a precision cast plastic main body may still be completely adequate -
the gain in using that material is that machining is not needed in the
same way.
My guess is simply that the production people at Nikon have investigated
that property and found that they need metal castings to achieve the
precision and strength they want their cameras to have.
--
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999
fstop@ispchannel.com wrote:
There is what looks to be a very useful device for day or night lightening
photography called The Lightening Trigger. You should take a look at
their website at:
http://www.lightningtrigger.com/
I am planning on getting one soon.
Hope this will help with your questions,
Dave
From: "Mac Breck" macbreck@timesnet.net
.....
How about a bean bag? You could make one yourself. Buy a small nylon bag
(about 15" by 9" if laid out flat with nothing in it). Fill it about 3/4
full with Navy Beans and tie it off. Put it on any support, and put your
camera and lens on it. It'll conform to any surface. Secondly, I'd
suggest
buying a used spotmeter. With a spotmeter, you can see exactly what area
you're reading. Lastly, I'd pick up a book on Zone System (e.g. The
Practical Zone System - Second Edition - A Simple Guide to Photographic
Control, by Chris Johnson. ISBN 0-240-80178-4; Focal Press). That will
teach you to put your subjects in the correct zone, so they'll come out
properly exposed, and within the latitude of the film. For your "drastic"
lighting effects, this is important.
Mac
From Pentax Mailing List:
Bob@Blakely.com
writes:
Price #7.5 or #8 lead shot.
10 to 12 pounds of any hard surface weight can do a lot of *bounce* damage
to surfaces you want to protect. May I suggest having someone who sews
make a bag of quilted fabric lined with either a quilt bat or fleece? The
best configuration for weight balance would seem to be a longish cylinder.
Close the bag with a thick, durable drawstring cord, and you can add or
remove a portion of the contents as you work out the *best* weight. To
attach to the tripod without damaging the working mechanisms, the cord may
be looped around the legs at the uppermost portion. The weight of the bag
should prevent it from sliding up as well as provide stability.
Another possibility for weight without bulk is heavy short bolts. Beans
and rice, even when kept in their original plastic wrap, will likely leak
over time and be subject to moisture damage and spoilage.
Phyllis... who knows a lot more about cooking, sewing and physics then she
does about photography. Hope this helps.
From Pentax Mailing List:
Hi Nikon Discuss Group,
I've done a little bit of research about bean bags and discovered this
company, which I think has some very good ideas in this area... I thought
you might like to look at these....
http://www.kinesisgear.com/r.html
Hope this helps.........
Have Fun, Phil
From Pentax Mailing List:
Shel,
just head on out to the 2nd hand stores! They're full of used
excercise ankle weights of various constuction & weights. Just
pick up the ones that will work best for a few bucks and save
your time & energy for shooting ;^)
Stuff a 10lb bag of rice into a zippered throw pillow case for
the bottom support. Badda Bing, Badda Boom ... you're done!
Oregon -(why re-invent the wheel?)- Bill
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
From Rollei Mailing List:
Edmund Scientific and others sold "cold cameras" which
used a block of dry ice to chill the film and increase
sensitivity. There was also a system of exposing the
film to vapors from hydrogen peroxide to increase the
sensitivity.
Bob
From Minolta Mailing List:
I have tried to get an overwiev of the Minolta lenses. Any comment on
this lineup is welcome. I have only tried the 28mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4 and
the 100mm f2.8 soft myself. They were all great, yet the 50 was the
definete sharpest.
20mm f2.8 Haven`t heard so much about this one. Someone on the list
mentioned distortion, but it is an wide angle.
24mm f2.8 Said to be a fine lense. The Sigma tend to get better reviews
though.
28mm f2.8 One of the better 28mm out there. Great sharpness, color, and
flare control.
28mm f2.0 A great lense. A little soft at 2.0, but very good from 2.8 and
onwards. Really great sharpness. Some say that that flare control is
great, I am one of them, others say its not so great. I haven`t ried the
35 f2.0 nor the 35 f1.4. But the tests I have seen, puts this lense as
the sharpest wideangle lense obtainable for Minolta.
35mm f2.0 Great lense, great value.
35mm f1.4G Never heard any user report on this lense. The MTF tests I
have seen do not impress. Any comments out there.
50mm f1.7 One of the better lenses in the Minolta lineup. Extreem value
for the money.
50mm f1.4 One of the best lenses in the lineup. Great value for the
money. You will pay dearly for this kind of quality at anny other angle.
Buy it if you can.
85mm f1.4 A beloved lense. Not as sharp as the 100mm f2.8 macro, but most
users pic this lense for portraiture if they got both. One users said
that the pictures pops at you, in a way he couldn`t explain.
100mm f2.8 makro Considered to be one of the sharpest Minolta lenses.
Also popular as a portrait lense. Might be to sharp for some subjects.
100mm f2.8 soft focus. This is a great lense. Not as sharp as the macro.
This one has no vignetting, distortion and a great color balance. The
soft focus effect is great. Yet the 85mm f1.4 is more usefull for
portraits.
100 f2.0 A forgotten marvel. Relatively cheap. Sharp. But still most
users prefere the 85mm f1.4 if they can choose.
Frode
[Ed. note: warning re: rotting plastic screens....]
Carter,
The plasticizers that are the source of Jan's
problems are common to the soft polyethelene slip-in
envelopes used in commercial items. The hard surface
Styrene used in jewel-box containers use a different
process that don't leach the plasticizers onto the
product inside.
Jon
--- carter rollei@mpdevinc.com wrote:
From: z cypresscy@gbso.net
I get gaffers tape from a theatrical lighting supply place for
eleven bucks. Big roll. Gray or black. Same stuff as in the
camera store.
From Pentax Mailing List:
I became curious to see how well the FA* 600/f4 would
perform with stacked teleconverters. The initial test
results are at:
http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance/test/test.html
My first tests used the Pentax 1.4 XL, 2.0 XL, and
Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter. The Pentax
TC's were separated by a thin Pentax extension tube
(it's the only way these teleconverters will physically
connect together.)
Focal lengths tested were 600mm, 840mm, 1200mm, 1680mm,
and 3360mm. The subject distance was short - about 35
feet, or 11.668 meters for those who have to make do
without feet.
The results were generally very good. I was pleasantly
surprised at the fine performance of the Vivitar 2x
Macro Focusing TC. If I still had my spare Vivitar 2x,
I would have made test shots at 6720mm!!
There was some unexpected color shifts using the 2.0
XL--extension--1.4 XL combination. It would be helpful
if someone could replicate this portion of the test and
see if they get a color shift also.
Be sure to click on the second page and see the birdy
photos at
http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance/test/test2.html
--
From Nikon Mailing LIst:
Flash questions crop up rather frequently here on the list as well as
among my friends who are also photographers because it can be somewhat
confusing. Its hard to master flash photography because essentially you
arent able to see exactly what the flash did until you get the images back
(unlike available light). When I got my first AF Nikon I asked a lot of
questions and read a lot of books and shot a lot of film. I recently wrote
the following summary for a friend of mine who was just getting into
photography and I hope it answers some questions people may have. It might
be a little basic for a lot of you on the list and if there are any
errors, Im sure youll let me know. :)
There are several things to keep in mind regarding exposure when using a
flash on your camera:
1) Flash exposure is only determined by a) flash to subject distance
b) the
chosen size of your aperture (given a constant film speed).
2) Ambient light exposure is controlled by the shutter speed. (If your
exposure meter is indicating over/under exposure than this is only for the
ambient light. The meter does not indicate flash exposure.)
3) Because of the maximum flash sync shutter speed (usually 125/sec or
250/sec on modern Nikons) you have a somewhat limited choice of shutter
speeds when you're shooting with flash. Indoors this is less of a problem
because you rarely need a shutter speed faster than that, but outdoors
using fill flash in bright conditions, it may be more difficult to achieve
a shallow depth of field without the use of a neutral density filter or
switching to slower film.
In the old days, before TTL metering, if you made a last minute adjustment
to your aperture (for instance if you wanted to stop down the lens to get
more depth of field in a group shot) then you would have to change (in
this case reduce) your flash to subject distance. In modern SLR cameras
there is a sensor which reads the amount of light being reflected off of
the actual film, so it can turn off the flash automatically when enough
light has reached the film, regardless of the aperture chosen or the flash
to subject distance or any filters that may be in use. It's actually a bit
more complicated than that in practice as there are actually multiple
flash sensors and your camera can also use pre-flashes and distance
information gained from the lens to more accurately determine exposure.
But this is all done automatically for you and requires you to do very
little.
In practice what this means is that you can worry about the composition
etc. and let your camera handle the complicated parts. Personally, I
usually shoot flash pictures in manual or aperture priority exposure
modes. Choosing the apertures and/or the shutter speeds myself gives me
the most control over my images. I can choose whatever aperture I want
(large for shallow depth of field, small for greater depth of field) and
choose slow or fast (up to maximum sync speed) shutter speeds to freeze
action or allow for creative blur to show motion. I can also use the
shutter speed to include or exclude background information. By watching
the ambient light meter indication in the viewfinder, you can see if your
background will be properly exposed. In an environmental portrait for
instance, the subject's surroundings may be extremely important. In that
case you might have to choose a fairly slow shutter speed to properly
expose the subject's environment, so a tripod may be necessary.
At other times, you can use a fast shutter speed to eliminate an unwanted,
or cluttered background. The flash will expose the subject correctly, but
the fast shutter speed will darken the background (sometimes going to
black if it is dark enough).
In any case, what the technology allows is for you to choose the aperture
and shutter speed you want for your creative purposes during flash
exposures without having to physically move light stands or manually
calculate exposures. As long as your subject falls within the acceptable
range (indicated by the bar graph in the LCD panel on external flashes)
then all of this complicated flash stuff will take care of itself. If
you're too close then the flash can't quench itself fast enough resulting
in overexposure. If your subject is too far away then the flash doesn't
have enough power to deliver enough light and the result is underexposure.
If you shoot with the flash in the P (program) mode, Ive noticed that my
camera sometimes simply tries to give me the fastest shutter speed it can,
which means the largest aperture it can. That sometimes results in over
exposed (washed out) flash images if you are shooting close to your
subject. The camera will also refuse to choose shutter speeds slower than
1/60th of sec unless you over-ride this feature with a custom setting.
In the balanced fill flash mode the flash tries to achieve a 1:1 exposure
ratio with the ambient light. Some find this is too much for their liking
so they dial in a negative flash exposure compensation (typically -.7 or
more) to achieve a less obvious flash look. Compensation is a personal
matter, so you'll have to experiment to see what works for you.
I hope this helps some people. I think it addresses some of the questions
that appear in the early stages.
I'm off on a camping trip for two weeks, so Ill be away from the list for
awhile shooting lots and lots of film. ;)
I hope everyones having a good summer.
Derek
From: "Russell Smithers" russell@smithers-nasa.freeserve.co.uk
Thats what I do to.... And I have 3 bodies occasionaly
hung around me, 1 of them with a 400mm lense.
Ive never had bodies/lenes crashing into each other.
Regards.
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
Yes, two bodies are very convenient, as several other people have posted.
But you STILL may need to change lenses on them occasionally. And not
everyone has two camera bodies, or wants to carry them around.
I find the biggest speed-improver is in the way you carry the lenses. I
still use the system I evolved when I was in the newspaper business: I've
got my camera bag set up so each lens sits vertically in its own
compartment, front end down, one compartment per lens (including an empty
compartment for the one on the camera.) I keep the lenses lined up in the
bag in order from wide-angle to tele, so I always know which is which, and
I've got foam blocks in the compartments for the shorter ones so that the
back ends of the lenses sit at about the same height.
When I get into a picture-taking situation, the first thing I do is remove
and stow the rear caps of all the lenses (easily accessible since they're
sitting back-end-up.) When it's time for a change, the lens on the camera
comes off and goes into the empty compartment reserved for it; then I can
quickly find the lens I want by feel (since they're lined up in order),
grab it by the rear barrel, turn it in my hand, and stick it right onto
the
camera.
You have to carry a somewhat bigger bag with this system, since you can't
stack lenses on top of each other and have to leave one empty compartment
at all times, but it really makes it easier to change lenses quickly and
confidently.
From: mceowen@aol.com (McEowen)
Man, judging by the number of responses to this I'm guessing this thread
has already digressed into a silly argument but I'll make a stab at it,
just the same . . .
1.) Think ahead -- anticipate what lens you will need so you don't have to
change in a hurry
2.) Use an intelligently designed bag -- something like a Domke or one of
the better Tenbas in which you just reach straight in to individual lens
compartments.
3.) Glue two rear lens caps back to back so that you don't have to remove
the cap from one lens before attaching to the other. It's wasteful but
devote one of these double caps to each lens rather than using them to
stack lenses in your bag (though you have the option of doing that in a
pinch).
4.) The multiple bodies idea is good to a point. I almost always carry two
-- one for b&w; and one for color generally -- while you may not just
switch cameras when you change lenses having two lenses hanging off your
shoulders does make switching those two lenses pretty fast.
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000
I store, transport and carry them with front and rear caps in place. But
as soon as I open my bag to start taking pictures, the second thing I do
(taking out the camera is the first thing) is remove ALL the caps and stow
them in a pocket in the bag. This keeps the lenses protected in transit
but keeps them totally ready when in active use.
The above post mentions lens hoods, but I'll expand a bit by saying
they're another secret to working fast. If you keep the correct hood
mounted on the lens, you get some protection against knocks and
fingerprints without having to keep the lens capped. Another time-saver,
if it works with your equipment, is to get lens caps that fit *over* the
mounted hoods... this lets you get into action faster when you're ready to
start photographing, because all you have to do is pull the cap rather
than uncap the lens, unstow the hood, and mount it.
From: Kirk kirkdarlingnotathome@mindspring.com
jlw@nospam.never.net says...
Same with me.
Unless the environment is really nasty (lots of flying grit, rain,
that sort of thing), I've not had any problems with dirt with this
technique. Of course, I close my bag over the lenses while I'm
shooting, and that's been good enough. Maybe by the end of the day,
there will be a light dust on the lens, but that's easily cleaned off
and hasn't caused me a problem in 3 decades of shooting.
If it's a really bad environment, I'll use UV filters and such, but I
won't use front caps because they get in the way of using hoods (I'd
have to remove the hood to replace the cap). I don't bother with rear
caps *while actively shooting* because the lenses are butt-down in the
pockets.
Yep. You might be able to find something in good kitcheware stores
that fits over the hoods. About 15 years ago, I found some round
vinyl covers with elastic edges (kind of like waterproof baby
overpants) that snapped over the front of the lens, hood and all,
instantly. I think they were designed for fruit jars or something.
But I've never found them again.
--
From: "David S. Berger" dberger@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu
McEowen wrote:
I must support the 58/1.2 recommendation. It's truly a stunning lens
_especially_ wide open. It's my favorite for low light. I've taken some
of my very best candid portraits with this lens. Get one and try it with
TMZ at 1600. It is a heavy beast, though, and only was made in MC mount.
The only super speed lens I've seen/used that's better wide open is the
Noctilux (1.0 version, not the 1.2).
For a simple normal lens, try the 45/2. It's a great overall performer
(sharpness, contrast, color, bokeh, etc.) and is certainly the most
undervalued lens on the planet. It's very small, practically a pancake
lens. It's images sort of remind me of a Tessar.
Minolta made 4 short teles that you are likely to encounter. The two 85s
(1.7 and 2.0) have excellent reputations and I can vouch for the 85/1.7 as
I've seen many portraits from this lens. Again, beautiful overall 3-D
look and bokeh (and plenty sharp). It's very expensive in both MC and MD
mounts, if you can find one. I think the 85/2 is even harder to find and
probably costly. As far as 100s, I've never even seen the 2.0, just read
about it. Likely, the only thing harder than finding it will be paying
for it. That brings us to the 100/2.5. This was made in both MC and MD
mounts and can be had used for ~150.00. For portrait-style pictures, the
Nikkor 105/2.8 has nothing over this lens (I've had them both for years).
The Nikkor is sharper edge-to-edge at f2.8-4.0 but I prefer the overall
image from the Rokkor. I do like the Nikkor for non-portrait b&w; work
though; I think it's the contrast. Come to think of it, the Rokkor
100/2.5 and the Nikkor 105/2.8 make an excellent team. Anyway, get the
100/2.5. You won't be disappointed.
I have two 135s, an MD 2.8 and MC 3.5. They are both very good lenses,
but the 135/2.8 has better flare control. I can shoot toward the sun
without trouble. The 135/3.5 will flare up. Perhaps a 135/3.5 in MD mount
would have better flare control because of newer coatings. If I could
only have one, I'd keep the 135/2.8 since it's more pleasing from 4.0
down. The 135/2.0 to which Noah referred is as great as it is hard to
find. I've seen one at a show and it is huge in size and massive in
price.
For wides, the 24/2.8 is a very nice lens. Nice and flat with great color
rendition and overall 3-D look. Of course it's sharp (aren't all lenses
sharp? wasn't that problem solved 60 years ago? don't get me started:).
The 24 mm is a bit pricey, probably ~200 used, maybe more. Try to find an
ugly one with good glass and mechanics. Wider Rokkor lenses, like the 21
mm and 17 mm, are very expensive.
If you want a 28 mm, go for the 3.5. That might seem like an odd
recommendation, but the 28/3.5 is one of the finest lenses Minolta ever
made. I have the version with the very wide front element (67 mm filter
ring), for which Minolta made this big-ass square hood (now kind of hard
to find). This lens is also difficult to focus. It's an ergonomic thing;
the focus ring is very narrow. However, it makes great pictures. At
middle apertures, I think it's better than the 28/2.8. Minolta also made a
more "normal" one with a 55 mm filter ring. They must have different
optics, at least to some extent, but I don't now how images are affected.
The best thing is that the 28/3.5 can be had for a song.
So, in summary:
24/2.8 Leitz didn't take this lens for nothin'. Not cheap, but price is
right.
28/3.5 One of the best in its class. They're giving them away.
45/2.0 A real keeper. Very undervalued.
58/1.2 Simply great, especially opened up. Pricey but surely worth it if
you shoot low light.
100/2.5 World class portrait-style lens. Not that easy to find but not
overpriced either.
135/2.8 Excellent performer, great bokeh. Plenty of them so price is
right.
Also, you can't go wrong with a 35/2.8.
If you like Leitz lenses, you'll like the Rokkors. To me, their image
characteristics resemble German lenses more than any other Japanese
lenses. If you get any other Minolta urges, pick up an Autocord. The
Autocord Rokkors are every bit as good as Rolleiflex Xenars and Tessars.
Good luck,
David
David S. Berger, Ph.D.
From: John Sparks sparks@sparks.cos.agilent.com
....
I'll also vote for this lens. My favorite lens by far is a fast normal
lens (preferably slightly long), but until I tried this one, I never
really found one that I liked. Most of them make photographs that look
very much alike (I've tried 50/1.4, 1.7, 2.0, etc. lenses from Nikon,
Minolta AF, Pentax, Canon and probably a few others I can't remember).
All of these are fine at f/2.8 or smaller, but wide open they all look
very similar and have similar bad bokeh. Since almost everything I do
with 35mm is in low light, I rarely stop them down to even f/2.8 so how
they work wide open is very important to me.
The Rokkor 58/1.2 looks different from the others I've tried and is very
usable wide open. Sharp enough and very smooth out of focus areas. Well
worth having a Minolta just for this lens if you like fast normal lenses.
Mine is a MC Rokkor-X meaning it's multicoated, it was also made as a
MC Rokkor-PF (PF may not be quite right, this was a code indicating the
number of elements and groups like the markings on older Nikkor lenses
and predated "multicoated" but I believe it used a 2 layer coating
before Pentax coined the term multicoating). When the MD lenses were
introduced, this lens was changed to a 50/1.2 which doesn't have the
same reputation (I've never tried one).
I also have an 85/1.7 MC Rokkor-X which produces a very similar look to
the 58/1.2. It's certainly better mechanically than the 85/2 which was
of the later, lighter weight and cost reduced series. Don't know how
these would compare optically, but I know the 85/1.7 is nice.
The 135/2.8 lenses are very cheap and also very good. I hadn't intended
to buy one, but found one at a good price and tried it. Mine is a MD
(last series, no Rokkor). It's not as sturdy mechanically as the other
lenses above, but still looks good. I have an 11x14 print from this
lens wide open on display in a gallery right now.
Based on my experience with the 70-210/4 AF zoom, I'd expect the
70-210/4 MF lense to be an extremely nice zoom (I think they are the
same optically). I've also heard really good things about the
50-135/3.5 zoom except for it's fairly long minimum focusing distance.
I'm not much of a user of wide angle lenses, so I haven't tried any.
I've had horrible flare problems with a 135 Celtic lens I got new in the
70's, I wouldn't recommend any of the Celtic lenses (low cost lenses made
by Minolta to compete with the the 3rd party lenses that were starting to
be available then). A 58/1.4 MC Rokkor-PF lens I tried also had major
flare problems although mechanically was the nicest Minolta lens I've used
(all metal barrels). I think the MC Rokkor-X and MD Rokkor-X lenses are
the best series of lenses. They are multicoated and made before the
lastest mechanically inferior MD (no Rokkor) lenses. I think they were
also made when Minolta was still trying to make the best lenses they could
instead of the later lenses where lighter weight and lower cost were
becoming more important.
John Sparks
From: bombard12@aol.com (Justin Naranjo)
Last night I saw a show on TLC about the human senses, there was a good
portion of it devoted to telling how photography is altered sight. Among
all of the techniques shown they highlighted something called 'time-slice
photography'. There is a contraption that looks like a ring with 35mm
movie film threaded through, and a shutter on each frame (yes its pretty
large). All the shutters go off at once. Run the film through a projector
and there is a very very (for the lack of a better word) awesome. Time is
frozen while you circle the object in question (in this case a fire
breather). The movie 'The Matrix' had something like this, but was many
digital cameras encircling the actors.
Now for my question, how could I effectively do this?
Thanks for any help,
From: Pat Jerina pat@patjerina.com
Ahh you must be talking about the "bullet time" on The Matrix. Quite
a cool effect is it not. Before The Matrix came out, I worked as a
production assistant on for a week on a series of commercial for the
Anderson Cancer Research Center of Houston that used the 2nd Generation of
this idea.
The first gen. would do a line of cameras only firing off at the same
time. The 2nd gen. (the big freeze they called it) was 359 still cameras
and one motion camera on a 62ft diameter ring that were controlled by a
central computer making sure that the camera would fire at the exact same
time ( a camera for each degree of a circle). The camera were running off
of 6 boat batteries and a special chip was installed in each camera to
make sure that they would fire at the EXACT same time. They had to do
this because on the first run, there was a slight variation of shutters in
the cameras and the image would be very jumpy when they ran it through
post production. The Matrix is the 3rd Generation where they can move the
cameras in any sort of shape and move forward in time, backward, shoot in
waves, or cycle on itself. It is best explained in the behind the scenes
feature on the DVD.
Now, why did I go through all of this? To illustrate that it can be
done but it will cost a boatload of money to get a good result. The cost
of the chips to put in the cameras for the big freeze cost the guy about
$40,000. I think to set it up yourself would require a vast amount of
time (it took 6 hours just to set up the ring on the first day of
shooting) and money. I agree the effects are spectacular,even on the 2nd
generation it was really cool to see but the cost for an individual would
be staggering.
pat jerina photography
From Contax Mailing List:
I have here on my desk a pair of 8X30 armored Leica binoculars
which were designed for the Swiss Army. Really nice optics and
even have anti-laser protection for military use and a reticle
for estimating distance.
They're available for under $ 600 . The same source has Carl
Zeiss 7 X 40 binoculars from East German military use, and all
sorts of interesting optics.
www.deutscheoptik.com
Bob
From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@skyenet.net
We're getting somewhere now. Actually, the faster lens needs more
correction to deal with the larger front element so it really can't be
sharper in the corners. If it is stopped down enough it may equal the
slower lens in corner sharpness but it would surpass it only if the
slower lens were of a very poor design. It would certainly have less
contrast due to the introduction of some small amount of flare due to
having to have more elements in the design.
You are right about the advantages of fast lenses and I agree with you
there completely. It's false to call them better optically. It's
correct to call them more versatile, more useful and more desireable.
I generally prefer fast lenses myself and usually buy the fastest lens
I can find for any given focal length. I do this for more dof
control, brighter viewfinder, better low light performance, etc. I
don't do it because I think it's a sharper lens because it isn't.
Good shooting.
Fred
...
From: speedo greg@on.aibn.com
Paul F wrote:
Read my previous post about the article in this month's Popular
Photography where they compared 2.8 zooms to the cheaper slow ones and
found very little difference in image quality. What we pay big bucks for
is the speed and sturdier construction, things that many working pros can
justify. Drop off slides to any magazine editor and he/she won't be albe
to tell whether the photographer used an expensive fast zoom or a cheapie
slower one.
From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@skyenet.net
It may make you feel good to think that and say that but, actually, it
isn't true. I've run way too many tests not to know what I'm talking
about. No kidding folks, faster lenses have inferior (often just
slightly) corner sharpness that slower lenses at comparable apertures.
It's just that way despite what you think or wish. Good shooting.
Fred
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
I think it's because the Celtic line was supposed to be the "low cost"
alternative to the Rokkor/Rokkor-X line - as such it had a few plastic
components and was theoretically designed by computer - it wasn't so much
as a step down, it was really a step forward - since nowadays almost ALL
lenses have some plastic somewhere and most are computer designed. Again,
Minolta was way ahead of competition. BTW, almost all the Celtics are very
good - so, enjoy the "bargains" when you find them. HTH
Jim (JFranz2777@aol.com)
From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@skyenet.net
Yes, it's much easier to produce a flat field with a smaller front
element. The real important point that Robert makes here is that
resolution is only one issue involved in lens performance and
selection. There are all kinds of other parameters as well. I
personally buy fast lenses with the full knowledge that I can get a
slightly sharper image with a slower lens. Fast lenses provide a
brighter viewfinder, more options for dof control, the ability to use
slower film. Go make some images with an ISO 50 or 100 transparency
film and then do the same images with an ISO 200 or 400 film. The
comparison will be an eye opener. The choice of film will make more
difference to your image quality than the lens. A lot more. So the
ability to use slower film is very big factor in image quality.
I'm not denigrating fast lenses. On the contrary, I recommend them
over slow lenses almost every time. I just don't want people to think
they'll get better images with them with all other things being equal.
They won't. They'll spend more money and they'll get value for the
money. The value will be in other things than wide aperture corner
resolution, though.
As an example, despite my collection of relatively new AF Nikkors, I
continue to hang on to my old 200mm f4 AI Nikkor (and some other
oldies.) It's small, light, amazingly contrasty and sharp as a tack,
even at f4. I have the very high performance AF 180mm f2.8 Nikkor but
I actually use the 200 more often because I prefer it's diminutive
size and weight. I only lug the 180 when I intend to use it at full
aperture. There are all kinds of reasons to choose a lens. Corner
resolution at large apertures is only one of them. Good shooting.
Fred
...
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
The 645 makes a great replacement for a 35mm system-- it is light,
relatively compact, and easy to handle. If you must hand-hold your camera
outdoors (which is never a good idea unless you absolutely have no other
choice) then the 645 is probably a better choice. Of course, both systems
have changable backs which let you easily shoot B&W; and color, or Velvia
and color negative, etc.-- a major benefit of MF cameras with magazines.
However, if you are going to do tripod shots, the RZ will excel both
indoors and outdoors. The rotating back will let you change orientation
without moving the camera, and the built-in bellows are a real help when
shooting closer to the camera. In addition, when you use the metering
prism with the RZ (one of the most accurate meters I've ever used!!) it
will automatically compensate for bellows extension and even extension
tubes. The RZ also has features like mirror lockup and multiple exposure.
Last, but not at all least, there is an outstanding feature if you are
going to shoot slide film-- With the waist-level finder, the RZ II can set
the shutter in 1/2 stop increments, and with the metering prism, the
shutter speed is stopless (continuous.) Perhaps this has a lot to do with
why I've had such outstanding exposure accuracy when shooting chromes with
the RZ II, where 1/2 stop overexposure can hurt. Finally, in the studio,
this is a magnificent camera. I use mine for mainly two purposes-- table
top and portraits. The 180mm soft focus is the best portrait lens I've
ever used, and runs circles around diffusers and softars. (The ladies call
it the time machine, because it shaves years off their faces.)
For table top with or without extension tubes, and with the 140mm macro
lens (which I also find to be one of the best lenses in the business) I
get excellent results. I used to use a 4X5 with a 6X7 back for tabletop,
but I've found that I can shoot twice the volume in the same time with
equal quality. Occasionally I must trot out the 4X5 for a tough shot that
requires lens moves, but very rarely. Summary: A lot to lug but it is a
superb studio camera and very usable outdoors too. Probably the best and
most accurate metering prism in the business and much finer control over
shutter speed is a big boon to chrome shooters.
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000
I am a strong advocate of tripods and use many quick releases by Bogen
and others. Tripod heads and quick releases tend to come with their pads
made of cork, hard rubber, plastic, and a few things I have not
determined the composition of (like a rubberized plastic).
Many of the newer plastic bodied film cameras and digitals have plastic
threaded replaceble tripod ferrules or simply injection molded threads.
Combining the two creates a problem.
The problem is to keep the camera from turning and slipping, the novice
"cranks down on the tripod screw" usually stripping it. Since my latest
bracket uses stroboframe, Bogen components, the hard rubber Bogen was
slipping. see the site for pictures.
Simple solution: Get a bicycle inner tube repair kit. the patch has a
soft no skid surface and some have adhesive on the back. Cut to size and
punch a hole in it for the screw to go through. Paste down on the
existing pad. No more twisting.....purists can cut up a bicycle inner
tube and a drop of rubber cement to keep in place. True believers can
cut up one of those gizmos you unscrew lids of jars with.
If you use bicycle inner tubes, (I have three bikes and always have
tubes around) I cut them up after they served their purpose amd make
super wide heavy duty rubber bands and shields for the battery packs I
build, see the site below..
For more ideas go to: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2
From Sell-ed Mailing List:
Just a couple of minor points:
(http://www.sciplus.com/index.cfm) carries small ones for
$10 and under.
The main thing to guard against with this sort of rig is
stray reflections (after all, you have a HUGE hunk of flat
glass in front of your lenses!!!). Fairly easy to
eliminate them though.
It's another of the projects discussed in the camera
hacking book I put together. This one isn't a step-by-step
project but is explained on its general principals.
Mike
Dr. Michael Watters
From Leica Mailing List:
The grey card reflects 18% and indeed, most natural scenes reflect 13%,
which should be common knowledge as the relevant study dates from 15 years
ago. I noted this a long time ago, when I discussed the relative merits of
a grey card. If you read the instruction leaflet of the Kodak greycard
they will tell you that the grey card is designed and optimised for studio
lighting and contrast and there the 18% reflection is experimentally the
best compromise. Kodak incidentally notes that when using the grey card
outdoors to increase exposure by a half stop to compensate for the 13%!!!
Erwin
From Leica Mailing List:
Some basics first: objects do reflect different amounts of light energy.
Assume we use the 18% value as a starting point. Twice as much light
energy (the equivalent of one aperture stop) is 36%, the next step is 72%
and the next would be 144%, but that is impossible as the maximum
reflectance obviously is close to 100%. The range on the other side is:9%,
4.5%, 2.25%, 1.12%. The full range is 1.12-2.25-4.5-9-18-36-72-99 or in
stops: 7. As the average scene is assumed to have a 18% reflectance, the
whitest highlight then is 2.5 stops away from the middle value and the
deepest black is 4.5 stops away. The logic behind the old rule: measure
the hadows and nderexpose by 3 stops, or mesure the highlights and
overexpose 2 stops, finds its logic here. The true middle value would be
around 9%. Why then is 18% called the midgrey value. Because the eye is no
densitometer or exposure meter and reacts logarithmally to changing levels
of reflectance.
The grey value, associated with 18% reflectance is by many people
identified as a medium grey (it originates in the printing industry), even
if it in relaity represensts a darker grey. Now zones: Adams used the Zone
system as a way to find corectly exposed negatives as the density range
goes. So he used another approach. As all film/exposure systems are
adjusted to the 18% yardstick, it mens that a correct exposure will place
the greycard value in the middle of the straight portion of the
characteritsic curve. The density value there on a well exposed/develped
negative is D=0.75. Density alues are logarithmically scaled and so one
stop more or less has a value of D=0.3. So now for density values: Grey
card is 0.75, one stop more is 1.05, the next 1.35. Etc. You can make this
rnage for yourself. Film densities can rnage from 0.1 to 3.0 and higher.
So a range from 0.0-0.3-0.6-0.9-1.2-1.5-1.8-2.1-2.4 is no problem for a
film to record. As films often use a Gamma of 0.7 the aperture steps are
not 0.3 but 0.7x0.3=0.21. Now starting from 0.75 as the base point, we
have a range 0.0-0.12-0.33-0.54-0.75-0.96-1.17-1.38-1.59.
Adams simply used the grey value as his middle Zone V and added equally
spaced steps on either side, which is almost permissable as film
densitomerty goes. His shortcoming is that he assumed the density range of
the film to match the range of reflectance values in nauture. That is not
true and therefore Adams had to torture the chararteristic curve into
shape wth his N-x and N+x development scheme to stretch the density range
in the highlights. If you take a picture of a greycard, expose as is and
then make the famous +/- 5 stops to get the stepped strip of grey values,
you will see that density measurements will give you blocked highlights
above two or three stops. The rest is wasted. The classical Adams trick is
to overexpose and underdevelop to stretch the range of the highlight
denstities on the film.
I use the Zone system myself, so I am not in disagreement with Adams
approach. But you need to understand that his method is an
exposure/development technique to fit the variable density range into the
variable reflectance range as it suits him.
Erwin
From Leica Mailing List:
I understood that! You're doing better, Erwin! The Gray card measured
reflective density is about R=.80 G=.80 and B=.80, and when I worked in a
photolab, that was the gray we attempted to match on the morning test
print.... but when all corrections were figured in, the gray card in the
test scene usually measure about .72 reflective density! When it matched
that- everything else fell into place!
Even in a one hour lab- I was able to 'match' print and reprints ( for
really picky customers! and pretty girls!) by measureing the original-
usually a white area of clothing or a flesh tone- the making a test print
and measuring the same areas of the test print- by comparing the relative
densities, it was easy to calculate the necessary corrections, and I
became quite good at it! Not bad for a one hour lab !
The arrangement and target tones can be targeted the same way in B&W; and
using a densitomet- or even an enlarging meter to read the realtive
density of the negative! I photograph a test target that has a plain white
matte board, a black matte board, and a grey card- all 8x10 and mounted on
a 16x20 matte board.
Measuring the negatives, taken at different EI, I find the one that has
about a .70 transmission density- above base fog, and it gives me a good
indicator of what I need to shoot the film at. When I want to find out if
my development is too vigorous or not, I use the indicated EI and shoot a
roll of film, divide it into several small pieces and develop at different
times- I then measure the density difference between the white card image
and the black card image, which gives me a density range- I pick the time
that gives me the best range printable on 2 1/2 grade paper. The gray card
is very useful for all sorts of things!
Dan
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000
ed@l-a-net.net wrote:
The PERFECT little ballhead for this application is the Stroboframe
shoe-mount flash ballhead. It has a 1/4x20 drilled/tapped base that
will also mount in a flash shoe. It is a nice little ballhead with a
flash shoe on top. And the flash shoe unscrews, leaving you with a
normal 1/4x20 stud! A very versatile little gadget for do-it-yourself
projects, and for serving multiple duty in the camera kit. It's 2"
tall and weighs 1 ounce. $19.95 from B&H.; You'll love it.
Have fun,
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000
the major problem is that the shutter/flash sync would be totally off.
cameras that took flash cubes probably did not have an "X" sync, which
the the sync setting for electronic flash, which is instaneous when the
flash gets the pulse. flash bulbs needed some time to start burning
bright enough so it got the pulse before the shutter was even starting
to open. also the camera had to send a much higher voltage pulse to set
that flame going, it wasn't just a signal, it was a spark.
most old cameras offered x and an m or f flash sync. the m was for leaf
shutter cameras and the f was for focal plane shutters which required
special bulbs for optimum exposure, the bulb needed to burn at a slower
and longer rate instead of giving all it got at once as the shutter
curtain moved across the frame, an F bulb needed to give an equal amount
of light from when the shutter opened till it closed, it could peak, but
the beginning of the flash and the ending had to have equal balance or
the whole frame might not be exposed.
however, those flash bulbs pack a powerful punch. even those little
flash cubes could give you a good exposure in a large room compared to a
shoe flash and can compete with a pro handle flash. I can't imagine
what it was like to get hit by one of those #5 press bulbs that the 4x5
speed graphics used. No wonder a wedding package in the 30's and 40's
consisted of 12 8x10's period.
z-prophoto@egroups.com
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Hi,
I have recently experimented with making "ringlight" for close-up work. I
even bought a white funnel (for a few $ to be used in DIY wine making),
but
I found that my prototype worked far better. It consisted of 1 sheet of
white paper, an SB-15 and an extension ring ! The paper is cut approx.
circular with a slit to the center and a hole in center with a diameter
lightly larger than 52mm. The paper is held on a reversed lens by a narrow
extension ring. The SB-15 is flipped over to the winding side with the
reflector turned further down a bit. The light goes trough the paper and
gets nicely difused. I habve not yet tested what this costs in GN. The rig
does not give a totally even lighting but I like a slight asymetrical one
better anyway (brings out texture the better). I shall try and put
together
a little page on it with sample shots.
Gordon ended:
Best regards,
--
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000
PC stands for Prontor/Compur, two shutter
manufacturers who standardized on that
stupid connector design long, long ago.
www.paramountcords.com will make high quality
custom cables using that connector. You might
choose to put a more conventional jack on your
custom equipment, like a 1/8th inch headphone
jack, and then buy a cable from paramount with
a 1/8th inch plug on one end and a female PC
socket on the other. Or call them and/or look
at their catalog and see what else you can work
out.
--Rich
Peter Nelson wrote:
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000
With no offense, none of the current replies would suit me for a variety
of reasons. My experience has been that leaving a blind in spot for a few
days desensitizes animals to a change in their habitat. Some (most)
blinds are too expensive to leave out in marsh unattended. Some are poor
adaptations to photography. Old pop-up tents seem to big to get into some
of my spots. My inclination is to never buy a blind at anything about
rummage sale prices. I will present what has worked very well for me.
John Shaw described a nice portable blind in this book "The Nature
Photographer's Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques", AMPHOTO
1984. On page 128 he describes a simple portable blind made from a
projection stand. The rectangular "table top" on the projector stand
serves as the roof of the blind. You find some fabric to sew up a
covering and ... Voila! you have a blind. Stop by a book store or library
and look up the reference. It is a great book for other reasons. I have
been perennially looking for projector stands in rummage sales with no
luck to date. So, I built my own. Read on.
Being fundamentally frugal and reasonably handy in the workshop, I made a
reasonable facsimile of John Shaw's blind with common materials. The roof
was made from a 12 inch by 16 inch piece of 1/2" exterior grade plywood.
I build up the perimeter with some pine 1"x3" wood glued around the edge.
Use exterior glue. (This gave me greater thickness where I was going to
drill holes for holding the legs.) The legs are four of the extendable
aluminum tent poles you can buy from CAMPMORE for a few dollars a piece.
The four legs were set into the roof at the four corners using holes set
at a diagonal angle. I painted the roof with earth tone, low gloss paint
(duck boat paint) and used desert camo fabric for the walls. I sewed
pockets in the lower edge of the walls so I could weight it down with
rocks. It has served me well for about 6 years. It looks so ugly that no
one would think to steal it. Generally it is indistinguishable from any
distance. One time a crew came upon it while trimming brush and they
carefully took it down and set it to the side. Evidently it is easy to
use since they figured it out. Because it was so cheap to make, I think
nothing of having it blown down by a storm and don't worry if it is left
in place for a few weeks.
If anyone is really interested in building one of these, they can reply
back to me with any questions to clarify how this is done.
Regards,
PSsquare
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Just came home after about 2 months and found about 6MB of email.
Started reading through it and would like to add my two-cents worth about
eyepieces scratching eyeglasses.
I also had the problem. When I could not obtain a rubber coated
eyepiece, I improvised. I bought some plastic key identification guides
which are a soft plastic. I put them around the edge of the eyepieces.
When I had one that did not fit, I took out an electric glue gun and
fastened it in place. Instant protection in case you can not obtain a
rubber-coated one and with different colors to choose from, you can always
identify that you have it in place before letting someone else try to
focus through the camera.
From Rangefinder List
What i do with my cameras is to get some self adhesive cork. Cut an
oblong piece of it , color it black with black with a sharpie. Then apply
the cork just above where the lugs are. I have used this method for years,
and it the cork wears or cracks it is easily peeled off and replaced.
HTH
Dave Saalsaa wrote:
From Rollei Mailing List;
What city? Not only do none of the camera shops around here stock them,
the people working in the shops don't even know what they are!!!
The highest quality ones I know of come from Bromwell Marketing in
Pittsburgh. Ted Bromwell got tired of cheap ones made of soft brass and
contracted a machine shop to make them for him from stainless steel. His
cost a bit more, but will last forever.
Bob
...
From Contax Mailing List:
Kowa, Topcon and Mamiya made 35mm SLR cameras with leaf shutters in Japan.
Voigtlander, Zeiss-Ikon and Agfa made them in Germany. The German ones
used Compur shutters and were pretty reliable. The Japanese ones used
shutters from Seiko and were disasters.
Today the technology exists to use electrically driven leaf shutters in
35mm SLR cameras, but the advent of fast metal bladed focal plane shutters
has eliminated the need for them.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
You got it. Only there isn't a focal plane shutter on most cameras
using leaf shutters in the lenses. Either the mirror or a secondary
flap behind the mirror blocks light from the film while viewing.
Here is the sequence for most of them.
a/Press shutter release button
b/Leaf shutter closes
c/Mirror goes up
d/Leaf shutter fires to make the exposure and closes at the end of
the exposure
e/Mirror come back down
f/Shutter reopens for viewing again
Now on Hasselblad 500 series the mirror does not come back down and the
shutter does not reopen until you wind the film. On Mamiya RB and RZ
this is also true. On Mamiya 645 Pro used with the N/O leaf shutter
lenses a power cable connects the lens to the motor winder and the
mirror comes back down and the shutter reopens automatically.
Bob
...
From Contax Mailing List:
As I understand it, the Zeiss system is similar to the one Vivitar was
going to offer. Instead of using gyroscopes linked to an optical element
which compensates for movement, this system uses a lead weight which acts
as an inertial damper and is connected mechanically to the optical
element. It worked well in the prototypes we built, but not quite as well
as a system using biaxial gyros.
Bob
...
From Contax Mailing List;
Smaller diameter.
Here is the deal: a leaf shutter takes a certain amount of time to open
and close. The marked shutter speed takes that time into account. For
instance, let's take a 1/500 sec exposure (2 milliseconds). A given
shutter may take 1 millisecond to fully open and 1 millisecond to fully
close. If this shutter only gave 2 milliseconds of total exposure for
1/500 marked time, the whole exposure would happen while the shutter is
not fully open. This means that your film would get less exposure than if
you shot at 1/250 and stopped-down your lens one stop, which would get
confusing.
What actually happens (in our example) is that the shutter will open for 3
milliseconds total to give a 1/500 exposure: 2 milliseconds to open and
close, and one millisecond fully open. During the 2 milliseconds that it
is opening and closing, we can assume that the shutter is on average 1/2
open, which gives an effective exposure of 1 millisecond ( + 1 more that
it is fully open = 2 milliseconds total effective time). This works fine
at wide-open apertures, but when you stop down the lens, the time that the
shutter takes to open-up wider than the aperture is irrelevant. This means
that the effective exposure time will get closer to 3 milliseconds as the
aperture gets smaller.
In practice, this doesn't matter much because photographers rarely use
their smallest apertures and fastest shutter speeds at the same time. In
order to shoot at 1/500 and f:22, you would need to be using at least ISO
1000 film (using the "sunny 16" rule) in full daylight, and even then,
your exposure would only be off by about half a stop, which you would only
really notice with slide film.
Bernard
OK, here is the reasoning. The gray card reflects 1/2 stop more than a
photographic midtone. So if you take a *proper* Gray Card reading ( with
the card angled 1/3 of the angle between lens axis and light source)
you will then have to compensate by stopping down by 1/2 stop to bring the
midtones down to the 12% range.
During my work on the Gray Card update project last year I asked this
question to the folks at Kodak. There was only one man still at Kodak old
enough to remember the origin of the Gray Card and his answer when asked
why 18% was "Ansel Adams". According to him AA had reasons to want the
Gray Card to be 18%, reasons no one can remember, and came to Rochester
and spent a whole day and most of a night arguing about this. Finally
they agreed to make the card 18% just to get him to go away!
It really does not matter if the card is 18%, 12%, 5%, 96%, whatever, so
long as you know its reflectance and the proper compensation to get
correct exposure on your film. You find that compensation by testing.
Bob
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000
There has been a bit of discussion about urban wildlife photography. I put
a few photos on a webpage http://arizonawild.home.att.net/
The first three shots show a bit of what my front driveway looked like a
few years ago and some construction I had done to make a mini-oasis for
photography. The rest of the images were taken in the yard, either from a
front window or from a blind I set in various places in the yard.
I'd be glad to discuss the topic if anyone is interested.
--
From Contax Mailing List;
Nope. When the first RTS came out it used a unique electromagnetic
shutter release designed by the famed Dr. Sugaya ( who later invented
the vacuum back used on RTS III and 645). This system had the shortest
time delay between pressing the shutter release and the actual firing of
the shutter. RTS stands for "Real Time System" to denote this lack of
shutter delay. Those used to mechanically tripped cameras found the
RTS a delight in catching the "decisive moment".
Bob
From Leica Topica Mailing List:
After discussing WWII and the bombing of Dresden, (neo)nazis, pornography
and a slew of other topics, that are intimately related to the use of
Leica cameras, maybe this list is really off-topic. Below is a list of the
top ten current photographers, as ranked by their combined auction sales.
With the possible exception of some work by Kertesz, no Leica
photographers among these top twenty.
And note the very fertile years from 1950 to 1955 and the period 1885 to
1895. According to this very crude statistic, the next generation of
famous photographers will be born around 2010 and use a digital camera?
Erwin
From Rollei Mailing List:
The receiver may not have been butchered. Some were sold with two bare
leads as you describe. You have to buy a remote cable for the camera
brand you want to use it with. You need not lose the use of that remote
cable, since you can just cut it in the middle and add a male and female
microphone plug/jack so you can put it together again. Then you need
another plug to put on the IR release. Contax is easy since their remote
release only uses two wires. Other brands use more and require a more
complex IR device with more than one internal switch.
Of course it would be good to know if the gadget works at all prior to
purchase. A quick response digital volt/ohm meter would work. Set to
measure resistance and see if it drops off quickly when you trigger the IR
receiver. Meters which use moving needles don't respond quickly enough
for this purpose.
I built an infrared remote release system for my Rollei cameras from an
old infrared controlled slide projector. Works like a charm, but I had to
build in two switches and a delay between them for Rollei since they use a
two-stage shutter release.
Bob
[Ed. note: looking for a cheapy electronic cable release?...]
Find an old Kalart press flash with solenoid at a flea market
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
--- In NikonMF@egroups.com, "Anil Advani" advani@b... wrote:
Anil,
I currently use a bellows and slide copy attachment to make internegs. A
55mm Micro is good for this purpose or a reversed 50mm f2.0 works very
well also. For light control, you can use a flash and the ttl control of
your F3. Existing light using, your meter works well too. (In nice
weather I take my projection screen out doors and aim rig at it.)
Biggest problem is increased contrast. First step is film.
Unfortuneately, interneg film is only available in long rolls, not
canisters. Although I've used many different types of film, I've obtained
as good a result with slightly over exposed Fuji ASA 200, as any. The
"professional wedding film, NPS etc." work very well with lots of
overexposure.
Pre flashing helps. To pre flash, set up and determine exposure, with
either flash or existing light. Expose film at five or more stops less
than calculated exposure, on blank surface, (projection screen as
mentioned above, or flash with no slide in place). This pre flashing
lowers the contrast. Some commercial setups do exactly the same thing,
but POST flash.
When first starting this I purchased a "Rokunar Zoom Slide Copier".
Cheap! < $100! Truth: While I have improved on the quality of internegs
this little piece can produce, it has taken a lot of work and money, and I
can't always do it the first time. This little piece of junk producers
sharp images and very reasonable results. I think that it reduces the
contrast with lens quality. Whatever, you'll have to do something more
than just snap the shot to improve upon the results this thing will put
out virtually effortlessly.
I rationalize all this by saying that I like to fool around with my camera
and accessories. As I tell my wife, "It keeps me out of the bars, away
from fast horses, faster women and old whiskey".
You'll have to make up your own excuses.
Best regards,
f8
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
--- In NikonMF@egroups.com, "Alterego" alterego@f... wrote:
Keith,
When I mentioned the 55mm Micro and/or reversed 50mm f2, I meant for use
with a bellows and slide copier attachment.
If you don't have a bellows there are two choices. One make some type of
extension tube devise to give you a dark tunnel from lens to slide.
Length will be decided by focusing distance. It doesn't matter what this
is made of, as long as the slide is held steady and the unit is light
tight. A friend of mine made one of these that works quite well, but he's
better at this type of stuff than I. He also works in a machine shop and
has access to tools and equipment that most of us don't. Or secondly, buy
one of these inexpensive units I mentioned. Adorama sells them, and I'm
sure other places do as well.
As for the flash, it is placed in front of the slide so that it shines
thru the slide to the camera. In other words the slide is back lit. Now
the distance is quite another matter! That involves calculations based on
the length of your bellows/extension tube devise, the guide number of the
flash and the aperture used. You're also going to have to use a pretty
heavy diffuser on your flash to get even light and this will lower the
guide number. This is one of the few really good uses for ttl flash, in
my opinion.
I can tell you from my experience that if you start with the flash 12"
from the slide, with a guide numbe of 80, you can add a diffuser that eats
up one - two stops and have enough light at f8 and probably enough light
at f16. A 12 exposure roll of film wasted on experimentation, should get
you home from there.
The "little slide copier devise", has a built in diffuser, lenses and is
the proper length for focusing. It comes with directions including a
simple formula for calculating distance to place the flash. All you have
to know is the guide number of your flash. The guide number is simply the
distance your flash will cover at a given aperture at ASA 100. ie. if
your flash says your can shoot 20' at f4 while set at ASA 100, you have a
guide number of 20' x 4 or 80'. Keep in mind that flash manufactures tend
to be optimistic and you want to lean toward over exposure if anything.
Best of luck,
f8
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Something also to consider. Bowen made a device called a Illumitron III
slide copier. This has an adapter to allow many brands of cameras and
lenses to be used with it. I personally use it to duplicate slides.
Bowen specifies a 60mm lens on their magnification scale, but I have been
using my 55mm Micro Nikkor. As you know, a straight copy gives you
excessive contrast. This device adds an additional electronic flash burst
to flash the film and reduce contrast and a flash for exposure. It also
has a viewing light. Honeywell made something not quite as good called a
Repronar (or something like that). Perhaps you can find someone who has
one of these that you could use or perhaps some camera store can rent you
one on a daily basis.
From Sell-3D Photo Mailing List:
I bought a level at Home Depot for about $3 and cut out the vial. It is
3/8D x 1.5"L and has yellow fluid. I velcro it to the top of my beloved
Ricoh GR-1 so that hyper stereo shots have no rotational errors. It is
stored in the belt loop of the case.
Regards -Ralph
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
Lisa Horton geek@gatorgames.com wrote:
Hi Lisa,
I thought this was a very carefully considered posting, one which summed
up the differences between manual and autofocus cameras very well. But
I must disagree with the above paragraph.
It is a very long time since the primary controls of cameras were laid
out primarily for the mechanics of the machine (or the convenience of
the manufacturer). Since WW2 there has been a strong trend towards a
standard control layout for manual focus SLRs and this has dictated
control positions that suited the photographer, *not* the manufacturer.
In particular, the position of the shutter release, wind-on lever and
shutter speed control generally moved to within reach of the fingers of
the right hand (which was given responsibility for initiating the taking
of the picture) and the position of the lens' focusing and aperture
rings (and some secondary controls) were within easy reach of the left
hand when supporting the camera body and lens.
You are probably far too young to remember this, but the availability of
Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Minolta cameras with this optimum layout did
much to popularise the 35mm SLR in the 1970s. Those brands that used
different control layouts tended to lose out to the larger brands.
It is clearly possible to produce alternative layouts of the major
controls. For example Olympus puts the shutter speeds on a ring around
the lens mount, and Contax tends to put shutter speeds on a dial on the
*left* side of the top plate rather than the normal right side of the
pentaprism.
I think this proves that the controls could be positioned almost
anywhere. It might appear that the popularity of the "optimum layout"
was because it suited the manufacturers, but I firmly believe that it
developed as a result of customer demand.
In the early to mid-1970s the Pentax Spotmatic was considered the best
handling SLR by far. It sold well despite the significant operating
disadvantage of its M42 screw mount lenses. It's interesting to note
that the control layout of the Pentax Spotmatic forms the basis of the
classic layout that has been followed ever since by most manufacturers
of manual focus SLRs.
I really don't think that oldies like me prefer the classic control
layout purely out of habit, either. It really is the best and easiest
layout for controlling a camera without having to think about each and
every operation. I've used MF SLR cameras with other control layouts
and would always choose the classic layout over any of them.
I can still remember the sheer joy of handling my new Nikon FE2 in the
mid 1980s. After 10 years of using Olympus OM cameras (an OM-1 and two
OM-2s which I really liked) the FE2 was a revelation. Nearly as small,
nearly as light as the OM-2 it competed with, the control layout of the
FE2 with a Nikkor lens was effectively *perfect*.
In comparison, the Olympus had the speeds on a ring around the lens
mount and the aperture ring at the front of the lens, rather than at the
back. This meant that the left had was over-employed with focusing,
setting the aperture and setting the shutter speed (if in manual mode).
All the under-employed right hand did was press the shutter release or
apply exposure compensation to the light meter.
I've always wondered whether the slightly unconventional layout of the
OM system's controls was at the root of its ultimate failure to compete
with Nikon. Today I am in no doubt that the unconventional control
layout of the Contax MF SLRs, and their resultant quirky handling, have
prevented them mounting a stronger challenge to the "big two" brands,
but I have high hopes that they learnt this lesson when designing the
new N1.
I'm not sure whether being old enough to remember the early to mid-1970s
is a good or a bad thing!
{g}
--
From Rollei Mailing List;
In answer to myself. British patents are available for a fee from the
British Library at:
http://www.bl.uk/services/bsds/pxp/
They can be ordered by FAX or as hard copy. The normal fee for 24 hour
delivery service of FAX is $8 US per document.
The USPTO on-line service is free, but of course covers only US patents.
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
Edward Meyers wrote:
I remember you told us this a few years back and it knocked my socks
off!!!!!
mark rabiner
jay javier wrote:
It is a Start I, I think.
Start I, Euktar 75mm/4, (Viewfinder 75mm/3,5) no counter, filmadvance by
knob, 1/10-1/200sec+B, closest range 1m (came out 1954)
Start II, Euktar 75mm/3,5, (Viewfinder 75mm/3,5) counter, filmadvance fast
lever, Valor-shutter with sync 1/10-1/250sec+B, closest range 80 cm
Start B, Euktar 75mm/3,5, (Viewfinder 75mm/3,5) no counter, filmadvance by
knob, Valor-shutter with sync 1/10-1/250sec+B, closest range 80 cm
Start 66, Emitar 75mm/3,5, (Viewfinder 75mm/3,5) no counter, filmadvance
by knob, Valor-shutter with sync 1/10-1/250sec+B, closest range 80 cm
Start 66S, Emitar 75mm/3,5, (Viewfinder 75mm/3,5) counter, filmadvance by
knob, Shutter with sync 1/10-1/250sec+B, closest range 1 m (last one,
production ended 1980)
The other cameras mentioned are;
Druh, Boxcamera 6X6 with a mask for 4,5X6, Fixfocuslens Bilar 65mm/8,
apertures 8 and 16, Shutter c:a 1/50 sec+B
Druh-Synchro, Boxcamera 6X6 with a mask for 4,5X6, Fixfocuslens Bilar
65mm/8, apertures 8 and 16, Shutter c:a 1/50 sec+B, flash-sync
Fenix-I 24X36 mm (not Finex, not 25X36mm), Euktar 45mm/2,8, Shutter
1/10-1/250 sec+B, flash-sync, fast advancelever
Fenix-II 24X36 mm, Euktar 45mm/2,8, Shutter 1/10-1/250 sec+B, flash-sync,
fast advancelever, Rangefinder
There were prototypes of a Fenix-III, but it was not allowed to be
produced as it would have competed too much with German cameras (and
Soviet).
Other Polish cameras;
Ami, Boxcamera 6X6, lens (meniscus) 75mm/8, apertures 8, 16, shutter 1/50
sec+B, flash-sync
Ami2, Boxcamera 6X6, lens (achromat) 75mm/8, apertures 8, 16, shutter 1/50
sec+B, flash-sync
Ami, Boxcamera 6X6, lens (meniscus) 75mm/8, apertures 8, 16, shutter
1/30-1/125 sec+B, flash-sync, blocking against doubleexposure
All of the above were produced by Warszawskie Zaklady Foto-Optyczne
(WZFO), later Polskie Zaklady Optyczne (PZO).
These are probably all cameras produced in the "Peoples" Republic of
Poland. Two of them has the same name as Russian cameras, Start and Druh
(Drug is transliterated Druh to Polish), but I think neither of the
Russian cameras were ever sold in Poland.
Per B.
From Rollei Mailing List:
I've actually got a beanbag with a tripod socket on it. The inventor
sent it to me a couple years ago to try out. The idea was that you
mounted it on your tripod and used it to rest long lenses so you had
the support and steadiness, but could quickly point the lens anywhere
without fooling with a tripod head. It works pretty well but I don't
think it was a marketing success.
Bob
From Minolta Mailing List;
Hi Peter,
The key requirement is that it is a focal plane shutter: if you use a pair
of solid metal plates to serve as the shutter blinds, the physical
dimensions of the shutter would be unbearably large, and the efficiency
would be very low: as the shutter slit has to cross the film gate at as
great a speed as possible, accelerating and decelerating a pair of metal
plates would be difficult indeed. Since the earliest days, focal plane
shutters were made out of flexible materials wound across the film gate by
the use of rollers (with few exceptions such as Guido Sigriste's design
and the earliest form of Anschutz shutter), even the Contax shutter whuch
employed a metal tambour worked in much the same way. Much later on, CRF
cameras which do not have the benefit of a reflex mirror, employed metal
foil curtains instead of cloth ones, but still used the same principle. In
real terms, a metal foil shutter curtain offers no advantage balistically
to a cloth one, but is more prone to damage. The modern multi-bladed metal
focal plane shutter made it possible to have the whole assembly reasonably
compact and self-contained, and the appearance of propriety shutters such
as the Copal Square made it convenient for manufacturers to incorporate
them into their cameras.
Best,
Sam.
Peter tremewen wrote:
[Ed. note: an earthquake resistant camera mounting tip?...]
M P Brennan wrote:
The funny part Mike is that the photo books, a couple are signed, many
are reference, are worth more than the cameras, including an older
Seagull (which never worked) and the new Kodak Duraflex II which never
was used, (probably worth more). I just L shape some nice pine or other
clean wood, either paint or stain and varnish, drill and countersink a
1/4 by 20 thread machine screw or license plate bolt and they go in the
bookcase. Goes with the office..
We made old tripods, cut down and painted into lamps...Next month maybe
an article on my website.
From Contax Mailing List:
Photoshop Elements is Photoshop for photographers rather than prepress
people. It works with GF. What it does not have is the elaborate
controls for CMYK conversion and the high price! I'm using it, and
actually prefer it to Photoshop 5 and 6, which I also have. At under $
100 it is amazing!!
I am putting together a review in more depth for BestStuff which will go
up some time this summer.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
I recently read on this list of a poor guy dropping his beloved Rollei
because of a broken neck strap. I too experienced that (fortunately not
with my 3.5F), and since then I use a "safety belt", an idea I borrowed
from a friend in my photocircle.
Just get about 20 cm (8") of leather strap (or nylon, or what you like,
it's a matter of taste) and attach it to the shoulder strap, at about 20cm
(always 8") from the alligator clips, one end to the left and the other
end to the right, thus transforming the shape of the strap from an
upside-down "U" to an "A".
Since the strap usually breaks near the alligators, the camera is safe,
because it's retained by the remaining alligator and the loop that the
strap forms.
It works well, costs nothing, and it is not too unconfortable (at least
not as losing your Rollei... :-)
Ciao
From Rangefinder mailing list:
Paul:
If you are in the used market, I can comment on the following, each of
which I have owned and used at various times:
Century Graphic. Neat idea in theory, really hard to get used to in
practice.
Advantages: front movements, interchangeable backs, great close-focus
capabilities with long bellows draw and groundglass.
Caveats: separate VF/RF makes closeups hard; backs are inconvenient to
use; camera requires initial alignment; the knob-wind backs that do
55x85 cannot keep film as flat as the lever-wind ones that do 55x75 and
have pinch rollers (still labeled RH-8, or "6x9"). Lever backs can be
unreliable. Ken Ruth told me that if you leave them in a hot car, they
can soften.
Get it with: 100/3.5 Carl Zeiss Tessar (late) in modern Synchro-Compur
500 (XL Style); anatomic grip; RH-8 back. This is usually seen with a
grey body covering and black bellows. The other common configuration is
with the late 80/2.8 Xenotar, same Synchro-Compur, but with an RH-10
back (6x7). This is a grey body with red bellows.
Super Ikonta C (prewar, uncoated Tessar in Rapid-Compur)
These are all essentially the same thing at different quality levels.
The prewar with the Tessar (or sometimes Novar) is pretty good stopped
down, but has monumental flare wide open. It often comes with a 6x4.5
mask that fits inside the film gate. The postwar Ikonta has a coated
Tessar, is synched, and priced out of sight. Leave it to the
collectors. The Moskva is the most practical user. It looks like the
Ikonta, except it is streamlined and has a smooth cast-alloy top and a
top shutter speed of 1/350.
Advantages: compact, relatively inexpensive (except the postwar Super
Ikonta)
Caveats: you need to check front-standard alignment; RFs not really that
accurate close-up; shutters can really drag; no filter or shade
attachment points, lenses only really come into their own at about f/8.
Back-window frame counting is a little inconvenient.
Fuji G690BL
This is my current 6x9 and by far my favorite. This was the first of
Fuji's 6x9 RFs. It has a black-lacquered brass body and all-metal
construction. It has a viewfinder with 100 and 150mm framelines
(projected) with integrated rangefinder. Lenses available were the
65/8, 100/3.5, 150/5.6 and 180/5.6 (the first and the last have
separate viewfinders).
Advantages: metaphor is that of a 35mm rangefinder, just bigger;
built-in interlocked darkslide for changing lenses; lenses are basically
view camera lenses mounted in Copal #1 shutters with a focusing action
identical to any 35mm RF. And the B setting is not problematic. I have
the 100 and 180, and they are world-beaters.
Disadvantages: weight, size, lack of parts and people who know how to
fix them. 65mm lens often costs as much as the camera with the 100/3.5,
and at the prices you see it, if you need wideangle, buy the wide new
Fuji 690 with the 65/5.6.
Paul Jas wrote:
From Rangefinder mailing list;
Budget approach:
From rangefinder mailing list;
Some others:
Mamiya have a good range, but they are BIG and HEAVY. Lenses are good.
Graflex XL. Interesting shape, excellent lenses, can't remember if this
was 67 or 69.
Linhof. They made 2 types of interest. They have the baby Technica
family which is a similar concept to the small Century Graphic. They also
had a camera rather like the Graflex XL (can't rememebr the model name).
Down side is the price on this stuff, but beautifully made.
My favorite, the Plaubel Makinas (German ones). These are 6x9 folders,
interchangable lens (73/6,8 100/2,8 190/4,8). With the normal lens and a
cut sheet back folds small enough to fit into a coat pocket. More ways to
ruin a picture than you would beleive possible. Lenses to die for.
Also a possibility are any of the smaller view cameras. Most can have a
roll film back fitted. You get all the movements. Slow to use, and not
very portable.
Richard
From rangefinder mailing list:
While far from "pocketable" or even "easy to use", when I want good 6x9
negatives or slides, my first choice among my cameras is my Mamiya Super
23. Especially for macro shots using extension tubes and the bellows
back fully extended. In this configuration, however, the rangefinder is
useless and I use a right-angle viewing back. IMHO, the Super 23 is one
of the most versatile systems out there. I can shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 or
6x9 with lenses ranging from 50mm to 250mm. OK, I can't shoot Polaroids
with the Super 23, you need the Universal body for that, but I haven't
found that to be much of a drawback in the way I shoot.
The completely manual nature of the camera forces me into a slow,
contemplative style of shooting that greatly increases my concentration
on composition. Yes, I've wasted a half roll of film here and there
when I forgot to remove the dark slide from the film holder (as far as I
can tell, the No. 1 reason people get rid of their Mamiya Press), but
when use it regularly I just get into a rhythm when shooting and the
problems go away.
Any other fans of this system on the list?
Benno Jones
From Rollei Mailing List;
You read it here. I said that a Japanese technician had told me that
16 was an unlucky number, thus the 15 frame preference in Japanese
cameras. However, they must have decided to forget the superstition
since all newer Japanese cameras now give 16 frames.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
it might be an extension of the japanese dislike of the number "4".
my mom, who was japanese-born and educated, told me about this. perhaps
16 being 4 sets of 4 is also problematic.
i found an interesting list of other japanese superstitions:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2209.html
"The strange thing is they [the Japanese] make such bloody good cameras."
-- Peter Sellers as Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, *Dr Strangelove*
(1964)
-rei
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001
I have opened several integrated circuits in the past to photograph the
chip inside. Depending on the package, it can be very easy, or nearly
impossible. If the part in question is a ceramic package with a metal
cover over the actual chip, you are home free. Just take a single edge
razor blade and place the edge of the blade right between the ceramic
package and the metal cover. Give it a couple of gentle taps (screwdriver
handle works well) and the cover will pop right off. If there is no metal
cover, you will have to split the ceramic package in two. I would guess on
something as large as a P75 it would be difficult to accomplish this
without doing at least some damage to the inside. The chip itself will
probably survive, but you will likely damage the wires connecting the chip
to the rest of the world.
If you need to split the ceramic, use a similar procedure as described
above. Use a knife instead of a razor blade, and drive it between the two
halves if the ceramic package where the seam is. If you are really lucky
and hold your tongue just right, (and of course have the right brand of
camera equipment) the package will pop apart. If not you will be chipping
away (no pun intended) little pieces of ceramic until the chip is visible.
Good luck. If you need any further help or suggestions, drop me an email
and I will try to help, just loose the nospam from the address.
Randy
Collin Brendemuehl dpcwilbur@my-deja.com wrote
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Mount chip carrier securely.
Heat a corner with a soldering iron.
Lift the corner with a knife.
Grab the corner with a pair of pliers
Apply heat from the iron as needed as you peel the lid away.
--
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
Colin
I am in the semiconductor industry, and have taken several photos of
dice - mostly for fun, but my employer has used a few of them in
promotional pieces. I think that most pentiums are in ceramic packages,
with metal lids. To remove the lid, you take something sharp - a chisel
or X-acto knife, and dig it under the corner of the lid, with a bit of
upward pressure, the lid will pop off. Fairly easy. If the chip is in
a plastic package, forget it, the techniques for exposing the die are
more complex than what an amateur could do at home. The top surface of
the die is glass, with a pattern etched on it, and on the metallic
surfaces below the glass, this means that light hitting it will
diffract, giving a pretty rainbow effect. As a result, experiment with
lighting from different angles, including some large oblique angles.
Often I find that I have to move my camera to a position where the lens
axis is not perpindicular to the die, in which case you need to watch
your depth of field, and the perspective distortion that comes in. The
strange perspective can be corrected in photoshop if you want.
Strangely enough, for photographic purposes, older chips may be better -
they have larger geometries and provide more visually interesting
subjects - try going to a junk yard or surplus place and finding old
boards with ceramic packages on them.
Enjoy.
Mark
...
[Ed. note: a good tip on U.S. Patent searches... - Thanks Richard!]
you wrote:
Yes in that Voigtlander built the lenses. However, was this a project
originating with Voigtlander, or with Zoomar with Voigtlander simply
contracted to manufacture the lens, or some sort of joint venture?
Evidently you have some definite history about this.
I will put in a plug at this point for the US Patent Office web site:
http://www.uspto.gov This now has all US patents ever issued on it
although older ones can be searched only by patent number at this point.
Its slow as molassas and uses FAX tiff's but sure is handier than running
down to the main branch library when I want to look something up.
The best plug-in for viewing the Class-4 TIFF files is Alternatiff, a
Google search will find it. Freeware. Most editions of Windows have Wang
Imaging built in (now owned by Kodak and no longer a freebee). This works
for viewing off line and printing. Patents need to be printed on legal
size paper to print full size. A curiousity of unknown origin (at least to
me) is why the US Government has its own size paper, envelopes, etc. Too
well established to change probably, like the standard guage for
railroads, its too narrow but will never be changed.
----
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
Triboelectric discharge. Its electricity generated by the disruption of
crystaline interfaces in the adhesive when its torn apart. Many adhesives
show it. You can see someting similar by crushing sugar crystals in the
dark.
There are a couple of web sites featuring the effect, a google search
for Triboelectricity should find them. Not bright enough to cause any
trouble.
----
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Joe Codispoti wrote:
That used 4x5 Polaroid. A Nikon 50mm f/2.8 EL Nikkor enlarging lens was
used as a field lens with 2 front surface mirrors to enlarge the image.
Gene Pallat
From Rollei Mailing List;
From: mark.blackman1@btinternet.com:
http://www.photodo.com/nav/artindex.html
This 5-part article on photodo site (scroll down to "The Zone System)
I found to be the best introduction. Reads easily, and you can start using
the technique rightaway.
Best regards,
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Fine line 1/64" black newspaper/ad layout tape for drafting is good for
marking a screen, and can be removed/repositioned as needed. A classic
with a 6 x 6 rig is to put 8 x 10 and 5 x 7 marks on the screen.
Peter
From Rollei Mailing List:
curtiscr@pe.net wrote:
Several points.
First, roof-prism binoculars do not provide as satisfactory an image as do
Porro prism models. Having said that, most binoculars in use today are
roof-prism designs.
Second, to make maximum use of their optical characteristics, roof-prism
designs need phase coatings. These are a Zeiss patent, shared thus far
only with Leica, Docter, and Rollei. Nikon, Pentax, and Swift have
developed something they claim is functionally equivalent, though I've not
done a really critical test to confirm this.
Third, you get what you pay for. The binoculars marketed by Celestron and
Orion are, to be polite, boring. They are marginally capable, but not
much more. But, then, you don't pay much for them, either, so maybe it
all balances out in the end. There really are four price-points with new
binoculars: horribly cheap (under $100), cheap ($100 to $300), reasonably
good ($300 to $1,000) and adequate (above $1,000). The top makers of new
binoculars today are Zeiss, Docter, Leica, and Pentax, with a few of the
Nikon glasses beginning to show some really solid abilities and Luitpold
making some pretty good stuff, as well. (It is VERY illustrative to
realize that Pentax does NOT market their high-end gear in the US or
Europe actively, as they have surrendered these markets to Zeiss et al, on
the grounds that it would cost THEM as much to make and market a top-notch
pair of glasses as it does the western firms.) A really good compromise
house, incidentally, is Swift: they sell the better mid-grade Japanese
glasses, and are quite a reputable and honest firm.
As to the minimum focusing distances, I have access neither to 90% of my
literature nor to 50% of my binoculars, but here is a rough scan of what I
could find on short notice:
I STILL wonder how often a casual bird-watcher will be within 2m of a
bird, but have it your way!
Finally, the original question was about USED classic binoculars, not new
glasses. In this regard, a solid pair of Zeiss Jena 8x30 Deltrintem
glasses can generally be had on e-Bay or from Deutsche Optik for around
$100.
In terms of optical quality, I rate the Zeiss Jena/Docter 7x40 DF's first,
then the Docter 10x40 Asph BGA's, then the Zeiss 10x40 BGA's. But all are
fun glasses.
Best,
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Postscript: Binocular list:
From Nikon Mailing List:
Hi Kyle (and anyone else interested in photomicrography),
I have been a microscopist for a number of years, and have been able to
record some of the most amazing images using relatively low power light
optical microscopes as you suggest. In an earlier reply, Jon mentioned
'Wild' as a supplier of stereo or macroscopes and if you can find one
used, you will be in great shape, they are probably the best tools ever
designed for low power image recording. Wild was merged into the Leica
line of microscopes a number of years back and they are no longer
manufactured under that name, but Leica does carry a very good line of low
power scopes. The big caveat here is that a good low power scope is very
expensive, way more than even the best of Nikkor lenses. I'm using a Wild
model M7S which was purchased in the late '80s - at that time, it cost
over $10,000US with the accessories needed for photos - a dedicated photo
tube, a transmited light base, and 2 accessory incident light
illuminators. The Tascos are OK for visual or video recording but are
lousy for micrographs.
Unless you get a microscope with a swing out or moveable objective, you
will not get optimum images. The most important thing to remember about
the way most stereomicroscopes generate a 'pseudo 3D' image is that a
single large objective is used to collect the image from a single point on
the sample, it is then transmitted up through 2 separate optical systems
(one for each eye) which gives the apparent effect of 3D. See this site
for a cutaway image of how the image is generated:
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/flash/smzpaths/index.html
(The rest of the Nikon microscopy site is very good, BTW)
The problem with using a single objective to capture both images is that
the images are collected from a point slightly (or even significantly,
depending upon working distance) away from the optical center axis of the
lens. As we all know, this causes abberations.
To keep this Nikon related, the other significant difficulty you will
encounter is trying to find a way to mount you 990 onto the phototube of
the microscope.
I know all this sounds somewhat discouraging, but you may want to try ebay
for a microscope, there are many available there, and if I can be of any
help at all, please contact me.
Regards,
Rich
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
How about one of those water faucet "o" ring rubber washers? I found one
that fit my 35mm aux. finder, it slipped over the metal and was just thick
enough to stick out and protect my glasses. Take your M cameras to the
hardware store, I think you'll find something that works in the plumbing
department. Contact lenses????
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
From Leica Mailing LIst;
In order for the flash from the tape to in any way fog your film, you
would have to have film with a 10,000,000 ISO.
And it is "not" static electricity. It is atoms giving off light energy
(electron valence jump) when the glue molecules are ripped apart. This is
"electroluminescence" and is caused by the movement of electrons within a
substance from more energetic states to less energetic states, giving off
cold light as the energy medium. It is a minuscule amount.
Jim
...
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
Google is sending out a robot to grab the images from your site and place
them on theirs, so customers can see them by browsing Google and NOT
having to go to your site!
See my article on this and the info on how to block the Google bot from
entering your site at www.acpress.com in the "@acpress" news/commentary
page.
You feedback always appreciated.
John
Date: 27 Jun 2001
Ben Blaukopf ben@arachsys.com wrote
Ben,
I have created a camera shake page, is that what you meant? Have a
look, follow the Viewfinder->Photography Tools->Camera Shake
Calculator from http://www.dwl-online.co.uk/
Cheers - Robert.
From Minolta Mailing List;
samueltang@eisa.net.au writes:
And don't forget to remove the battery.
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001
"r.m.pruitt" wrote:
There are several ways to do this. This simplest is to
use a java script that disables the right click function.
Instructions:
This can be gotten around, but it takes a bit of
know-how.
Another way is to watermark the images, but this can be
a problem since the watermark may distract from images
that you're trying to share, not sell.
The third way (and best, most expensive, way) is to use
a commercial package, such as the one used on
Terraserver.com, but these typically require a separate
application for viewing the files.
--
From Leica Mailing List;
If you want to browse sites that use cookies but don't want
them to persist, write a little batch file that loads your
browser and then deletes the cookies (and anything else you don't
want sticking around) at the end of each session. I wrote a
little REXX program to do just that (and to wipe out the cache
and history), but it could be handled in an MS-DOS batch file,
too. Something like
would do the trick. The first and last lines are a
belt-and-suspenders approach to ensuring that cookies are wiped
out in case Netscape is started by some means other than clicking
on the icon.
Howard Sanner
From Rollei Mailing List;
I don't know if I brought this up before, but I was reading about some
dude claiming to be able to mix his (or her?) own D-76 for as low as
10 cents. That caught my attention. It's on the sub club webpage:
http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/develop2.htm
and it looks super easy to make. I have a hard time believing that it can
be done for that little. Maybe he got the metol and hydorquinone
developers cheaper than usual (used or someone's darkroom sale?). They
also have a link to another page that describes which stuff you can get at
the grocery store. I didn't know you can buy the borax there as "Twenty
Mule Team Borax" in the supermarket. Very cool. All I would need is to
find the developers and a decent scale for a good price... :-)
While I'm on the topic, has anyone tried the D-76 alternatives like
Chris Patton's E-76? He subs Phenidone for metol/hydroquinone
and adds ascorbic acid. Is this as good as D-76? Cheaper to
make?
...
From Bronica Mailing List:
We discussed this some time back on the Kiev88 list.
For that camera, we can go to a stationary shop and buy
those plastic binder spines which are sold seperately from
the file. Cut it to appropriate size, and stick it with double-sided
tape to the back of the filmback.
From Contax Mailing List;
The reason that this camera and the Mamiya AF are both 645 is simple. The
Copal-built shutter module they both use only comes in 645 size.
Nothing to do with anything else. Copal found that they could not make
such a shutter in 6 X 6 and get the same top speed and fast flash synch,
so they opted to make it in 645. You will see some other cameras built
around this shutter in the future I think. Also, the design of the shutter
is why both cameras using it have permanently attached handgrips, since a
big part of the shutter mechanics is in there.
I took one of the early Contax 645 cameras apart to see just what made it
tick, so I speak from experience and not just from reading about it.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List;
If you are awaiting such a shutter in 6 X 6, I think you have a long wait.
There is no market demand for 6 X 6 any more. If they go bigger than 645
I'd guess that 6 X 7 would be their target. That's going to be a lot of
mass to accelerate and stop!
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
D-76 and indeed most other developers are easy to mix. Cost can be low
but, of course, it depends on how much you must pay for chemicals.
Twenty Mule Team borax is suitable for photographic purposes. Commercial
grade sodium carbonate is cheap at swimming pool supply places, and some
other common chemicals which are put up for other purposes can be bought
cheap.
Current packaged D-76 is a buffered formula, sometimes called D-76d. It
differs from the standard formula in containing 8 grams of Borax and 8
grams of boric acid (crystals) per liter. This makes the developer pretty
much immune from the slow rise in activity due to a slow reaction between
the hydroquinone and sulfite, which is a problem with the standard
formula.
Ilford Microphen is a buffered D-76 type developer using Phenidone
instead of Metol. The published formula Ilford ID-68 is about the same
stuff. Ilford Bromophen is a Phenidone version of Dektol, its published
formula is ID-62. If anyone wants these I will post them.
I have no idea about the D-76E formula you mention except that lots of
people like to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps this fellow was unaware of the
Ilford formula, though its been around for decades.
----
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Leggers,
Many years ago, Marty Forscher, the founder of Professional Camera
Repair Service told me and a group of other photographers, the simplest
way to keep your high shutter speed working was to use them.
Sounds simple doesn't it.
Marty recommended, when you finish an assignment and have a partially
exposed roll still in your camera, to fire it off at the highest shutter
speed to finish the roll before rewinding.
This little bit of exercise should keep your shutters accurate.
Happy Snaps,
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
1. Why You Should Shoot
I tried to explain these a little better at:
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/writings/notauto.html
--
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001
...
I offer the following items as things your camera can't tell you.
1.) Who will hit you when they see you taking their photograph.
Thanks for reading this, it was fun to write. :)
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
you wrote:
Whoo -- good memory. I have one each black chrome & titanium. When I
started shooting I owned one black and one chrome Photomic FTn and found
it great for me. Same controls in the same place, but I could tell which
was color & which b&w; at a glance. When I switched to the FM2n, I just
carried the idea forward.
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
....
Hello everyone. This just came in on the Olympus list. I thought some of
you might want to avail yourselves of a great opportunity.
Howdy Folks,
Saw this mentioned on one of the local PBS stations. The San
Francisco Museum of Modern Arts is having an Ansel Admans exhibit in
commiseration of his 100th birthday from Aug. 4 till Jan. 13, 2002.
There are few locals that might be interested and because of the length
there may be some who are traveling this way. What I thought was
particularly interesting was their exhibiting the same photographic
scene from early, and from late in his career to show the changes in his
photography work. For more information follow the URL below.
http://www.sfmoma.org/
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
That's correct. Kodak apparently rounded. I've seen 12%, 12.5%, and 13%. I
believe 12.5% is most accurate. Curiously, when you ask Kodak why they
continue to make 18% gray cards, they don't have an answer. The product
manager in charge of that line of products was apparently asked recently
by someone where 18% came from, and he couldn't answer the question (I
have that second-hand, though, so discount it, if you wish).
Upon what do you base the Nikon claim? Their literature?
Read on (next response).
If you're shooting print film, you're well within the latitude of the
film, and probably would never notice. If you shoot with slide film, try
taking pictures of a gray card and running them through a densitometer,
you may be surprised at the result. I wonder, by the way, if film
manufacturers may have slowly snuck in a slight ISO "adjustment" without
telling us. With most slide films up through Velvia, it was pretty common
for most pros to rate them at 1/3 stop less ISO, about the difference
between a 12.5% and 18% gray card. With the current batch of films (Provia
F, Ektachrome VS, etc.), I haven't seen any pro downrating them.
Nikon's brochures say many things. The F5 brochure specifically states
yellow as a color that the color LCD matrix meter does particularly well
on.
Virtually every photographer I know thinks yellow is a color the F5 has a
strong tendency to overexpose (it does a wonderful job with reds,
however).
By the time statements get put in English brochures, they've been filtered
through two or three levels beyond the engineering/manufacturing
department in Japan. Most US brochures and documentation are finished
before production models are produced. Note that I asked the engineers at
Nikon headquarters about exposure setting and got a different answer. And,
as I note on my site, this is something that is so firmly ingrained into
photographer's minds that most have trouble letting go of it and actually
running a controlled test of their exposure methods. I notice that Bob
Shell at Shutterbug has recently written about the same thing.
The F5, F100, and F80 definitely see 18% gray.
First, do you use matrix metering? If so, all bets are off. The page on my
site is the result of something virtually every savvy digital camera user
is discovering: if you put a Nikon Coolpix or D1 into centerweighted or
spot metering and fill the frame with a gray card, the resulting exposure
histogram shows that you didn't hit middle gray, as expected. In matrix
metering, it seems that even minute differences in the evenness of the
lighting produce results that are a bit different, and you may actually
hit middle gray more often. (By the way, Nikon touts the D1's meter as
being the SAME as the F5's, so what's that say about Nikon literature
claims?)
A few years back, I was dissatisfied with my exposure setting. I had just
returned from Africa, and despite some careful metering, I was mostly
displeased with my exposures. I set to doing a series of tests, and in so
doing, discovered that I needed to bias my exposures about a third of stop
off my center-weighted readings. I used to put that off to a miscalibrated
meter. Then a couple of years ago while in Japan, I had the opportunity to
talk to Nikon engineers, and happened to mention that my two camera bodies
seemed to be off by the same amount in calibration. They immediately asked
me if I was using a gray card, and when I told that I sometimes did, they
started discussing how the ANSI metering standards worked. Voila!
By all means, use whatever works for you to set consistent exposure, and
if you're happy with the results, that's all that counts. As I noted, the
Web page was a result of trying to answer a consistent question I kept
getting from Coolpix and D1 users, all of whom thought there was something
wrong with their camera (curiously, many who thought there was something
wrong with their camera were happy with the exposures it took!).
Thom Hogan, writer/photographer Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 Rows of tiny crystals that armor the skeleton of a certain kind of starfish Instead of trying to camouflage themselves, the brittlestars were using The unique spherical shape of the microscopic lenses may have applications Johnsen said the latest research on the brittlestar's light-sensing ability Cam
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002
From: Peter Rosenthal petroffski@mac.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Service issues with Gateway...digital darkroom update
On June 3 Anthony Atkielski flagrantly exposed his close-minded ignorance
thusly:
> There are more disadvantages than advantages to Macs today, even for
> graphic
> artists.
>
> True, but Macs provide lower price/performance than PCs.
Crrrrraaaaaappppp!!! You must have read that somewhere and it sounded
good to you and adopted it as a mantra. For the life of me I can't think
of one disadvantage to me or the rest of the members of the "Downtown
Flagstaff Mac users group". 14 or so photographers and graphic artists
with 27 Macs to show for their troubles. Perhaps you should ask them (us)
about those disadvantages. A few:
http://www.johnrunning.com Everyone listed here comes to John for advice
http://www.suebennett.com Stunning work!
http://www.daveedwards.com National Geographic Photog
http://www.dugaldstudio.com Unfortunately died in a kayaking accident
http://www.tombean.com A gorgeous stock portfolio that goes on forever
http://www.angelfire.com/az/rmrunningfoto/ The most talented person I know
http://www.shontobegay.com $10,000 for a painting??!!
Several use a certain familiar square format (on topic!!) and occasionally
they drop their cameras. They all use Macs. Nothing but Macs. All day.
Virtually NO downtime. I'd know because I do what little maintenance is
needed for several of these very successful artists. Some of these Macs
are very old. Work perfectly well. Still. No mechanical failures except
for a snapped-off USB port. My 450 G4 still works so well for everything
I ask it to do it makes me laugh sometimes. It's crashed ONCE in 8 months.
No rebooting. No viruses in 5 years on my Macs with no antivirus software
and I download a LOT of nonsense. Just ask my wife. No fussy-file naming.
No bloat-coding. There ain't a Gatesbox made that can claim that. This
kind of enthusiastic brand loyalty from very talented, smart people comes
from somewhere.
My wife makes 1GB planetary geology maps for the feds all day long on her
733 G4 in Illustrator while listening to iTunes while printing to a 54"
plotter. It never chokes or slows-down on this amount of data.
So now we have it. Higher price/performance and NO relative disadvantages
to using Apple computers. Perhaps you should get some first-hand knowledge
of a subject before subjecting everyone to such blather.
Please feel free to respond to this off-topic tirade to me personally if
you must. I just couldn't let this go by. I'm sure you'll all be glad to
know I feel better now.
Peter
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
(928) 779-5263
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 14 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: What makes a winning photograph...
...
The great art critic, Dave Hickey, winner of the McArthur award, stated in his
graduate seminar on art theory and ciritcism..."Art must be different just to
be noticed". And wiser words were never spoken.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: which HTML editor for building a photo website
"Lisa Horton" Lisa@lisahorton.net a M-icrit
> Sounds like a desirable feature. Unfortunately
> I have no clue how to implement it:)
Include a line like this in the HTML of each page that displays a picture:
IMG SRC="nextpic.jpg" STYLE="display: none" HEIGHT=1 WIDTH=1 BORDER=0
... where "nextpic.jpg" is the next picture to be displayed (if the user is
stepping through images sequentially).
This code will load nextpic.jpg, placing it in the browser cache, but will
not display it (thanks to the STYLE attribute), or, in older browsers that
don't support the STYLE attribute, it will appear as only a single pixel on
the screen, and won't be very obvious.
When the user clicks to another page that actually displays this image, it
will already be in the cache, and so will display instantly. This
arrangement takes advantage of the time the user spends viewing the current
picture to download the next picture in the background. It usually works
extremely well. Of course, if he visits photos in an order you have not
anticipated, there's no guarantee that the image you preloaded will be the
next one required, but since most people step through images with a NEXT
button or whatever equivalent you provide, preloading the next image in a
series will speed things up 99% of the time. Users will be convinced that
your site is "really fast," when in fact you are just using the "think time"
they spend viewing your images to download the following images in the
series.
From: "Grant Dixon" grant.dixon@cogeco.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: which HTML editor for building a photo website
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002
"Whiz" hlbmab@yahoo.com wrote...
> snip
>
> >
> > {IMG SRC="nextpic.jpg" STYLE="display: none" HEIGHT=1 WIDTH=1 BORDER=0}
> >
>
> Is that inside the {BODY} or {HEAD} tag?
Place it within the {BODY} {//BODY}. But remember it only works if the
browser has a cache that is enabled
An alternative is to include a link in you {HEAD}{/HEAD} This will allow
the whole page to be preloaded. if the client's browser supports this.
{LINK rel="Next" href="Next_page.html"}
{LINK rel="Prev" href="Previous_page.html"}
--
Grant
Recent Work http://home.cogeco.ca/~gardens/
Home Pages http://home.cogeco.ca/~grant.dixon/index.htm
From: "That Annoying Twit..."YesYouTooAreATwit@TheSocietyForThePublicCastrationOfSpammers.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: yashica FX-2
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002
As Yashica Nut myself I would suggest skipping them both and go for either a
Yashica FX-3 or ideally and FX-D with optional Aperture Priority.
In the case of the FX-2 getting them repaired and finding one in decent
condition is a chore. As for the FX-70 you only have Aperture Priority...
Below I have included a link that many be of help...
http://www.cdegroot.com/photo/yashica/yashica-slr-faq-3.html#ss3.2
Hope this helps,
Andrew
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
From: Theo Borm theo@flex087.wuipo.wau.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: NBC invents new view camera
Robert Feinman wrote:
> There was a promo for "West Wing" on NBC TV last night which showed the
> cast lined up for a photo. In the foreground was a view camera on a
> tripod with the image visible on the groundglass.
> The image was right-side-up. Where can I get one of these cameras?
>
make it yourself ;-)
Take a lens board with an off-axis hole, two prisms as normally found
in a pair of binoculars (the larger the better), mount the prisms to
the back (if there is room enough) of the board so that they invert the
image (two 90 degree top prisms mounted at 90 degrees to each other)
(alternatively you can mount them in front of the lens, but then the
gadget can be seen from the outside and that spoils the fun ;-) )
Works best if you use large prisms (larger than the ones normally
found in binoculars) in combination with long lenses; has the added
advantage of making the light path longer, which means that you can
use longer lenses with short bellow extensions. Has the disadvantage
that short lenses become (more or less) useless.
If the prisms are too heavy, then you can also use 4 surface mirrors
mounted at 45 degree angles in a special frame. Be sure to use
metalized surface mirrors as the normal glass ones will ruin your
image (double reflections). Construction of the frame needs to be
quite accurate because otherwise your images will not be level,
or will have some apparent lens shift/tilt included while the
lens board is in the neutral position.
Using the movements of your camera with such a device fitted is akward
at first, but you get used to it pretty quickly.
I would not recommend the binocular prisms for photographic use, but
the mirrors work fine, provided they are of good quality and dust-free.
For televized view-cams anything goes; quality of the image is not
important; (relative) brightness is. There may be some tricks involved
in getting that bit right.
A variant of this technology is used in most 35mm camera where an
appropriate optical element is mounted on the viewer-side of the
ground glass screen. ;-)
AFAIK such a system is not commercially available. (and perhaps for
good reasons)
regards,
Theo.
from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002
From: Stephen Castello scastello@cfl.rr.com
Subject: Re: half format ...
"olivier" firefly@uio.satnet.net wrote:
>hi, some idea to can transform a NT 6x6 back 12 exp
>in a nice 24 half format 3x6 panoramic using the same 120 roll ???
>i am interested in this possibility .
You could try what is done with 4x5, get an extra dark slide and cut it to
make the format. Take one picture on the top half, flip it and take the
second one on the other half.
Stephen
From: fvt2112@hotmail.com (Valder)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: budget photography
Date: 9 Oct 2002
I have both set ups and use them at different times. A Minolta X700
and a Maxxum 7. When I need speed I use the Maxxum 7, when I got the
time I use the X700.
You can get TTL with the Minolta X700. I use a Sunpak 433D flash with
great results. There are also some good Minolta MD Zooms out there as
well as primes that can be had cheaply. The X700 also has a motor
drive MD-1 that will handle your film advance and give you ~threee
frames/sec if you need it. The MD-1 put a breath of fresh air in my
X700 use.
But there are good AF lenses for Minolta that are cheaper also.
Minolta 70-210/4, 35-70/4, to name a couple and can be had for around
$100 or less.
If you are going to be shooting moving targets mostly (like me with my 4 yr old)
then go AF if not then either is really fine.
Valder
From: "Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Man.. old mechanical SLRs feel so nice.
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002
> One thing I am finding hard to get used to though is the focussing prism
> the pentax uses, I prefer the split image in the chinon, especially in low
> light, but I guess I'll get used to it.
>
> cheers!
You can get a split-image focusing screen installed into a Spotmatic at
Pittsburgh Camera Repair for under $60.00.
I just picked up a Spotmatic F body and SMC Takumar 50mm lens and soft
leather case on eBay for $99.00! It is my 2nd Spotmatic F and my 5th Asahi
Pentax body.
That "Pentax Feel" was/is indeed very nice! The optical quality of those
wonderful SMC Takumars remains superb. The prices are dirt cheap!
What are you waiting for . . . ?
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 02 Nov 2002
Subject: Photo Plus Expo - short show review
from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) - Friday 11-1-02
PHOTO PLUS EXPO - New York - A Quick Review
I attended the Photo PLus Expo in New York today and here are some of my comments about the Medium Format world-
I saw the New Hasselblad H1 camera and while it looks nice on the surface there is a great delay between the time
you push the release button, the auto focus is done and the photo taken. Enough time passes to loose that fleeting
moment of a kid's pose or a bird flying away. I then checked the Contax 645 and in my opinion the shutter releases faster
the camera is more comfortable to hold and easier to use. I think Hassy loses to Contax on this go round and Contax also
Has Zeiss lenses which the new Hassy does not.
At the Hasselblad booth they had several cameras on mounts you could use/examine/look through. I examined
the Hasselblad 203FE with an incredible 300MM Zeiss (I think f2.8) lens mounted on it. The lens is uncommon
low production and the cost of lens and camera together is about $25,000 and I would love to have a superb outfit like this.
I saw several medium format digital backs and some require being connected to a computer or battery pack
during use - okay in the studio but inconvenient in the field. The new Kodak
medium format digital back looks like the best yet, seems the smallest and does
not have to be connected to a computer, but might need an external battery back.
The Kodak man was not too savy. More info on this on the Kodak website - still a pricey item.
I met Bob Shell of Shutterbug Magazine who told me he is having great use from a purely mechanical camera
The Kiev 88CM. He also mentioned that his friend Zork is coming out with a spectacular lens - 1000MM - f7 -
Zeiss - image stabilized MIlitary lens - adapted by him to take medium format and other camera mounts.
This is not a mirror lens but a compact folded optical path more normal design. Cost will be about $2000 and
I am saving up starting now for this beauty. Bob Shell will be reviewing it shortly.
Agfa told me that are not going out of the film business, contrary to all of the internet gossip I have heard.
Digital was everywhere - mainly small cameras competing with 35MM.
The show was packed and attendees and camera company reps were generally
friendly and having a good time.
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Photo Plus Expo - short show review
The 1000MM f7 Zeiss lens which Bob Shell told me about has a folded
optical path with mirrors, but is not a "Mirror lens" as we know.
The typical mirror lens has curved mirrors and/or a mirror or two with holes in
them causing the doughnut highlight effects.
As I understand this new lens -
The light enters a front element or two and goes to the back of the lens
barrel where it hits a flat mirror and is bounced forward to another flat
mirror and then to the rear elements. This halves the length of the
lens but does not have the curved mirrors with central holes.
- Sam Sherman
From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Plant and garden photography
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002
"Geoff Bryant" geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> Last week I posted a response to a thread in rec.photo.digital about flower
> photography. I had a few replies and some requests for tips, so if anyone's
> interested please feel free to visit my website, which I've updated this
> week, adding more photographs and around 100 of the many garden articles
> I've published over the years and a few photo articles too, including one on
> flower photography.
The photographs may be quite nice, but the site design has a major design
infelicity: I can't sequence through the images without going back to the
thumbnail view.
The desing at the following site is major improvement:
http://dmanthree.ne.client2.attbi.com/400uc/
Here's a variation on that theme: http://marklauter.dyndns.org/photos/
If you want people to look at your images, you should make it easier for
them to do so.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
From: "R.W. Behan" rwbehan@rockisland.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Alternative Lens Caps for Mamiya TLR C330 Lens?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
Kevin;
There's chap in Florida who has lens caps by the trainload, at competitive
prices. Try the email address below. His name is Bruce.
americaneagle@htn.net
Good luck,
R.W. Behan
Lopez Island, Washington
From: Andrew Yee ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space camera blazes new terahertz trails (Forwarded)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003
ESA News
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: Calling Hemi's Bluff (Viewing Distance)
Hi
In the book Modern Optics, Cat Number 65-27054 page 245 it goes into the 10
inch view distance. It says something I even didn't realize. The 10 inch view
distance was picked as a standard because at that distance, it gives a visual
perception of an 1 to 1 image.
Its called the standard reference distance for the determination of
magnification.
So at 5 inches view distance, the magnification is 2 times and at 2.5 inches
it's 4 times. A 5 times magnification would be a view distance of 2 inches
which is about the distance the eyeball has from the focus screen in a 35mm
camera through a prism.
A .90 screen would then correct it to 4.5 times magnification at the eyeball.
A 55mm lens would give stereo vision through the viewfinder with the .90
screen.
Larry
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: Calling Hemi's Bluff (Viewing Distance)
>the distance
>at which the prints looks like what you would see with the naked eye
>looking at the scene". An enlargement from my 600mm lens would have to be
>waay far away to look the same size
>as the scene ;-)
Yes if you take View Distance = Focal Length times Magnification that would be
for a 5X7 print a view distance of over 3000mm or 120 inches or 10 ft. The
only way to reduce this somewhat is to make a contact print from a 11x14
negative. Then the View Distance is shorten to 600mm or 24 inches. Again to
view as the naked eye views.
I am sure you have seen trick pictures of people holding a picture of the same
scene in front of them only only to have their head and feet show with no body
in the middle. You use these calculations to figure out how big a picture
should be made and how far away the subject should stand holding the picture.
Larry
From: Jeff tokom@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Homebrew 120 film cans
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003
Go to your friendly Pharmacist, and con him to give you a few empty 16DR plastic
prescription containers.
Unexposed film, in it's wrapper, fits snugly. Exposed film has a bit of play.
This is the best way to tell them apart inside a bag or pocket.
It works for me.
Jeff.
Stewart C. Russell wrote:
> I got sick of my 120 rolls lurking in my camera bag unprotected. Since
> I'm also a 35mm photographer who shoots on Ilford and Fuji films, I've
> got a lot of these empty cans lying about. With a sharp knife, 30
> seconds work, and zero expenditure, you've got a
> worth-more-than-you-paid-for-it 120 roll film can.
>
> Details here:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/scruss/pentacon_six.html#filmcan
From: "Steve Midgley" smidgley@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Homebrew 120 film cans
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003
"Jon" vze249jf@verizon.net wrote
> I don't know where he gets them, but David Romano packs his cut down (to
> 120) 70mm Kodak HIE into great plastic film cans:
>
> http://www.DavidRomano.com/Film.html
>
> Jon
These containers are available from Porter's Camera online at
http://porterscamerastore.com/. They can be found under "Film and
Batteries/Film Storage". The price is $3.50 for 3. They are well made - I
have several dozen that I bought probably fifteen years ago that are still
working fine.
Steve Midgley
From: "Al Denelsbeck" AL@wading-in.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: making your own remote switch
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003
Ujjwal Sarin ujjwal_sarin@hotmail.com wrote
> Hey,
>
> I have a Canon Rebel Ti, I wanted to make my own remote switch. The
> idea seems very simple, just don't feel like spending around $25 for
> it. I was wondering if any one of you have made it before and have
> experience with it. I know it has a 2.5mm standard audio jack.
I've done it, not hard at all. There's a rough schematic on my site at
http://wading-in.net/page104-remote.html. A more elaborate page will be
produced eventually, showing photos and assembly.
- Al.
From: "Hank Scorpio" insertmyname@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: making your own remote switch
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003
Look around in here:
http://camerahacker.tripod.com/index.html
"Ujjwal Sarin" ujjwal_sarin@hotmail.com wrote
> Hey,
>
> I have a Canon Rebel Ti, I wanted to make my own remote switch. The
> idea seems very simple, just don't feel like spending around $25 for
> it. I was wondering if any one of you have made it before and have
> experience with it. I know it has a 2.5mm standard audio jack.
>
> Thanks,
> ujjwal
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 29 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
>Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
>From: gzzzzzzzblank@bellatlantic.net (Gregory Blank)
>Date: 4/28/03
>Its probably both, but the Kodak Master view does not have cut corner GG
>but does have an intricate system to vent the air from or to the camera as
>the bellows
>is contracted and expanded.
Then it is not both. If the corners are not cut off then you can't look at the
lens. But if the corners are cut off you have the frustration of not seeing the
image out to the extreme edges of the field. Having a full groundglass and a
vent system to allow the air to escape solves the cutoff problem, and peeking
through the groundglass corners to the lens has nothing to do with anything. If
it did no one would make full groundglasses and add vent systems to the camera.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003
...
> If you can't see the entire aperture it is a problem, vignetting will occur.
> If you can see the entire opening at whatever aperture you are using it
> shouldn't vignette.
>
> Sherman
> http://www.dunnamphoto.com
You will find that at full aperture the corners show
partial obsuring of the aperture. This results in more fall
off than is predicted by the simple fall off formula. Unless
you _must_ work at full aperture you should stop down until
the entire iris is visible from the corners. Obviously, the
wider angle the lens, or the greater the lens movement, the
smaller this aperture will be.
For a "normal" focal length lens, and no movements, the
maximum aperture that will not be vignetted by the lens
mount is about two stops down from the maximum the lens is
capable of. For many lenses this is also the maximum
aperture where the spherical aberration and coma are
reasonably well controlled.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 29 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
>Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
>From: Dean Van Praotl no.spam@my.email.adr
>Date: 4/28/03
>Adams said the corners of the ground glass were cut off
>"to permit the movement of air when the bellows is
>expanded or collapsed." (The Camera, ch.4)
The cut off corners to allow air to escape has been common wisdom for as long
as anyone can remember and has been stated in the literature going back to
American Photographer circa 1902. Peeking in the holes to detect cut off is
just techy revisionism.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: Wolodymyr Bazhan bazhanv@ifpan.edu.pl
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: ScatLab program
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003
New program light scattering software developed to perform
electromagnetic scattering simulations mainly based on classical Mie
theory solution:
http://www.scatlab.com
Best regards
W. Bazhan
From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003
From: "xs_650se" christer@pcr.se
Subject: Cheap radio remote release solution
I have a found a reasonably cheap solution for those wanting a radio
remote trigger. I have tried it on MF Minoltas, and my Dimage 7i, but
i think it should be easy to modify for Maxxums to.
Look here: http://www.photozone.nu/article/articleview/15/1/2/
/Christer
From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Howard Wells" sandwell@earthlink.net
To: "cameramakers" cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: RE: [Cameramakers] Source for accessory shoe/cold shoe?
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003
Item 45-0103 at
http://porters.com/
Crude but will do the job. I've seen machined aluminum shoes as well but
can't find a source for them at the moment.
Howard Wells
From: Wolodymyr Bazhan bazhanv@ifpan.edu.pl
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: ScatLab 1.2 is free
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
light scattering freeware developed to perform
electromagnetic scattering simulations mainly based on classical Mie
theory solution, T-matrix support, cross section graphs, near field
imaging and more...
http://www.scatlab.com
From: "Al Denelsbeck" AL@wading-in.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: "generic" software to download from camera to PC
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003
L Mehl mehl@cyvest.com wrote
> Hello --
>
> I am a newbie re: digital photography, using Win2000.
>
> I have an old,cheapie camera by Xirlink/DSC Pro; the software it came with
> no longer runs, and it won't install.
>
> Is there some freeware/shareware available with which I can download images
> from the camera to my PC, and erase the photos from the camera?
Did you try downloading a new driver from their website?
A search under "Xirlink DSC Pro" netted this:
http://www.cameratechsupport.com/EARTHLINK/digicamsdrivers_pc.htm
- Al.
From: "Bob" bobpatterson@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Add-on Film Box-end Holders
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003
On my Bronica I put a square piece of Velcro (the hook part) on the back and
on the box ends of the various films I use I put the loop part. Carry them
in a small plastic bag & change as needed. I don't use that many different
films so it's not hard to keep track.
Bob
"Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com wrote
> I remember that before every 35mm camera had a film box-end holder on its
> back (now they all have those little windows) you could get after market
> ones that you stuck on the back. I also _think_ I remember that at that
> time you could also get these reminder thingys in a size for a 120 (or 220)
> box-end.
>
> Anyone know if such a thing still exists, and where I might be able to get
> some? A UK source would be best, but I'll order them from anywhere if
> necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
> http://www.bard-hill.co.uk
From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Add-on Film Box-end Holders
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003
"Bob Monaghan" rmonagha@engr.smu.edu wrote
> Hi Peter,
> Try http://www.porters.com/ porters camera store and similar outlets;
> they've had them in the past etc. should ship overseas?...
Will try them and find out.
> another option is colored tape; radio shack sells a series of colored
> plastic tape which can be handy to identify items. I used to tape my
> bags for trips so it was obvious that all the bags with blue tape on them
> were mine, cuts down on getting wrong ones or somebody mistaking your bag
> for theirs (easy to do with scuba bags, all look alike ;-). You could use
> green for velvia, yellow for kodak gold and so on ;-)
> grins bobm
Yes, I've done this with suitcases too. I used to have numbers painted on
all my 35mm camera bodies, but somehow always prefered reminders with MF.
Your colour suggestion is what I now do for 35mm - except that I use Op-Tech
Pro-Straps. I have a green one for Velvia, red for E100VS, black and grey
ones for B&W; films, plus a burgundy and two shades of blue for other stocks.
Works really well. I just don't always use straps on MF or I'd do the same
there.
Thanks,
Peter
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003
From: Rolohar@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Electroluminescent light table
For a really in-depth dissertation on electroluninescent panels:
http://www.planar.com/technology/el.asp
Roland F. Harriston
From: Phil Stripling phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Filter tutorial?
Date: 17 Jul 2003
"Nobody" nobody@nowhere.not writes:
> I haven't gotten Google to show me the way to the comparisons. Maybe someone
> here can. I'm willing to toss and replace, but I'd like to have confidence
> about why I'm doing it.
Google is, indeed, your friend. Go to
http://groups.google.com/
select Advanced Search, and type in
filter UV lens
in the box for "Find messages with all the word," then drop down to the box
at "Newsgroup Return only messages from the newsgroup" and type in
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
then click on Google Search, and you'll have about 5,000 messages right on
point. Some of them are even current in this newsgroup even as we, uh,
type.
--
Philip Stripling
From: sluster@lw4u.com (Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Anyone ever build a telecenric light source?
Date: 20 Aug 2003
frankhaussmann@web.de wrote
> Dear optic guys,
>
> I try to build a somehow cheap (around 100 Euro) telecentric light
> source on my own. Unfortunatelly I did not find much about the comon
> designs beyond people often use 3 lenses.
> I'd like to illuminate an area of 30 mm diameter, red light will be
> needed.
>
> My questions are:
> * any hints about the way of the rays?
> * what lenses are needed?
> * any other special optic items (apertures, ..)
> * any good ideas about the light source (polished LED?)
>
> Thanks for your ideas.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Frank
Hi Frank,
I've built many collimators (telecentric light source) in my time.
Depending on what you need the collimator for, there are a variety of
approaches.
For the moment, I'll assume you just need a marginally well behaved
light source for some imaging application in which you don't care
about the quality of the wavefront of the collimated beam, etc.
Simple collimator: Light source at the back focus of a simple
plano-convex lens. If you start with an LED, you *might* get away
with just using a small diameter, diffuse end LED all by itself. My
experience has been that this rarely provides sufficient illumination
uniformity across the field. Most of my work is in machine vision.
In order to increase uniformity, you can try different diffusers in
front of the LED, then place a small circular aperture directly over
the diffuser. The aperture, not the LED, will be at the back focus of
your lens.
For quick, cheap and dirty, textured drafting mylar can work well.
For more uniformity, you can go to lossier diffusers such as milk
white plastic, etc. "Fly's Eye" type sheet -- from Fresnel
Technologies -- can be pretty efficient and a good homogenizer, though
you still might want a layer of drafting mylar over this. Don't use a
clear-ended LED by itself unless you don't care at all about
uniformity. You'll see the structure of the junction in the output
beam.
If you need better collimation quality, perhaps you could be more
specific about what you are trying to achieve. The next step up would
be to use an achromatic doublet lens instead of a simple plano-convex
lens. If you need good wavefront quality, you'll probably want to be
in the world of multi-element beam expanders and laser sources.
Definitely not in the 100 euro range!
Good luck.
Spencer
Spencer D. Luster, Owner
LIGHT WORKS, LLC -- Creative Optical Devices
http://www.LW4U.com
From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 14 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: which is the best portrait lens?
>Anything but Pentax would be better. It all depends on your cash
>supply. Contax, Leica, Nikon, Canon all would be superior.
Wrong, Mike. This is sort of a sweeping generalization that doesn't take into
account alot of important factors in a desirable portrait lens. It all depends
upon your definition of the term "better" and who's defining that term (their
tastes/preferences). A sharper lens is not always the best lens for portraiture
and the older lenses had both bokeh and color rendition that might be more
pleasing to a portrait user (depending on user preference/taste).
Pentax lenses are renowned for their excellent bokeh and their fine color
rendition and overall high quality for low prices. While I can't comment on the
105/2.8, the 85/1.4 FA (autofocus) lenses is supposed to be superb for portrait
work (though on the expensive side). The Pentax 100/2.8 FA (unfortunately a K
mount lens and not a screw mounbt lens) macro lens is also supposed to be one
of the sharpest lenses in its range on the planet - in an old PP? test I
believe it tied or beat out (probably tied) the then non-USM Canon 100 f/2.8
which is also one of te best macro lenses on the planet. The 77/1.8 Ltd. is
also supposed to be an excellent portrait lens (but expensive and only in
KA-type mount). The only screw mount Pentax that I saw results from was the
135/2.5 (either in K or screw mount plus adapter, I believe it was the same
lens regardless of mount though) and if my faint memory serves, it was a fine
lens (sharp/colorful) though a little on the long side for you.
Why not go to either www.photographyreview.com and look at the comments for
this older lens (if there are any on the "old lenses" Pentax page - I think you
have to click a link on the regular Pentax lens page to get there), or
photo.net or do a search on Yahoo! for Bob DImitri's/Dimitrov's? (I forget the
spelling) and/or some other Pentax lens test/user comment sites to get a handle
on the performance of the 105/2.8.
But here are some links to get you started anyways... :-):
http://www.phred.org/pentax/lensgal/k105_28/k105_28.html
(I am not sure if the above link is for a K mount lens and whether/if there was
an optical design change between the screw mount (Super Takumar) version and
the K mount version or not, the below link is for comments on the K mount
version of the lens)
http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/BriefComments.html#105%20mm%20f/2.8
Sharpness isn't everything in a portrait lens as not everybody wants to see
inside someone else's crow's feet or wrinkles, though it certainly doesn't hurt
to have a sharp lens for other subject matter. For women, especially, a slight
softening filter and/or shoting at or near wide open aperture cuts just enough
edge off of the sharpness to be very useful.
I have used the 90/2.8 Leica R lens for fashion but it is brutally sharp and
requires either flat light and/or a softening filter and/or someone with
perfect/unblemished skin.
Rather than have the OP of this thread listen to any of us, why don't you try
out the 105/2.8 Pentax lens at a store/swap meet/etc. with some film and a
subject (see if they'll let you shoot either outside or in a well lit area with
windows and/or some kind of sky light that's not too overhead/more coming from
the side) and judge for yourself how you like its lens signature (sharpness,
bokeh (rendition of out of focus areas), color rendition, contrast, etc.)?
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Subject: Re: Cellophane as quarter wave plate?
From: Repeating Decimal salmonfry@sbcglobal.net
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003
Edgar A Pearlstein at epearlst@unlserve.unl.edu wrote
> Michael (mmehrle@yahoo.com) wrote:
> : Also, since we're on the subject - what is the cheapest sources for a
> : quarter wave plate out there? Can this be purchased for less than a buck per
> : square foot in volume?
>
> Maybe cellophane from different sources is different, but back about
> 50 years ago, cellophane from cigarette packs was a good quarter-wave
> plate.
Now that IS being CHEAP.
There was no specification given for the desired waveplate. This absolutely
necessary if you want to discuss price.
Polaroid used to make wave plate material. You should contact them. But at
$1 or less per square foot, do not hold your breath.
Bill
From: epearlst@unlserve.unl.edu (Edgar A Pearlstein)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Cellophane as quarter wave plate?
Date: 14 Aug 2003
Michael (mmehrle@yahoo.com) wrote:
: Also, since we're on the subject - what is the cheapest sources for a
: quarter wave plate out there? Can this be purchased for less than a buck per
: square foot in volume?
Maybe cellophane from different sources is different, but back about
50 years ago, cellophane from cigarette packs was a good quarter-wave
plate.
From: "Michael" mmehrle@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Cellophane as quarter wave plate?
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003
I recently read that normal household cellophane wrap can be used as a cheap
half wave plate
(http://individual.utoronto.ca/iizuka/research/cellophane.htm) - it's
usually not at a perfect 180 degrees, but somewhere around that. Now, my
question is: Can the cellophane's thickness be modified so that it can
function as a 90 degrees quarter wave plate? My thought is that it might
just be a matter of adjusting the thickness or stretching force during the
manufacturing process...
Also, since we're on the subject - what is the cheapest sources for a
quarter wave plate out there? Can this be purchased for less than a buck per
square foot in volume?
Any input would be welcome...
Cheers,
Michael
From: alindsey [alindsey@cableone.net]
Sent: Thu 8/14/2003
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Pole Photography
To all pole-a-files,
I got my basic pole info from: http://www.bird-shots.com/
He has changed his site's access and converted from a truck pole to a
trailer pole - a great idea. I may change my pole mounting later on.
There are several PAP sites. Search on "Pole Aerial Photography"
It's not an easy project but a 50 ft (or less) pole is doable.
The cradle carries:
1. A roundshot 35, mounted upside down due to its Swiss alps lookup
character. I get more ground upside down.
2. The Roundshot controller
3. My Minolta D7 with or with out the fisheye adapter.
4. A video transmitter from X10.com for the Minolta or XCam2 video signal.
5. A 6V NiMh battery pack for servos rotating: Hor, Vert, Shutter and Pwr.
6. A 12V NiMh battery pack for the Video xmiter
7. A 7.2 V battery pack for the Minolta
Or, I can mount only the RS and use a small Video camera from X10
(XCam2) to see the camera's view from the air. Leveling is done buy
doing a 360 and adjusting the pole so that the horizon is in the
middle of the TV screen all around.
The D7 when mounted, either landscape or portrait wise, can be rotated
360 degrees in both axis. Sphericals are easy. Only the Nadir patch
is tough. When mounted alone I can put the D7's Nodal point right on
the centers of rotation.
On the ground, I have a video receiver from X10, a small battery
powered TV (with a video input) and a R/C box for activating the
cradle stuff. I use a 4 channel Futaba R/C kit. It came with the
servos, receiver, transmitter (controller), batteries and charger. I
replaced the NiCad batteries with NiMh.
I first used a 4:1 gear reduction but It seemed too fast so I changed
to a worm gear for the two rotation directions. Also, the H & V
servos were modified to provide 360 degrees of rotation. Plenty of
sites tell how to modify these.
I had some welding done on the pole side of the project but everything
else was made in my garage. I have hand tools, a grinder, a drill and
a vise. The cradle was made in my garage using local materials from
Radio Shack, Lowes and Home Depot (except the two worms and spurs and
the small ball bearings which I had to order because I live in a small
town. The R/C unit came from a Hobby Outlet store. Teflon bearings
can replace the ball bearings. If the cradle is made correctly one
can balance the load so the servos are not stressed. I considered
hi-torque servos but worm gears were a bit cheaper and I wanted to
slow things down anyway.
I priced a commercial pole. Bare bones it was $8300. Home brew is
much cheaper. The owner of the bird-shots site told me that he has
used his pole for 2 years and has taken over 10,000 pics.
If you're serious, I'll be happy to provide some construction tips
that I learned (the hard way).
Regards,
Austin Lindsey
From: "Marlo Andersen" mander@xmission.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Was: 3/8in German t0 1/4 20 tpi tripod adapter in: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #836
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003
The European tripod thread is a U. S. Unified Standard machine screw
thread, 3/8-16UNC; the "16" is the thread pitch and the UNC indicating it is
a "Unified National Coarse" thread form. Its origin, I believe, is similar
to the fact that almost all bicycle pedals have a U. S. Standard thread
(1/2" or 9/16" diameter) regrdless of where the bicycle is manufactured.
For bicycle pedals, the only good, reliable ones in the early days were made
in the U.S., so bicycle manufacturers had to accomodate to use good ones
that were a purchased item rather than design their own from scratch.
I don't know the history on tripods, but I suspect that in the early days
the best ones were made in the U.S. and the U.S. thread became a defacto
standard for the world, but the U.S. industry changed their standard for
smaller portable cameras. I have seen very old (and large) U.S. made
cameras that used the 3/8" thread, which supports this theory. If my memory
serves me correctly, the 3/8" thread is also used on professional movie
cameras and industrial high speed movie cameras where rigid mounting is a
necessity. My own large, studio tripod has screws with each thread, to
accomdate either.
----- Original Message -----
From: graphic99@mindspring.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003
Subject: [Cameramakers] Was: 3/8in German t0 1/4 20 tpi tripod adapter in:
Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #836
> This 3/8 to 1/4tpi raises a question that I have been puzzling on lately:
>
> How did the Europeans settle on a tripod stud size that is an exact match
> for the U.S. stanard 3/8 inch pipe thread (exact pitch unknown to me but
> there is only one for this size in the U.S.)?
>
> My math makes an exact 3/8 inch to metric conversion work out to
> 9.54mm...hardly a nice uniform metric tooling size. Or is it just a good
> sloppy fit?
>
> Wayne
> graphic99@mindspring.com
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Was: 3/8in German t0 1/4 20 tpi tripod adapter in: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #836
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: Philippe Debeerst philippe.debeerst@photoeil.be
WAYNE,
Tripod stud size has to do whit tradition in the U.K. industry, who was
the standard at the end of the 19th century.
For instance , the 50 mm (= 2x 1 inch) focal length of the "normal" lens
for 35 mm is 2x the "standard" occulair (= 1 inch) for the microscopes
used that time in the U.K. industry and adopted bij the industry on the
continent!
E. Leitz and O. Barnack just toke what they had by the hand (and in
production) and 50 mm was the diameter of the 35 mm frame. But do not
forget the the basic idea of the Leica was to make an test camera for the
motion picture industry. the Leica was developed to be used to make test
exposures on kinofilm to determinate the right E.I. and E.V.! Thus not
plain photography. And the 1 inch focal length was enough for te 35 mm
kinofilm format with was 24 mm large (not 36 mm).
The same happens for the stud, U.K. standard was 3/8" Withwoth thread, the
camera industry toke it.
3/8" pipe thread was strong and good enough.
But for cost cutting reasons the stud got smaller and became 1/4", almost
all the Japanese camera's are using this as an standard, the rest of the
world toke it over.
Philippe
P.S. Excuse me for the bad English, this is only my third language.
...
From: Sam Goldwasser sam@saul.cis.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Light projection on air -- Anyone remember the details?
Date: 27 Dec 2003
Here's the thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr;=&ie;=UTF-8&th;=68a26128d3f3d21d&rnum;=4
--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Home Page: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Site Info: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: The email address in this message header may no longer work. To
contact me, please use the feedback form on the S.E.R FAQ Web sites.
ajw27703@wmconnect.comremoove (tony) writes:
> >Hi all. New poster to this forum. About 3 months ago, I happened to
> >come across an article on CNN's website in the technology section. I
> >even remember reading a post or two on Usenet (can't remember the
> >specific forum now).
> >
> >The article was about a grad student from MIT who had purpotedly
> >invented a very interesting, and potentially highly lucrative device.
> >
> >It apparently allowed him to suspend 2d images in mid-air, with no
> >screen, mirror, or any other solid refelective surface. The article
> >was very sketchy on the details, suggesting that the inventor wanted
> >to keep things as vague as possible to prevent anyone from copying his
> >idea until he had patented/finalized it. However, IIRC, he did give a
> >small hint, that it had something to do with altering the properties
> >of the air above the projector, which somehow allowed him to
> >manipulate light waves in the above-mentioned manner. He described
> >some interesting phenomena that he had (or could) achieve with this
> >technology, including images that were different on two sides of the
> >air-curtain, and even where from one side it would be transparent, but
> >on the other it would apear solid.
> >
> >They also had a few pictures posted with the article, and admittedly
> >they were distorted and fuzzy. The inventor said he had a lot of work
> >left to do, but felt confident that he could improve the resolution
> >and distortion.
> >
> >If I haven't done a good job of describing this, recall the holograms
> >they had in starwars. This is pretty close to that (but not 2d, not
> >3d).
> >
> >Anyways, I've since gone back to CNN's archives, and can't find any
> >article like this. I've done key word searches for anything that I
> >recall form the article, and I come up with nothing. Doing google
> >searches results in the same.
> >
> >My conclusion is that either it turned out to be a hoax and CNN
> >scrapped it out of embarassment, or (this one if from watching too
> >many movies) it got bought up by the military and is now top secret,
> >hence the mysterious lack of any info regarding this.
> >
> >Anyways, was hoping one of you fine folks might either recall the
> >article, or some mention of this device. Thanks in advance for any
> >info.
> >
> Firstly, I'll confess I don't know anything about the technology you're
> describing. If you do a search in this newsgroup, though, you'll find a thread
> describing how three D images are made in glass. The technology involves
> localized heating, using a laser, so that the glass fractures, the fractures
> are sub mm in size.
>
> I wonder if a large na laser could do enough localized heating of an air
> volume to distort its optical characteristics enough to cause a psudo image.
>
> Think of it, no billboards along highways, instead there'd be images floating
> in space. Scary, huh?
From: iturnblackkeys@hotmail.com (iturnblackkeys)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Streak Photography
Date: 6 Sep 2003
Check these out as examples....
http://www.underview.com/2001/how/slitscan.html
http://www.discover.com/jan_01/bogglers.html
http://www.discover.com/jan_01/solutions.html
From: "zeitgeist" blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "To cut or not to Cut", that is my question
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003
labs return the film uncut because it is common to have the entire roll
reprinted, hopefully cause the client orders several sets, IE: duplicate
sets for the parents, though occasionally the photo doesn't like the color
rendition and needs a reprint. if the roll is uncut you can have it
reprinted at proof rates, if cut, then you pay re-print rates. at my old
lab it was 65 cents vs 2 bucks for 4x5.
however tightly wound in a small tube is not good, you should have them in a
long sleeve. you can loop them in half in a big envelope and store them in
racks like milk crates, or if you shoot lots and lots you can bundle them
together and hang them on dowels like coats on a rack. but film stored
for awhile in a tight roll will get a permanent curl, this makes sorting and
pulling a particular neg difficult, and makes printing very difficult as it
will bulge in the frame, remember most of the time you tape the negs to
cards, even for custom printing, and a curled neg is a nightmare.
btw, even if you use contact sheets for proofing you still don't have to
cut, you just lay three rolls down and do them in three sections
1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 | 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 | 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 | 5 6 7 8 | 9 10 11 12
> As a newbee of medium format photography, I am unfamiliar with the
> advantages/disadvantages of cutting the 120 negatives I receive from
> the lab.
> For each roll, I receive a short tube that contains the uncut film.
>
> What are the advantages/disadvantages of keeping the film in a roll
> versus cutting. Storage certainly seems easier if cut.
From: John Popelish jpopelish@rica.net
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Found Cheap Blue LEDs!
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003
"Carl G." wrote:
>
> C wrote:
> > Hey everyone! I wanted to use a few blue LEDs on a home project, but
> > was discouraged by the high prices everywhere. But finally I found
> > some cheap blue LEDs online! If anyone is interested, try
> > www.etronicstuff.com at 40cents/ea.! Later...C
>
> If you think 40 cents each is a good deal, you will be glad to know that
> people are selling blue LEDs on eBay for around 34 cents each (less if
> you bid successfully).
>
> C. G.
I bought 100 for $20, shipping from Hong Kong, included.
--
John Popelish
From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens caps ?
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004
James Dunn jdunn@augustmail.com wrote:
> Most of the used LF lenses listed on ebay don't seem to have lens caps.
> Do most LF photographers not use them ? What to use instead?
Use the Real Thing! Here's where to get them.
http://www.2filter.com/prices/products/schcaps.html
Say Thank You. :)
[Ed. note: warning re: plasticizers and homebrew or commercial lens accessories...]
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens caps ?
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004
"BCampbell" chickenlittle@theskyisfalling.net wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the Coast version of this product but I've been using
> filter wallets made by LowePro I believe it is for many years. They come in
> various capacities ranging from maybe four filters to twelve filters. The
> filters slip into little "pouches" the fronts of which are some sort of
> clear plastic material. I haven't had any problems with the filters.
>
> "Bob Salomon" bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote
> > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > > aldenphoto@aol.com (Ken Smith) wrote:
> > > > > I have a red peanut butter cap on my Fuji 6x9. Very hard plastic perfect
> > > > > fit. The grocery store is loaded with caps. Be sure to take your lens with
> > > > > you, and for some reason they don't like you taking pictures there, so be
> > > > > sneaky if you are doing a Winogrand on the side.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken Smith
> > > >
> > > > And should there be plasticisers in that cap that migrate to the glass
> > > > on your lens be prepared to throw the lens away. But you did save 7.00
> > > > to $13.00 ($13.00 is list price for a 120mm lens cap).
> > >
> > > Got any authoritative sources concerning this issue? What are these
> > > plasticisers and how long can a lens survive them. Are they anything like
> > > the plastic storage/contact sheet holders that were used for film in the
> > > sixties?
> >
> > Yes, the most authoritive kind. I had a set of Rollei Bay VI filters -
> > including 2 Softars in a Coast Filter Wallet. This item gave off
> > plasticisers which migrated to all of the filters in the wallet (9). All
> > of the filters had to be thrown away. The owner of Coast would not
> > accept any resposibility for putting out such an item in the photo
> > market.
> >
> > A word of advice, make sure your lenses are properrly protected. the
> > cost is very low. And I bought what had been marketed as a photo item -
> > even though it was a budget version.
> >
> > --
I have not heard of any problem with the LowePro cases. My experience
was limited to the Coast which ruined filters and the original Domke
(before Jim Domke sold his business to Saunders and with a later one
made by Saunders before they sold out to Tiffen).
The advantage to the Coast was price and size and availability. It was
inexpensive and large enough to hold Bay VI filters and in stock at the
store I was in.
--
From: aldenphoto@aol.com (Ken Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens caps ?
Date: 8 Feb 2004
john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote
> Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote:
> > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
>
> > > > And should there be plasticisers in that cap that migrate to the glass
> > > > on your lens be prepared to throw the lens away. But you did save $7.00
> > > > to $13.00 ($13.00 is list price for a 120mm lens cap).
> > >
> > > Got any authoritative sources concerning this issue? What are these
> > > plasticisers and how long can a lens survive them. Are they anything like
> > > the plastic storage/contact sheet holders that were used for film in the
> > > sixties?
> >
> > Yes, the most authoritive kind. I had a set of Rollei Bay VI filters -
> > including 2 Softars in a Coast Filter Wallet. This item gave off
> > plasticisers which migrated to all of the filters in the wallet (9). All
> > of the filters had to be thrown away. The owner of Coast would not
> > accept any resposibility for putting out such an item in the photo
> > market.
>
> What a nightmare! Thanks for the good warning.
Oh sure, another thing to worry over based on "it happened to me"
as an substitute for an actual scientific analysis of one plastics
migration potential vs. another. A good hard commercial grade plastic
food item cap is about as likely to effect your lens, as leaving it by
the TV. But I don't know such things for sure. If anyone does have
verifiable information, I would sure appreciate it more than the isolated
incident mentioned. And please, if you're going to point something out
to someone, try to refrain from the smug sarcasm. This usenet thing
often makes your average decent guy speak to strangers with the most
odd mix of familiarity and dismisal as I've ever seen. Ready, set,...
attack!!!
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens caps ?
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004
john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
> Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote:
> > aldenphoto@aol.com (Ken Smith) wrote:
>
> > > I have a red peanut butter cap on my Fuji 6x9. Very hard plastic, perfect
> > > fit. The grocery store is loaded with caps. Be sure to take your lens with
> > > you, and for some reason they don't like you taking pictures there, so be
> > > sneaky if you are doing a Winogrand on the side.
> > >
> > > Ken Smith
> >
> > And should there be plasticisers in that cap that migrate to the glass
> > on your lens be prepared to throw the lens away. But you did save $7.00
> > to $13.00 ($13.00 is list price for a 120mm lens cap).
>
> Got any authoritative sources concerning this issue? What are these
> plasticisers and how long can a lens survive them. Are they anything like
> the plastic storage/contact sheet holders that were used for film in the
> sixties?
Yes, the most authoritive kind. I had a set of Rollei Bay VI filters -
including 2 Softars in a Coast Filter Wallet. This item gave off
plasticisers which migrated to all of the filters in the wallet (9). All
of the filters had to be thrown away. The owner of Coast would not
accept any resposibility for putting out such an item in the photo
market.
A word of advice, make sure your lenses are properrly protected. the
cost is very low. And I bought what had been marketed as a photo item -
even though it was a budget version.
--
Subject: Re: A question, why can't X-rays be focused and visible light can?
From: Repeating Rifle SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,sci.med.physics,sci.astro,sci.optics,sci.research
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004
Helpful person at rrllff@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't understand how the refractive index can be less than unity as
> it is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum compared to the
> speed of light in the material. As EM radiation cannot exceed c, how
> is this possible?
Here we are talking phase velocity. Phase is what determines focusing.
Anything material, including energy, cannot go faster than the speed of
light. The phase velocity is often greater than the speed of light in
vacuum. The signal velocity, corresponding to a band of frequencies will
travel slower than the speed of light.
In particular, ordinary rectangular wave guides have phase velocities > c.
Microwave lenses have been made using slat waveguides with such phase
velocities. A converging lens made this way actually looks concave! It takes
time for the transient to die down in such a wave.
Bill
From: "Freemale" mail@spamresidence65.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.help,rec.photo.technique,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Right-Angle Adapter
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004
When I was a younger man. (No not that many years ago) I made myself one
from a toilet roll, glue, black paint and a make up mirror. It was very good
and simple to do. I finished mine off with a close up lens attached to the
front so that it looked like a normal lens. It was great for taking real
candid photos.
"Paul" spam-trapper@blueyonder.co.uk wrote
> "Rebecca" rebecca@starthinker.com wrote
> > Does anyone know where I can get a 52mm right-angle adapter? The type that
> > looks like a lense but will allow you to shoot a picture in one direction
> > while it looks like you are pointing your lense in another. I've been
> > watching eBay and searching the web but no luck. Is there another name for it?
> > Thanks.
...
From: "nathantw" nathantwnospam@removesbcglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad A12 to Telescope Adaption
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004
Here's a site from one guy who uses medium format film. It's not a 'blad
A12, but it'll give you an idea of what you may need to do.
http://www.galaxyphoto.com/
I actually vaguely remember seeing an article on just what you're talking
about. I think it was in Sky and Telescope, but I could be wrong and it may
have been Astronomy magazine. Your best bet might be to do searches at the
library.
Good luck.
"reconair" reconair@staffnet.com wrote...
> I remember seeing in an Astronomy mag several years ago, where an amateur
> astronomer adapted a Hasselblad A12 film magazine for use in
> astrophotography. As I remember the A12 was the only Blad piece used and it
> was attached at the telescope prime focus. Can anyone shed some light (no
> pun intended) on this adaptation?
>
> Scott
From: Uncle Al UncleAl0@hate.spam.net
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing,sci.materials,sci.optics,alt.misc,alt.misc.friends
Subject: Re: PRINTING PICTURES ONTO METAL...
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004
EP wrote:
>
> I've found this website that can print pictures onto metal. You just
> send them the picture and they will print it onto a metal pendant of
> your choice. This is so cool! Everybody should check it out!
> www.icherishyou.com
It's cute item. When you finally find the prices vs. area you see why
they are so well hidden.
1) Flat slab of metal.
2) Heat transfer print or just a Xerox.
3) Heat transfer onto metal.
4) Acid dip or metal plate or gun darken or photo tone, etc.
5) Acetone wash to remove organics.
6) 8.5 x 11 portrait etched in metal
You can also buy liquid photo emulsion, print directly to metal, and
burn the reduced silver into the base metal. Then play.
Nice high school science project. Nice spam list.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
From: KBob KBob@nothere.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: IR strobe triggers....
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004
JR jrhone@mac.com.invalid wrote:
>Anyone use those hotshoe i/r strobe triggers? I am thinking of getting
>one for my F100 and Hensel monolights. This will be an easy way to get
>a wireless setup, as well as be able to use my N70 which doesnt have a
>pc sync terminal. Just wanna know how well they work...
>
>JR
Save your money. Simply apply a layer or two of red cellophane tape
over your on-camera flash. This will reduce its visible output
sufficiently so it won't have an effect on the exposure, but it will
easily trigger the slaves. Or fashion a handy slip-over thingee you
can fold and keep in the kit--I know you can do it.
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: shutter release cables? Differences in connections?
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004
"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote
> AFAIK, there are only two patterns of cables: Deckel or
> Compur cables, and Kodak cables.
And there are Nikon cables, used in early Nikons and
some other Japanese cameras; these screw into a large
collar surrounding the shutter button.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: shutter release cables? Differences in connections?
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004
"Nick Zentena" zentena@hophead.dyndns.org wrote
> I'm wondering if common cables are different then older ones. I
> need some new cables for a Kiev 60 and a Synchro-Compur #1 shutter. Both
> seem to need smaller then normal cables. I've only found one that fits and
> the shop doesn't stock them anymore.
>
> Thanks
> Nick
AFAIK, there are only two patterns of cables: Deckel or
Compur cables, and Kodak cables. Deckel type cables have
tapered threaded ends, Kodak cables have parallel threaded
ends. Actually, Deckel type cables fit Kodak sockets pretty
well.
The only new cables I have are some very cheap ones I got
at a local camera sale a few months ago. These seem to fit
all the shutters I have. Are these off-size cables a well
known brand?
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004
From: "Marlo Andersen" mander@xmission.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] RE: material for top of tripod head
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
I need a non-slip surface for the top of an aluminum tripod head that I'm
building. I've considered a layer of cork gasket material, neoprene from a
rubber glove, leather and Naugahyde. Another possible design is to mill a
grove into the top of the head and inset a neoprene O-ring but I'm concerned
about it staying in place. Any other suggestions or preferences? What
adhesive should I use to attach the non-slip material to the aluminum?
There is an automotive gasket material that is neoprene bonded ground cork that I find is the
best of both worlds for a resilient, non-slip suface for the camera mounting surface of a tripod
head. This material is available in several thickensses at auto parts suppliers, or industrial
gasket suppliers.
From: "zeitgeist" blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Homebrew Front Projection Info?
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004
> Is anyone aware of a good source of information for building a front
> projection system similar to the Scene Machine? Drawings, diagrams, and/or
> pictures, would be very useful. In fact, just an ongoing discussion with
> someone who has done it would be useful. And, of course, sources for a
> reasonably priced mirror-type beam-splitter and reasonably priced high-gain
> retro-reflective screen material would be helpful also. Thanks for any
> assistance offered.
why bother, there are probably a lot available, photographers bought them up
in the 80's but quickly learned that the imagery sucked.
yeah sure you could drop in any of a billion slides, stock images or you
own.
but no matter what you do, the results will always look like a cut a paste
job for a couple reasons.
The human eye will accept but will still register the fact that the
background is lit from this direction from a linear light source, the sun,
whereas the subject is lit from two directions with 'spreading' light
sources' (IE: they typically required small light boxes, certainly smaller
than the subject and definitely different from the background)
the camera lens and background image were created from slighting different
points of view and lenses, they do a lot of compositing in movies but
carefully match lighting, and lenses used (one of Lucas big innovations
besides the computer controlled movements of the camera)
to keep light off the background you were required to use lighting that is
the definition of sucky, cross light to the extreme.
so anyway, if you ask around some professional associations I am sure that
you will find some photog that still has one in the basement they will be
glad to get rid of.
you can find an old kodak prism preview system, it used the same beam
splitter to get the duplicate image split to the video capture the same time
as the film was exposed, they used the same set up, only replaced the slide
projector with a video camera.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
From: m II ohmworkLEOPARD@spots.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Is this going to be the lens of the future?
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004
William Graham wrote:
> Well, it would have to be perfectly horizontal to keep gravity from
> distorting the parabola. And, the spinning mechanism might put some,
> "rumble" (to use an old record player term) into the mercury causing minute
> ripples to progress across the surface......
He and his students figured out how to use air bearings to support the vessel
holding the mirror. To get sharp images, they also cast a layer of epoxy resin
atop the mercury and used a crystal-controlled motor to keep the
rotational speed constant.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/liquid_mirror_000924.html
There's more of this going on than I would have thought. One site says
they get better than 20nanometer accuracy
http://www.google.ca/search?q=spinning+mercury+telescope&ie;=UTF-8&oe;=UTF-8&hl;=en&btnG;=Google+Search&meta;=
I wonder if some material freezable at a reasonable temperature could
be, or has been, used. Spin it up and freeze it while it's turning. The
motor can now be stopped until the next thaw.
Mercury freezes around -40 degrees. That adds to the cost of equipment.
Neat stuff..
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Is this going to be the lens of the future?
From: Al Denelsbeck news@wadingin.net
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004
"Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com wrote :
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04030302philipsfluidlens.asp
A few years back in Popular Science, there was an article on a
similar kind of fluid lens, but with a lot less dicking around. A clear oil
was contained between two flexible clear membranes, and the strength of the
'lens' was altered by increasing or decreasing the volume of oil, to bow
the membranes out more or less.
It was being used for eyeglasses in third-world countries. Simply put
a pair on and dial the little knobs on the side until your vision was the
clearest, then break off the knobs (to keep it from resetting). At a cost
of about a buck apiece, they were a simple, albeit imperfect, solution to
areas that had no opthamological resources.
But at the time, I was thinking about what a kickass telephoto it
could make. Getting rid of the internal helicoids could make lens a lot
faster and lighter (and cheaper). And I have to wonder if it isn't far
easier to correct chromatic aberrations through a liquid suspension than a
glass one.
The lens you point to looks pretty slick, but I suspect it is
extremely limited in size and works best vertically, as shown - otherwise
gravity has a distinct chance of distorting the surface tension it relies
on. At least, if the two fluids have different specific gravities.
So who's making the 3mm 10 megapixel sensor to go with it? ;-)
- Al.
From: Detector195@yahoo.com (Detector195)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: POEMS: Programmable Optimizing Electromagnetic Simulator
Date: 16 Jan 2004
Phil Hobbs pcdhSpamMeSenseless@us.ibm.com wrote
> Dear All:
>
> Over the last year, I've been working on a fancy 3-D FDTD (finite
> difference time domain) electromagnetic simulator system that's just
> about ready for prime time. I need to finish re-coding the basic FDTD
> engine, to replace the graduate-student code I'm currently using, and
> then I'm hoping to release it as open source. (The FDTD engine is about
> 1/8 of the total code). Before I do that, I'd love some feedback from
> the assembled optical multitude on what you might want to use it for,
> and whether it might fill a significant need for you. Suggestions for
> things to put in would also be welcome.
>
> This is helpful in motivating both me and my management, if you get my
> drift.
>
> I've put the manual, which has detailed explanations, worked examples in
> gory detail and a bunch of pictures, on my web page,
> http://www.pergamos.net.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil Hobbs
I am eagerly looking forward to Monday morning when I can use my high
speed internet connection to download the manual.
It will be interesting to see if I can use the program to simulate
diffraction grating performance. I know there are commercial programs
for this, but I would be more confident using a program with a
documented "chain of evidence" back to the basic physics.
Looking at potential shake-outs in optics design software industry, I
am wondering if open source is the future.
From: "Malcolm Stewart" malcolm_stewart@megalith.freeserve.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.movies
Subject: Re: A space Lens oddity?
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004
"Alan Browne" alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca wrote
> I bought the DVD of 2001: A Space Odyssey. True to form Kubrik bites in
> to the wide angle lenses for a lot of shots.
> During the W-A scenes on the space station where everything is
> antisceptic white, the left side of the screen had a bluish coloration
> to it, and the right side of the screen a yellowish coloration to it.
> Would this have been recorded on film from the lens, or is this an
> artifact of digitalization, or something else?
> Cheers,
> Alan
Have just checked my DVD copy (R2, "Digitally Restored and Remastered" edition),
and can't see any of the effects you're referring to. Pity Pan American is no
longer with us! Sign of the times...
(I'm viewing on a 28" Panasonic Tau TV.)
Watching the space scenes again, I'm reminded that I think they were reported at
the time as having been shot using Micro-Nikkor lenses - these being the best,
at the time, for retaining very high contrast.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Joe Pro - Photographer
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004
"Dennis O'Connor" doconnor@chartermi.net wrote:
> The one that got me was the comment about the architect who insisted on a
> certain light for a picture of his building... That exact angle of light
> only occurs for a 6 minute period, twice a year... I think I'd demand a
> retainer for that job...
That was me. Believe me, the architect is paying.
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Joe Pro - Photographer
Date: 1 Jan 2004
Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote
> jjs writes:
>
> > That was me. Believe me, the architect is paying.
>
> Sometimes a precise angle for incident light makes a huge difference.
> And, unfortunately, if the light source is the sun, you just have to
> wait until it moves to the right spot. If the right spot coincides with
> the equinoxes, you might have two chances a year. If it requires a
> solstice, you'll have only one chance per year. The smaller the
> tolerance you allow for your ideal angle, the less time you have to
> shoot. Some very precise configurations are reached only once every x
> years, where x could be anywhere from 10 to 10,000.
The position of the sun at a given time of day over the course of a
year traces a figure-8 shaped thing called an analemma. Its due to
the combined effects of the earth's tilt and elliptical orbit. The
crossing point of the "8" occurs not at the equinoxes but rather in
mid-April and late-August, and I think these are the only two times of
the year when the sun will be in a "duplicated" position. You can
probably get a near duplication on non-crossing days by timing things
right, but I'm not sure how precisely you can do this. Precession of
the earth's axis, which has a 26,000 year period, may also play into
this. The fact that the moon is slowly escaping its orbit probably
introduces a tiny non-periodic effect, but I'm just guessing.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003
"William Graham" weg9@comcast.net wrote:
> He mentioned a 4,000 frame per second
> > > > Hi-Cam,...whatever that is.
That is quite slow for high speed photography. EG&G; and others get up to
1,000,000 frames +.
From: Phil Hobbs pcdhSpamMeSenseless@us.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: How to make IR visible?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004
Andrew Resnick wrote:
> Gjergj Kastrioti wrote:
>>hi,
>>
>>what kind of dye, if there is any, can i add to liquids, i.e. water,
>>to make the infrared light visible in liquid. i'm not interested to
>>see the light outside of the liquid, just inside it.
>>
>>thanks in advance...
>
> http://www.kentek-laser.com/accessor/viewit.htm
>
> I think it may have some powdered KTP on it, but I don't know. Crush it
> up and float in in your fluid.
There's a good two-photon material, 5-nitro-2-furaldehyde semicarbazone
(Aldrich 284874) that produces second harmonic over the 980 nm -- 1400 nm
band at least, if you have high enough peak power. I mix it with ordinary
white paint to make viewers for use with my 20-picosecond pulsed OPG source.
My Lithuanian laser engineer says that this stuff is sold as topical
antiseptic in Lithuania--like using Bactine for SHG. The laser company
actually makes their viewer cards by dipping filter paper in the antiseptic!
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
[Ed. Note: website backup software..]
From: "ian green" weird_mailKILL2REPLY@pisem.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004
..."William J. Slater" airgunr@genevaonline.com :
> > me myself downloaded the whole site with webzip to read it slowly at
> > evenings with tea & cigarettes
>
> I've not heard of "Webzip", what is that? Is it a download I can use
> and if so do you have a URL to find it at? Some of the articles are
> cut off on the right hand side of the page when I try to print them
> out.
yes WebZip is site download utility from SpiderSoft
mine is version 4.1.0.680 from 2001 year
their site is www.spidersoft.com
i use it sometimes for off-line reading
good for me
there's more new versions but i like the one i have
...
From: "Sorby" Sorby@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.misc,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Name of photographer who used slow slit shutter?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004
"Daniel Kelly (AKA Jack)" d.kelly@ucl.ac.uk wrote
> Hi,
> I'm searching for the name of a famous photographer. I think he was active
> during the 1st half of the 20th Century. His camera's shutter consisted of
> a slit which moved relatively slowly across the negative. The result was
> that any movement of the subject produced a slanted image because the top of
> the frame was exposed before the bottom. I think a couple of his famous
> photos were of a racing car and a horse.
>
> I'll be most indepted if you can help me find this guy's name!
> Many thanks,
> Jack
Sounds like you are talking about a Focal-Plane Shutter or 'Slit-Scan'
photography.
Could the guy be called Henri Lartigue?
He (and others) are mentioned here...
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-slit-scan.html
Hope that helps
--
Sorby
From camera makers mailing list:
From: Kamil khorak@gmx.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Was: 3/8in German t0 1/4 20 tpi tripod adapter...
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003
> How did the Europeans settle on a tripod stud size that is an exact match
> for the U.S. stanard 3/8 inch pipe thread (exact pitch unknown to me but
> there is only one for this size in the U.S.)?
>
> My math makes an exact 3/8 inch to metric conversion work out to
> 9.54mm...hardly a nice uniform metric tooling size. Or is it just a good
> sloppy fit?
The 3/8" "German" tripod socket as used in older cameras is true 3/8"
Whitworth, nothing metric. There are many things having imperial measures
here until now: gas and water pipes including their threads are good
example, 1/2", 5/4" etc. pipes are used regularly. Non-metric tools are also
available, not perhaps in every hardware but special tools and machinery
shops have them.
As far I remember something similar you thought about the tripod threads
occured in the Eastern Europe in the 70's and 80's with integrated circuits:
instead of 1/10" (2,54mm) pin distance they had 2,5mm. Acceptable with small
IC cases but for 20 pins in line (CPUs etc.) it made the circiuts
mechanically incompatible with US ones as it was impossible to insert
Russian IC into US socket and vice versa.
Kamil (CZ, Europe)
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001
From: Gerald Newlands gnewland@ucalgary.ca
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Was: 3/8in German t0 1/4 20 tpi tripodadapter
Franz,
As far as I know, the standard for camera tripod threads has always been the
Whitworth Imperial thread, viz 1/4Whit, 3/8 Whit and 5/8ths Whitworth. The
difference between the Whitworth and American threads is very small and they
can generally be interchanged. The pitch is the same but the profile is
slightly different. Likewise, most microscope objective threads are British
Imperial sizes dating back to Victorian times when Britain was called Great
Britain.
Gerald
franz wrote:
> Grandpa says:
>
> A metric screw whith the same size has more revolutions and needs
> more precision, 2 reasons to settle for the inch size in the metric world.
>
> cheers,
> Franz
>
> you wrote:
> >This 3/8 to 1/4tpi raises a question that I have been puzzling on lately:
> >
> >How did the Europeans settle on a tripod stud size that is an exact match
> >for the U.S. stanard 3/8 inch pipe thread (exact pitch unknown to me but
> >there is only one for this size in the U.S.)?
> >
> >My math makes an exact 3/8 inch to metric conversion work out to
> >9.54mm...hardly a nice uniform metric tooling size. Or is it just a good
> >sloppy fit?
> >
> >Wayne
> >graphic99@mindspring.com
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003
From: "M.C. Steele" zenitguy@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Do-It-Yourself FED-1 Strap...Great idea!
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Comrade Jacques,
This is an excellent idea! Most (if not all) of the Russian M-42 lenses come in a
plastic dome case, with threaded bottom, which could be used for Russian SLR
cameras.....I think I will try this with one of my "beater" Zenit TTL cameras!
Thanks for the idea!
Best Regards,
Mike Steele
"Jacques O. Emanuel" jacemanuel@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
http://www.konermann.net/sling.more.html"
That idea NOT the sling, but that attachment underneath the camera why you
can mount a spare lens, that's an old one of mine's. Way back int the early
70's I used a camera with M42 mount with a 35mm and a 105mm, and it
irritated me that I had to keep the spare lens in the pocket or in an extra
bag or something. So I invented a similar device.
I took a heavy gauge plstic lens cap that screwed on - drilled a hole in the
middle - foun a bolt with of the right kind - cut the length of it - put a
disc between the bolt and the lens cap - tighten it with a big screwdriver
so it was really locked to the camera bottom - screwed in a 7mm extension
ring into the lens cap after putting some kind of glue on the threads -
tighten it really hard. Bingo! There it was - an easily reach place to keep
the spare lens!
The extension ring was to give room enough between the bolt and the rear
element of the 35mm.
The only thing to remember is that the strap lugs carry more weight and tear
quicker - best is lugs with steel insertions.
It works - I used it for more than 6 months.
In theory it should be usable on a Fed or Zorki if you can find the right
lens cap.
Jacques.
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003
From: "M.C. Steele" zenitguy@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Do-It-Yourself FED-1 Strap...I'm coming to dinner!
To: Russian Camera Users russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Comrade Leopoldo,
I am getting hungry...I haven't had lunch today and it is 3:30 p.m. (15:30). I'll be right over! :)
Regards,
Mike Steele
Leopoldo ARAUJO laraujo@wanadoo.fr wrote:
I report: It works! I took the tab from a big can of tuna that we
brought from C"te d'Ivoire -how do you translate that?- which says it is
reciclable steel(?! hope the can not the tuna) It looks great in my Z-1.
-BTW, I still keep some tripod bolts and adaptors that change the tread
from 1/4 to hmmm... 'the other'.
Ah, and if someone want to have dinner today, he/she and his/her
partner/family are welcome. There will be a lot of tuna dishes -
veracruzana style, valenciana style, mediterranean salad, and plain
tuna...
Cheers
Leopoldo
Jay Javier a ,crit :
> Comrades!
>
> Don't watch Martha Graham too much....this inspires crazy ideas like this
> DIY camera strap.
>
> In response to Comrade Leopoldo's query about straps. Or at least how to
> have one when the real ones can't be found. The only real wrist strap I
> have came from a Canon Demi camera. Otherwise, I use straps made from black
> ID strap material, a ringtab from a soda can, and a tripod bolt.
>
> Pictures and instructions are at
> http://www.beststuff.com/forum/read.php?f=26&i;=1441&t;=1441
>
> Jay
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003
From: Paul Shinkawa pshinkaw@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Do-It-Yourself FED-1 Strap
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Jay:
Have seen these RF accessories? They seem to be
perfect for your DIY improvisational skills.
"http://www.konermann.net/sling.more.html"
-Paul
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003
From: "Jacques O. Emanuel" jacemanuel@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Do-It-Yourself FED-1 Strap
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
Hi,
http://www.konermann.net/sling.more.html"
That idea NOT the sling, but that attachment underneath the camera why you
can mount a spare lens, that's an old one of mine's. Way back int the early
70's I used a camera with M42 mount with a 35mm and a 105mm, and it
irritated me that I had to keep the spare lens in the pocket or in an extra
bag or something. So I invented a similar device.
I took a heavy gauge plstic lens cap that screwed on - drilled a hole in the
middle - foun a bolt with of the right kind - cut the length of it - put a
disc between the bolt and the lens cap - tighten it with a big screwdriver
so it was really locked to the camera bottom - screwed in a 7mm extension
ring into the lens cap after putting some kind of glue on the threads -
tighten it really hard. Bingo! There it was - an easily reach place to keep
the spare lens!
The extension ring was to give room enough between the bolt and the rear
element of the 35mm.
The only thing to remember is that the strap lugs carry more weight and tear
quicker - best is lugs with steel insertions.
It works - I used it for more than 6 months.
In theory it should be usable on a Fed or Zorki if you can find the right
lens cap.
Jacques.
From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net]
Sent: Fri 10/24/2003
To: Lenses@topica.com
Subject: [LENSES] Canon Lens 50mm F0.95
Comrades!
Don't watch Martha Graham too much....this inspires crazy ideas like this
DIY camera strap.
In response to Comrade Leopoldo's query about straps. Or at least how to
have one when the real ones can't be found. The only real wrist strap I
have came from a Canon Demi camera. Otherwise, I use straps made from black
ID strap material, a ringtab from a soda can, and a tripod bolt.
Pictures and instructions are at
http://www.beststuff.com/forum/read.php?f=26&i;=1441&t;=1441
Jay
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003
From: Jay Javier nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Do-It-Yourself FED-1 Strap
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
> Don't watch Martha Graham too much....this inspires crazy
BUMMER! I meant "Martha STEWART"!
Picture link for the soda can ring tab strap is
http://www.beststuff.com/forum/download.php?f=26&id;=1441&fileid;=922&file;=sodatabstrap.jpg
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003
From: "Steven Ceuppens" stevence@yucom.be
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: "Russian Camera Users" russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
This one isn't that expensive either. Pretty useful acc's for russian
cameras
http://www.konermann.net/sling.more.html
Leopoldo ARAUJO wrote:
> spasiba tovarich
>M.C. Steele a ,crit :
> > Comrade Leopoldo,
> > I know that the Chayka 1/2 frame cameras come with them....I borrow the Chayka strap
>>to use on FED1/Zorki 1 occassionally!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Mike Steele
> > Leopoldo ARAUJO laraujo@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > Jay,
> >
> > where do we get a scew-on wrist-starp?
> > Cheers
> > Leopoldo
Date: 23 Oct 2003
From: Leopoldo ARAUJO laraujo@wanadoo.fr
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: Russian Camera Users russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
spasiba tovarich
M.C. Steele a ,crit :
> Comrade Leopoldo,
> I know that the Chayka 1/2 frame cameras come with them....I borrow the Chayka strap
to use on FED1/Zorki 1 occassionally!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mike Steele
>
> Leopoldo ARAUJO laraujo@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Jay,
> where do we get a scew-on wrist-starp?
>
> Cheers
> Leopoldo
>Jay Y Javier a ,crit :
> > Comrade Roman
> >
> >
> > I have made such lens caps and hoods from paper and cardboard. The main material is thin cardboard.
This is made stiff by gluing about 3 or 4 layers of paper ("papier-mach," style), or else by using gummed
paper tape, similar to what you described. Ordinary adhesive tape isn't recommended since the adhesive
they use tend to soften and run in time.
> > Painting over the layers of paper makes the hood even more stable. The inner surfaces can be painted
with flat black paint or else lined with fine black velvet or felt paper.
> >
> > For the Jupiter 9 (and maybe even the Jupiter 11), a straight tube whose diameter is enough to span
the lens' front part, with the length of around 4 to 5 cms works well. For the 5cm Industar 22 or 50, a
slightly flared one, about 3 cm long, works. It is possible to use a straight tube as well. The flare can be
made by making several short cardboard tubes (3 or 4), with each one slightly larger than other, then
stuck to each other. When assembled, the rear tube will be smaller, with a diameter which can fit over
the Industar's front ring; the other end will be much larger.
> >
> > I have pictures of this at the "FED Zorkij Survival" site:
> >
> > http://www.fedka.com/~jay/page4.html
> >
> > There are three "hood-related" pictures on this page. One (second row of pictures from the bottom,
rightmost frame) shows the Do-It-Yourself paper hoods attached to an Industar and on another Industar
mounted on a Zorki. The second and third pictures, the ones found on the bottom of the page, compare
two situations - one shot with the home-made hood, and one without. This proves the effectivity of hood.
> >
> > http://www.fedka.com/~jay/page9.html
> >
> > This is the second page of the "make your own lenscaps" section. The previous page describes
the method of working with paper, as well as gluing layers. On the second page is a picture of several
paper lens-hoods, attached on different lenses, including a J-9. The hoods are black, laminated by painting
them with black spray paint or a combination of paint and lacquer.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > russiancamera-user@beststuff.com wrote:
> > >Comrades,
> > >
> > >in the recent days I am tweaking with tape and carton paper to build some
> > >lens hoods and covers (oddly, european vitamine pill boxes and film cans
> > >don't fit my SovKams. #-).
> > >
> > >I developed a method by using carton and covering it with either self
> > >adhesive tape (Tesa Krepp.. http://www.tesa.de/images/DEU/sol/7172.jpg
> > > I can build submarines and spacecrafts from it. ;-) or wet adhesive paper
> > >tape (Nassklebeband), fitting a black paper on the inner surface. I prefer
> > >the latter one, for the more classic and rough look. Pics to follow.
> > >
> > >One question - how do I determine the optimum length of a lens hood?
> > >Checking it with ground glass for vignetting seems a bit rough, I prefer to
> > >use my pencil and rules.. ;-)
> > >
> > >I guess I need the image angle of the given focal length - but from which
> > >point do I set it?
> > >
> > >Gruss, Roman
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003
From: Peter Schauss schauss@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Wrist straps - Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
In the US, both B&H; and Adorama carry wrist straps which screw into the
tripod socket. You will also need a 3/8" to 1/4" bushing which they also
carry.
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003
From: Paul Shinkawa pshinkaw@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Wrist straps - Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Wriststraps were standard equipment with 8mm and Super
8mm motion picture cameras, not to mention many
compact RF 35's such as Vivitars and Konicas. Photo
shop odds and end bins are usually full of them, some
still in original wrappers at 1 to 2 dollars each.
If you want a more robust one to attach to the
neckstrap lugs they can be made easily out of nylon
web straps found at outdoor supply stores like REI and
even some fabric stores like JoAnn. Webbing is
typically around 15 to 25 cents a foot.
-Paul
...
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003
From: Ian Gillis ip_gillis@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Wrist straps - Seflmade Hoods and lens covers
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
Hi
Super8 movie cameras often had a wrist strap with swivel and tripod screw.
Better head to the flea market or search in the "odds & sods" box at a
used-camera dealer.
Cheers!
Ian G.
From: jscheuch@labsphere.com (Jonathan Scheuch)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Coated Mirrors
Date: 5 May 2004
"Rick Davis" wizard00@bellsouth.net wrote
> I am trying to find some optics for a class demonstration in undergrad
> physics. I am hoping someone can point me to what I need.
>
> I am looking for Front Surface Mirrors, between 25mm sqaure and 50mm sqaure
> (square or rectangle is fine). However I am looking for various coatings on
> the mirrors. They do not have to be specific for any wavelength or use they
> are just for a general demonstration. My problem is cost, I cant afford to
> spend $100 per mirror.
>
> If anyone can recommend any companies that sell coated mirrors as a stock
> item I would appreciate it.
> Thanks for your time and help.
> Rick D.
For inexpensive surplus optics it is hard to beat Anchor Optical
Surplus, www.anchoroptical.com . They have really inexpensive
mirrors, although they probably don't have a large selection of
coatings.
Jonathan Scheuch
From: West Coast Engineering westcoastengineering@westcoastengineering.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: ODP Only Free to Schools in the US
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004
Hello,
A correction has been made to our web site. ODP, Optical Design
Program is only free to schools inside the United States of America.
This was not clearly stated on our web site before and the oversight
has been corrected.
OPD is only foresale to customers in the United States of America. We
no longer sell ODP outside the U.S.
Sincerely,
West Coast Engineering
From: "Bristo" me@here.I.com
Newsgroups: free.uk.photographic.equipment.digital,
Subject: Re: Buying CMOS board cameras?
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004
"Daniel Kelly (AKA Jack)" d.kellyNOSPAM@ucl.ac.uk wrote
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone recommend a good supplier for CMOS board cameras? I've found a
> few good suppliers but I want to ensure that I've done an exhaustive search.
>
> And does anyone know of a wearable AV hard disk recorder that will take a
> digital video input? What I really want is the camera and MPEG-4 encoder
> from a video mobile phone with a 40GB HDD.
>
> My requirements for the camera are:
> * Low power consumption (<50mA)
> * Good sensitivity (min illumination <4 lux)
> * Low weight (< 30g)
> * Small size (< 40 x 40 x 40mm)
> * Colour
> * Auto gain control, auto white balance, auto iris, auto exposure, auto back
> light compensation
>
> And ideally the camera will also have:
> * Changeable lens
> * Audio
>
> Suppliers I've already looked at include:
> * Maplin
> * Farnel
> * Quasar Electronics
> * Rapid
> * RS Electronics
>
> I really like the OV7910 CMOS colour image sensor.
>
> Many thanks for your help,
> Jack
another one for your list:
http://www.rfconcepts.co.uk/cameras.htm
B
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Silver Recovery...
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004
Sly D. Skeez wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com wrote
>
>>Nick Zentena wrote:
>
>>> Would it be possible to plate it out? Run a current into a tank of fixer?
>>
>>Yes. I have posted several times in the past how it is done. Electrolytic
>>recovery of silver from a solution of argentothiosulphate complexes is not
>>quite as simple as normal electroplating. So it is not sufficient to place
>>a couple of carbon or stainless steel electrodes in the solution and
>>running an appropriate current.
>
> I"ve heard (in my schooling) that you can make a silver recovery unit
> using using a car type battery charger, but I think the problem is
> getting the Ag off the electrode, and that material has to be
> purified.
The problem is that the argentothiosulphate ions have the wrong charge and
are repelled from the desired electrode. In normal electroplating, the
metal ion (in this case silver) is positively charged and is attracted to
the cathode. The other ion is negatively charged and migrates to the anode
where it is liberated as oxygen by reacting with the water, or attacks the
anode.
But with used fixer, the silver is in the form of negatively charged
argentithiosulphate complexes. Here, sodium ions go to the cathode where
they would be plated on, were they not so reactive, so they react with the
other ions around the cathode, including the negatively charged
argentothiosulphate complexes. If there are enough argentothiosulphate
ions nearby, the sodium atoms react with them to liberate silver.
Otherwise, they react with the thiosulphate ions, producing (undesireable)
sulphide ions that react with the argentithiosulpphate to form silver
sulphide.
As L.P.Clerc states, "Thus it will be seen that the metallic silver is
produced by a _secondary reaction_ on ions which are tending to move away
from the electrode on which the metal is deposited. In order to ensure a
sufficient concentration of argentothiosulphate ions at the cathode it is
necessary either to stir the solution very vigorously so that high current
densities may be used, or to limit the current density to a few
milliamperes per square decimetre." According to my understanding, most
electrolytic recovery systems use pumps to ensure sufficient stirring.
> It's certainly worth recovering silver from fixer since silver is
> heavy metal
I have yet to find a satisfactory definition of a heavy metal. Are all
metals over a specific atomic number or atomic weight heavy metals? If so,
what is that number?
> and heavy metals tend to cause mutations and, in
> pariticular, divalent metals inhibit many DNA binding proteins. I
> don't think it's worth messing with silver recovery because of the
> hassle. I've hauled my fixer off to various minilabs or others with
> silver recovery units. The minilab operators are usually receptive to
> my silver rich fixer because I'm giving them money. I'm more than
> happy to hand them the headache.
>
> Jay Wenner
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004
From: rolohar@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Topcon Auto 100
Talk to Tsuneo. He has a lot of parts for Topcon cameras. He worked for Topcon for
many years at the factory in Japan and was a technician at the official Topcon repair
facility in the States. He has been running a Topcon service for many years at the location below.
Topcon Camera Repair Service
8073 Garden Grove Avenue
Reseda, California 91335-1435
Att. Mr. Tsuneo Tokutake (Official Topcon technician)
HTH
Roland F. Harriston
From: steven T koontz
Date: Tue Apr 14 22:31:02 CDT 1998
Richard Davis wrote:
>
> Here's a trick for packing 4x5 film holders.
> The insulated zipper bags sold for taking 6-packs of pop and beer on trips
> and picnics
> are exactly the right size for 4x5 film holders.
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Stray light
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 02:47:11 -0400
Stephen Oertwig wrote:
>
> I'm having a problem with stray light from somewhere.
>
> I got back some chromes that had one whole side wiped out because of some
> stray light.
>
skoontz@mindspring.com
From: "Richard Brosseau" richard.brosseau2@sympatico.ca
[1] Re: Lens Transport
Date: Wed Apr 15 20:30:20 CDT 1998
rbrosseau@channelware.com or
richard.brosseau2@sympatico.ca
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
From: "Lehman John A." ffjal@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: [Rollei] Bay III to screw-mount converter/step-up ring
Mark & Sue Hubbard hubbard@humboldt1.com wrote:
...
> Is there such a thing as a Bay III to screw-mount converter/step-up
> ring that would then give you access to a wide choice of inexpensive
> rubber and metal lens shades??
From: "R. J. Bender" rjbender@hilly.apci.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei parts availability?
>>Hello,
>>
>>Are parts available for Rollei HFT lenses? Specifically, I'd like to get
>>the rubber focus ring material for a 2 or 3 pin 50mm f/1.8. Anyone
know if
>>such parts are available and a have a phone number or address.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Tony Zoccolillo
>Have you tried Marflex? They are the only likely source.
>Bob
From: Tony Zoccolillo tzoc@servtech.com
Reply to: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rollei parts availability?
Tony Z.
From: NapperWm NapperWm@aol.com
To: koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] PC Connections
From: Imageslide Imageslide@aol.com
To: koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] PC Connections
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter" Peter.Kotsinadelis@octel.com
Subject: RE: [KOML] PC Connections
Paramount Cords
720 E.239th Street
Bronx, NY 10466
718-325-9100
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter" Peter.Kotsinadelis@octel.com
Subject: RE: [KOML] PC Connections
Paramount Cords
720 E.239th Street
Bronx, NY 10466
718-325-9100
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Front Surface mirror supplier
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Front surface mirror supplier?
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 Field Camera
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998
> Jay Bender
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Surveyor's Trick with Large Tripods
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998
"Richard Davis" DrDagor@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> I've seen photographers using this trick, so I bet many of you know this
> tip already.
>
> To steady a tripod (in a howling gale, for example), hang a heavy weight
> from the head so that the weight hangs under the tripod, almost to the
> ground. Surveyors typically use sandbags hung from a chain, but there is
> nothing magic about the sand or the chain. I think a rock in a trash bag
> hung from a coat hanger would work about as well. I've seen surveyors use
> water bags as weights, but I'm not sure these work as well.
>
From: "Frank Filippone" red735i@worldnet.att.net
[1] Re: Surveyor's Trick with Large Tripods
Date: Thu May 07 19:43:16 CDT 1998
Please do not auto-respond. Please respond to address below.
Frank Filippone red735i@worldnet.att.net
> On a similar line and perhaps not so well known.. A piece of cord (of the
> type used as a curtain draw string)with a loop at each end. One end loop goes
> over the center bit of the tripod where the legs meet. The cord hangs down but
> not quite reaching the ground. Your foot goes in the other end loop and the
> cord stretches to reach the ground applying a downward force which steadies
> the tripod. It does work in practice to steady a lightweight tripod.
>
From: dj.mcmillan@trl.oz.au
[1] Re: Surveyor's Trick with Large Tripods
Date: Thu May 07 18:51:03 CDT 1998
Melbourne Australia.
From: Todd Belcher toddmb@intergate.bc.ca
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Replacing screens on older Rolleis
>I've read that Rolleiflexes made after 59 have a better, brighter
>screen and I think it's replaceable too. I recently found what appears
>to be a nice Xenotar 3.5E (type 2 #1,862,114) for $250 in good shape.
>Is the screen on that one significantly darker than the newer screens
>made after 59? Can I have one of the newer rollei screens installed
>on the 3.5E and what should I expect to pay for that?
From: toby tobyf@ziplink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Replacing screens on older Rolleis
>Is the screen on that one significantly darker than the newer screens
>made after 59? Can I have one of the newer rollei screens installed
>on the 3.5E and what should I expect to pay for that?
>I own a yashicamat and one of the reasons I want to upgrade is its bad
>screen.
Toby Fitch
Brooklyn, USA
From: Linda A Whatley linda_aw@ix.netcom.com
[1] Re: Shutter Time Testing
Date: Wed May 13 22:22:43 CDT 1998
From: Todd Belcher toddmb@intergate.bc.ca
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cleaning focusing screens and grey cameras
> Dear Rollei fans,
>
> I was just wondering: how is the best way to clean plastic
>focusing screens on Rollei TLR?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: FUNGUS AMOUNGUS
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 02:36:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Blurry Filter
Date: 13 May 1998 20:54:08 GMT
photo_fan@yahoo.com writes:
>Blurry Filter
>
>Greetings all. I was hoping that someone could help me out with a photo
>project I am working on. I was wondering if anyone had ever heard of or
used
>any material that allows people to look clearly through it, but when someone
>attempts to take a photograph through it, it blurs and distorts the
>photograph.
>
>If anyone can send me any information on this to photo_fan@yahoo.com, I
would
>greatly appreciate it.
PINE 3.89 MESSAGE TEXT Folder: INBOX Message 177 of 190 100%
>If anyone can send me any information on this to photo_fan@yahoo.com, I
would
>greatly appreciate it.
>
>thanks much!!
>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Composing With A TLR
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
Wes Massengill wrote: Is there a
> simple trick in composing, to be able to end up with the picture
> enlarged to the standard format, ie 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 etc.
allen greenky esq uire AT rico chet DOT net
To: bikkerr@mediaone.net
Subject: Re: Composing With A TLR
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
Ed Romney, in one of his books, suggests putting a 7mm square peice of
tape in each corner of the groundglass viewfinder to help visualize the
aspect ratio of either a vertical or horizontal crop (8X10 or 5X7 for
example). A 7mm square comes out about right.
__ __
|__| /\ |__| <---tape squares
Vertical
|
<--Horizontal--->
__ | __
| | \/ | |
Dave
> I have just converted to the medium format with the purchase of a
> Yashica 124G, and am very pleased so far. My question is: Is there a
> simple trick in composing, to be able to end up with the picture
> enlarged to the standard format, ie 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 etc. I don't
> think the grid lines in the view finder are calibrated for this. I was
> thinking of applying some narrow tape to the viewfinder screen to help
> me when shooting.
> Thanks in advance.
From: Ilkka Haapavirta ilkka.haapavirta@nmp.nokia.com
Subject: RE: Homemade n90s remote cable
David DeGrado djdegrado@worldnet.att.net wrote
>Will the homemade N70 cable work on the N90s?
>I have read digest #183. This homemade cable will connect
>to the MB-10. Has anyone made a 10-pin connector cable
>that goes on the camera? If so, can you post how you made it?
AFAIK, F70's 2-pin cord uses different voltage levels on one pin for
focus/meter and shutter release, respectively. F90's 3-pin cord has
separate pins for focus/meter and shutter release. So, just for shutter
release the F70's cord might work when connected to the right pin in
F90.
Here's what I know about the 10-pin connector:
2 3
1 4
9 10
5 8
6 7
Pin 1: Shutter release (when shorted to ground)
Pin 2: ?
Pin 3: Vout +5 V (for data cable)
Pin 4: Data in
Pin 5: Data out
Pin 6: Ground
Pin 7: Ground
Pin 8: ?
Pin 9: ?
Pin10: (Normally at 6 V), @1.5 V: meter, @0 V (ground): focus.
Rgds, Ilkka
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 09:28 PDT
From: sclark@level1.com (Scott Clark)
Subject: Home-made remote cable?
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998
From: Mark Malkin mm15@cornell.edu
Subject: Home-made remote cable?
From: dseeber@kiwi.dep.anl.gov (Diana Seeber)
Subject: Homemade N70 Cable
From: dseeber@kiwi.dep.anl.gov Diana Seeber
Subject: Homemade N70 shutter release cable
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6008 Flash problems
>I had the same problem with my 6008i -- my studio setup wouldn't fire if it
>was hooked up via a sync cord, but a nikon shoed flash that I plugged right
>into the camera worked fine.
>
>What I found out? The sync cord on the 6008i is polarised -- if I took the
>two-pronged cord out of the socket on the pack and rotated it 180 degrees,
>the flash would fire.
>
>Not sure why this is. Now I just know the direction the cord has to point
>to ensure the flash fires.
>
>Warren
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?
Date: 23 Apr 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998
> Just bought a Rodenstock 90mm f4.5 for my Linhof Technica. Salesmen are trying
> to sell me an outrageously expensive center filter (about $800). Do I really
> need this? Anybody have any experience with the Heliopan filters? Their 82mm
> center filter can be bought for about $350.
>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?
Date: 22 Apr 98
Regarding Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?, Jeff Ivers wrote:
> Just bought a Rodenstock 90mm f4.5 for my Linhof Technica. Salesmen are trying
> to sell me an outrageously expensive center filter (about $800). Do I really
> need this? Anybody have any experience with the Heliopan filters? Their 82mm
> center filter can be bought for about $350.
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@skylink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998
PLEASE SEND ALL E-MAIL TO ME AT:
bobsalomon@mindspring.com
HP MARKETING CORP. Gepe, Giottos, G-O light, Heliopan, Kaiser, Linhof, Pro
Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Rollei, Sirostar
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998
From: Peter.Kotsinadelis@exchange.Octel.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rollei Straps (was Optech, etc.)
From: Terry Price terry@free.midcoast.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Alternate Rollei 35 lens cap
>
>
> Dear Rollei fans,
>
> For a long time, I know that there's a film container cap that
>fits on Sonnar lens of Rollei 35S, making a nice lens cap.
>
> Today I realized that this container isn't from Agfa nor Ilford,
>it comes from Konica 35mm film.
>
> Unfortunately, this cap doesn't fits on Tessar-lensed 35's.
>
> Regards,
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: *Question* - Cutting Case Foam for Equipment
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998
Thanks for the tip, Steve.
Steve
>Try shopping GOODWILL or garage sales/thrift shops for cases. Hard
>sided luggage, cosmetic cases etc., can be had for a couple of bucks
>each. Rip out the fabric liners, add a rubber seal if you wish
>(silicone caulking) to make them really tight. Cases like this do not
>scream VALUABLE, so they are less likely to attract attention (and
>theft) than our favorite aluminimum boxes. They can provide excellent
>and cheap protection.
>
>Good luck.
>
>Steve
Subject: Response to Kiev 88 paper problems and soft box material
Date: 1998-03-23
believe it or not, I've made soft boxes out of frosted shower curtain
material, cheap at any discount store. You can make the box itself out of
foamcore board (if you want to use a box) or just stretch it out , bank
your lights , and fire through it. Just be careful about getting a curtain
without any "color" to it. and do run a test roll.
Subject: Response to Kiev 88 paper problems and soft box material
Date: 1998-03-24
From: Mark Walberg Walberg@simmons.swmed.edu
Subject: Re: [Rollei] non-Rollei shades?
From: Eric Goldstein egoldste@bu.edu
Subject: Re: [Rollei] non-Rollei shades?
> Jeff and others, An idea for a cheap lens hood that should cost less than
> a dollar, see http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/page4.html
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] non-Rollei shades?
>Jeff and others,
>
>Is there such a thing as a Bay III to screw-mount converter/step-up ring
>that would then give you access to a wide choice of inexpensive rubber and
>metal lens shades??
>
>Mark H.
From: "Dirk J. Bakker" dbakker@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Source wanted: Camera Bag Padding
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998
PS. try these sites to get ideas,
for urethane foam: http://www.cyber-case.com/cases/generic.htm
for Silicone foam: http://www.magnifoam.on.ca/nfpro.htm
for corrugated plastic: http://www.millsind.com/industri.htm
for Temper foam: http://www.keesgoebel.com/t.foam.htm
(perhaps for the shoulder strap)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Source wanted: Camera Bag Padding
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998
> I am mainly using the kind of stuff that is sold as sleeping pads for hiking.
> The thickness you can get vary, but I normally use it 6-8 mm thick.
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://home.att.net/~k.thalmann/
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Vivitar 283 high voltage
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998
From: dagronk@aol.com (DaGronk)
[1] Re: Source wanted: Camera Bag Padding
Date: Tue Jun 16 09:35:08 CDT 1998
From: "Dirk J. Bakker" dbakker@mindspring.com
[1] Re: Source wanted: Camera Bag Padding
Date: Tue Jun 16 15:46:14 CDT 1998
Subject: Response to Making a copy board
Date: 1998-06-15
Subject: Response to Making a copy board
Date: 1998-06-15
From: "Bob Salomon" bobsalomon@mindspring.com
[1] Re: Help.........Sync this!
Date: Fri Jun 19 17:09:12 CDT 1998
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL FUTURE E-MAIL TO ME AT:
bobsalomon@mindspring.com
>I recently purchased a Super Speed graphic, which I'm using out in the
>clubs of Manhattan. (Weegee wannabe!)
>
>Anyway, so this camera comes with an Ektar 127 mm f/4.7 in a S-C shutter
>(you don't want to know what I paid for it, I've all ready resigned
>myself to eternal damnation)
>The 127 mm is a beautiful lens, that multicoating looks sweet! The only
>prob is the bayonet sync terminal.
>
>Anyone know if there are adapters to go from this bayonet male into pc
>female. I don't need another cord, I've already given Paramount more
>than they deserve.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Help.........Sync this!
Date: Sat Jun 20 05:49:56 CDT 1998
Richard
Knoppow
Los
Angeles,
Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat Jun 20 23:03:31 CDT 1998
From: Anyone nospam@pacifier.com
To: Boris Kozintsev bak@math.umd.edu
[1] Re: How to use 35mm SLR metering for LF?
reply to:
dpayne at pacifier dot com
> Hi,
>
> I want to use my 35 mm Minolta as a spot meter for 4x5 photography.
> What is the correct way of doing that? A link would be nice, I
> think I've seen it somewhere but cannot locate it anymore
>
> Thanks
>
> Boris
From: Wilsonc@Hj.com (Wilson Craig)
Subject: Nikon Loupes
From: "Larry R. and Carol H. Kalajainen" LCKalajainen@compuserve.com
Subject: loupe for 6x7
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Info on hi-powered portable flash gear?
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998
Ellis Vener
Ellis Vener Photography
Houston, Texas
From: Dan Post dwpost@email.msn.com
Reply to: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Strap solution....
dwpost@msn.com
From: tnaser@my-dejanews.com
[1] Re: silica gel - how to dry
Date: Wed Jun 24 10:30:12 CDT 1998
>
>
> howdy,
> I bought a can with about a pound of silica gel. I filled it into a
> ziploc bag that I poked holes into to keep my photo gear dry. Now it has
> turned from deep blue in color to pinkish I tryed to dry it in the oven
> and micro wave oven acording to instructions but it stays pinkish. What's
> the best process and setup to get the water back out of the gel? Oven
> temperature? How long? Put it back in zip loc while warm?
> Thanks,
> R!
>
> --
> Rainer Leuschke phone: (w) 206-685-0900
> (h) 206-524-7887
>
>
From: wes webmaster@memphiswest.net
[1] Re: Regenerating Silica Gel
Date: Mon Jul 20 09:56:14 CDT 1998
wes
webmaster@memphiswest.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Crosshair lenses
Date: 10 Jul 1998
>I think the only way to get crosshairs on the film at the time of
exposure is
>to have them on a glass plate in the film gate of the camera, and at the film
>plane. This way the crosshairs block exposure at the surface of the film as
>each shot is made.
\
eye/lens----------------\----------------- target
|\
| \glass at 45 degrees
|
----- diverging lens (increases apparent distance)
|
------- illuminated overlay (crosshair, dot)
_|_ Jerry Cullingford jerry.cullingford@ffei.co.uk (Work)
/ | Fujifilm Electronic Imaging jc@selune.demon.co.uk (Home)
\_|_ Hemel Hempstead, UK PGP key at www.selune.demon.co.uk
\__/ (Speaking only for myself and not the company unless otherwise stated)
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:12:23 +0100
> From: "John Partis"
> Subject: Re: Labelling Nikon slides
>
> .......
> First Avery produce A4 sheets of 35mm slide labels, the code is J8657.
> Microsoft Word 97 has a template for this.
>
> Secondly, if you want archival quality, then try University Products Inc -
> the catalogue is very interesting.
> Their web page is http://www.universityproducts.com.
>
> Hope this helps
> John Partis
> West Sussex, UK
Rus Hardy
From: Allen Greenky esq###uire@rico###chet.net###
[1] Re: projecting backgroungs
Date: Wed Jul 22 03:17:52 CDT 1998
> > Does anyone have any experience in projecting backgrounds for portraiture,
> instead of the traditional paper or cloth backgrounds? I am considering
> attempting it, so ideas would be helpful.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Writing on the back of prints -- Best type of pen?
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Eyepiece Adapter for Telephoto
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
>Has anyone every seen an adapter for a telephoto lens
>which allows an eyepiece to be attached so it can be
>used as a monocular?
I have but only a long time ago, and it was for old pentax T-mount lenses.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Building a vacuum frame
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998
From: bdasilva@idirect.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Building a vacuum frame
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: gray card
Date: 3 Aug 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Eyepiece Adapter for Telephoto
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998
From: Peter Klosky PKlosky@bdm.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: off topic - broken shutter release adapter -Reply
Take the camera to a hardware store. Buy an "Easy Out"of the proper size.
This is an item like a little screw with a left hand thread. You thread it
into the stuck piece, (turning it counterclockwise and it will unscrew the
part.
>Recently, in the course of a lot of traveling, the "L" shaped adapter that I
>used to attach my shutter release cable, broke off, leaving a piece of itself
>stuck in the shutter release button. It is nearly flush with the surface.
>The shutter release works, but I'd like to remove the broken piece. Any
>suggestions? Thanks. -Ellen
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Magnets
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998
> I'm looking for magnet strips that I can use to make my own magnets...
>
> I don't want the magnets that are just long thin-width strips...
>
> Someone suggested that there are magnets like this to put on the backs
> of business cards, but they are really expensive, and I need a LOT. If
> it were to come in a roll of some kind that I had to cut pieces that
> size from, then that would be ok too. Any ideas? Please email me as
> well as posting. Thanks!
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
From: SKMACLEO@am.pnu.com
Subject: Re: trigger voltages
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998
From: Anderson Neal F NSWC AndersonNF@ncsc.navy.mil
Subject: Re: trigger voltages
From: Leonard Eselson eselson@ibm.net
To: Hasselblad Post hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: re: Monopods
From: Andy Peters apeters@noao.edu
Subject: re: Monopod
Senior Electrical Engineer
National Optical Astronomy Observatories
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: cleaning the mirror
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 22:38:56 GMT
>How can I clean dusty mirror in the SLR? I've heard that it cannot be
>touched under any circumstances - even with microfibre cloth. Any ideas?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: cleaning the mirror
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
Maplewood Photography
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: cleaning the mirror
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998
>Kal wrote in message ...
>
>>How can I clean dusty mirror in the SLR? I've heard that it cannot be
>>touched under any circumstances - even with microfibre cloth. Any ideas?
>
>You need to be very, very careful if you touch it because the silvering is
>on the top of the mirror glass and not beneath it. I recommend you simply
>hit it with some compressed air. They sell cans of the stuff at your local
>camera store. Good shooting.
ruether@fcinet.com
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Spiratone - History
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998
> Have been out of "serious" photography for many years (other interests),
> and just got back in, started reading the usual mags, and drooling over
> all the things for sale in all the ads (B&H, etc.), and it brings back
> memories.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya mailing list
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 98
>Willem-Jan Markerink wrote in message <6qfog2$bac$2@news.a1.nl>...>>
>>>
>>
>>Other than the silly & inconvenient web-based 'forum' run by Mamiya USA,
>>there isn't any that I know of.
>>
>
>
>Does anyone know how to go about starting a mailing list?
>
>don
>
Bye,
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:15:51 -0700
From: "Alan K. Unangst"
Alan K. Unangst, WC7R
Phone: (520) 445-1465 / FAX (520) 445-5755
E-Mail: alanwc7r@primenet.com
Amateur Radio Packet: WC7R@KB7FRV.AZ.USA.NOAM
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998
From: Roger Eritja eritja@virtualbaix.com
Subject: Re: Dust mites
Dr. Roger Eritja (eritja@virtualbaix.com)
Biologist
Mosquito Control Service - Consell Comarcal del Baix Llobregat
Ph. +34-936401399 FAX +34-936300142
From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@cl-sys.com
[1] Re: When to use lens hood?
Date: Sat Sep 05 14:25:22 CDT 1998
>laugh Well.... if the NIKON school says so, it MUST be true... ;-)
> I find it hard to fit filters with my lens hoods permanently on,
>or do the Nikon school not advise filter use :-)
>After a while, you will just know when you need a lens hood, as you will
>learn to just "know" many things instinctively... even things your
>instructor neglected to tell you ;-)
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: Kodak publications
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998
> Does anyone know of a vendor that offers these at substantial discounts?
> Thanks
http://www.oneworld-design.com/bstore.html
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 2.8F Shutter
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 2.8F Shutter
>> >Richard Knoppow
>> >Los Angeles,Ca.
>> >dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>
>Richard - did I understand you correctly - It's best to leave the newer
>Rolleiflex shutter cocked - when not in use?
>
>Roger Wiser
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 2.8F Shutter
>All Compur? That means both Syncro and Rapid shutters? store cocked (with
>tension)?
>
>Bill
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 2.8F Shutter
>So when we speak of later shutter...what are we talking about? The TLR, the
>66 or 6000 series? I am confused now. So what is new, right? :-)
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 2.8F Shutter
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: rob black rbblk@erols.com
Subject: Response to Who makes the biggest ring flash?
Date: 1998-09-04
From: tired.of.spam@nospam.com (Rudy Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: How to make a grey card
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Gray card useage?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Gray card useage?
Date: 9 Sep 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Gray card useage?
Date: 9 Sep 1998 22:51:36 GMT
> From: Frank Visser
> 2- stated is: 'Meter close up to the card'. Meter with the ISO-setting
> on the nominal film speed? And do I need to take a picture with that
> metering setting so I can compare it?
> 3- When I move back and vary the film speed setting, the camera will
> do a different combination of shutter speed and aperture, also
> dependent on the other objects within the viewfinder. So then what is
> the use of the first closeby 18%grey metering. Do I need to point the
> middle of the viewfinder for the away shots at the 18%grey card?
From: ibebrown@softcom.net
[1] Re: zone system tech for color slide??
Date: Fri Sep 18 11:06:52 CDT 1998
Lets say you want to meter a scenic and you choose to meter the sky
which is blue :) Use your camera's spot meter feature and select a
portion of the sky to meter. If it is close to a medium tone then a
straight reading will suffice -however most sky-blues are not that
dark so assign a color tone value to it, say light blue -just open up
one stop and you have your 'correct' reading.
Fine Light Photography
http://www.softcom.net/users/ibebrown/finelight
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: IR exposure meter
Date: 9 Sep 1998 15:09:16 GMT
>I have been toying with the idea of making an ir exposure meter and in theory
>it is quite simple. ccd pickups are ir sensitive (as many new consumer video
>cameras are quick to note their "new" night vision capabilities) and by
>attaching a small voltmeter to a ccd pick up you should be able to measure the
>ir signal and then create meaningful exposure data.
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
From: michael.sandelid@speab.af.se
Subject: Response to Need tips on landscape shots in low-moderate light
Date: 1998-11-26
Here are some (technical) tips for landscapes:
- Use a tripod whenever possible.
- Use as big-heavy-sturdy tripod/head-combination as possible to
minimize the risk of vibrations and shutter-shake.
- Use Mirror Lock Up whenever possible.
- Use a cable release for long exposures, say 1/15 sec and longer. At
shorter exposures, handrelease while pushing down on the prism with
your other hand.
- Use as slow film as possible.
- Use filters: polarizing, warming, grey grad - only when they add
something positive to the final image.
- Use the hyperfocal guides on the lens when focusing, to maximize
depth of field - when you want maximum depth of field.
- Have Fun!
Micke
From: tired.of.spam@nospam.com (Rudy Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Macro photography
> If I'm shooting a subject from 10 inches and I want to use my flash, I
> can use a shutter speed below my sync speed of 1/60, right? But how do I
> know if the flash will overexpose the subject? How do I know what f-stop
> to use to not get overexposure? I use extension tubes on my f/1.8 55mm
> lens instead of a true macro lens. I can use 10mm, 20mm, 30mm or any
> combination of my tubes. I know that I have about 3mm to 7mm (no joke)
> depth of field with all tubes attached, f-stop at f/16 on 55mm lens and
> subject is 3 to 5 inches away. My DOF is greatly improved by using only
> 10mm or 20mm tube.
>
>
> Colin
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stupid Question: Leaf Shutters??
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999
> Hello all:
>
> I am baffled about the how leaf shutters expose film evenly. I know that
> focal plan shutters (on 35mm) move across the film plane and evenly expose
> the film. However, how do leaf shutters work? Seems to me that the middle
> part of the film would be exposed more than the edges because the as the
> shutter opens, it opens from the middle.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> - Tony
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Unsharp pictures with Nikon
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999
>OK, I'll add my 2 cents.
>
>1. Check the tripod; is it a heavy duty type or flimsy and cheap. Is the wind
>blowing to knock it around?
>2. shoot at F8 or F11
>3. use manual focus on infinity, no auto focus
>Erwin Arthur Siegel, Alexandria, Virginia USA
Kay
kdb@total.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do the capacitors in old flash equipment degrade ?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
> >>>As I recall, electrolytic capacitors degrade with lack
> >>>of use and can be reformed.
> >
> >Once the capacitor degrades like this it is best to replace them ...
> >
> >Ken Taschner (part time photog ... full time EE)
>
> Are there places that do this kind of repair, and does it make financial
> sense?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do the capacitors in old flash equipment degrade ?
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999
From: "Terry Price (Edgecombe-Coles House)" terry@free.midcoast.com
Subject: [Rollei] finding screws for new acquisition
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] finding screws for new acquisition
>I've had 4 different Rollei 35s with this screw missing, is
>there a design flaw here?.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Source of Itty Bitty screws used in lens assemblies
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Source of Itty Bitty screws used in lens assemblies
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
Brett.Palmer@mcmail.Vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: another source for ground glass
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm slide labeling
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999
Ray Harman
From: Mark Rabiner mrabiner@concentric.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Contax 645 Update
> To: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
>
> Bob,
>
> have you seen a functioning Contax 645 by now? When will they be widely
> available and can we expect a test comparison between Contax 645, Pentax
> 645 AF and/or Mamyia 645 in Shutterbug or Pop. Photogr.?
> Can't wait to see Zeiss lenses available for 6 x 4.5 format...
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
Mark Rabiner
From: Bob Erdman folkarts@erols.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] Tripods for Omegaflex?
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@lucent.com
Subject: RE: [KOML] Tripods for Omegaflex?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How to repair Yashica Mat Battery Terminal ? ?
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Calculating magification on lenses
Date: 19 Feb 1999
>What is the formula to calculate the magification if given the focal
>length of a lens?
Subject_size Lens_to_subject_distance
Magnification = ------------ = ---------------------------
Image_size Lens_to_film_plane_distance
D = M * (2 + 1/M + M)
To calculate the magnification(s), one just solves for M:
If the subject is further from the lens than the film plane:
2 2
D - 2 L - Sqrt[-4 L + (-D + 2 L) ]
M = -----------------------------------
2 L
If the film plane is further from the lens than the subject:
2 2
D - 2 L + Sqrt[-4 L + (-D + 2 L) ]
M = -----------------------------------
2 L
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999
From: "Paul Szego" paul@cls.uob.com.sg
Subject: Re: 'Brassing' on MD-14 handle
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999
From: Randy Vaughn-Dotta randyd@csufresno.edu
Subject: Re: How to know focus free setting of large format lens?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Need Rain Protection for 35mm
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999
> I'm looking for some sort of bag or cover that will protect my 35mm
> from bad weather while I'm shooting? I'm not even sure what to call
> such a thing. Is there a camera store on-line that sells this?
--
Todd & Sharon Peach
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Need Rain Protection for 35mm
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Need Rain Protection for 35mm
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999
Allen Brown
browna@hevanet.com
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Flash trigger voltages
Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: Tybee Evans tybee@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Flash trigger voltages
SB-16 with AS-8 5.8V
SB-16 with AS-9 5.8V
SB-20 5.1V
Vivitar 283 281V (ouch!)
Tybee Evans
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Why split-image focusing doesn't work.
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999
St. Petersburg, FL 33703-1721, USA
From: Peter Klosky PKlosky@grpwise-east.trw.com
Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
To: phong@doan-ltd.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Album for 5x5 proofs ?
From: Peter Klosky PKlosky@grpwise-east.trw.com
Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
To: swalker@highground.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Album for 5x5 proofs ?
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999
From: "F. Robert Ennis" mrbob@together.net
Subject: Flash sync voltage with AF cameras [v04.n351/14]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Light Loss at Nearest Focus
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999
> I use a handheld meter with my Mamiya M645 1000S. I know the meter
> should theoretically give me a correct exposure when the lens is set to
> infinity. How much light loss is there when a lens is close focussed?
> Say my 80mm is focussed at 2.2', will I need exposure compensation and
> how much? It's my completely uneducated guess that a 25% increase in
> length of the lens (for example) would cause a 1/2 stop light loss.
> Thanks for any help.
From: "Colin Povey" cpovey@paradyne.com
Subject: [NIKON] Flash trigger voltages
Pentax: 600 Volts
Nikon: 250 Volts (F4 and later. They did not say about earlier AF
cameras, sorry)
Minolta: 225 Volts
Canon: 6 Volts (that's right, 6 volts).
Nikon SB-28: 6 Volts
Metz 60CT-1 25 Volts (about 10-15 years old)
Sunpack 411 12 Volts
Readings made with a Fluke 83 Digital Volt Meter.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Where to rent equipment ?
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999
> Any suggestions, and experiences renting pro equipment ?
> I am looking to rent medium format camera & lenses
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
Subject: Re: 2.0x vs 1.4x TC
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999
: Roman Prokhorov wrote:
: >
: > Hi,
: >
: > A question: does 2x teleconvertor causes more or the same image
: > degradation as 1.4x? Is there any reason to buy 1.4x converter rather than
: > 2x, except it eats less f-stops?
: >
: > thanks in advance
: >
: > --
: >
: > Roma
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] WTB bright screen for Rolleicord
>From: Phil Stiles pjs@worldpath.net
>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Rollei] WTB bright screen for Rolleicord
>Date: Fri, May 28, 1999, 11:50 AM
>
>I have a Rolleicord V which is my knock around, take anywhere camera. I
>love the results, but that old viewing screen is dim. I'm not sure the
>camera is worth investing in a brand new bright screen for over $100.
>Would any group members have a cheaper suggestion for sale? Thanks,
>Phil Stiles, NH USA.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Testing Accuracy of Light Meters
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999
>How does one test the accuracy of a hand held light meter. I know how to
>check for correct film exposure but that takes into account any
>peculiarities in lens aperture and shutter speed. Is there any way to know
>how accurate just the meter is.
>
>Chris Newman
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999
From: Andy Shaw andy.shaw@jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Trigger voltage limits: PC socket
> I believe that must be a typo as the figure I'ne always heard is
> the max safe trigger voltage for the N90s/F110/F5 is 25volts.
> I dont want to hold anything in my hands or near my face is not
> grounded and has 250 volts surging through it.
> The safety limit on Canon cameras is 6 volts, BTW.
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: [NIKON] Trigger voltage limits: PC socket
>Why do you need 250
>volts flowing between the flash and your camera (about an inch away from
>your face might i add) just to fire the strobe? What would happen on a rainy
>day??
John Albino
mailto:jalbino@jwalbino.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999
From: Ellis Vener evphoto@insync.net
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Trigger voltage limits: PC socket
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999
From: Ellis Vener evphoto@insync.net
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Vivitar 283 trigger voltage.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Testing Accuracy of Light Meters
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999
> How does one test the accuracy of a hand held light meter. I know how to
> check for correct film exposure but that takes into account any
> peculiarities in lens aperture and shutter speed. Is there any way to know
> how accurate just the meter is.
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: flash duration / metering
From: mceowen@aol.com (McEowen)
[1] Re: Are Minoltas lousy cameras?
Date: Mon Aug 16 17:38:50 CDT 1999
From: zeitgeist
Date: Tue Aug 24 23:58:43 CDT 1999
> I'm looking for a surface(I/e Plexiglas) that will reflect my subject(pic in
> black and white)......not mirrors either...any suggestions???
>
> Thanks, Courtney
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: homemade photo paper??
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999
From: mddeskey@aol.com (MDDESKEY)
[1] Re: Konica SLRs/which was the "best"?
Date: Thu Oct 07 15:04:17 CDT 1999
>I'm looking at the FT-1, FS-1, T-4 and the TC.
>
>Which camera was the "best"?
>
>Most reliable?
>Doesn't have a battery issue?
From: "Chris Ward" ccw@idt.net
[1] Re: Konica SLRs/which was the "best"?
Date: Thu Oct 07 16:11:24 CDT 1999
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999
From: "elisardo louzan" louzan@worldnet.att.net
Subject: [Leica] Home Brew
>Does anyone have a home brew for cleaning plastic developing trays?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikkor Series E 75-150mm f3.5 Zoom Creep
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000
From: Bilwright@webtv.net (William Wright)
[1] Re: Scanner as Densitometer
Date: Fri Jan 21 18:56:23 CST 2000
From: ejkowalski@aol.com (Ejkowalski)
[1] Re: Another use for empty film cannisters...
Date: Wed Feb 02 2000
From: "West Mass Guy" wm_guy@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: need a chart for testing lenses
From: Andy Watts aawattsjr@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x7 field camera
Mamiya 7II - 5.2 lbs. -43,80,150
Mamiya RZ -10.7 lbs -50,110,180
Pentax 67II - 7.75 lbs, - 45,105,200
Hasselblad 501CM - 7.3 lbs. - 40,80,150
Pentax 645 - 5.35 lbs. - 35,75,150
Contax 645 - approx 5.6 lbs. - 35,80,140
From: Peter Caplow pcaplow@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Left handedness
> I'm definitely a lefty. Does anyone else out there find some of the
> equipment we use a bit awkward? Wouldn't it be nice if camera controls could
> be a little more generic?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000
From: Guido Cova gcova@leosh.com
Subject: [Rollei] Rolleimetric (was: 3003 Battery issues)
>So, is it safe to assume that these cameras cost many times more than their
>regular cousins? This grid, is it permanent or can it be removed at will
>like the flat glass can be removed in the TLR?
Guido
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999
From: Sanjay Mehta msanjay@lucent.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: foreign camera terms listings? Re: [Rollei] OT
From: Ron Ginsberg ginsb001@minn.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Slipping zoom lens
> I have a 70-200 mm Takumar zoom lense which
> I like. But the zoom control is too loose; if I shift
> the position of the camera the zoom changes.
>
> Is there any way to firm things up?
From: "Chris Ward" ccw@idt.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stupid Question: Leaf Shutters??
>Hello all:
>
>I am baffled about the how leaf shutters expose film evenly. I know that
>focal plan shutters (on 35mm) move across the film plane and evenly expose
>the film. However, how do leaf shutters work? Seems to me that the middle
>part of the film would be exposed more than the edges because the as the
>shutter opens, it opens from the middle.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>- Tony
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999
From: sherfied sherfied@ms8.hinet.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] observation on camera et al purchases from dealers
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999
From: "G. Lehrer" jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] observation on camera et al purchases from dealers
From: "Michael K. Davis" zilch0@primenet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: A survey of photographic aids
: > On 1999/07/26, Bob Wheeler bwheeler@echip.com wrote:
: >
: > > I've written a survey of photographic aids,
: > > programs, spreadsheets, calculators, tables, etc.
: > > Because of the many screen captures, the pdf file
: > > is fat, some 800K.
: > >
: > > It includes:
: > > Rodenstock calculator
: > > Focus+ for 3Com
: > > Photographe for 3Com
: > > pCam for 3Com
: > > Sushkin's online DOF calculator
: > > Gilbert's online DOF plotter
: > > Walton's online DOF calculator
: > > Depth of Field 1.0, a DOS and windows program
: > > Schneider Optics tables
: > > Davis's Not just another depth of field calculator
: > > Loyd's C code for DOF
: > > Merklinger' tables
: > > Vade Mecum for HP48Gx, TI89, 3Com, Windows CE
: > >
: > > The survey is directed toward illuminating the
: > > methodologies, since few authors document what
: > > they actually do. I am sure there are others,
: > > which I will include when I learn about them.
: > >
: > > It may be found at
: > > ftp://208.219.63.253/public/photo.
: > >
: > > --
: > > Bob Wheeler --- (Reply to: bwheeler@echip.com)
: > > ECHIP, Inc.
: >
: > Bob,
: >
: > I went to the ftp address above and downloaded survey.zip to view its
: > contents, survey.pdf.
: >
: > You review several tools, some of which I have never come across before.
: > I appreciate your having taken the time to pull together such a list.
: > I must, however, object to your interpretation of my depth of field
: > spreadsheet, available at http://home.sol.no/~gjon/mdofcal2.xls. (The
: > address given in your review results in File Not Found, because a blank
: > is substituted for the tilde character.)
: Thanks for the correction, Mike. The tilde is a
: reserved TEX character and I didn't notice the
: substitution when I pasted in your address. My
: apologies, it is now fixed.
: Bob Wheeler --- (Reply to: bwheeler@echip.com)
: ECHIP, Inc.
> You review several tools, some of which I have never come across before.
> I appreciate your having taken the time to pull together such a list.
> I must, however, object to your interpretation of my depth of field
> spreadsheet, available at http://home.sol.no/~gjon/mdofcal2.xls. (The
> address given in your review results in File Not Found, because a blank
> is substituted for the tilde character.)
>
> In your review, you wrote that I chose to define the circle of confusion
> with respect to resolution on a print, instead of on the film, and then
> used precise calculations involving the ratio of print to film diagonals.
> This is correct, but I can not take credit for this approach. Quoting pp.
> 151-152 of "Basic Photographic Materiels and Processes" by Stroebel,
> Compton, Current, and Zakia (c1990 Focal Press):
>
> "The size of the largest circle that appears as a point depends upon the
> viewing distance. For this reason permissible circles of confusion are
> generally specified for a viewing distance of 10 inches, and 1/100 inch is
> commonly cited as an appropriate value for the diameter. [snip] A study
> involving a small sample of cameras designed for advanced amateurs and
> professional photographers revealed that values ranging from 1/70 to 1/200
> inch were used -- approximately a 3:1 ratio. [snip] To judge the results,
> [of depth of field testing], 6x8 or larger prints should be made without
> cropping [or at least with identical cropping] and viewed from a distance
> equal to the diagonal of the prints. The diagonal of a 6x8-inch print is
> 10 inches, which is considered to be the closest distance at which most
> people can comfortably view photographs or read."
>
> So, where you later describe this approach as a "nuisance," Stroebel, et
> al describe it as a common way to specify circle of confusion diameters.
> Indeed, it facilitates comparisons between formats and even between
> different aspect-ratio crops made from a single format.
>
> You write that satisfactory results can be had by calculating depth of
> field using fixed values for each format:
>
> "...peg everything to a c of 0.03[mm] for 35mm and scale to other formats
> by the ratio of sides instead of diagonals."
>
> This is followed with,
>
> "In my opinion, his [Mike's] calculations are precise mathematical results
> based on fuzzy input - garbage in, garbage out, so to speak."
> I can not deny you your preference for calculating all your depth of field
> tables by treating the diameter of circles of confusion as a constant for
> each format. (You are ignoring the possibility of tuning depth of field
> tables to suit personal requirements, but it's your choice to forfeit that
> control.) I can't deny you your apparent resignation to the possibility
> of producing different depth of field tables for different anticipated
> viewing distances. (Your depth of field tables are not likely to be any
> more useful than the fixed scales engraved on your lenses, but again, I
> readily endorse your freedom of choice.) I can't deny you your decision
> to ignore the needs of medium and large-format photographers who might
> want tables calculated with disproportionately smaller CoC's, rather than
> exactly proportional to a favored 35mm constant, yours being 0.03mm. (By
> treating CoC's as a constant instead of as a variable, you allow no
> mechanism to accommodate the fact that we make larger prints with larger
> negatives, prints which must survive scrutiny at viewing distances much
> closer, relative to print size, than the viewing distances suffered by
> prints from smaller formats. You are welcome to calculate DoF tables for
> your 8x10 camera as if it was a scaled up 35. I'm not going to stop you.)
> I prefer to believe that your fixed constants can not serve the needs and
> tastes of all users all the time, but will not deny you your preferences.
>
> I can, however, deny some of your comments regarding the underlying
> philosophy of my spreadsheet. You wrote:
>
> "He [Mike] winds up with the rule that the on-film resolution should be
> equal to 1/1750 the of the print diagonal. For 4x5, this is about 0.087
> mm, which is reasonably close to the usual 0.1 mm."
>
> You reference this "rule" more than once in your review, but the "rule"
> only exists in your mind. I have never spoken nor written that, nor do my
> spreadsheet calculations embody such a limitation. This thinking
> parallels your own philosophy, not mine.
>
> That which distinguishes my calculator from the vast majority of other
> depth of field calculators is the very ability to do that which you
> consider unnecessary - allowing specification of CoC diameter as a
> variable. I have always promoted this vehemently. Most calculators
> severely limit their usefulness by forcing a constant value (as you
> prefer) for each format, just like an engraved depth of field scale.
> The third input field on my spreadsheet is labeled:
>
> "Specify the Permissible Diameter (1/nth inch) of Circles of Confusion:"
>
> And the instructions immediately below this input field read:
>
> "Specify the denominator for a fraction of an inch. For example, a value
> of 175 would specify a diameter of 1/175 of an inch. (See Note 2,
> below.)"
>
> The example given, 1/175 inch, is just an example. Yes, it translates to
> 1/1750 of the print diagonal for a 10-inch diagonal print, but nowhere do
> I promote a "rule" which states "that the on-film resolution should be
> equal to 1/1750 of the print diagonal" - this would only be true when a
> user personally chooses a value of 1/175 inch as the maximum permissible
> diameter on the 10-inch diagonal print. I can unequivocally state that
> your review is in error on this point and I encourage third parties to
> examine the spreadsheet for themselves.
>
> I am compelled to ask how, on the one hand, you can argue for the use of a
> constant value for c (circle of confusion diameter) and on the other hand
> assume (and pronounce invalid) that I, like you, promote the use of a
> fixed diameter for c? Equally curious is your failure to make your first
> argument, against the treatment of CoC diameter as a variable, in your
> reviews of other depth of field aids which permit such specification.
>
> Revisiting my decision to specify CoC diameter after magnification or
> reduction to a standard print size, I again declare that this is not
> original thinking. Stroebel, et al describes the use of a standard print
> for comparison of CoC diameters. When a 35mm photographer says he
> prefers a maximum CoC diameter of 0.01236 mm on film, we can not
> intuitively compare his preference to that of a 5x7 user who declares his
> requirement that CoC's be no larger than 0.06243mm on film. These two
> photographers would find that, after magnification to a 10-inch diagonal
> print, their negatives both produce CoC diameters less than or equal to
> 1/350 inch.
>
> Why not communicate on common ground? If I say I permit 1/200-inch CoC's
> on the standard 10-inch diagonal print, without even asking what format I
> use, you will immediately comprehend that I am less aggressive in my quest
> for tiny CoC's than these other two photographers. I permit CoC's that
> are nearly twice as large as the 1/350-inch diameters they require. A
> sensible question, you might then ask, would be, "Do you normally examine
> your prints at viewing distances equal to or greater than the print
> diagonal?" I might answer, "Yes, I prefer the greater depth of field had
> by not accommodating sub-diagonal viewing distances." This discussion
> would be prohibited in the absence of a standard for comparison. A more
> practical exploitation of the common ground, would be a single individual
> using it to compare depth of field between formats or accross various
> aspect ratio crops from one format.
>
> Let's ignore, for the moment, that you prefer to treat CoC diameters as a
> constant when calculating depth of field for a given format. Depth of
> field formulae commonly expect you to express the circle of confusion
> variable as a diameter at the film plane. This does not in any way negate
> the validity of using a formula which expects the provision of the CoC
> diameter after magnification or reduction to a 10-inch diagonal print, or
> any other size print chosen as a standard for making comparisons.
>
> My calculator goes a step further by encouraging the calculation of depth
> of field tables based on the post-crop image diagonal, where every other
> depth of field calculator I have seen assumes that we print all our images
> full frame. Is it any wonder so many people distrust depth of field
> tables and lens barrel scales? They don't get reproducible results
> because too many variables are being treated as constants.
> Using my (Stroebel's) method, once a photographer has selected a standard
> print CoC diameter that suits his needs for one format, he can be
> confident that the same diameter will yield identical results when
> calculating tables for other formats and even for various amounts of
> cropping, as long as all prints are viewed at distances proportional to
> the print diagonals (a limitation of any single depth of field table or
> engraved scale). Once a base diameter has been established for viewing
> distances equal to print diagonals (this is wonderfully independent of
> format size, various aspect ratio crops and print sizes), tables can be
> printed for every format/lens combination owned. Then, if desired,
> another set of tables can be printed for each format/lens combination,
> where viewing distances are expected to be some fraction of print diagonal
> or, even some multiple of print diagonal. These would be calculated by
> scaling the preferred base diameter down or up, by the same fraction or
> multiple. I find this to be a practical way to achieve real control of
> depth of field.
>
> You profess a preference for fixed diameter CoC's for each format and you
> offer no condemnation of calculators that assume we print everything full
> frame. I must say your "garbage in, garbage out" assertion is 180-degrees
> off course. Surely, anyone can see that treating useful variables as
> constants is the kind of garbage input we are better off without.
>
> It gets worse, unfortunately. Several weeks ago, on 1999/07/01, also in
> rec.photo.equipment.large-format, you wrote:
>
> > This calculator seems to produce correct values.
> > I would not, however, rely very much on the diffraction calculations.
> The remainder of the thread, titled "DOF - last gasp!" exhibits your
> inability (and/or unwillingness) to explain how you have reached this
> conclusion. I am going to ask you again to offer evidence of the
> validity of your contention. I predict you will ultimately either decline
> the challenge - as you did in the thread I've mentioned, or you will
> smother me with evasive, inconclusive comments that will clearly not
> support your argument - as you've done in the offline dialog we recently
> conducted via e-mail.
>
> You asked that I consider the e-mail dialog to be a "private
> communication." To date, I have honored your request. On principal, I
> have resisted the tremendous urge to post our dialog for others to
> examine. Frankly, I won that round, Bob. You gave it everything you had
> and lost, but still don't admit it. If you really believe you have proven
> anything in that dialog, please join me in my desire to post it for peer
> review. If not, ask yourself what conclusion others must reach and stand
> ready to have the whole discussion all over again, here in this forum.
> Perhaps you'll find something more substantial than the tactics you
> employed in our "private communication."
>
> You have twice publicly denounced the validity of my diffraction
> calculations. Can you allow third parties to continue wondering why you
> offer no solid explanation? I would encourage them to impeach your
> unsubstantiated allegations and I encourage you to defend them with
> everything you've got. I've said this before - I rely on these
> calculations for my own work and, for this alone, I am desperate to make
> corrections, if necessary. Worse, I feel a sincere responsibility to the
> other photographers who use this tool. I eagerly await a rational proof
> of any errors in my spreadsheet and promise to post corrections
> immediately upon concurrence.
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta SRT Lenses
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V5 #16
> Um, I don't get it. I take it you're talking about the standard issue
> TLR: does this really sync at 1/2000 second, the way my OM4t does? I'd
> be suprised. (Not that I've ever used a strobe with my Rolleis.)
From: zeitgeist greenky.wa@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Budget diffuser for on-camera flash?
> What is the best diffuser for a mounted on-camera flash? I have a
> flash that is always much too bright when used directly and like most
> young artists, I'm broke. What is cheap (and/or homemade) that looks
> somewhat professional?
> Offhand, I don't remember the brand name of the flash, but it was very
> cheap ($45 US) and it works... much too well...
>
> Does anyone think that the Canon EOS Rebel 2000's in-camera flash would
> be adequate enough for shooting a wedding and reception, or should I
> use the mounted flash instead?
> Thanks, as always, for any suggestions...
> Sincerely,
>
> Robin
> http://fly.to/ladyhawkes_nest
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
From: cheungmo@mlink.net (Pierre Renault)
Subject: Re: Lighe entering through SLR viewfinder affecting
metering?
>Camera : Olympus OM2
> The sunlight was strong
>and was almost behind me. I noticed that If I placed
>my eye very close to the viewfinder, the meter reading
>decreased.
>Although this is not difficult to understand, it seems to
>me that it is an inherent fault with the camera design as there
>In normal light can I expect some light to enter into the camera
>this way?
> Is the metering calibrated to accommodate some
>of this leakage?
> Should I use some 'eye cup' device?
From: Anders Svensson Anders.-.Eivor.Svensson@swipnet.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cost and propertys of metal chassies -
was: canon/minolta/nikon???
> > Buy a camera
> > with metal in the body ie NIKON
>
> If only Nikon used something other than aluminum and magnesium in most of
> their cameras. Then maybe the metal would be adding something more than
> extra weight.
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Eivor.Svensson@swipnet.se
From: Dave Barstow davedoes@ioa.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Lightning photography
> Anybody with some advice on which speed film, lens, f-stop, focusing to
> use, and tips on taking pictures when it is still somewhat light
> outside.
> Thanks
Dave Barstow's Home Page (http://www.magicnet.net/~davedoes/)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: low light photography
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
> i'm hoping someone here could possibly provide me with some tips on how
> to achieve decent photographs in these conditions....is there anything i
> can use as a substitute for a tripod? what kind of film should i be
> working with? any other considerations i'm missing? any way of doing
> this without losing my depth of field?
>
> thanks in advance to anyone who can help me....
From: UDPug@aol.com
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000
Subject: Re: Making a Bean Bag to Reduce Vibration
From: "Phil" pjh@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: Making a Bean Bag to Reduce Vibration
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000
North Palm Beach, FL
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" bcasselb@orednet.org
Subject: Re: Making a Bean Bag to Reduce Vibration
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
bcasselb@orednet.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Hyper-sensitizing
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000
From: Frode Nilsen nilsen.frode@c2i.net
Subject: Fixed lenses
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000
From: Jon Hart jonhart51@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Focusing screens / unwanted advice
from Deepinaharta, Georgia
> Jan,
>
> Which Rollei are you seing this problem with? The
> screens for my 3003 come in a plastic 'jewel' box
> and are mounted in a black plastic frame.
>
> Carter
>
> >Hi everybody,
> >probably I'm the last one to figure this:
> >If you leave your bright (plastic) Rollei focusing
> screens in their "protective" soft
> >plastic sleeves (often blue, PVC?) they rott.
> >Seems the softener of the sleeves/pouches
> evaporates and creeps into the screen.
> >Softens it and the sleeve's wafer like surface gets
> moulded into the screen's surface.
> >The paper around the screen apparently doesn't help
> much.
> >
> >Any similar experiences?
> >Jan
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.misc,z-prophoto@egro
ups.com
Subject: Re: duct tape and Duct Tape Re: Changing the focus plane on 35mm
From: John Mustarde texlinn@airmail.net
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000
Subject: Stacked Teleconverter Fun Test page
Happy Trails,
Texdance
http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000
From: Derek Klein lycius@operamail.com
Subject: [NIKON] Flash Basics - Long
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Changing lenses FAST....any tips???
----
Russell Smithers
Photography www.smithers-nasa.freeserve.co.uk
> iamforgotten@hotmail.com
>says...
>>
>>
>>
>> beenee wrote:
>>
>> > the fastest way is to carry more than one camera body with different
>> > lenses on each. then all you have to do is switch cameras. some people
>> > walk around with three bodies hanging around their neck.
>>
>> It's also a good way to have one camera body come crashing down into the
>> front lens element of a second body when turning around really quick.
>>
>> am
>
>That's never happened to me in over 27 years. Make sure they're slung
>from the straps at different heights (about an inch between them
>should do), and always have the longer lens on the lower camera.
>
>--
>Kirk
From: "Jim Williams" jlw@nospam.never.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Changing lenses FAST....any tips???
>I'm curious if any of you have any tips regarding
>how you change lenses quickly....where do you carry the lenses....etc?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 30 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Changing lenses FAST....any tips???
>I'm curious if any of you have any tips regarding
>how you change lenses quickly....where do you carry the lenses....etc?
From: "Jim Williams" jlw@nospam.never.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Changing lenses FAST....any tips???
>>> Good tip! If the lens goes into a protected area (pouch?) in a good bag,
>>> is putting the caps on absolutely necessary?
>
>>Yes, unless you don't mind clueing dust, grit, dirt, smoke, ect off the lens
>>every time you use it.
>
>I normally store lenses with the rear caps on, front caps off,
>and hoods in place, with the hood end down. That technique
>makes them much faster to change, and doesn't seem to accumulate
>grunk on the front elements.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Changing lenses FAST....any tips???
> I store, transport and carry them with front and rear caps in place. But as
> soon as I open my bag to start taking pictures, the second thing I do
> (taking out the camera is the first thing) is remove ALL the caps and stow
> them in a pocket in the bag. This keeps the lenses protected in transit but
> keeps them totally ready when in active use.
> The above post mentions lens hoods, but I'll expand a bit by saying they're
> another secret to working fast. If you keep the correct hood mounted on the
> lens, you get some protection against knocks and fingerprints without
> having to keep the lens capped. Another time-saver, if it works with your
> equipment, is to get lens caps that fit *over* the mounted hoods... this
> lets you get into action faster when you're ready to start photographing,
> because all you have to do is pull the cap rather than uncap the lens,
> unstow the hood, and mount it.
Kirk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sweetheart Minolta lenses?
> Noah wrote:
> A couple of personal favorites with more ineffable "sweetheart" qualities
> -- not as technically unusual as the above, maybe, but lenses I've felt
> especially good about using:
>
> -- 58mm f/1.2 (reasonably sharp, usefully fast, handy almost-tele focal
> length, stunningly beautiful "bokeh.")
>
> -- 135mm f/2 (simply a nice-handling, fine-performing, very useful
> super-speed tele.
>
> That's more like it . . . In a short telephoto which is considered Minolta's
> strong suit: the 85mm or the 100mm? In a general purpose wideangle: 24mm or
> 28mm? I know Leica used to use Minolta's 24mm. Is that a goodun? Several people
> have suggested that f1.2 normal. I had a chance to pick one up recently for
> like $100. At the time I wasn't considering getting a Minolta body. I should
> have gotten it anyway . . .
> BTW, I use Nikon SLRs and Leica rangefinders but I've always had sort of a
> closet thing for Minolta. I've all but decided it time to feed it (just a
> little . . . )
Department of Medicine/Cardiology Section
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 7 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sweetheart Minolta lenses?
>-- 58mm f/1.2 (reasonably sharp, usefully fast, handy almost-tele focal
>length, stunningly beautiful "bokeh.")
Date: 12 Jul 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: 'Time-slice' Photography?
Hello,
Justin
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 'Time-slice' Photography?
http://www.patjerina.com
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT -- Zeiss Binoculars
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: fast lenses vs. slow lenses
Maplewood Photography
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: A GEAR COMPARISON, elite vs. low end gear
> Sure those $800+ lenses and $80+ filters are sexy, but what are the
> real--tangible--differences?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: fast lenses vs. slow lenses
Maplewood Photography
From: JFranz2777@aol.com
To: minolta-l@osfmail.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Minolta MD 135 2.8
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: fast lenses vs. slow lenses
Maplewood Photography
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 22 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: first med format mamiya 645 pro-tl or 67rz?
From: ajacobs2 ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Tips from the workbech...
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: Michael Watters michael.watters@valpo.edu
Subject: Beam Splitter macro rigs
> From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" drt-3d@att.net
>
> This might as well be the answer to all prayers in
> macro stereo photography. This unique rig was
> built in France for Dr. Paul Milligan. Only a
> few rigs of this type are known to exist in the
> world.
>
> It consists of two Minolta X-700 cameras, fitted
> with 100mm MACRO lenses. The cameras are aligned
> one at the top of the other and through two mirrors
> (one regular and one semi-permeable) they result
> in a system that shows the following characteristics:
Email: Michael.Watters@valpo.edu
Valparaiso University
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] Grey card
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] Zone V and greycard
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000
From: "Dan Post" dpost@triad.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Zone V and greycard
From: desmobob desmobob@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: John Shaw's "Butterfly bracket"
> First thing...deja.com is going down tomorrow for several days to switch
> their email server, thus please reply to me via email at:
>
> ed@l-a-net.net
>
> Thanks!
>
> My message regards building a macro flash bracket. I want to build one
> of the flash brackets that John Shaw illustrates in his book, "Closeups
> In Nature". The problem I have is that I live in a rural area without
> any camera shops close by, thus I can't go in and browse around for the
> small ball heads that I need. When searching online mostly what I find
> are no pictures with only a brief description similar to "small ball
> head"....really brief and non-descriptive.
>
> Does someone know a model number or type of ball head I could look for
> that would work in building one of these macro flash brackets?
>
> Thanks a million! ...and remember, please email me at ed@l-a-net.net
Bob Scott
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Flashcube to Electronic Flash Adapter?
> > Is there a flashcube to electronic flash adapter?
> >
> > I have an old Rollei E110 I use for snapshots, but in dark room, I have a
problem. Flashcubes aren't readily available any longer. If there were a
flashcube to PC connector adapter, I could make some kind of rig to hold a
small electronic flash.
> >
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" LHHansen at zi dot ku dot dk
Subject: RE: DIY "ringlight" (was: More Fill-Flash)
> -Gord (should I just buy a ringlight?)
Lars Holst Hansen - LHHansen at zi dot ku dot dk
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/NikonRepair
From: Richard Cochran rcochran@lanset.com
Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.components,alt.electronics,sci.electronics.misc,rec.photo.misc,r
ec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: How do I locate this connector?
> I like to design circuits for use in photography and
> I have a bit of a speciality making circuits which
> control electronic flash units.
>
> (Here's an example using one such circuit - it can fire
> a flash from a sound and is shown here photographing
> a balloon in mid-pop http://people.ne.mediaone.net/plnelson/flash.htm
)
>
> Anyway, all serious cameras (i.e., high-end amateur and
> pro cameras), and virtually all high end flash units and
> studio flash meters use the same stardard connector.
> It's usually called a PC-sync cable connector (I don't
> know what "PC" stands for but it has nothing to do
> with personal computer).
>
> For my projects I go to camera stores and buy spare
> cables and cut the ends off to use for connectors, but
> this looks lame. I'd like to buy the connectors themselves
> from an electronics or industrial supply company. But
> I can't find them from any of my usual suppliers,
> e,g, Digi-key. Any suggestions? Thanks in
> advance!!
>
> ---peter
From: "PSsquare" pschmitt@stny.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Make your own blind!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000
From: Nikon Cameras NikonCameras@asean-mail.com
Subject: Eyeglass scratches
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000
From: JIB jbuf@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] recommendations for rangefinder neck strap
John
> Hi ,
> Having seen many Leicas and other similar type cameras on ebay with the infamous
> semi-circle marks above the strap lugs, I got to thinking about the offending neck straps
> and their mounting hardware that caused the damage. What do you guys recommend for a good
> strap for use in the field that won't scratch the hell out of my cameras. Thanks, Dave
> Saalsaa
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] rollei tripod socket insert
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: AW: [CONTAX] [OT] Leaf shutter
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] [OT] Leaf shutter
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] IS (was Suggestions welcomed)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: "Cousineau , Bernard" bcousineau@tmisolutions.com
Subject: RE: AW: [CONTAX] [OT] Leaf shutter
> > Well, I never noticed it myself, but it is in the tech info
> Hasselblad
> > used to supply. There is a compensation factor for smaller f-stops
> > and fast shutter speeds.
>
> By smaller f-stops: do you mean smaller in diameter or number?
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Photo Myths
> From: "Jason Cheng" jasoncheng@home.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Photo Myths
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I'm sorry if you've answered this question before but please refresh my
> memory, when you take a reading off a grey card, do you need to increase or
> decrease the exposure obtained by 1/2 f stop? Thanks!
> It seems strange that Kodak wouldn't make their grey cards 12/5-13%
> reflective to correspond to meter calibrations. It seems like that should be
> easy enough to do and would eliminate one more potential pitfall!
From: "Norm" normsmith@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Urban wildlife photography
Norm Smith
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Meaning of Contax designation
> From: Roger contaxaholic@yahoo.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:13:58 -0800 (PST)
> To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Meaning of Contax designation
>
> But, I think I know the 'real time' question: Back
> when the RTS came out, 'real time' connotated
> 'state-of-the-art' with respect to computer systems.
> Contax probably borrowed that term to get
> identification in the minds of customers about how
> advanced Contax was. My guess, anyway.
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
Cc: leica@topica.com
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: Auction results
Cindy Sherman, USA, 1954
Thomas Struth. Germany, 1954
Andreas Gursky, Germany, 1955
Gibert & George, UK, 1943/1942
Charles Ray, USA, 1953
Nan Goldin, USA, 1953
Richard Prince, USA, 1949
Andres Serrano, USA, 1950
Bruce Nauman, USA, 1941
Thomas Ruff, Germany, 1958.
The ranking of old masters is:
Gustave Le Gray, France, 1820
Edward Weston, USA, 1886
Man Ray, USA/Fr, 1890
Paul Strand, USA, 1890
Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Hungary, 1895
Edward Steichen, USA, 1897
Hippolyte Bayard, Fr, 1801
Alfred Stieglitz, USA, 1864
Ansel Adams, USA, 1902
Andre Kertesz, Hungary/USA, 1894
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell 76750.2717@compuserve.com
Subject: [CONTAX] Infrared controller
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: mddeskey@aol.com (MDDESKEY)
Date: Mon Dec 18 18:47:16 CST 2000
[1] Re: Cable Release - Solenoid activated
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001
From: f8bthere@4cameras.com
Subject: Re: Making Negatives from Slides, info required
> Would appreciate any info on equipment required, tips and techniques to make
> quality negatives from slides. I have a Nikon F3, Nikkor lenses: 50mm f/1.2,
> 85mm f/1.8, 35-70mm f2.8 and 105mm f/2.8 macro.
> Anil.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001
From: f8bthere@4cameras.com
Subject: Re: Making Negatives from Slides, info required
> F8,
> Hi, I am new to list & have read your post with interest. You wrote:
>
> >>A 55mm Micro is good for this purpose or a reversed 50mm f2.0 works very
> well also.
>
> Maybe this is a stupid question but then you guys make me feel like a total
> newcomer to photography anyway:)
> I have tried many times without success to copy slides with my FM. Even a
> borrowed slide copier came up with really flat but contrasty results. I
> have also tried from the screen, but not outdoors - that will have to wait
> til spring! However I can reverse my 50 f2. The stupid question is:
> How do I suspend the slide between the flash and the lens? Also how far
> away should the flash be from the slide?
> Keith
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001
From: Nikon Cameras NikonCameras@asean-mail.com
Subject: Re: Re: Making Negatives from Slides, info required
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Ralph Johnston/Linda Sherman copley@ma.ultranet.com
Subject: Tubular level vials
From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Manual versus Auto-Focus
> But the modern cameras offer other benefits besides automation. I
> personally find modern electronic cameras easier to operate in manual
> mode than manual cameras. I like that the primary controls are
> clustered and laid out based on human interface rather than where they
> work best for the mechanics of the machine. Having all pertinent
> information available *in* the viewfinder can be very nice too.
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Ross Xpres lens
> I don't know if British patents are on line anywhere.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] gettn kinda Leica-OT What is it with the 25mm
Focal length
> How does the TTL work with the mirror in the way. And if you take it
> out of the way how do you know what the camera is pointing at?
> Years ago I had the mirror of my viso II removed and replaced with
> the Canon pellicle. It worked well as long as I kept my eye close to
> the viso finder to prevent stray light coming in while exposing the
> picture. Ed
From Russian Camera List:
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001
From: "Per Backman" pbackman@algonet.se
Subject: Polish cameras (re: "START" VINTAGE AD)
>Per,
>found an ad with picture of the Polish "START" camera. Got it from the
>11/1959 issue of "US Camera Magazine".See attachment
************************************************************
The PHOTO page;
Images (nude), B/W Formulae (lots of them);
In English, auf deutsch, po polsku;
http://hem.fyristorg.com/pbackman/
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Bean bags
> From: "Roland Smith" roland@dnai.com
> Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Bean bags
>
> Additional comment on bean bags;
>
> They are especially good for a medium format camera with a waist level
> finder since you are looking down into the finder and a lower surface such
> as a table top, railing, chair or other furniture is usually available for
> an indoor rest. Outdoors, there are many fixtures for a waist level rest.
>
> Roland Smith
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: Samuel Tang samueltang@eisa.net.au
Subject: Re: Shutters
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick Email, I've allways wondered about the use of cloth
> for the manufacture of shutters on most modern SLRs. Tried to look in
> books as to why they would use cloth in stead of say a thin metal plate,
> but this is it seems allways forgotten. Is anyone aware of why they use
> cloth??? Several reasons come to mind, such as space, but with careful
> planing, I dont see this as legitamate. Comments would be apreciated
> Also I am trying to learn about camera repair, any good site or book
> recomendations would be apreciated.......
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: ajacobs2 ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
[1] Re: B&H; Seagull MF
Date: Sun Mar 04 04:53:11 CST 2001
> "ajacobs2" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com wrote in message
> > Alternative Uses - Get two, mount on wood plaques and make Bookends,
> > looks great in my study...
>
> I can honestly say that I learn something new in this news group EVERY
> DAY...
>
> -Mike
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT Photoshop Elements (question for Bob)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001
From: Guido Cova guido.cova@tin.it
Subject: [Rollei] Leather shouldr strap: safety belt
Guido
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
From: "Dante A. Stella" dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [RF List] 6x9 suggestions please
---------------------
Super Ikonta C (postwar, coated Tessar in synched Rapid-Compur)
Moskva-5 (postwar, coated Industar in synched Moment-24)
-------------------------
-----------------
> I am looking for recommendations and suggestions from this group on
> what would be a good option for me to move into the 6x9 format. My
> primary uses would be for landscapes and the occasional portrait.
> While considering my options, two that I find intriguing are the
> century graphic and the Fuji 690. The Fuji 690 appears faster/easier
> to use, while the century graphic offers various roll film formats,
> the ability to focus on ground glass (with the graphloc back) a
> smaller price tag and some perspective control. I read the recent
> posts about medium format folders and have also considered the Bessa I
> &II as well as Super Ikonta C. I am concerned that their prices are
> inflated due to collectors snapping them up to sit on the shelf, yet I
> like their size when folded. Please, tell me what you think. Am I
> missing any better options?
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
From: DFStein@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] 6x9 suggestions please
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: rurmonas@senet.com.au
Subject: Re: [RF List] 6x9 suggestions please
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
From: Benno Jones bennoj@qwest.net
Subject: Mamiya Press/Super 23/Universal family
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] GEPE 45 x 60 Slide Frames with Rollei 16 on mask
> From: bigler@ens2m.fr
> Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] GEPE 45 x 60 Slide Frames with Rollei 16 on mask
>
> I guess the 15 frame is just a Japanese-ish feature. The A-16
> Hasselblad back has always delivered 16 evenly-spaced frames for
> decades. Same of course for vintage foldings since the red-window
> system reads 16 frames printed on paper, not 15. Do I dream, or didn't
> I read somewhere that "16" was a bad number in Japanese traditional
> beliefs, thus explaining the 15-frame only on Japanese cameras?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001
From: shino@ubspainewebber.com
Subject: [Rollei] japanese and 16
From: "Randy Frankel" Hangar52@nospam.home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Opening a CPU
> I'd like to do macro work of a CPU -- an old Pentium 75.
> But I need to take the lid off the bottom of the chip.
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Opening a CPU
> I'd like to do macro work of a CPU -- an old Pentium 75.
> But I need to take the lid off the bottom of the chip.
> Does anyone know how to safely and cleanly remove it?
> (shooting it with 35mm & perhaps 4x5 macro -- a personal,
> for-fun project)
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography
From: Mark marks6@earthlink.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Opening a CPU
d
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zoomar
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>> I checked the two patents given by Kingslake. Both are issued to Frank
>>Back and not assigned to anyone else. I suspect the first (1948) had
>>nothing to do with Voigtlander. The second is for a lens built by
>>Voigtlander so they may well have contracted for the design although its
>>surprizing its not assigned to them.
>
>As the Bessamatic emerged in the late 1950's, the first lens -- which
>Kingslake identifies as a 16mm cine lens -- obviously has nothing to do
>with Voigtl,nder, and as the second lens is called by Kingslake the
>"Voigtl,nder-Zoomar" in figure 11.19, I suspect the connection between this
>design and the German company is made most certain!
>
>Marc
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Question about developing 120 film
>Date sent: Tue, 22 May 2001
>From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Question about developing 120 film
>.
>On another note I've noticed a very faint light as I tear away the
>tape from the film. Has anyone else noticed this or ever heard of it
>causing problems?
>All the best
>LArry Cuffe
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" eapallat@apk.net
Subject: Re: 35mm backs
> There you go again Jim, trying to be logical.
>
> Probably for the same reason that people spend thousands of dollars to
> customize their car, others try hard to modify the standard formats in
> photography. Years ago Nikon made an adapter called Speed Magny which turned
> a 35 body into a 4x5.
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
From: Mikhail Konovalov m_konovalov@mail.ru
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: - introduction to 'Zone' system
> Can anyone recommend a good beginners guide to the zone system for b&w
> photos?
> I don't want anything that requires a Phd in optics or chemistry, just a
> down-to-earth introduction.
Misha
(Russian amateur, delurking for the first time)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001
From: Peter Klosky peter.klosky@marcgs.com
Subject: Re: custom screens
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT classic binoculars
>Most binoculars do not focus close enough, IMHO, for birding.
>OTOH, the roof-prism types sold by Celestron, Orion, etc., focus
>down to 2 meters or so, which is much closer than most
>porroprism models. Are you going to have to give up close focus
>for Leitz or Zeiss cachet?
Zeiss Jena/Docter 8x30 Deltrintem 2m
Zeiss 8x32 2m
Zeiss 10x40 BGA 2m
Docter 10x40 ASPH BGA 3.2m
Zeiss 8x30 monocular 1m
Zeiss Jena/Docter 7x40 EDF 5m
To subscribe, contact: Peter Abrahams telscope@europa.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001
From: MrKlark@aol.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] microscope / microphoto advice
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
From: Saggers@aol.com
Subject: Re: I'm Ruining My Glasses
> I've been using an M3 and an M2, and the metal viewfinder has been
> scratching my glasses. Stephen Gandy can no longer supply the
> rubber eyeglass protector donuts. Does anyone have any suggestions
> to eliminate this problem?
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] RE: film tape glue flash
From: "John Stewart see REAL email address in message."
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: Google image bot ripping your images?
From: robert.swift@dwl-online.co.uk (Robert Swift)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Need a photography tool?
> robert.swift@dwl-online.co.uk (Robert Swift) writes:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I am interested to know if there are any photography related tools
> > that people would find useful. There are many DoF calculators around
> > but is there anything else people would like to see?
>
> An exposure/movement rate calculator might be useful.
>
> Ben Blaukopf
http://www.dwl-online.co.uk/
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: storing old minoltas
> I would not recommend storing cameras in their leather cases at all; during
> manufacture a lot of chemicals have to be added to it and it increases its
> acidity which might be of detriment to the
> camera in the long run.
From: Billy Somewhere.else@not.here.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: protecting photos from being copied from web sites
> I have occasionally come across photo sites or web pages
> (usually large retail dealers) that have a block not only
> on the photos but also on the camera information. If you right
> click and attempt to copy the info or address of the photo a
> message appears that states it is off limits to unauthorized
> users and is not to be copied.
> What's the secret here and has anyone run across this and know anything
> about it and how it is done ? Thanks for any help on this, Richard
http://web-wise-wizard.com/javascript-tutorials/disable-right-click.html
-Billy
e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
From: "Howard Sanner" flagstad@mindspring.com
Subject: [Leica] OT: Eliminating cookies
if exist f:\netscape\cookies del f:\netscape\cookies > nul
f:\netscape\netscape.exe
if exist f:\netscape\cookies del f:\netscape\cookies > nul
flagstad@mindspring.com
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Philippe Tempel ptempel@home.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] APX 100 in D 23 1:1
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001
From: "Kelvin" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Dark Slide Holder
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] WLF for 645
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] WLF for 645
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] APX 100 in D 23 1:1
>I don't know if I brought this up before, but I was reading about some
>dude claiming to be able to mix his (or her?) own D-76 for as low as
>10 cents. That caught my attention. It's on the sub club webpage:
>
>http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/develop2.htm
>
>and it looks super easy to make. I have a hard time believing that it
>can be done for that little. Maybe he got the metol and hydorquinone
>developers cheaper than usual (used or someone's darkroom sale?).
>They also have a link to another page that describes which stuff you
>can get at the grocery store. I didn't know you can buy the borax
>there as "Twenty Mule Team Borax" in the supermarket. Very cool.
>All I would need is to find the developers and a decent scale for a
>good price... :-)
>
>While I'm on the topic, has anyone tried the D-76 alternatives like
>Chris Patton's E-76? He subs Phenidone for metol/hydroquinone
>and adds ascorbic acid. Is this as good as D-76? Cheaper to
>make?
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: "Sal DiMarco,Jr." sdmp007@pressroom.com
Subject: Saving 1/2000
Sal DiMarco, Jr.
Philadelphia, PA
From: "Terry Dawson" terry.dawson@att.net
Newsgroups:
alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.art,rec.pho
to.technique.misc
Subject: Top 10 Things Your Automatic Camera Does Not Know
2. What You Should Shoot
3. Where You Should Shoot
4. When You Should Shoot
5. Where to Position the Camera
6. When to Zoom
7. Which Way is Up
8. When Auto Exposure Will Fail
9. When Auto Focus Will Fail
10. When to Quit
My Digital Photography Pages
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/
From: toomuchdamnedjunkmail@myaddress.not (no real name here)
Newsgroups:
alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.art,rec.pho
to.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Things Your Automatic Camera Does Not Know
2.) What the environment from where the image was taken smells like.
3.) When it (camera) will suffer a malfunction (other than an
impending battery discharge of full memory stick).
4.) The temperature.
5.) That the display on a Sony Clie handheld sucks compared to the
display on a Sony DSC-Sxx.
6.) Funny jokes to make your subjects smile.
7.) Kayaking with a D30 can be very expensive (not me, thank God :)
8.) Where it is hiding in your oversized gear bag on that dark night
when the raccoons were fooling around in your kids tent.
9.) Which little kid is most likely to shoot the finger at you on
little league night.
10.) To get off the net when you are too tired to be replying to
posts. :)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: Black or Chrome?
>I think it's Henry that has three different 'colors' of FM2 so he can
>tell which one's loaded with what at a glance!
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001
From: "John Pendley" jpendley@tds.net
Subject: AA
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: "Thom Hogan" thom_hogan@msn.com
Subject: re: 18% gray
> Instructions with Kodak gray cards say (in a roundabout way) work to
> 12%, not 18%.
> However as less than 1% of users take the trouble to follow the
>instructions and 99% work to the 18% "myth" Nikon have decided to side
>with the 99%.
> Nikon say (F5 brochure) Nikon's (modern one's at least) are calibrated
>to 18% - which in my experience is right.
author, Nikon Field Guide, Nikon Flash Guide, Nikon Coolpix Guide
www.bythom.com
From: Cam Banks <cam@cambanks.com>
Techdiver Mailing List <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
Subject: Technology clues from starfish
Hey, they said "tech"...
*******************************
act as an array of microscopic lenses that would be difficult for even the
best engineer to duplicate, researchers say.
The high optical quality of the microlenses in the brittlestar could help
scientists design better computers or better telecommunications networks,
according to scientists at Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs in Murray Hill,
N.J.
They identified the lenses after marine biologists noted the brittlestar
appeared to be using the wrong kind of camouflage.
The creature would turn dark during the day, making it more visible to
predators, and would turn whitish gray at night, again making it more
noticeable.
``So it's just the opposite of what you expect to hide from predators,''
said Joanna Aizenberg, who led the study at Bell Labs.
their microlenses as a sophisticated system to sense light in order to
navigate and avoid predators.
The lens system turned the brittlestars lighter at night to increase their
sensitivity. During the day, they turned darker to cope with the brighter
light.
The shape of the crystals helped focus the light extremely precisely,
Aizenberg said.
``We were quite surprised to observe that not only do they focus light, but
the characteristics of these tiny lenses are far beyond anything we can
imagine currently manufacturing,'' she said.
for electronic and computer design, or it may help produce superior optics
that can adapt to changing conditions, she said.
Her study, which appears today in the journal Nature, noted the calcium
carbonate crystals -- or calcite -- also provide structural support for the
brittlestar skeleton.
The lens design could prove especially useful for optical computers --
machines that use changes in light to store data instead of movement of
electrons across a silicon wafer or circuit, according to another
researcher. Light comes in packets of energy called photons.
``At some point we'd like to have optical computers, but to get to that
point we have to move photons with the sophistication we now move electrons,
and we aren't able to do it yet,'' said Sonke Johnsen, a biologist at the
Woods Hole (Mass.) Oceanographic Institution.
helps explain why the creature can move so quickly to evade a threat, unlike
other forms of starfish.
``They are really active, clever and fast animals,'' Johnsen said. ``You'd
have to work hard underwater to catch one
Published Thursday, Aug. 23, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News
Technology clues from starfish
Unique lenses may help in computers, telecom
BY WILLIAM MCCALL
Associated Press
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 May 2002
Subject: Re: the other 50% ;-) Re: Leica...Is It Worth It?
>uprisingly, I saw a Harry Callahan
>landscape exhibit this past year, all contact printed from 4x5. Do you
>know how small a 4x5 is when viewed on a museum wall? What's it
Harry Callahan was once asked why he would would never talk about photography.
He answered" Photography is so simple there is nothing to talk about".
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer