a._t._burke

Hmmmmm... Could it really be the perception of wide angle because of the screen ratio? Many of the phone cams are set to record a ratio like the screen. Maybe panoramic would be a better description. In the 1990s some small pocket cameras had a lever which moved sliding doors in font of the top and bottom of the exposure area. The result was a much wider picture than it was tall.when printed. This happened no matter how wide angle or telephoto the lens was. A T Burke

P.S. to my comment above. Maybe the guy is even a member of your saxophone group and voted its place in the ranking as #1, which could be taken as a sign that he doesn't know the difference between music and photography.

Mr. Morrell, There are obviously still-enthusiastic people like yourself who make quality contributions. Otherwise, you wouldn't post this for me to comment on. There used to be a lot of people I could say that about. Most of those people have moved on. I quit putting my one-and-a-half cent's worth in and quit paying years ago. But I am old, my world gets smaller every day. Maybe both my interest and abilities have downsized enough that I took another look at Photonet. I have to wonder what the author of the piece that voted Photonet third was thinking. What kind of photo experiences and life experiences does he or she have? What do they have in the way of background, experience, discernment, etc., to give merit or authority to their conclusion? Did the author pen the opinion from his or her residence as a tenured fine arts full professor in a major university? Or, could it have come from somebody who was heavily medicated enough to let out of their strait jacket for the time it took to write the article? If you're old enough to remember an automobile, the Yugo, remember that it did sell a few examples. The question is why? What did they see or, more relevantly, not see in a Yugo that would cause them to buy that horrible little car? A.T. Burke

Mr. H... Looking at the Fujifilm Instax Data Sheet, the film is inserted onto the cartridge with the back facing the lens. The light goes through the film back which later becomes black. In development, the dyes are pushed forward causing the image to migrate up against the front clear window. This process seems much different than the Polaroid SX-70 and 600 series film. A T Burke

Mr. H., Yes, it's SUPPOSED to be quoted in line pairs. As you say, after all, there has to be a contrast between lines. However, both film and lens makers started just saying lines so they could double the public perception of their film and lenses. If both Brand X and Y are 50/lpmm, and Brand X decides to overstate their specs by saying it resolves 100 lines, Brand Y is going to see that as unfair competition and also advertise 100 lines. That's how standards become meaningless. As of 20-30 years ago, the figure quoted for the same film would be stated as both lines and line pairs. In a situation I'm thinking of, the film would actually meet the line pairs spec so they weren't cheating but also maybe got negatively compared by people who were. When I get back to Montana, I'm going to figure out a way of exposing my Edmunds Scientific 1951 USAF glass resolution scale directly to Instax and see what the results are. At either 10 lines or 10 lp/mm, I wouldn't need more than a 10 power loupe to know the truth. I don't think Polaroid Originals has the same definition as Fuji Instax. That makes me wonder why I bother using my good four-element SX-70 lens rather than a cheap single element lens boxy camera. Using the SX-70 is probably putting lipstick on a pig in spirit but not meant to denigrate the magnificent effort that the Impossible Project has made to try and duplicate Polaroid film without access to the same chemicals and trade secrets that were not mentioned in their patents. Do you mean the Instax wide exposes direct rather than from the rear? In my Instax 100, the film pack faces the lens directly. The lens does not face the back of the pack. A.T. Burke

Thank you, Mr Stevens... It is not something that is likely to repeat itself much in the future. At my age most everyone is gone.I'm probably the last survivor for most things in my life. That could be good, that could be bad. About 15 years ago Viagra spam was in its heyday. I got my share. Also, there were ads for a 'male enhancer". I got a lot of them and wondered how all those advertisers had seen me in the gym shower and would know I needed it???? A T Burke

Gentlepersons: You think that is intrusive..... I started getting ads for a turquoise pocket Bible, what??? My very devout Christian friend had visited us in Montana and left behind his constant companion, a turquoise pocket Bible. He returned to California and I traveled to Florida. He died. I wanted to return the Bible at the funeral and texted a neighbor to look for the item so she could send it to me. That same day I started getting turquoise pocket Bible ads pop up while I looked at several on-line sites. By the next morning my e-mail box was full of spam for a turquoise pocket Bible. My wife also started getting ads (both of our phones are billed on the same account). The only time I had ever used that term was in the one text message. The patent holder of the keystroke program most smart phones use retained the right to log every keystroke (and sell the information). Go figure, A T Burke

Gentlepersons: 1. I find Polaroid Originals SX-70 film itself much less sharp and to have much less definition than Instax Wide. It also is grainier. 2. The first Polaroid™ SX-70 and Alpha 1 versions had a 4 element Tessar like glass lens of good quality probably resolving 50 + o r-.lp/mm It could far out resolve the original Polaroid™ film let alone the Polaroid Originals film. 3. Do the Instax Wide specs mean 10 lines (5 line pairs) or 10 line pairs. 5 line pairs is about what the average 35 year old eye can resolve. Sharp vision and younger eyes can resolve in the 8-10 range. Back when I was about 90, I tested out at about 7 lp/mm, but then I had better than average vision than average. Even today, at my age I see Instax Wide taken with a 100 camera to be sharper than Polaroid Originals with my good SX-70 lens. 4. I look forward to traveling back to Montana this summer and testing the Polaroid with my full size 1951 USAF chart and can give a more science based answer. A T Burke

Saw you mention Montana. What area number is your licence plate, if I may ask. I'm 7 (plate number, age MUCH more)

Gentlepersons: Anyone remember the Minolta 500mm F:8 Cat in autofocus? The focus sensor on the 9xi made for fast and accurate autofocus. A. T. Burke

Mr. Bergman... Thank you again, Sir. A. T. Burke

Mr. Lookingbill... I took my first Kodachrome pictures in the late 1930s. I also took a few, but very few during WWII (I was busy with other things like that pesky war). All were processed in the USA. Each batch seemed to look a little different. I only took one large format 4x5 photo. Most were taken on 35mm rolls with an Argus AF. At one time I had a number of them posted on Photonet, all stateside, ie. no grizzly war stills. I had to remove them because many viewers claimed they were warlike or whatever, like the one with me in uniform holding my young son’s hand on a public sidewalk. It must have been that darned uniform! I moved them to another site but the rules do not permit me to refer them to you so you can see the different hues. A. T. Burke

Mr. Sanford, "The duplicate was on purpose to post the same photo in color and then B&W to show how the hawk virtually disappears in B&W." You are far to subtle for the likes of Photonet. A. T. Burke

I just got an e-mail from [photo @ sudjam . com] saying they had billed me for a premium subscription at Photonet starting October 1. ??? sudjam