astral

Is this is the official position?

I absolutely loathe it - so much so that I am unlikely to visit again. Firstly - the landing page is so "in your face" that it is clearly intended to appeal to Mums and Toddlers, not people who are seriously looking for a solid, no frills photo site, where content is paramount. Secondly, Mums and Toddlers websites which are designed by people who don't actually use them (this is a leading example) require the user to learn new symbols and pictograms for features which are easily explained in one word (which can be translated into different languages, unlike symbols). Also, they take up too much space. (The use of pictograms here while eiting a post is fine BTW). Thirdly, endless scrolling. Rather than the page content being compact and maximum use made of a page, we now have lots of borders . . . I have to use the mouse more which hurts my wrist more. Fourthly, I hate it. Really really hate it. Fifthly, the simple(!) pulldown navigation has been replaced with something I do not understand and which I an not prepared to take the time to learn. I am not going ta adapt to the stupid, over-designed layout which has been made so complicated and horrible that I don't want ever to come back . . . Sixthly, Flickr lost a lot of users by alienating the serious contributors in a vain attempt to make the horros more attractive to people whose opinions really mattered - the contributors. Pnet has just taken a big step in the same direction. Seventhly, I absolutely totally and completely loathe it. Eighthly - in an earlier post: "now it looks like every other forum on the web. And this is bad? I think not." I humbly submit that it does look like every other forum on the internet - dumbed down is not a great thing . . . . and there are much easier ones to navigate. Ninthly - edit post function can't be found . . . life's too short to chase around in ever decreasing circles. Enough - Gone . .

I absolutely loathe it - so much so that I am unlikely to visit again. Firstly - the landing page is so "in your face" that it is clearly intended to appeal to Mums and Toddlers, not people who are seriously looking for a solid, no frills photo site, where content is paramount. Secondly, Mums and Toddlers websites which are designed by people who don't actually use them (this is a leading example) require the user to learn new symbols and pictograms for features which are easily explained in one word (which can be translated into different languages, unlike symbols). Also, they take up too much space. (The use of pictograms here while eiting a post is fine BTW). Thirdly, endless scrolling. Rather than the page content being compact and maximum use made of a page, we now have lots of borders . . . I have to use the mouse more which hurts my wrist more. Fourthly, I hate it. Really really hate it. Fifthly, the simple(!) pulldown navigation has been replaced with something I do not understand and which I an not prepared to take the time to learn. I am not going ta adapt to the stupid, over-designed layout which has been made so complicated and horrible that I don't want ever to come back . . . Sixthly, Flickr lost a lot of users by alienating the serious contributors in a vain attempt to make the horros more attractive to people whose opinions really mattered - the contributors. Pnet has just taken a big step in the same direction. Seventhly, I absolutely totally and completely loathe it. Eighthly - in an earlier post: "now it looks like every other forum on the web. And this is bad? I think not." I humbly submit that it does look like every other forum on the internet - dumbed down is not a great thing . . . . and there are much easier ones to navigate. Enough - Gone . . .

<em>“</em><em>If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough.”</em> Robert Cappa. Works for me with, say, an Elmar on a Leica 111 or a 20mm on a MFT camera, especially when I want to explore a subject more. A bit more 'legwork' can often give more interesting results than standing still and using a zoom lens: it helps <em>develop new perspectives</em> - in all senses of the term. That said, all lenses can help to cultivate new techniques - zooms or primes: imagination and visualization are the key.<br />

<p>Hi, It would help greatly to know where you are and whether you wish to send it overseas.</p>

<p>I am wondering why the estate did not just donate the camera to the Red Cross for them to auction. It just seems to me that they are 'milking' the situation and sweetening it with a 50% donation. It feels decidedly ungenerous on the part of the estate - <em>even disingenuous</em> - since the camera has litle real worth and the "donation" will be actually made by the <em>buyer,</em> although the estate (and Mary Ellen Mark's reputation) will probably get the headline credit for it . . . </p>

<p>There has been some debate (in whaling history circles) about the extent to which Germany had access to spermaceti in the 1930s and what impact this had on German engineering and manufacture, etc.<br /><br />Germany did not have a significant whaling industry prior to 1939, and could not operate one from late '39 onwards. Like many other specialist materials, spermaceti either had to be imported, or alternatives and substitutes had to be developed. (Historically, the largest producer of spermaceti oil was the USA). During the First World War Germany faced a virtually total naval blockade which contributed significantly to its lack of animal or vegetable oil for margarine, soap, and glycerides (used in chemical manufacture and explosives), as well as some lubricants; petroleum imports were also severely affected. This led Germany to expand oil-seed (rape oil) production and to improve the extraction of a wide range of mineral oils from coal or to synthesise them. Whether Germany obtained - or really needed - spermaceti oil in any quantity in the 1914 to 1945 period appears not to be very well known - maybe there were several ingenious 'work-arounds'. Either way, the availability of spermaceti, except for the most specialised uses, may have been somewhat problematic for Germany until the 1950s. <br /><br />After 1945 until the late 1960s the international whaling industry went into overdrive, but (as in thje 1930s) the focus was primarily on baleen whales which could be found in large numbers, rather than the more solitary sperm whales. (The bulk of baleen whale oil was destined for the food, soap and chemical industries as in the 1930s). Spermaceti oil was by then very rapidly being replaced with mineral oils and synthetics, but continued to be used in some very narrow applications such as automatic transmissions in some motor cars, as a special lubricant used in engineering and manufacturing, and reputedly in some spacecraft. Supply and demand tended to make the use of spermaceti for non-specialist applications unduly expensive . . . and sperm whale populations reached near-extinction levels in the '60s.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Thanks Robin - I am re-learning Italian; using double t becomes a habitt! </p>

<p>Kamera Service in Netherlands (<a href="http://www.kamera-service.info/index.php/en/">http://www.kamera-service.info/index.php/en/</a>). There should be no problem with tax for items sent to the UK which is still part of the EU despite some <em>doom-mongers!</em> Similarly, postage to the UK will be similar to postage to any other part of the mainland EU that is covered by the CEPT agreement.</p> <p>Spermacetti oil was obtained from the sperm whale (physeter macrocephalus) - it is found in the whale's head. It retains its viscosity at low temperatures, and was not used on lenses or cameras except those which were prepared and lubricated for very low temperatures, which itself was quite rare. Conversely, spermacetti oil is much too thin to use as a camera lens lubricant at normal temperatures. Mineral-based grease was the normal lubricant, and was a mix of substances of different viscosity and volatility, some of which progressively evaoprate and may then re-condense in unwanted places.</p>

<p>FE2 and FM2n (as well as other Nikons) have interchangeable screens, some of which <em>may</em> require adjustment to the meter setting or EV compensation (etc). Check this website: <a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fefmshared/html/screens.htm">http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fefmshared/html/screens.htm</a></p>

<p>In my recent experience, car salesmen are usually keener to sell their own 'solutions' to presumed needs than to spend any time assessing a customer's actual requirements. That same attitude is still occasionally seen in some camera stores. </p> <p>Also, I do not consider it to be 'condescending' to request more information from an enquirer in order to help them define or refine their requirements, etc. Getting the facts right at the outset is much better than trying to unscramble matters later. Similarly, I feel that it is much more 'condescending' to offer an enquirer diverse hypothetical solutions and recommendations that are based on an imperfect understanding of that enquirer's needs or misconceptions. Put another way: a relevant question can be worth much more than any number of irrelevant suggestions . . . both need to be balanced.</p>

<p>Dave, have you contacted Peter at CRS in Luton.? I know his turnaround times are long, but the workmanship and range of services is fist class. Same with Malcolm Taylor. These two are able to do everything you could ever want and more. There is also a guy in Netherland with a top-notch reputation, I cannot recall the name.</p> <p>The issue with re-importing items that have been repaired outside the EU is tricky. In principle, if the item being returned has a Customs Declaration clearly stuck on the outside of a packet, the Border Agency (who are now responsible) should pass it. However, they use agents - usually the freight handlers, often Royal Mail - who sometimes disregard the declaration and you can then end up paying VAT and a handling charge, and with delays of up to a week as a parcel sits at a UK airport. In my experience, it is possible to obtain a refund of the VAT from UKBA/HMRC, but handling fees are non-refundable. Frankly, unless you need to send anything outside the EU, you could have aggrivations.</p> <p>If you can get the right phone number for UKBA (HMRC), the humans there are very helpful. If you do go ahead with the US service, get a guarantee that the camera (etc) is fully insured and that you have a tracking number. I have had stuff sent to me from the USA with only a US Postal Service receipt and no tracking number - it got lost in San Diego and USPS just did not have any clue about it. Insurers washed their hands of the issue too. Don't skimp on the paperwork. Good luck.</p>

<p>Check HMRC/UK Border Agency website for up to date information. There is a form for re-importation that should be used in such cases. However, it is possible that the freight handler for the return package (which may or not be Royal Mail) will try to make a handling charge - usually £18 - and even collect VAT on the value of the repair. But why do you need/want to send a Leica to the USA? There are two or three world-class repairers in the UK and their charges and turnaround will probably be very competitive.</p>

<p>The extent to which thoriated glass goes yellow or brown does seems to vary a little: I have a couple of identical lenses that exhibit individual colour differences. As I understand the situation, the browning and yellowing is the cumulative effect of irradiation of all glass constituents and therefore even the slightest batch-to-batch variation in the quantities of some of those constituents may be significant. That sort of special glass - sometimes termed 'crucible glass' - was typically made a few kilograms or so at a time: its wasn't "made by the mile and cut off by the yard as needed" (as Melville said of Nantucket whalers!).</p> <p>My experience is that shining ultra-violet light into a lens to reduce yellowing has always been an utter waste of time - it has never worked quickly or satisfactorily. Good quality blue colour correction filters (such as Wratten/Hoya 82A, or B+W KR1.5, etc) in various strengths are easily found very cheaply at camera fairs and on eBay, etc. <em>These work absolutely perfectly with colour negative and transparency film</em>, and there is simply no better or easier solution than screwing one on the lens.</p>