bernard_lazareff

Normally, I dislike such "pseudo-HDR" images with enhancement of local contrast. But... that one is so much over-the-top as to make iv a viable proposition in the "abstract" genre.

No, It's still the same physical aperture, maximum. But, as seen from a point in the focal plane, the aperture "circle" (technically, the exit pupil) is farther (because the lens moved forward), and therefore looks smaller and delivers less light in the focal plane. This feature of the 35/2.8 spares the user the calculation of exposure compensation.

This is going to be much more expensive than buying another 180mm lens. Bought one 1 year ago at photo fair for (IIRC) 80€. How many hours do you think (probably underestimate) it takes to fabricate a lens within specs (assuming you have the specs)? How much do you pay for qualified manpower, e.g. a mechanic (likely an underestimate compared with a qualified optician) repairing your car? Make the product of these two numbers... Plus, the optical elements of the viewing and taking lenses are supposed to be identical (they better be, if you hope the focus to be correct). So why not exchange the elements (both front and rear) between taking and viewing lenses? Depends on the kind of damage (you did not specify that) but possibly the damaged lens is good enough for focusing and framing.

+1

1/3 of an f-stop. (with due respect) The rest of Alan Marcus's post is 100% valid, including that even 1 stop overexp would be nothing to worry about.

Don't feed the troll.

+1 +1 to getting thin plate glass from a picture framers, or just any decent glaziers. Also consider this is your opportunity to transform your V700 into a V750. At least hardware-wise. Just ask your supplier for "museum glass"; Expensive stuff, almost reflection-free. Gone the flare, the actual Dmax might be closer to the advertised specs. As concerns the thickness. Say you replace 2.5mm glass by 2mm glass. The first-order effect is that the sensor optics are now (0.5)x(0.5)=0.25mm closer to the film. (one of the (0.5) is the difference in thickness; the other the glass index minus one). This should be within the range of the holder adjust. If you can find 2.5mm, even better.

Discard when the clearing time is twice what you measured with fresh fixer. Don't wait until fixer becomes dark (never saw that for fixer) or has solids floating.

This. The woman in background should also be "burned ou, as suggested above by rodeo_joe. But I don't feel like firing up PS.

@allancobb: what is the plane(s) on the first image of your post #10? I see two front-facing propellers (unlike the B-36 on the second photo) and two pod-mounted jet engines. First reaction is they belong to distinct planes, but the shadow on the ground is of a single wing. What is that frankenplane? A test bed for early jet engines? Splendid tonality in the metal and the clouds.

Remember (see my first post) this is not for viewing stereo pictures. Both eyes are looking at the same point in the space just in front of the ground glass, as i could check with my finger. "pseudo-stereo" effect Maybe; maybe also promotional language relieving eye strain I'm more inclined to believe that stereo pictures in one frame, (...) need a way to view them. unfortunately not. By the way, when I wrote "I came across" in the original post, this item is on sale at our local charity, where I manage the photo section. And, in the same display, there is a real stereo viewing device.

Cool factor: Penti. Half-frame. Exists in many funky (East German) colors. Requires Rapid cassettes. http://cameracollector.proboards.com/thread/7002 Class (however you define that): Voigtlander Vito IIa.

Slides: possibly, probably. Microscope slides: not enough magnification. That is probably the idea of that device.

I came across the object shown in the picture. Binocular vision, but of a single image. Each eye is redirected to the central are via prisms (definitely) and a semi-transparent mirror (presumably). The plane of focus is somewhere in the gap between the bakelite body and the piece(s) of ground glass. Sure, even without stereo vision, binocular viewing is more comfortable than squinting, but, is it worth the extra complexity? Has anyone seen such a device before?