mac_hordam

<p>Aaah, Dustin Viewfinder, he was never very much in front of the lens but behind the camera he made some of the best films ever.</p>

<p><em>"Guess you missed that."</em><br> <em> </em><br> I guess you missed that my original reply was aimed at the OP yet you took it upon yourself to criticise it with your own preconceptions rather than allow the OP to reply. She may have actually found the points I drew attention to of help or she may not, she alone had the right to tell me to butt out if she thought that appropriate. However butt out I shall as I have no interest in discussing it further with anyone other than the OP, who, whatever camera she takes I hope has a safe and enjoyable trip.</p>

<p><em>"But still less mad than posting an utterly unhelpful rant."</em><br> <em> </em><br> Yours is the rant, you don't agree with me but just dismiss without explanation. I didn't agree with the OP's basic premise and took the time to explain the errors of her way with reasoned examples of why it doesn't, these days, make sense.</p> <p><em>"I suggest that the moderator delete that comment. It is not helpful and all its general points, though fair ones, could have been made in two, short paragraphs."</em><br> <em> </em><br> I could have made it in one sentence..... "Don't do it". That may well have been "not helpful", so it seems that although I make a number of general points deemed "fair ones" but take several paragraphs to do so because I wanted to be thorough in my reply the upshot is that those general points though fair ones should be deleted.</p> <p>What, without even a trial? Sounds like censorship to me.</p> <p>Perhaps someone would like to explain why taking a MF SLR on such a trip would be such a good idea in today's world in the same considered way I explained my response, I won't complain if it's not just two short paragraphs because it's going to need to be longer to make any sense.</p> <p>Was it perhaps the mention of the Panasonic camera that stirred up such antipathy. The genre of cameras to which that model belongs is one that has been devised to exactly suit the circumstances of the OP's needs for such a trip, the two (camera and purpose) are far better suited than any of the other suggestions so far. Most people so far have been suggesting cameras that the OP has already excluded, how are those comments any more helpful than my suggestion?</p>

<p>Quite honestly I'm surprised that anyone has even bothered to suggest camera models of supposed suitability for this venture. The idea is mad beyond belief.</p> <p>2 years of backpacking taking primarily portrait shots. Are these formal portraits? I suspect not unless you intend to hire studios along the way to do them. In which case they're candid portraits and yet you've ruled out rangefinder cameras that would at least be more suited to that type of shooting.</p> <p>You want a modular system that can <em>"pack in a compact way" </em>and already accept that <em>"*lightweight* (as much as can be for an MF SLR) " </em>is not really light weight. Being able to take the camera apart to pack it doesn't reduce its weight ...... it just makes it even more inconvenient when it comes to getting a grab shot. Also remember a MF SLR really benefits from sitting on top of a substantial tripod.</p> <p>This 2 years of back packing, will it encompass remote areas, regions of extreme temperature and wide varieties of weather? If so have you considered how to source and care for film in a world where the majority of people have seen the sense in abandoning film, have you considered how to get your films processed on your travels or are you compounding the madness by thinking of posting them home for processing thereby guaranteeing you don't find out about the light leak/sticky aperture blades/defective shutter etc., that has developed part way through.</p> <p>2 years of backpacking suggests you may be youthful and possibly of strong disposition and carrying the weight of such a kit plus all the other bits and pieces you'll want on such a trip may well be possible for you. But take a step back from it all for a while and consider how much more pleasant it would all be with a lighter load, a smaller pack and, if candids are indeed part of your proposed shooting, a more inconspicuous camera.</p> <p>Back in the '70s I lugged around a Nikon F2 kit in a camera case that I carried in one hand while carrying my backpack with a tripod and full camping gear (not so lightweight in those days), it didn't do me any obvious harm at the time, but I wouldn't last even a few days now trying to carry it. But if I could go back to those times with something like the camera I'm going to suggest for you I'd travel more comfortably and have a better and more complete record of my travels than currently exists. Not only because I could take more shots but also because I'd have instant access to them if I wanted to relive the journey (and they wouldn't be affected by mildew as many of my record sadly are). If you are youthful consider also that this may be the trip of a lifetime that you will want to relive when you get old, film is already becoming anachronistic in many ways just a decade or two into the digital era. If this is your trip of the '70s then forty years from now you may be regretting having shot film for it just as I regret there was no alternative but to do so when I did it.</p> <p>My suggestion a Panasonic ZS50 ($400) and have the ability to also take portraits of our fascinating planet as you travel, it's not all about the people ...see beyond our species. Hey even shoot a movie or two.</p> <p>Actually make that two Panasonic ZS50s ($800 and still in budget) and have redundancy built in for if and when crap happens, 'cause it's also that sort of world.</p>

<p>Now, after I'd posted my adjusted version above of the two original postings I went away and worked on just the OP's original out of camera jpeg to see what sort of result I might come up with. I think the version probably answers the "too flat" comments.</p> <p>As for the rocks in the foreground, well when I looked at the original I thought this is an okay shot of a pleasant bay that would serve well as a reminder of a day out but it needs something to lift it a bit from the ordinary into the satisfying. Bear in mind we're working with someone else's shot here so we can't retake it or shift our viewpoint, what we've got is what we've got.</p> <p>To my mind the main component of the image that can be used to create a bit more interest (without going garish in some part of the shot) is the foreground rocks. Crop them out and you really are left with a frugal image of a not exceptional headland an ordinary sky and a plain sea. So, as our ancestors found out, pounding the rocks is the thing to do.</p> <p>Before I get literally tied up in the second thousand words here's the picture, see what you think.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18013231-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p> <p>Edit ......... seems to be a profile problem somewhere, this isn't how it's supposed to look but who knows it may be just what folks might like and it might increase the real estate value in that area.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18013087-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p> <p>I know this isn't the weekly processing challenge but as a picture is better than a thousand words here's my "picture response".</p> <p>Just a quick blending and selective adjustment of the two posted images which looks better (more natural) to me on my monitor - YMMV.</p>

<p><em>"This works but only in increments of 10. Any way for single-digit changes?"</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>It should only do increments of 10 if you press Shift+Up/Down Arrow. Up/Down Arrows on their own should move it in increments of 1.<br> <br> The other advantage of using the arrows instead of the slider is that until you commit the changes that you make you only create one history state whilst making up and down arrow adjustments. So if you are changing Contrast say and use the slider to make a change of +25 then let go of the slider and then back off a bit down to +20 and again let go and then finally end at +15 you've got three history states.<br> Using the number box and Up/Down arrows you can make an adjustment then stop using the arrows, assess the result and as long as you are still in that number box use the Up/Down arrows again to your hearts content to make adjustments and only when you click off the box do you get one history state added.<br> <br> If you're like me and like to look at the differences a few changes can make on the sliders this ends up with a far more tidy history state for the file.</p>

<p>Can't you just go to the downloads page and download the appropriate update and by pass the CC service?</p> <p>http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates.html</p>

<p>Back to the "Nikon has...Nikon have" question. I think a lot depends on the context, I would be quite at home with either "Nikon has released details of it's latest DSLR", or "Nikon have released details of their latest DSLR".<br> But I would feel uneasy about "Here is a list of the lens range from Nikon, who has a good reputation for quality optics" preferring instead the sound of "who have".</p> <p>Is it, in the first instance, the mention of a single camera being released by an organisation of many that pre-conditions the mind to accept singular or plural. Whereas in the second instance multiple lenses are referred to again with an organisation of many and that sets the stage for wanting to hear the plural of the verb. (However it is only a single list) Perhaps if they had more than one "good reputation" it would be easier to decide.</p> <p>Far more annoying than any of this is the misuse of loose and lose, they appear to be used interchangeably by some but only serve to confuse. Or is that confoose? (Indeed should that be "are the misuse of"?). And where the hell should that last bracket be? Actually I think it's correct, there just seems to be a lot of punctuation going on there in a small space.</p> <p>Now there's another interesting thing, I say above that I prefer the sound of "who have". Well I'm of an age where, like many here (except the "loose and lose" misusers), I can read without reading out loud and yet it is the sound of the verb that I react to not the look of it, but the look is all that I have witnessed. So perhaps this all leads us to the conclusion that if it sounds right (or at least alright) then it is right. But in the case of loose and lose if you haven't made them look right by using the correct one they aren't going to sound right, at least not without perpetuating the error. There are rules to abide by and rules to break, just not the same rules.</p> <p>We all has somethink to loose by lose use of langwidge.</p>

<p>I've been scratching my head trying to think of the guy who seemed to be the preferred ebay seller of light seals. Finally the scratching has worked, it was Jon Goodman who traded as Interslice on ebay.<br> He doesn't seem to have anything there now but this thread<br> http://cameracollector.proboards.com/thread/7129/light-seals<br> might give some leads as it mentions him with a link or two. I used his seals to repair a Mamiya RZ and have no complaints. Someone mentions funky foam in that forum thread, (on page 2), which you can get in the UK from Amazon<br> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Funky-Sheets-Children-Craft/dp/B00L3EXWMU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1424801610&sr=8-2&keywords=funky+foam+a4</p> <p>Good luck</p>

<p><em>"Can this photo qualify as whimsical?"</em><em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>If whimsy is to play any part at all in this then I would more likely consider it to be a document recording a part of a building whose construction perhaps involved whimsical decision on the part of the bricklayer/architect. Of course there may not, at the time of building, have been any whimsical reasoning behind the type and placement of the window slits.</p> <p>In which case it, perhaps, becomes just a photo of a wall.</p> <p>Let me turn your question around a little and ask "Can <strong><em>any</em></strong> photo qualify as whimsical?" A photograph is a record and can indeed be a record of something whimsical but that doesn't make the photo itself whimsical. In your example I could agree that the photo is a whimsical one<strong><em> in your collection of photos</em></strong> if at the time you took it you were intending to take photos of other things and took this one as a capricious, or indeed, whimsical deviation from your other work.</p> <p>Of course I was not really going to add anything to this thread but came here on a, you guessed it, w...</p>

<p>Things to do.<br> For anyone who has downloaded and installed the program(s) and thinks they may continue to use them I would strongly suggest you download and save the User Guides.</p> <p>Optics Pro 8<br> http://support.dxo.com/entries/22091601-DxO-Optics-Pro-8-User-Guides</p> <p>ViewPoint1<br> http://support.dxo.com/forums/21269133-DxO-ViewPoint-Documentation</p> <p>FilmPack3<br> http://support.dxo.com/entries/21603998-DxO-FilmPack-3-and-4-User-Manuals</p> <p>You'll need to select the appropriate version for these older programs but doing it now may be of benefit if at a later date they become unavailable. Save them with your downloaded program in folders with your activation code in the folder name, then if you need to reinstall them in the future you have everything ready to go. Needless to say make back-ups of these and all data.</p> <p>For those having trouble with the activation code email I can only suggest using a different browser and email and try again. I used Chrome browser and a gmail email and it all worked fine (except Gmail put the email in the Spam folder). It may seem a bit of a palaver if you don't already use them but once done it won't need doing again, all depends how keen one is to get the programs...for free.</p> <p>And now a personal observation on just a brief usage of Optics Pro 8 and ViewPoint (not that interested in FilmPack). At this stage of using them I can't say I'm seeing anything to lure me away from my LR4/CS2 workflow so far. I had high hopes for ViewPoint but I can get better/easier results so far with LR4 and CS2, largely due, no doubt, to greater familiarity with them. Whether I could be bothered to persist with DxO to get the same fluidity when I'm already pretty happy with what my current workflow can do remains to be seen.</p> <p>But I'm not knocking the release of these programs for free by DxO, I wish Adobe would do the same for their old versions.</p>

<p>A few posts down we were alerted to DXO Optics Pro 8 as a free download. It's possible to download the full suite of 3 DXO software programs (older versions) by going to the link mentioned there and also to the following two links.</p> <p>DXO FilmPack3<br> http://www.dxo.com/intl/digitalphoto</p> <p>DXO ViewPoint1<br> http://www.dxo.com/intl/practicalphotography</p> <p>The format of the offer is the same as per Optics Pro 8 except the FilmPack site is in German, I'm assuming there will be a language selection at installation as there was with Optics Pro. Also the ViewPoint offer sends an email to you with the code rather than opening a page showing the code and download button. Check your Spam folder for this, mine arrived in there.</p> <p>Update : FilmPack does have a language selection so no problem there.</p>

<p>Depending on your camera that dial may not even be for exposure adjustment but instead just a film speed reminder. In other words <strong><em>in that situation</em></strong> it won't make any difference to your pictures where you set it at. If the camera has built in metering then it will matter so as above previous 2 posts.<br> Or are you using a separate hand held meter and that's where the ISO knob is, if so as above again.</p> <p>But as these are likely old cameras and/or old meters you may need to do tests to check the accuracy of their ISO settings anyway, so this first roll may be more of a starting point. (But don't change the ISO mid roll thinking you can check other settings, it doesn't work that way with film). You can check the camera/meter against a known reliable reference, which may be a digital camera. You don't have to take exposures just do meter readings and compare.(Same lighting conditions, same composition, same focal length if checking camera, no bright lights in the field of view)</p>

<p>And methinks I find myself banging my head against my desk too often, think whimsy.</p>