nickc1

Although Wikipedia does not mention this exact stock all those with a number beginning with '1' are nitrate based and therefore extremely dangerous and inflammable so I suggest taking extreme care until it can be positively identified!!

I have a jobo processor (not in front of me, but a cpa2 as far as I can remember) Last time it was used it took far longer than the hour or so mentioned in the manual to reach temperature and II suspect the element is faulty. I could not locate one so it went into the garage to 'wait' to be repaired. I wantt to have another look and wondered what the opinions are on replacing the existing element with aquarium heaters of a similar wattage - probably 2x200W Any opinions welcomed Thanks

<p>It seems to be dying down a bit now, only 250 or so spam eMails today. However I have sadly had to disable eMail alerts in all forums and I hope that this sorts it out.<br> My problem is that due to firewall/security/safety at work I can only access my personal eMail via a text only eMail client and as this has no junk filtering the 50 or 60 normal messages from all sources I receive during the day are totally eclipsed by the several hundred spam - it is unusable!<br> Using MS Outlook or similar I can easily filter out the rubbish at home so the problem for me is due to the way of working forced upon me by work, not an insolvable one under normal circumstances.<br> </p>

<p>The 850+ messages today came between 02:13 and 15:30 Local time here in the UK (GMT+1)</p>

<p>I am in the same position Larry - 850+ today, 600+ yesterday.</p> <p>Nick</p>

<p>Sorry William/Glen - I don't wish to make any fuss but the 850+ spam messages today have meant that I cannot access any of my eMails via webmail which is what I do during the day but only via an installed eMail client with junk filtering in the evenings.</p> <p>Even then it means that I have to filter out ALL Photo.net messages including the ones that I want to see.</p> <p>Is there no solution?</p> <p>Nick</p>

<p>One area where consumer level scanners can be weak is in the software.</p> <p>Both VuScan and SilverFast are extremely effective scanning softwares, the latter is sometimes supplied in a cut down form with a scanner. If not either will transform your scans (I prefer VuScan but have used both)</p> <p>Nick</p>

<p>Firstly the Paterson orbital tank was originally intended for prints not film.</p> <p>I suspect that these are not flow guides but rather they are intended to push the print under the chemicals where it will stay being comparatively heavy.</p> <p>Using the tank for negatives it may be difficult to keep them from contacting the film - removing some depth will probably not hurt, but may not achieve what you want either. Using the tank for 5x4 films as I do the plastic dividing pegs have a mushroom top which keeps the film below the surface, and any rear coating is not normally affected.</p> <p>Nick</p>

<p>600+ from Aiternative cameras, many time stamped after it is said to be cleared.</p>

<p>Just got a Prakticamat I bought some time ago off the shelf and noticed an odd fault.</p> <p>There is nothing to stop you winding the entire film through by repeatedly operating the wind on lever - it never locks. I had not noticed this before because if you just wind on once, the shutter cocks fine and it fires at all speeds ok - only if you wind on more then once (and who does?) is the fault an issue.</p> <p>Any ideas anyone? - I am not going to rip apart a camera that is basically working to correct an obscure fault if I can help it, but it would be nice to know. If it was a Praktica Nova or a Super TL I would be less worried but taking the top off a 'Mat looks more of an issue with the shutter speed dial positioned around the rewind crank.</p> <p>Thanks for any suggestions,</p> <p>Nick.</p>

<p>Regarding the darkslide - normally the back cannot be removed from the camera without putting a darkslide in and then the darkslide should not come out without attaching the back to a body so no darkslide means a no-no as far as I am concerned! Either someone has been messing or the there is a fault with the back.</p>

<p>Your example picture is a consumer level Nikon DSLR with the maker and model airbrushed out (I was going to say photoshopped out, but calling it that could be an issue!) - the red stripe on Nikon SLRs that has been referred to has been cropped off this image as well.</p> <p>Product placement in fiction is well established - the James Bond books by Ian Fleming are full of such references to cars, toiletries, drinks, cigarettes cars and more, and closer to home - in the book Goldfinger - Bond uses ‘an M3 Leica, an MC exposure meter, a K2 filter’. (Fleming, Ian, Goldfinger. Random House.)</p> <p>Re Hollywood - didn't DeLorean try to sue the filmmakers of Back to the future for using their car?</p> <p>The original DeLorean company went into liquidation in 1982 with cars and parts being sold off to a company with a different name. The current DeLorean company was formed in 1995 so I doubt a film made in 1985 like 'Back to the Future' would have caused any trademark infringement, falling in between these two dates. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Totally agree with Hector regarding only leaving tape on long enough to take a picture.<br> <br /> I only suggested electrical tape as it is smooth and if carefully trimmed to follow the outline of the camera can appear to be invisible unlike gaffer tape which has an obvious texture.</p>

<p>'As I understand, I can't take photos of my own Nikon'</p> <p>This puzzles me as you see lots of books on photography with pictures of cameras on the front. Unless your book could be seen as defamatory (Title: 100 cameras never to buy - for example) it is free advertising for the brand.</p> <p>Some public service broadcasters may not allow 'plugging' a particular brand, but in these cases covering the nameplate is normally sufficient - eg black electrical tape over the prism on a black Nikon. Even so are you planning to advertise your book on TV?</p> <p>If I am wrong please let me know your source of information so I can avoid issues in the future for myself.</p> <p>Nick</p> <p> </p>

<p>30.5mm is a standard size for a filter - could it be that?</p>