richard_trochlil

Yo: Ed

 

I rate the Bergger at 100 and VP at 125.

 

Precisely, how do you do that? What do you do differently(I assume lens-wise) at 100 vs 125?

Yo: F.

I bet you were not a member of the first wave planned to go ashore on mainland Japan, who were told "we expect 100% casualties'

 

I know people who were. You don't want to badmouth the A-bomb around them.

 

Sorry about the photo irrelevancy folks, but pseudo-piety must always be challenged.

"...Kevin; before "forever"; tri-x in sheet film was asa 200...

 

Sometime in the early 1960's I think, the ASA standard for films was re-rated, and most films had the number doubled. Thus, TX went from 200 to 400 etc. But still the same film.

The projector room in the theater in my home town, built about 1930, was totally lined with metal on the inside and much of the outside. And there were fire extinguishers in battalion strength hung around the place.

 

Us kids used to stare at that and wonder.

I am finding the rangerfinder in my M2 a bit difficult to focus under

poor light conditions. Contrast seems to be quite low. Local

repairman, has not seen the camera, but says the only fix is a new

rangefinder system. Send in to Leica for that, maybe $600.

 

Hmmm. I thought maybe all that was needed was cleaning the surface

of the prisms/ mirrors.

 

That idea wrong?

Newhall's Masters of Photograph says "18x24 centimeters"

Well, I develop, stop (3 drops of acetic acid in 500 ml of MY water), Kodak Fixer for 7-10 minutes, HCA for three minutes, then five minutes of washing in the tank, continous agitation, change water once at two minutes, take film off the reel, dip (seesaw) it in photo-flo, one drop in 500 ml of filtered de-humdifier water. That water had one tsp of bleach in one gal to kill any bad things like slime molds.

 

Forty year old negs, stored in fairly high humidiy part of the year, are still there and printable. No visible sign of deterioration.

 

I doubt anybody will want them after I use them, but the above has been good enough for me.

Well, one way, cut off a small snippet of film, HOLD IT IN A TWEEZERS, light it and if it goes off with a flash of flame, a cloud of smoke and hearty HI HO SILVER-AWAY!, you got nitrate.

 

However, I would really wonder if you have any. 80+ year old nitrate don't usually look too good. In fact, nitrate films from the late 1930's have deteriorated past retrieval in some cases.

Re; his famous shot in the Hebrides. Some day somebody is going to explain to me how he trained those horses to appear in the photo in althernate shades of dark and light.

 

Good trick. Actually, I suppose the answer is that "I was there with a camera."

 

Anyway, my favorite photo of his.

Uhhh....if you are in some rural or smalltown cemetary, better have a name known locally. I tried this about 30 years ago. Never occurred to me that flashing lights in a cemetary in the middle of the night might make some people uneasy. Luckily, the first 'concerned' citizen to show up was a cousin whom I well knew. I was working on family tree stuff and the great grandparents of both of us were buried there.

I will try to fool with the gizmo and see if I can get a better view. I would not have harassed 'eye' if I had not felt he has some real good stuff there, a lot better than most.

 

BTW, another one is the tech Q&A on the Graphic WEB page. Half of the entries are black on black. Kool! And totally illegible.

 

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. Keyboard whining off.

Well, I have no trouble UNDERSTANDING what I read, what I have trouble with is READING it. I put this on this forum because given the large number of WEB pages out there practically undecipherable to me, I thought maybe it was just me. I could not imagine that all these people were deliberately making things hard to read just to be arty or something, or just plain didn't know any better.

 

BTW, I use Outlook Express.

 

Well, it was an interesting discussion. If it leads to just one more legible WEB page, it was probably worth it.

Well, I guess I am unreadable too. Note the phrase "pretty but unreadable" I was referring to the fact that I can't SEE the print,or the photos for that matter. In the case of 'eye', he has a background that looks pretty but breaks up the print so it almost is some sort of abstract art.

 

Another floating around has light gray print on dark gray background etc etc etc.

 

And I am the only one having trouble with this?

 

Something wrong with my screen maybe? Old age creeping up?

Have I missed a turn in the road somewhere? I get some Web page such

as the 'Unblinkingeye' and it's virtually unreadable. Surely the

author has read it and found it meets his requirements, so its pretty

but unreadable format must be deliberate. And that is only an

example. There seem to be lots of them out there. I am only picking

on 'eye' because he has some good stuff that is just plain too

difficult to read, you have to practically translate it.

 

One would think that people who work with light would know how to

make things easily readable.

 

Or do I have the only computer in the country that does that?

Our boy Picker carried a lopping shears to kind of clear the view. He got heartley cursed for it.

 

I know of one 'scenic overlook' that regularly gets trimmed by some local photographers to keep the overlook looking. Otherwise nature eliminates it.

 

Personally, I don't own a chainsaw and I persist in forgetting the lopping shears. I have enough trouble remembering the camera, actually left home without it once.

 

Of course, I have reached a certain age....what did you say my name was?

One thing about aperture settings being consistent, if you are really paranoid, you always set your aperatures from the same direction, either full open or full closed. That way if there is any slop in the mechanism, you should always end up at the same spot. I doubt if it will make as much difference as the effect of ambient temp on shutter speeds, but if you are really paranoid about such things, well....

"....Hardener used in print development makes spotting, toning and other manipulations difficult and is not advised..."

 

I assume this means during the print development PROCESS, rather than in the print developer.

FWIW to continue this outlaw post. Just returned from a trip to St Petersburg, as in Russia. The ONLY place that allowed hand checking was the Russian airport. All others, Finland, Sweden, Norway and good old JFK ran my film through the gizmo. Asa 400 B&W, Asa 200 color, (all roll film) no damage that I can see after about 6 'exposures' to X-ray. Does make a person nervous though.

 

I had the film completely out of its wrappings and the Russian type carefully examined each one, shaking each to see if there was something loose inside. I don't know what he would have done with sheet film.

I have been reading the comments on Deardorff restoration. I must have been out to lunch somewhere back then, but what caused Deardorff to go into the tank? I sure never heard.

Thanks for all the good info, folks. Now all I got to do is make a

decision.

Thanks. They look good.

I live in central Appalachia. I am starting to bump up against $16.00/each (delivered) for 16x20 Nielsen type frames. This is a significant increase over what I used to pay. Perchance, is there a less expensive source out there?

Two comments;

It was the Korean war where American photographers found out the

Japanese were making very good cameras and excellent lenses.

 

<p>

 

Friendly fire: There was a study in Viet Nam where it was found that

about 10% of the casualties were due to friendly fire. I am told the

military was astounded.

I have always been puzzled by the lead bag scheme. It seems to me

that the moment they spotted that, they would stop everthing and tear

it apart to see what was inside. Am I missing something here?

Well folks, IMHO, the small formats are supported by amatuers, and

they have bought into color.

 

<p>

 

The large formats are supported by industry, and when they stop using

something, that's it. There just ain't enough of us LF types to

support Kodak production.

 

<p>

 

The idea of Kodak licensing out certain film types to a niche

producer sounds OK, but I seem to remember several varieties of

BRILLIANT paper that resulted from that, and I can't say all were an

improvement.