Ed_Ingold

<p>I wouldn't recomment contact cleaning spray. It's liquid silicone, and tends to migrate to places that don't need lubrication, like shutters and lens surfaces. A toothpick with a pinhead drop of silicone grease might work, but a professional CLA would be better.</p>

<p>"DropBox" is a good service for sharing photos and other large (e.g., home video) files. You can send files selectively, or establish a "dropbox" directory on your computer, from which files will be automatically uploaded to the cloud. You can also establish lists of subscribers to which files or thumbnails will be automatically downloaded from specified DropBox folders. There is also an app which interfaces with Adobe Lightroom.</p> <p>I use a service called Hightail (formerly YouSendIt) for communication with clients. It is not as user friendly as DropBox, but has more security and professional features.</p> <p>Typically, these services offer up to 2 GB of storage for free, but charge for more memory and features. You can expect to pay about $100 a year for professional level service for a single user. Compared to the cost of gas and shipping, not to mention customer satisfaction, that is a bargain.</p> <p>Typically</p>

<p>I have had three dye sub printers, and all produced prints comparable to lab prints on photo paper - bright colors and high gloss. Sadly, Kodak dropped all support, including supplies, for a 1400 I purchased in 2005.</p> <p>It's best if you use a print profile that comes with the printer and driver, or one you purchase or create using a spectrophotometer. In lieu of that, your printer should have a calibration procedure of some sort which will allow you to use the printer to control color. Photoshop will properly interpret any color space and send a machine independent version to the printer, with or without a print profile.</p> <p>Matte or glossy overcoating should be determined by the materials. Using the print head to emboss a matte surface usually doesn't look very good. The default, depending on your media, should be glossy. The biggest issue I've had with a dye sub is dust on the paper, media or rollers.</p> <p>Make sure the ink roll isn't installed upside down. That shouldn't be possible, but you never know. That might explain why the print head needed cleaning so soon. It normally contacts the plain back of the media, not the paper or dye side of the sheet.</p>

<p>If you frame for a head and shoulders shot in a given format, you will get the same DOF for any lens at the same f/stop, regardless of focal length. (The larger the format, the greater the magnification and less the DOF.) A 150 focuses close enough for H&S framing, but you'd need an extension tube for a head or face shot. You could use a 120 Makro without an extension tube, but that's working a bit close for good perspective. Anything is better than a diopter (closeup) lens, which shortens the effective focal length and working distance.</p>

<p>You can expect a loss of resolution in an high contrast situation when the background is over exposed. That is the digital version of halation in film, and is due to the sensor, not the lens. Loss of contrast in the foreground is probably due to flare, but that doesn't necessarily involve a loss of resolution.</p> <p>The attached photos are 100% crops at 2 stop intervals, taken with a Summaron 35/2.8.</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17850032<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/17850031<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/17850030</p>

<p>I have no problem with Kirk Photo equipment. However, there's not much difference in price compared to Really Right Stuff. I think the RRS focusing rail is slimmer than the Kirk, because it is machined from a billet rather than assembled from tubing. The Kirk does have a rotating head, which is very convenient. The RRS panning clamp is expensive, but very tight and precise. I've had one in daily use for nine years.</p> <p>By "standardizing" on RRS, I can use their plates and clamps interchangeably, including the lever clamps. Levers are not only faster to use, but not as much in the way. They are not adjustable, however, and may not work will all plates. Novoflex makes very nice, CNC machined gear too, but are very expensive and generally incompatible with Arca gear.</p> <p>Threaded attachments are cheaper than Arca type plates and clamps, but always seem to slip and rotate unless you overtighten them. IMO, they're a complete waste of time.</p>

<p>The Zeiss Biogon, 28 and 35, are extremely tolerant of extraneous light. I have yet to find a sun dog in the image, much less veiling flare. I was pretty happy with my 50 year old Summaron in that regard, but the Zeiss is much sharper, especially at wide apertures and at the corners. The biggest drawback is that the Zeiss is a big lens, and blocks about 20% of the lower right viewfinder. Neither Elmarit ASPH nor the Summaron block the finder (except for the lens shade).</p> <p>Nothing will help if the sky is overexposed behind leaves near the edges.</p> <p>The Photozone evaluation is somewhat biased for the Zeiss, because they test it with a Sony NEX, which does not work well with a lens so close to the image plane. Ken Rockwell compares these lenses in a real-world example. While subjective (images, no numbers), the Biogon 35 performs as well as the Summicron ASPH, and often better. I thought I saw some color fringes in dark objects (leaves) against the sky, but it proved to be CA in my eyeglasses viewing the computer screen. It may be measurable (<0.8 pixels), but it's not visible.</p>

<p>Yoiu won't get the same reading with an incident light meter as you get with a reflected reading from an 18% grey card. As Harry Posner says, the Sekonic is calibrated for a 12%-13% reflectance. What this means is that using the reading, whatever the reflectance, will produce a certain density on film, in the middle part of the density curve. The sensitivity (ISO) of film is established in part based on this correspondence. Don't get in a knot about about definitions. The difference between 12% and 18% is only 1/2 stop.</p> <p>Incident light is independent on the reflectance of the subject, since only the light impinging on the subject is measured. Incident light measurements are very useful for non-average subjects, like closeups and photos with multiple light sources (portraits and product photography). It is also an essential tool for measuring lighting ratios with multiple sources. You must be able to get near the subject, or use the meter in the same light as the subject (e.g., landscapes). Your own shadow may affect the results, and uneven lighting (e.g. through trees or blinds) can be tricky.</p> <p>Spot metering is simply reflected light over a narrow angle of view, typically 1 degree. It is used when you can't get near the subject or find the same type of light. On a more technical level, it can be used to measure the luminance range of a subject so you can better capture the entire dynamic range on film (or digital). The overall tone of the image can be adjusted in processing. You can use the reading directly if the subject has a reflectance between 12% and 18%. For landscapes, this would include green grass, barn red and blue sky opposite the sun. You should learn the reflectance of other objects too, and adjust the exposure accordingly. For example, dark foliage (trees) is about 1 stop darker than neutral, and you should close down a stop from the reading. Caucasian skin is about one stop lighter than neutral, so you should open up a stop to get natural skin tones (a lot of variation there). Proper compensation is much more important for slides (and digital) than for negative film.</p> <p>The most important thing about exposure for slides and digital is to NOT overexpose. Nothing can be whiter than white in these media. The brightest object that can be recorded is about 4 stops brighter than "neutral." If there are exceptionally bright objects in which you need detail, make sure they aren't overexposed and take care of the neutral zones in processing.</p>

<p>The M9 is a fine camera, and does what a camera is supposed to do. The M (or M240) does that an much more. In particular, it has live focus, which opens the door to closeups and long lenses, when a more contemplative solution is appropriate. There is also a (pricey) EVF, similar to the one used by Olympus. The M240 also does video, which is increasingly popular for amateurs and journalists alike. The extra resolution is not hard to take either, if you have the lenses to take advantage of that.</p> <p>The M-9 works for me. What's worth another $2K for you? For $2K you could get a second body, a Sony A7R for example, with 36MP, EVF, live view, video and Wi-Fi remote, and use Leica lenses.</p>

<p>I have a Think Tank "Speed Demon v2", which is a nice size for an M3 and two or three lenses (plus one on the camera). It looks bulky in the catalog, but it's really quite small. It is unobtrusive in the sense it doesn't get in my way, but it does look like a camera bag (ample padding and zippered pockets). It has a belt, which is built in and tucks away when not in use.</p> <p>A less "camera like" bag might be the "Hubba Hubba Hiney", which is lozenge shaped with a top zipper. It is fairly small and flexible, but roomy enough for an M3 and an extra lens or two. It fits on a shoulder strap or belt (which is not included).</p>

<p>Cost effective or just cheap? It's poor economics to trust an expensive camera and lens to a $12 closeup rig. It's frustrating to use a tool that doesn't quite do the job. If you need precision, be prepared to spend the money. If a slider plate will get the job done, you can spend a lot less than for a vernier.</p>

<p>The Koni-Omega used a 2-1/4" x 2-3/4" (6x7) format on 120 film (10 shots), advertised as the "Ideal Format" since it so closely approximated the 4:5 format. Graphlex introduced a clone of the Koni-Omega somewhat later, and perhaps some others too. 5"x7" prints were the oddball "skinny" prints. Most of us inked in 5x7 lines on the Rollei viewfinders so we wouldn't clip elbows. Wedding pros in to 50's and 60's, except for Chicago, used 2-1/4" square or 4x5 cameras. Chicago photographers were quick to adopt 35mm, and used the extra capacity to shoot all possible combinations of guests to maximize print sales.</p>

<p>For those of us from a simpler age, 6x7 is a good fit for 8x10 prints. Not a lot of cropping involved. The "ideal" format of that period was 4x5, not the Greek ideal (1.618). 645 is close to this "ideal" too, but errs in the opposite direction. 4x6 prints are a fairly recent phenomena (for some of us), designed to accommodate the 2:3 ratio of 35mm.</p>

<p>Goggles don't improve the net accuracy of the rangefinder base, just make the frame lines larger. If you want a real improvement, consider a magnifier for the eyepiece, 1.4x for the 135 and a 0.72 finder. There may still be a systematic short or long focus error, for which you will need a workaround. Users of older Summilux lenses (and Zeiss Sonnar substitutes) are acquainted with this phenonema.</p> <p>Returning to the Leica fold after a 25 year hiatus, I now wear glasses full time. I find it very hard to focus the rangefinder, because refraction and reflection in my glasses causes doubling (sometimes, it's not the glasses). A diopter lens eliminates the need for glasses (astigmatism excepted), and makes focusing much more accurate. I can also see the 28mm frame lines without moving around. (My adult son now finds the viewfinder unusable, which means my Leica won't develop legs on a regular basis.)</p> <p>What I though was short focusing with vintage lenses, and poor vertical alignment of the rangefinder, proved to be an artifact of wearing eyeglasses. With glasses it was like holding up two fingers and picking the best of three.</p>

<p>I am partial to Really Right Stuff gear. There are a lot of options and compatible accessories for macro, panorama and general photography. The build quality is non pariel, all CNC machined (no castings), and it's no heavier than necessary for rigidity. Lever actuated clamps are great, but best used if all your dovetail gear is from RRS. Screw clamps are slower and bulkier, but intrinsically self-adjusting. They're also less expensive.</p> <p>http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/sc.26/category.602/it.C/.f</p> <p>A micrometer stage is almost required for magnification 1:1 or greater, and highly useful for focus staging (easy to set equal increments). For ordinary closeups, say from 1:4 to 1:1, I just use a slider. Less than 1:4, the focusing helix is sufficient.</p> <p>Novoflex is another high-quality alternative, perhaps more easily available in Europe (German company). Their dovetails are not 100% compatible with Arca nor RRS, but work well with screw clamps.</p>

<p>I carry a spare Hasselblad folding finder, which also has a 5x magnifier. It's not as convenient as a Hoodman, which attaches to the camera, but it doesn't get knocked off or in the way either and fits in a shirt pocket. I have a large loupe too, with a neckstrap, but I never remember to bring it.</p> <p>KEH has Hasselblad "stovepipe" hoods for under $70, which have a focusing eyepiece. They make an excellent 4x loupe and shade an LCD screen better than anything else I've tried. Unfortunately they are bulky (but light). The folding hoods cost three times as much. but I happen to have several not attached to cameras.</p>

<p>SFHD cards are completely sealed, with no pin sockets. I've had two CF cards go through the laundry with no ill effects, but I was probably lucky. I like the tactile feel of CF cards, and the guides in my cameras make it nearly impossible to bend a pin. There's always a chance that pocket lint or dirt will jam in the socket and bend a pin, however. The exposed pins of an SF card may make it more vulnerable to static discharge. I've been lucky so far.</p>

<p>The CCD or CMOS sensor is probably the least of your worries. Sunlight is as bright as a 100 Joule flash at 10 feet, except it doesn't stop after 1/1000 second. It will eventually destroy practically any man made material (and most natural ones too). Pointing a camera toward the sun with the lens attached will probably burn a hole in the shutter, which won't improve the results either. Sunlight will degrade LCD finders and displays even sooner.</p> <p>I use a Visible Dust brush system with a battery-operated spinner to clean and charge the brushes. You can easily remove dust in under a minute, end to end. The only time I resort to a liquid cleaning is if something stupid occurs leaving a sticky spot, like blowing dust with your breath or a dirty or degraded squeeze bulb. Last week was the first time in three or four years I've resorted to liquid cleaning. (Don't know what happened, but I was prepared and it went well.)</p>

<p>I have a Canon video camera with a "night" or IR mode. However any "interesting" videos are blocked because the diaphram is locked open and the gain maximized. Illumination from ordinary room light is too much for it. Rumors aside, it does not seem to penetrate clothing even in low light. Maybe I need to add a chicken feather filter ;)</p> <p>For a few hundred dollars you can have the IR blocking filter on a CCD camera replaced with one which blocks visible light but passes near IR (out to 1.5 microns or so). The effects are similar to using fast IR film with a blocking filter.</p>

<p>The streams from a shower head are what is called "turbulent flow", and break into droplets within an inch or two of the orifice. To get a solid stream of any length, you must establish "laminar flow". What looks like solid streams to your eye (visual retention) are actually strings of beads.</p> <p>You have probably seen fountain displays where a solid stream of water arcs 15 feet into the air and disappears into the pool with barely a splash. The stream never breaks into droplets, and looks like a transparent tube. The fountain in the lobby of McCormick Place in Chicago is one example. To create laminar flow, the water is directed through a bundle of hundreds of soda straws, then through a gradual restriction to the nozzle.</p> <p>Streams in these fountains are fairly large to remain laminar throughout their trajectory. The smaller the stream, the shorter the time laminar flow is maintained - a function of diameter, velocity and viscosity (q.v., Reynolds Number). It works with air too, and is the basis for laminar flow hoods used for aseptic manufacturing and laboratory safety hoods.</p>

<p>As bulky as a compendium (bellows) shade is, I find it easier to carry and deploy than a handful of fixed shades which are only modestly effective. The compendium shade for my Hasselblad folds flat (4"x4"x1"). The folds in the bellows act like baffles in conjunction with the flat black liner. Removable baffles are used for longer lenses. Nikon shades invert for compact storage, a concept which seems to have escaped the Swedes.</p> <p>I wouldn't consider a bellows shade for run-and-gun photography, but landscapes and closeups are a more ... contemplative endeavor.</p>

<p>If you have $2500 to $5000 to spare, you can get a decent thermal imaging scope from a sporting goods shop and hold your iPhone up to the eyepiece. They're popular for hunting feral hogs, which tend to forage after dark in areas where they've been shot at during daylight. Thermopiles went out with the 60's. Modern FLIR uses solid state detectors.</p>