James G. Dainis

"Auto" on a lens used to mean auto diaphragm. The aperture could be set to f/22 but the aperture would stay open until the shutter was pressed and then the aperture would automatically close down to the f/22 opening. It may be the adapter is not allowing the aperture pin to release to close down the aperture when the shutter is pressed. If you have a depth of field preview button use that to see if things darken down in the viewfinder when you press it and the lens is set to f/22. If you don't have a depth of field preview button, releasing the lens from the camera and turning it slightly should allow the diaphragm to close and darken things down in the viewfinder.

That is lower Manhatan. The tallest building in Brooklyn back then was the Williamsburg Bank building with no other skyscrapers around it. No streets faced directly into the Brooklyn Bridge but from the angle I would say that photo was taken around the Fulton street/ Williams street area. .

That was an interesting article on how "I Love Lucy" was filmed in the early 1950s. Then the film was edited down to "26 minutes running time". That left plenty of time for three one minute commercials and a station break. Today's shows are more along the way of 19 minutes running time and 11 minutes of commercials. Marc, thank you for the great work you do in posting these articles.

McKeown's Price Guide has the Miniature Speed Graphic listed at $125 - $150. Just saying.

"I like the look of those beasts and guess mastering one would get me eye-level portraits of significantly shorter ladies." Thank you for my first laugh of the day. It is funny because it is true.

Let us look at the math. Most pros like to have prints made at 300PPI (pixels per inch).Commercial on line printers will usually print at an acceptablel 200 PPI. A 3600 x 2400 pixel image (8.6 MP) if printed at those PPIs will result in: 3600 pixels/300 pixels per inch x 2400pixels/300 pixels per inch = 12 inch x 8 inch paper photo. 3600/200 x 2400/200 = 18 x 12 inch paper photo. Doing that with your 500 x 548 pixel image would result in: 500/300 x 548/300 = 1.67 x 1.87 inch paper photo 500/200 x 558/200 = 2.5 x 2.74 inch paper photo Pretty small. You cannot stretch a digital image as if it were painted on a balloon and then inflated. Pixel sizes (data) don't change. To go from a 500 pixel wide image to a 3600 pixel wide image 3,100 blank pixels would have to be inserted and then decided what colors to make them and how to integrate them. Then you have to do this 548 times for each pixel line of the height adding 1,698,000 blank pixels to your original image of 279,000 pixels. That is asking a lot of a program to try to figure out what to do to all of those blank pixels..

That looks like a positive image to me. Is that skin mottling on the actual negative?

Good article on swings and tilts. I always enjoyed playing around with them on my view cameras. (Can you say Scheimpflug principle?) Today it is a lot easier and perhaps better to correct parallel convergence in Photoshop.

"You see but you do not observe." S. Holmes to J. Watson I always try to look deeply into the camera image viewfinder to observe distracting elements -, telephone poles, reflections in windows, etc. and encourage others to do the same.

Kodak cardboard disposable:

Showing a print instead of the negative where the problem lies is like showing a picture of your car to a mechanic and asking, "Why is there smoke coming from under the hood?"

Get out your magnifying glass or loupe and take a look at the smiley here. :) You will see that he is made up of red. blue and green elements. Not a single yellow element there. I wouldn't want to try to explain that to anyone.

I understand that many labs "push" by developing the film normally and then just giving extra print exposure.

I don't see the pictures. What I get is - "The image ... cannot be displayed because it contains errors." At any rate, showing a positive image from a scan won't tell us what the negative looks like. It could be a good negative with a bad scan or a bad negative with a good scan of the bad negative. So, what does the negative look like compared to other known to be good negatives?. Does it have similar density and clarity?

Some cameras like the Brownies and Instamatics had no exposure controls whatever. People still got good photos with them. Film latitude is such that you can overexpose by three of four stops and underexpose by two stops and still get good printable results. Maybe the Instamatics were set for two stop overexposure on a bright day which would get a normal expose on a dark cloudy day.

On the previous version of Photo.net. there were three forums dedicated to film: B&W Photo - Film & Processing - Includes alternative processes B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing - The black and white darkroom Film and Processing - B&W, color, slide, negative, commercial and home processing Surprisingly, the two B&W forums existed before the Film and Processing forum was added in 2003. Perhaps the "color " thing was merely considered a passing fad up until then.

Happy New Year. Rick, I would like to shift your image to the new thread but I had better leave well enough alone. I believe that is above my moderator limits and I would just mess everything up.

http://jdainis.com/hassey2.jpg The lens on the left is set at f/22 and focused at infinity. Everything is in acceptable focus from infinity to 17 feet (17 feet above f/22 on the left of the scale. On the lens on the right, the infinity mark is moved above the f/22 on the right and 9 feet falls above the f/22 mark on the left of the aperture scale. Everything is in acceptable focus from 9 feet to infinity. This is the way old timers use to use the hyperfocal focus or zone focus. Many old cameras like the Brownie and Instamatic and even today's disposable cameras had fixed lenses set to the hyperfocal distance. The focus could not be changed but everything was in acceptable focus from (usually) three feet to infinity.. ,

cassiorrenan, that is great. Thank you. Indoors at parties using flash where it was hard to focus , I would set the aperture on my camera to f/16 and everything would be zone focused from 3 feet to 12 feet or so. Then I could just raise the camera to my eye, compose and shoot. If things were further back I knew that a slight twitch of the aperture ring would be all that was needed.

I use Shutterfly for my calendars. They are a bit more expensive than Vistaprint though. The calendar photo image is ~ 8x10 inches so I crop my images to 1600 x 2000 pixels and have no trouble with Shutterfly doing any other cropping.

Cassiorenan, Going back to this old thread - How do I focus on my old manual film camera? could you take a picture of that Olympus from the top showing the numbers on the focusing ring? I am a bit curious about that.

I would like to see the distance scale on that camera. The smaller the aperture (f/11, f/16 etc) the greater the range of acceptable focus. At f/16 everything would probably be in acceptable focus from 4 feet to infinity. At f/4 everything would probably be in acceptable focus from 4 feet to 6 feet. On a bright sunny day it is much better to shoot at a smaller aperture to keep everything in the focus range.

I'd rather see what the film looks like not what positive images made from the film look like. Your question is about the film not the positive images, right?

I am a bit lost. What is "duplex scanning and printing" and how will it damage photos but not other documents. As far as I know duplex scanning and printing means that the scanner will scan and print both sides of the document or photograph. I guess that would be nice to have if there was something written on the back of the photo but I don't see any damage potential.

For what he wants done, the OP's mom doesn't need a computer to save digital files. She would just place the photograph(s) face down on the glass plate of the scanner, close the lid and then hit SCAN (or whatever) and in about 1/2 minute the photo(s) will come out printed on ink jet photo paper. Any $100 printer scanner will do the job.