anthony_cross

I have an old Gossen Luna Pro - gray body, ambient incident/reflected metering

only. I recently used it on a roll of 120 Delta 100, and most all of the shots

were pretty severely underexposed. I decided to test on a roll of slide film -

bracketing 2 stops up and down, the best exposures turned out to be about two

full stops greater than the meter's reading.

 

At first I thought something might be wrong with the batteries. I'm using the

Wein air cell replacements for the mercury batteries. I pulled out the trusty

volt meter and I get a reading of 2.7volts - which is right on the money for the

meter, as each battery is supposed to be 1.35v.

 

So I decided to do a couple more tests. I recently picked up a Minolta IIIF and

did a side by side comparison in ambient incident lighting. Surprisingly enough,

the Luna Pro gave a reading EXACTLY two stops below the Minolta in all the

lighting situations I tested.

 

So, here's my question - while I could use the meter and compensate for the two

stop difference in my head, is there any easy way to calibrate the meter?

Second, does anyone know why/how this might happen?

Hi all -

I've been using a mamiya m645 1000s that I obtained used for several

months now. The camera works perfectly, with one exception: I've

noticed that film is not advanced a regular distance after each

exposure. In other words, the spacing between frames varies from

somewhere around 1/4" to 1/2" Is this a common problem, or even

normal with the m645? It hasn't yet resulted in reducing the number

of frames I can fit on a roll, however it is rather disturbing.

 

I'm not sure if the problem is the fault of the film advance, the 120

insert, or my own loading of the film. I'm also a bit worried that,

as a result of irregular film advance, the film might not be stretched

flat over the film insert for each exposure, which might reduce the

image sharpness. Any suggestions, ideas, or experience with the

issue? Thanks in advance.

Vadim - unfortunately I already deleted the spam. However, I do remember that it was an advertisement for a stock photo company - something about marketing your photos and making money. It also included a disclaimer at the bottom from the sender about how they "only wanted to send it once, delete it if you don't want it" - standard spam tactics. Unfortunately, I, as I do with most spam, deleted it on sight.

 

Brian - that sounds great. It should hopefully work better than some approval process (i.e. when someone wants an email address, the address holder must approve giving it out to them) or my own address obfuscation methods. I'd love to see it in action, and if you need any help coding or testing it, let me know.

Yeah, I know that the "(at)" suggestion was somewhat simplistic; however, there are ways creatively conceal your true address from spammers. I come from a slashdot/kuro5hin background, and many users there, including myself, mask their email address by inserting removable letters or message. for example, "yRoEuMrOaVdEdTrHeIsSs@doman.com". While this might be a bit of a hassle, not too many spam harvesting programs have the ability to easily deal with it. In fact, I know a number of users who have ROT-13'd their addresses. This, however, might be a bit too technical for most photo.net users. But this post is just indulging my ideas; the eventual change you've mentioned will no doubt help the problem, and I'm glad that it's being taken into account. Thanks.

Would it be too much of a problem to institute something of a spam

blocker for listed email addresses? Something as simple as replacing

the '@' in displayed email addresses with "(at)" would fool spammers

scanning the site for victims. Let's face it; restricting access to

email addresses to registered users is not much of a hindrance;

spammers recognize the site as a treasure trove of photographers to

market to, and have no hesitations about registering only to grab

email addresses. I've only been a member of photo.net for a few

weeks using a brand new email address, yet I've already started

receiving photography based spam. All I ask is the ability to spam

gaurd the publicly displayed email address. thanks.