bj_bignell

Besides being more economical, one advantage of higher dilutions is lower overall contrast on the negative. Higher dilutions also result in larger grain, and higher apparent sharpness (acutance?).

You might also find this interesting: <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5063&page=1">RD-1 does a studio session</a>

There were three small fixes to FF 1.0.2. You can see the release notes here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html

That is one ugly camera! I'm so jealous...

Larry,

 

Mihai's email address was posted in an earlier thread:

costeam AT rogers DOT com

 

BJ

I see it's been a few days, but no-one has responded yet. Have you had any luck yourself?

Franka,

 

In Edmonton, go to McBain's head store on 107th Avenue. They will always have what you need. http://www.mcbaincamera.com

 

Carousel also carries a good stock of 120 films. You can call them to see if they have what you want: (780) 424-7161 or 1-800-897-1844 (within Canada only). http://www.carouselphoto.net

 

Carousel does all their processing in-house, and McBain sends most of their processing out (I think to Colourfast?) so you'll probably get better service and quicker results from Carousel.

 

BJ

David Richert: You're on the list after myself. Please email me your address if you want to participate...

Looking at Gene's found film work

(http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm), my girlfriend and I made

a frightening discovery: The same woman appears on two separate rolls

from different cameras!<br><br>

The first picture on each of these pages show the same person:<br>

http://westfordcomp.com/foundfilm/george/george.htm<br>

http://westfordcomp.com/classics/brownie3/index.htm<br><br>

Take a look at her hat, shoes, nose, eyes, even the purse seems to

match. Has anyone else noticed this before?

Very beautiful work, made even more powerful by the fact that the pictures are of a concentration camp.

 

Reminded me of the article I read about Karl Koenig's gumoil process. He did a series of camp pictures using that technique. Sample here:

 

http://www.alternativephotography.com/artists/karl_koenig/kk_arb_macht_auschwitz.html

I'd finally have a place to post the awful pinhole Polaroids I make with my hacked up plastic camera? Count me in!

I was high-bidder on a Leica 90mm f/4 Elmar for USD$14.26, but that wasn't enough to clear the reserve price! Damned reserve!

"...stacked haphazardly on top of papers & such."

 

Sounds a lot like my apartment... The cameras I use frequently are left out all around the living room/office area so I can pick them up and go. The lesser used ones are on the closet shelf in the bedroom, so they can fall on my head when I need them. I keep the film scattered around, too. It's like hunting for Easter eggs every time I want to go out!

Gary,

 

Objects moving at the same speed will blur less/more depending on how far/close they are.

 

There's a picture by Ansel Adams in The Camera demonstrating this: He's on a bridge looking down at the tracks as a train passes underneath (moving vertically through the frame). The part of the train closest to the camera (at bottom) is blurry, while the remainder of the train is tack-sharp, even thought it is moving at the same speed. The moving parts closer to the camera move through a greater percentage of the field of view, and are therefore rendered with a greater level of blur.

 

Try to imagine how it looks when a car passes you @ 50mph as you stand on the sidewalk, and how it looks when a car passes you @ 50mph on a distant street or highway.

 

The shutter speed may have been sufficient to stop the motion of the water from 4ft and onwards, but was insufficient at closer distances. This principle can be tested easily by using a fixed shutter speed to take two photographs of a rapidly moving object from different distances (e.g. 5ft and 50ft).

 

BJ

I once saw a personal ad for a farmer wanting a new wife: "Please send picture of tractor". No joke.

Hmmm, if I had known that the surface area of a printout of the response was a factor in winning, I'd have thought up a much longer story. What'd Donald win, anyways?

CE: I'm jealous. I honestly think it would be hilarious to have to return my keyboard to the IT guys with half a tuna sandwich in it!

 

I have another guess Gene, you didn't have a jellyfish sitting on your face when you took that picture did you? You're not into that sort of stuff, I hope...

Like CE said, it looks like a tinsel attack. But, I also think the film was touching itself <i>in the biblical sense...</i> <b>Naughty, naughty film!</b><br><br>

That, or someone fitted the camera with a "super macro" lens, and double-exposed a Christmas ceiling shot with a close up of an amoeba?

David,

 

That looks like a decent layout. You'll be responsible for keeping track of which photo is by whom, etc? Would we email our entry to you for posting?

 

Gene/All: I have registered a new Hotmail address for people to send their votes, once the contest has started: classic_camera_photo_contest AT hotmail DOT com

 

I'll make a password that I can share with someone else (Gene?) so that we can tally the votes and keep an eye on things.

 

BJ

Count me in!

Mike,<br><br>

This happens over time from playing with the lever, or trying to advance the film when it's already been advanced. Get yourself a small screwdriver, and follow these steps:

<ol>

<li>Turn camera upside-down.

<li>Pull film advance lever slightly outwards, and locate small screw on underside of lever.

<li>Remove this screw, and the black plastic cover on the film advance falls off.

<li>Turn camera right-side-up.

<li>Tighten screw on metal film advance lever. This screw is left-hand threaded.

<li>Reassemble, and enjoy!

</ol>

BJ

The 'rattling' sound is about half mirror slap, half shutter noise. My Super 2000 is loud, and my old Super was REALLY loud (mostly mirror slap). As has been suggested, check the foam (at the bottom and top of the mirror travel), and replace if necessary.

 

I imagine all of the Yashica FX-series cameras are pretty noisy. Contax bodies (even the old ones) will likely be much quieter.

It's a hay rake, used to turn rows of hay over for drying, before being baled. You pull it behind a tractor, or even a pickup truck.

 

BJ

Ugh, photo.net just butchered the accented characters in that last post... Should read "Jardin Botanique du Montreal, cet ete passe..."

Au Jardin Botanique du Montr顬, cet 鴩 pass鮮.<div></div>