Glenn McCreery

<p>I have almost completely transitioned to digital. However, I keep trying to duplicate the smooth mid-gray tonal distributions prints of a few of my favorite snow scene photos, where a snow field is the main subject, that were taken with a Fuji GS645s camera using Ilford XP2 120 film. I scanned the negatives using a Nikon 9000 scanner. Although my digital printing technique keeps improving, I still have a ways to go before these prints look as good as what I accomplished in my darkroom a dozen or so years ago. Other prints from scanned negatives, without smooth mid-grays dominating the images, look mostly better than what I accomplished in the darkroom.</p>

<p>Nikon thinks that it's AW-1 is the digital successor to the Nikonos. However, although it offers waterproof interchangeable lenses, it has no external flash sync. So, I do not see it as the significant upgrade to my Pentax WG-3 underwater camera, which works quite well for snorkeling in decent light. My desire for an upgrade from my WG-3 is a reasonably light underwater camera with one or two external flashes mounted, suitable for snorkeling in decent light (Hawaii), or not so good lighting (California kelp beds).</p>

<p>My daughter wanted a cool looking camera to take to ComiCon in San Diego last week, so I gave her my Canon FT-QL with a 28mm lens and a few rolls of film. She used the camera, but, the images that she posted on Facebook were all taken with her iPhone.</p>

<p>If you want to see how a B&W filter in Photoshop (I use CS5) is applied to individual color channels, open a color photo, choose "black and white" in adjustments, and then choose a filter under "Preset". Here for example is the color composition of a red filter. You can then play with the individual channels to get the result just right to your eye.</p><div></div>

<p>Here are a list of features:</p> <ul> <li>Export your Aperture library to a set of folders</li> <li>Retain meticulously crafted project hierarchies.</li> <li>Keep all your metadata including ratings and comments.</li> <li>Original/Master images saved with XMP sidecar files for ultimate compatibility.</li> <li>Aperture adjusted images saved as TIFF or JPEG depending on image rating. Adjustments are baked-in the image.</li> <li>Exports images contained in your albums and smart albums.</li> <li>Converts Aperture flags and colour labels to keywords.</li> <li>Your Aperture libraries are unaltered and unaffected.</li> </ul> <p>I consider the last feature key to actually being willing to try the software.</p>

<p>For those of us bemoaning the discontinuation of Aperture, there is now "Aperture Exporter" software for migrating Aperture files to Lightroom. From apertureexporter.com, "Aperture Exporter was designed specifically for Aperture users who have decided to move to Lightroom. With only a few options and a click of a button, Aperture Exporter re-generates your Aperture Library as a set of folders and subfolders containing your images." It looks promising, but is still in beta testing. I think that I will take the cautious approach and wait for the final release before considering messing with my many Aperture files, but has anyone looked into it's features or tried the beta version?</p>

<p>Henry Cartier Bresson famously used an inverted, left-right reversed, image viewfinder to compose photos with his Leicas. This could be an interesting option on EVF finders for those of us who fondly remember using, or still use, large-format viewcameras. But it probably would not be a strong sales feature. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42463546</p>

<p>If I hit the lottery, in addition to my normal film and digital photography pursuits, I would take up astrophotography with all the latest equipment. But that would take tens of thousands of dollars to keep up with the Jone's, let alone the Hubble's.</p>

<p>Dehuan's viewfinder reminds me of one that I built in high school in about 1960 using a military surplus gun sight and assorted old camera pieces. I used it on my Canon IVSII for sports photography. The sight superimposed an in-focus spot and cross-hair on the 1:1 magnification image. Using the finder, I could follow the action with both eyes open and the spot superimposed on the in-motion subject. Worked great, although focus and the outside frame of the image were guess work. The Canon IVSII is long gone, sold to help finance a used Canonflex in the late 60's. But, I still have finder, shown mounted on an old Zorki 1, although the viewfinder does not fit completely into the accessory shoe. The IVSII and Zorki viewfinders are similarly poor, especially for action photograph.</p><div></div>

<p>And here is the viewfinder eyepiece.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the worst viewfinder that I can find in my random collection of old cameras, an early Bell and Howell Filmo movie camera. The viewfinder objective measures approximately 1/4" diameter and the eyepiece measures approximately 1/8" diameter! The objective of the Galilean design optics is separated from the eyepiece by about 4". You might s well be looking through a straw. On the other hand, the embossed scroll-work on the leather covering is quite lovely.</p> <p>This brings to mind the obvious follow-up question; what was the earliest decent viewfinder on a camera? (I am thinking of the single-lens Graflex, but that probably does not have what is strictly defined as a viewfinder.)</p><div></div>

We have milkweed in the front yard because it attracts Monarch butterflies, bees, and other insects. Not like our sterile front lawn (well, except for the dandelions).

<p>Here is another bee photograph. This one was in milkweed in my front yard just an hour ago.</p><div></div>

<p>As a long time Aperture user, with over 20,000 images stored, I am concerned about how to transition to the new reality. Aperture has always satisfied my needs, since I perform my serious editing in Photoshop CS5 with Nik, Topaz, PT lens, etc. plug-ins and then store the images in files external to Aperture. So my initial thought is to leave well enough alone and continue to use Aperture for accessing all of my legacy images, but buy a copy of Lightroom for, at some future date, storing and editing new images. I want all my images stored and backed up on my hard drives, not somewhere in the ether. I have not thought this through carefully, so what difficulties, other than the obvious ones of a new learning curve and being consistent with file names in both programs, might I anticipate?</p>

<p>According to The Aperture Blog at http://theapertureblog.com/2014/06/27/its-official-aperture-to-be-discontinued/<br> http://theapertureblog.com/2014/06/27/its-official-aperture-to-be-discontinued/<br> "Apple has officially announced that it will cease development of both Aperture and iPhoto next year when the previously announced Photos app for Yosemite ships. Apple told <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/2375212/apple-retires-aperture-and-iphoto-to-be-replaced-with-photos-for-os-x.html">Macworld</a> that “When Photos for OS X ships next year, users will be able to migrate their existing Aperture libraries to Photos for OS X”</p>

<p>I think that if I had to do it over again, and if I knew how stuck the filter really was (even after applying penetrating oil overnight), I would have simply removed the glass from the filter and called it good. As it was, the filter was pretty beat up by the time that I resorted to the ball-peen hammer approach. A center-punch might have worked more gently than a hammer, but the result is the same, and a hammer is always the better tool for relieving frustration :)</p>

<p>Thanks for the jar opener suggestion Stephen and JDM. I have my doubts that it would have worked, considering that the filter ring may have been chemically bonded in place and hard to budge even at the pulling with pliers stage, but I will try it next time. Here is a photo from half way through step 9.</p><div></div>

<p>I have an old Mamiya f:2 50mm lens which had a scratched skylight filter that had been attached for decades. So, I decided to carefully remove it. I thought that the procedure, involving the following steps, might be of use to others with the same problem.</p> <ol> <li>Remove screw-on front bezel with filter attached. (Fortunately the bezel does not contain the front lens element.)</li> <li>Wrap bezel and filter separately with tape for protection and improved grip. Attempt to remove filter by hand.</li> <li>Gently clamp filter in vise and attempt to turn bezel by hand.</li> <li>Use plastic strap wrench wrapped around bezel to attempt to turn.</li> <li>Soak threads in penetrating oil overnight and repeat step 4.</li> <li>Use hacksaw to cut grooves on opposite sides of filter ring so that the back-side of a knife blade may be used to unscrew filter. Clamp tape protected bezel in vise.</li> <li>Carefully aim the round end of a small ball-peen hammer at the center of the filter and administer a precise blow. Place a rag under the vise mounted bezel to contain the glass shards.</li> <li>Compress the filter ring in the vise so that opposite sides fold slightly inward.</li> <li>Cut the filter ring across one fold using a Dremel motor tool with a milling cutter. Extract filter ring with pliers. Clean up aluminum filings and remaining glass shards.</li> <li>Clean and carefully reinstall the bezel, have a beer, and pretend that everything went smoothly.</li> </ol>

<p>If you rewind a partially exposed roll of film for later use, mark both the roll and film can, and don't rewind the lead into the canister.</p>

<p>I think that what is pictured are the burrows of beach hoppers, a marine amphipod, around a kelp frond on a beach at Santa Barbara. I did not dig to find out. The tide was receding from high on the near full-moon morning of June 10. Does anyone know better?<br> </p><div></div>

<p>I should further explain that the field of view #2 should really be the same as for #1 (90 degrees). The panoramas would then merge correctly at the corner. The #2 panorama would then be cropped to what is shown in the sketch.</p>

<p>Jared,<br> Here is a sketch of what I have in mind. There are undoubtedly other approaches.</p><div></div>

Ted Orland published a poster of photographic truths, such as "when friend finally realize that you are a true artist, committed to making Sensitive and meaningful images, They will ask you to photograph their wedding".

Jared, The way that I was visualizing taking the two panoramas is to take them both from the same camera position, just rotate the camera, one series of photos combined for the first panorama, which would be renderd as rectilinear in Photoshop or whatever, and the same approach for the second series. They should merge correctly at the corner if the 45 degree angles of view at the corner are maintained because, from symmetry, the distortion of the left edge of one photo should match the distortion of the right edge of the other. Hard to explain, so I will try to post a sketch of what I have in mind when I get home (if I ever get out of LAX, where I am presently delayed and delayed). it's an interesting problem that I may have to try for myself just figure it out.

<p>I think what you want is essentially two separate panoramas that merge in the middle (at the tree). Take one panorama centered as if looking out a window in one wall, and the other oriented 90 degrees to the first, as if looking out a window in the other wall. The left edge of one panorama needs to merge with the right edge of the other panorama. I think that this is most easily accomplished and probably look the most realistic if the lateral field of view of the panorama on the 40 ft. wall is 90 degrees. The field of view on the 24 ft. wall will then be foreshortened, with it's edge adjacent to the other panorama at 45 degrees from the axis perpendicular to the wall. Try drawing a sketch of the geometry of the panoramas before taking any photographs.</p>