peter_kervarec

<p>Hi Peter<br>

One thing that maybe hasnt been mentioned is that these images on the website are too large=very slow to load. Slow to load is a big turn off for web surfers. Also I noticed there are no watermarks or copyright and these are big files ( 200kb ) big enough for the unscrupulous to steal.</p>

 

<p>Hi - One thing you can check is that the sensor eye for return light on the flash is not blocked possibly with a hair, dust or dirt. It will give out full power each time with no variation as it relies on "feedback" of light to manage output. If you turn the dial to "Winder" mode, this should reduce the output considerably. If these dont work you have a problem.<br>

Secondly you must use a Wein Safe Synch if you use the flash directly attached to your camera as these units especially produce enough power to floor a horse. Digital camera voltages are much lower.</p>

<p>The 17-35 AFS is a fantastic lens. I have owned and used mine for around 10 years. Works beautifully on DX and is an ultra wide on FX. Built like a tank and sharp as a razor. We also own the 17-50 Tamron, this lens is just as sharp as the nikon, with comparable or slightly better build quality than the Nikon 18-55 for example. The 17-35 focusses very close but the Tamron may focus even a little closer. If I were you I would only buy the 17-35 2nd hand or the Tamron new. If you do, you will be over $1000 in front on both counts.</p>

<p>Missy Kay is correct - these shots are exposed correctly, honestly if you expose correctly you will get this result and any edits will be easy to apply for a certain look. Get the exposure wrong and "edits", eg effects, can become unpredictable and unworkable.</p>

<p>Hi William for sure I agree with you. There is a a literal army of cameras at every wedding nowadays compared to 4 or 5, 10 years ago. I remember a minister telling me personally and then addressing the congregation that there were no photos during the service until the signing and then only me. So I sat down and put the camera next to me and waited for the cue from him.<br>

The public didnt care and proceeded to start taking images. When the minister had a spare second, just after a flash went off, he looked straight at me with a glare. So I moved further from the camera and folded my arms. More flashes went off and he looked straight at me ready to glare but realised it couldnt have been me. Anyway the offenders kept flashing but he didnt say a word.<br>

Its much much easier to control a photographer than a congregation after all the photographer might have to come back one day and God help you if you misbehaved previously. There certainly is security in numbers.These ministers have veeerrrry long memories so be warned.</p>

<p>Is it any wonder that people are leaving churches and christianity in droves ? These supposed ambassadors of the church deny the couple and their families of the peak, and most important moment , in their lives. A visual memory of a momentous occasion in any familyis lost forever. I have found that most ministers and priests are great but there are a few bullies around - its all about them and not the wedding.<br>

I can understand if they have had a photographer running amok on the altar and getting in the way in the past but surely there is common ground ? If I were the minister, I would allow photographs to be taken during the ceremony but with instructions. How easy is that ?</p>

<p>Sorry, I missed the pic of the villain. It doesnt look like a camera bug but you may have different species in the northern hemisphere.</p>

<p>Hi Mircea<br>

Are you sure its not a camera bug? There are small insects that live in camera equipment, especially bodies. Is it moving? There may be more in there so you may get it removed but there could be others to replace it. I dont know if they inhabit digital bodies but they certainly lived in film cameras. If you bought a second hand piece of equip recently, it could have come in that. The remedy is to put camera and lens in a sealed box with lens off, with a moth or insect strip. Leave it there for 48 hours and this should kill any infestation. Then get it removed.<br>

If you post a bug image, I can identify it for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've only been working in ergonomics for a quarter of a century. & Tell me what a camera designed by a "photog" would "feel like".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To Joseph Wisniewski, who cares if you worked in ergonomics for 25 years, people are allowed to have an opinion here. Most likely you have worked in the Sarcasm, Know All & Right at All Costs department all your life. Typical of your response on this forum.</p>

<p>And another</p><div></div>

<p>Another shot here</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Just wondering if someone can identify the purpose of this old Agfa unit that I have come across. It has 3 dials on the face, green, red, yellow. It also has three push/pull rods. Inside it has a projector like set up. Underneath it has an opaque glass small screen. I am beginning to think it is off the top of the enlarger but I dont know?? I have posted some pictures.<br /> Lend me your thoughts.<br /> Thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Jamie<br /> I have just completed copying a large bunch of MF & LF negs using a macro lens and the results are great, I think transparencies are going to be a bit more difficult for color correction. </p>

 

<p>Hi Randall, thanks<br>

that does make for interesting reading. I am 100% sure that you are right, because some negatives stored in the same box are perfect and have a different colour base while others display properties similar to electrolysis on aluminium and have also turned a bluish colour. Just the smell of this stuff is a warning.I only got these about 24 hours ago so I will be dealing with them very quickly and had an idea that they may have been toxic. There also seems to be a strong fixer like smell as well.<br>

Anyway the negatives in question are not of this nature so I will be still keen to hear any suggestions re redemption.<br>

Peter</p>

 

<p>Hi<br>

I have come into possession of some important historical large format negatives. They were stored in an envelope over 50 years ago and are all stuck together. Some are stuck so bad that they are as one and as hard as a rock.<br>

Some of them I have managed to gently peel apart with no damage to the emulsion at all however they are wrinkly and bubbly, once again the emulsion is not damaged although some did have crazing on the emulsion. With the bubbly ones, is it possible to treat these so that they will go flat to be scanned? I was going to soak them in water but didnt think that would remove the bubbling. Other than that I was going to put one in a press and see if that would flatten one. Has anyone out there had any experience with this problem, I dont want to damage them any more than they are now. I have a few to experiment with that arent great content.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Hi Can anyone help with this? I am going to try and convert a 6 x 9 film back to a pinhole camera. I will make the housing, however am I wasting my time? I am not sure how far to put the pinhole from the film plane for an approximate 24mm (35mm) focal length. Would there be light fall off at the edges of the film? Does the pinhole size affect exposure time only? Will I get an acceptable result ?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Looks like a simple dead centre focus point to me which explains the sharpness of the left womans shoulder. Superimpose this image over a viewfinder to find that her shoulder is dead centre. The distance between the womans shoulder and front of her face would be quite a distance, too far to fit everything into the zone of sharp focus.</p>

<p>Harvey, Did you focus on the bird or the tree branch? as the moss on the front of the branch looks sharper on my monitor than the bird ? Could be that the bird is on the outer zone of DOF. I dont think the DOF at 400mm F8 would be more than a few inches. Just trying to eliminate another possible issue.</p>

<p>I dont think there is a substitute for this lens. Dont sell it, you will always regret. These are getting way less $ 2nd hand than they used to. The close focusing ability, sharpness and contrast of this lens is unrivalled.</p>

<p>Hi Stephen, I would not be bothered with legal action however if you can find something like this below in the US copyright information, you may have a chance of a sit down talk with her.<br>

This is also in the Australian Copyright Info Sheet :<br>

Moral Rights<br /> Creators of copyright works, including photographers, have “moral rights” in relation to their works. These are separate from copyright. Moral rights impose certain obligations on people who use a copyright work. As a photographer you have the right to:<br /> • be attributed as creator of your photographs;<br /> • take action if your work is falsely attributed; and<br /> • take action if your work is distorted or treated in a way that is prejudicial to your honour or reputation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If this were true then anyone hiring a wedding photographer, or any photographer to shoot photos (even for a one time event) owns the images unless the the hiror just happens to let the photographer keep them in writing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi John, that is exactly the case here in Australia, the person who commissions is the legal owner of copyright.<br>

See a direct copy and paste below.<br>

"Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G11 Photographers and copyright 3<br /> • For photographs taken on or after 30 July 1998, the general rule on ownership depends on the purpose for which the photographs were taken:<br>

• if the photographs were taken for “private or domestic purposes” (such as family portraits, or wedding photographs), the first owner of copyright in them is the client, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise; however<br>

• if they were taken for any other purpose (e.g. commercial shots), the photographer will be the first owner of copyright, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise.</p>

 

<p>Stephen: My take on this is that she now legally owns those images, morally it is wrong and I would consider whether to do anything for her again. It is wrong (but legal ) because no photographer with any moral backbone would advertise someone else's images as their own.<br /> Any one with principles would not do that and I would say that of all the posters here, not one would use someone elses images to advertise their business. She is either a lousy photographer or totally unscrupulous or both.<br /> I have done weddings for others over the years and vice versa. Once these images are handed over without discussion or contract, then so is all legal right because I think the law assumes that if there are no clauses / terms, either verbal or written, then the images and their reproduction become the property of the hirer.</p>

<p>This is a great image as is and Jens conversion is poor colour as far as I am concerned. As a strong observer of light I think the photographer here has captured that last minute sun coming through a window in all its glory. The colour is not only believable but probably actual. Beautiful image.</p>

<p>Hi Mizuho<br>

Go straight ahead and buy one. I have one and its razor sharp, beautiful contrast and what one would expect of a lens that price. I have had mine for 6 months and use it a lot. One of the posters cropped an area and then enlarged it and complained. I think any lens would have failed that test.</p>

<p>I think the Omar pic fits the story perfectly, it looks like a cloak and dagger snapshot image. A perfect picture portrait would not fit with this story at all.</p>