keith selmes
-
Posts
536 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by keith selmes
-
-
<p>If I live to be 80 and can still do my photography, I don't think I'll care what people call me.<br /> I mainly now use just one micro four thirds digital camera and two lenses, but I look at Photo.net for the vintage and film threads.<br /> There's info and news about digital cameras all over the internet, pnet has a more balanced and interesting content.<br /> To put my photography in context, the MFT is used most weeks. My DSLR has only been out once or twice this year, my compact and phone have not been used for photos at all, but my Leica II and MPP 4x5 have each been out 3 or 4 times. Digital is practical, film is fascinating, might be a reasonable summing up.</p>
<p>I also don't like the word analog, or analogue, applied to film or alt process photography. I usually think of it as chemical, since mine includes plates as well as film.<br /> In fact, analog cameras are usually electronic, like these<a href="https://www.pelco.com/video-surveillance-camera-security-systems/analog"> https://www.pelco.com/video-surveillance-camera-security-systems/analog</a></p>
-
<p>My Olympus AF compact was a Superzoom 800 with a 38-80 lens.<br>
The Stylus Epic looks similar, but the superzoom takes alkaline batteries, ordinary AAA type.<br>
Anyway, I expect these Epic and Superzooms are the type of 35mm camera she wants.<br>
Manual here, http://www.olympusamerica.com/files/oima_cckb/sup_800s.pdf<br>
There are plenty on Ebay at low prices.</p>
-
<p>TIFF is the standard surely ? I haven't heard of anything else being introduced.<br>
Perhaps it wasn't needed in this case, but I'm unaware of it having gone away.<br>
Usually my photos go RAW to TIFF, but as I often have the camera doing raw and jpg, sometimes they go straight from jpg to internet. And I do sometimes use the phone camera that only does jpg.<br>
I use jpgs for email and web, and jpg or png for textures. That all essentially means internet use, where small size reduces the load and improves performance, and where loss of quality is acceptable.<br>
Scanning is also always to TIFF, although nowadays I sometimes use the camera rather than the scanner.<br>
Printing is usually from TIFF if it's available.<br>
I didn't think this was unusual.</p>
-
-
<p>does it matter ?<br>
why throw it away if it still takes pictures ?</p>
-
<p>and this photographer par excellence is way ahead of the pack <br>
<a href="http://www.derekpyephotography.com/">http://www.derekpyephotography.com/</a></p>
-
<p>The paper I knew as POP was I think gelatino chloride. I believe that was the one most widely used.</p>
<p>Currently First Call in the UK have cyanotype paper listed as Printing Out Paper.</p>
<p>Having just checked Silver Print, they have a cyanotype paper which they call Solar Paper.<br>
Looks like the same "Sunprint" or "Nature Print" paper I had from a craft supplier - available in plain thin paper at 5x7 or a water colour paper at 8x10.</p>
<p>I had forgotten an old thread here, about using modern papers as printing out paper, <a href="/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00Xnhk">http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00Xnhk</a><br>
Looks interesting.</p>
-
<p>I don't think POP is available any more. iirc, it was last made by Kentmere.<br>
When Harman took over the Ilford photo business, they bought Kentmere and transferred Kentmere production to their own premises. But POP is a complicated manufacturing process, and although they were intending to adapt it to their own production lines, they never did.</p>
<p>There was a project to make it in the USA somewhere, but it seems to have been expensive, not so good, and not now available. </p>
<p>If anyone does know where to get it, do tell.</p><div>
</div> -
<p>The one in the middle I don't know.<br>
The other two as already noted are for contact printing, possibly by sunlight.<br>
These were used with POP - the "red-proofs".</p>
<p>Printing Out Paper was apparently used a lot by amateurs at one time, but continued in use by professionals for proofing. If it wasn't processed it would fade, so the customer could see their photo, in pink shades, but for a permanent copy they would have to pay. A bit like time limited free software really.</p>
<p>POP is hard to find or make now, but the frames are still useful for cyanotypes, and the paper is sold by craft shops for "sun prints" or "nature prints". Also useful for platinotype or possibly other processes, but they are not so simple.</p>
<p>POP and cyanotype have limitatons, but they can be totally processed in daylight, no darkroom needed. But you do need some bright sun or an artificial light set up, printing takes a long time in dull light.</p><div>
</div> -
<p>Yes, the DIY chemistry is interesting, expect I'll try that sometime, but in the disaster scenario, electronics are more useful and probably easier. My smartphone will recharge from a hand operated dynamo for example, and it's a lot more than a phone. Might even have the instructions for chemical processing stored on it.</p>
-
<p>Rifle might be useful in a zombie apocolypse, which seems to be the most likely disaster at the moment. </p>
-
<p>To photograph nuclear explosions, we used to have pinhole cameras issued.<br>
Like this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_Indicator">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_Indicator</a><br>
Probably no use now, as the POP is no longer available.</p>
<p>Towards the end of the cold war, we were told that, delivery being more accurate, warheads were now in the low kiloton range, rather than the megatons that had previously been expected. Consequently, our recording devices might not detect them, and we might in fact be asked to go out and look for the cloud. I suppose now, a digital photo sent by landline to GHQ would do the job. But I wouldn't expect anyone would wait outside to photograph the thing going off. They would have sent us out afterwards to check what had happened, and probably sent the nearest teams for damage reports.</p>
<p>For damage reporting in a modern setting, I would see digital cameras and camera phones as extremely useful tools for communication, at least so long as batteries and generators last. With the low power requirements, and then with hand powered generators, solar cells, and improvised wind generators, that could be a very long time.<br>
(EMP can be a problem, but I think protection is feassible)</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>120 rfh used to be usually 6x9.<br>
I've had 2 for quarter plate and one for a 9x12 soviet plate camera, and all were 6x9.</p><div>
</div> -
<p>Something like this is usable.<br>
Value depends who is bidding on ebay.</p>
<div>
</div> -
<p>It's probably 9x12cm rather than 4x5 inch, similar but not qute the same.<br>
Most likely, the ground glass slides up to remove it, and then a metal plate holder slides down in the same slots to take the exposure. Looking from the back, there's a litte catch at top left to release the back.</p>
<p>I believe there are roll film holders that take 120 and will fit a 9x12 camera, you can then use it either with the ground glass as for plates, or just with the rangefinder and either the frame finder or the mirror finder.Plate holders will take sheet film if they're loaded with something like a piece of thick card behind the film.</p>
<p>Video demo here<br>
<a href="
Still picture here<br>
-
<p>I had a Domke Armadillo, but never used it. It looked a good bag, in fact it was, but when sorting out my kit, I decided it was too complicated and heavy for my needs.<br>
I have occasionally used a normal 65 litre pack.<br>
My LF kit in it's sturdy old camera bag stows in the bottom compartment. My usual daysac kit can go in the top. Then there's room outside for tripod, camping mat or whatever else won't fit inside.</p>
<p>There's also the possibility of adding a small pouch or two on the harness for convenience.</p>
<p>I notice the J2 doesn't seem to have anything but camera gear in it ?<br>
I would want to have at least sufficient for a comfortable night outdoors, suitable for time of year etc., just in case.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p> Why are the English speaking countries incapable from making a decent camera?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> <br>
They make very decent cameras, but not for hobby snappers, more for astronomers, the armed forces, security and surveillance, perhaps where the really big money is.<br>
Examples:</p>
<p ><a href="http://www.raptorphotonics.com/company">http://www.raptorphotonics.com/company</a><br>
</p>
-
<p>Obviously one has to be careful with goods that are not correctly described, but I've had some good bargains from people who didn't know what they were selling, so they weren't found by other people who would have pushed up the price. </p>
<p>(My favourite hate are the inkjet paper and cartridges listed under darkroom supplies!)</p>
-
<p>The cameras on my desk at the moment are a Konica Hexar, a Rollei grey baby and a Zenit 12XP.<br /> Across the room there's a Kodak No.2 Folding Autographic Brownie. By my feet, in it's bag and ready to go, is an MPP Micro Technical.</p>
<p>I would think of these all as classic manual cameras, although perhaps the Konica belongs in a different pnet forum due to it's battery operation. I suspect the MPP would get shunted off to the Large Format forum as well. But you probably get the idea, I don't feel constrained to any country or era, and I don't quite get the focus on Japan and Germany.</p>
<p>An obvious reason to select east european, is because they're dirt cheap. Also, in the UK at least, they were the entry camera for many amateurs and students, being more affordable even when new, but still adequate to the task.</p>
<p>My first SLR, and belated introduction to serious photography, was a well used Praktica with a Zeiss Jena lens, and I was very impressed, by comparison with anything I had before. So in the sense of being what we all learned on, almost standard issue, the east europeans really are classics.</p>
<p>More recently, I tried a Fed rangefinder, which was awful compared to an LTM Leica, and it went back on ebay. But the Leica did cost about 6 times the Fed price. (I mean awful mechanically, it felt horrible)<br /> My Zenit stays. It was bought cheap, only because it had a flash unit with it. But when I tested it for ebay, I enjoyed using it, so it's a keeper. It's a big heavy clunking lump, but I like it. The old worn out Praktica is still around somwhere as well.</p>
<p>Oops - I'm not JDM - but what the heck, it's a forum ....</p>
-
<p>I read walla as arabic, which it is.<br>
Wallah is roughly "by God" and fits the sentence just as well as "voila".</p>
<p> </p>
-
Well that messed up nicely, try again<div></div>
-
Our old folders didn't survive, but his box camera did, and mum's too.
Here they are together, his Goerz Box Tengor, and her Zeiss Ikon Baby Box.
-
<blockquote>
<p>1. Pushing the film which photographers have been doing for decades both in camera and at processing time<br />2. Using own developer formula has been around for decades and is still active<br />3. Deviating from the manufacturer's recommended developing parameters is still fairly common <br />4. Print and scanning of the negative or slide would be allowed<br /><br /></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those are all examples of manipulation. Manipulation isn't necessarily digital. </p>
<p>Perhaps Frank meant, without digital enhancement ?<br>
But I don't know how I'd get a decent digital representation of what the film holds, without the same processing I use for images from a digital camera. Nor why I'd want to.<br>
I'm a little baffled actually.</p>
-
Combo with your Digital Camera
in No Words
Posted