TomHildreth

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Can't be specific with locations, sorry. I think you're going a little too late in the season for best color in that area, but as stated by others, it varies considerably. I've spent a lot of time worrying about best color peaks and all that. Don't do it, just go.

 

As a Vermont resident with an interest in covered bridges, I can recommend that you spend about $12 and get the paperback book Covered Bridges of Vermont by Ed Barna. It has the state broken down into numerous day trips, and all the rest in between the bridges is good too.

 

 

Also related to previous advice, the DeLorme Atlas is great. Aside from a good map, here's something that helps me. Just take a back road early in the morning of your first day there and drive a mile into the woods or out into the fields. Stop the car and get out without the camera. Walk down the road a ways. Just take it in, listen, feel, smell. The day can unfold on its own, without having to be too concerned about the looking part or maps. Doesn't always happen, but it's great when it does.

 

I'm not trying to lecture, I'm trying to give you some good advice. I should take it more often myself.<div></div>

Swapan,

Living in Vermont, I can say the advice you have received so far has been very good. The peak color period is brief and unpredictable, but I think you have secured a good location and starting time. In addition to websites, many television stations provide foliage color reports with their evening weather report.

 

As suggested, drive the small roads. This means stay off US Rt.7 wherever possible-it's not very scenic and for a Vermont highway it is quite busy. Do get a Delorme Atlas-(my house is full of them). I just bought one for New Mexico at http://www.delorme.com/

 

Trip suggestion: From Ferrisburg take Rt.7 south about 7 miles to Rt. 17. Take 17 east through Bristol, then look for signs for Lincoln and Lincoln Gap. Go through over the gap to Warren, on Rt. 100. From Warren you can travel either north or south for at least two hours through small villages with many pastoral settings along the way. Then you can simply drive west to get back on Rt. 7 and back to your hotel, if you are staying in Ferrisburg for the duration of your visit.

 

Otherwise, Vermont may be booked up when you are here. There has been new motel construction, so perhaps between this and the higher gas prices today, the room shortage may be less severe.

 

Lake Champlain, to the west of Ferrisburg is a beautiful body of water that is difficult to see. I find it easier to shoot it from a distance, because most of the lakeside property is privately owned and often when you see a promising spot you cannot gain access to the shore.

 

If you shoot slides, be sure to bring your own supply of film. Don't be surprised if you encounter hazy sky conditions, they are common in October. (Today is our seventh perfectly blue, clear sky day-we have used up our quota for the year!).

 

I don't know of any natural dangers you might encounter when photographing off the road alone. Most dangers are when you are behind the wheel, and they are 1. Other vehicles 2.Tourists in the road, or by the side of the road taking pictures. 3. Deer crossing the road 4.Moose doing the same. Unless you are going to explore the quarry areas near Fair Haven, venomous snakes are not to be found. We do have bear here, but most human contact is because they eat the seed from backyard bird feeders. I've never heard of anyone being attacked. Don't touch the electric fence.

 

You'll have a great time.<div></div>

I have several photos on the db that include the word "Pitts" but I

cannot find them when doing a pnet search. I also have a folder

containing the word "Aerobatics" but it fails to appear as a hit when

doing a pnet search, but I get a hit for another photographer who has

a photo titled "Aerobatics".

 

What can I do to make my photos and folders appear when doing word

searches? Is it something I must do when uploading the photo?

Can't help with focal length, but are you considering the use of a shift-tilt lens or camera that can match the perpective correction commonly used back then?

 

The local newspaper has been running a wonderful series of "then and now" photos. Many people don't know that most of their life they have viewed photos taken with "modern" cameras, and they are images of compromise when it comes to perspective. When you point out that the old photos don't have tilted buildings it comes home to them.

 

I suspect you are well aware of this Allan, but I thought I would respectfully throw a reminder out there.

Note that the top mailer is a PK-20. I don't think these have been available for over 10 years, and no they were not for use with 24-exposure film, that was the PK-24. Looks risky to me.

Am I to understand that film speed units were "Westons" before the days of ASA?

 

I saw an external rangefinder at an antique shop about a year ago. Have to admit I did not connect it with photography. I was thinking survey work or maybe sighting in a mortar.

Bought one of these new to replace my wife's 126 cartridge camera in 1980. The AF2 clearly outperforms the 126 camera in its roll as a family snap-shot camera. It continues to do so 25 years later.

 

It was in the shop for repairs once or twice during its first 5 years, but has now been functioning for about 20 years without problems, averaging maybe 200 shots/year.

 

Ongoing problems, that affect about 10% of the shots taken with this camera: Red-eye and intermittant failure of autofocus to get a shot properly in focus. Maybe one shot in 25 affected by the latter, though the focus problem could be the photographer blocking the AF sensor with his fingers.

 

Film rewinds in conventional manner, by depressing pin on bottom of camera and turning the flip-out lever over the film cartridge in a clockwise direction as seen from the top. I'm puzzled by your question concerning this.

 

Hope this information helps.

I always had a frog in my pocket at that age. H'mmm, maybe that explains my intermittant popularity with the girls. These two seem to be very cooperative models for their age, or did they scamper off down the street on some other adventure the instant you tripped the shutter? Interesting shot, Lester.

Got it:

3259 E. Harbour Dr., #200

Phoenix, AZ 85034

Phone: 602-470-0123

Fax: 602-437-3782

Arthur,

I have the phone number at home, and I'll send it to you later today. Or, you can do what I did. Go to the Phoenix, AZ Chamber of Commerce website and look them up in their business directory. I'm getting errors when I try that now, but that may be due to my present connection, so I'll send you the number later.

Last year I went to a camera show in Massachusetts and there was a stereo photography club there with an interesting display. A couple of months ago I met a guy photographing trains with two cameras in some sort of homebrew mount. I asked if he was shooting two different films and he said no, he was shooting Kodachrome in each for stereo slide shows. Said he was going to England this fall for a big stereo camera slide show. Guess I'm learning that stereo photography has had its followers all along.

 

Stereo photo cards from the late 19th century are easy to find at antique shops in the New England area. These were used with economical hand-held viewers, and I see these for sale once in a while also. It was all the big rage back then.

Rob,

I stand corrected by Jason, who has shown me the facts are in the details. You likely have a matched camera/lens combination there, which is great.

Really sweet story. Hard to imagine you got all three to join the club, nice job!

 

"I took my M3 and 35/3.5 summaron (goggled) along"-I'm ignorant here, did you really mean "googled"? Or is there such a thing as a goggled lens, Todd?

Technical criticism of the images made with these old cameras is right at home here. Lens performance, shutter speeds, size, weight, film type- all of this is a good fit in the classic camera forum. There are other more appropriate forums to take up the artistic aspects of the images, to heap the resultant praise and to question the artistic quality. All of this has happened here, however. That seven of the posts were made with a post-1970 camera goes unnoticed in the quick deluge of superlatives. I have no desire to criticize the man's work. Neither do I care to join a cult.

More self-promotion. A lot of your people don't know when you've been had.

Rob,

Apparently I was overcome with a humor remnant. I appreciate that you took it well. The camera should serve you nicely both as a shooter and a paperweight.

 

After looking around for a resonable way out of the mercury battery problem for about a year (and rejecting the wein air-cell), I talked to my repair guy and he said he had done many conversions so I had him go ahead with it. The mercury battery that was in it was still good, but I decided to be proactive and get it done sooner than later. Actually, my first "serious" roll of film since the conversion is at the developers now, so I should know soon how well the meter is working.

 

Enjoy the 201!

I bought my SRT-201 new back in...h'mm, well I don't remember. Had it CLA'd and modified for 625A battery last February. I've put a couple of rolls through it and she's working fine. Still part of my first-line arsenal. That 50mm f2 MD lens on yours was probably mated to the camera a few minutes before it was advertised. That's a lens from a later period.

 

Lots of concern about minutia in some of these responses. Don't worry about all this nonsense about the f1.7 MD being sharper. Don't spend your time gloating. Already the budding industrial archeologists are trying to get you to take the top off the camera. Pay them no mind! Go shoot with the thing, it is NOT a paperweight, no matter what they tell you!

 

Oh, you got it for "display". Think I'll pry my Gateway keyboard apart. I hear it's a late production model XIVb. I just have to verify this, it'll just take a few minutes......xnfidlkmlkjaoirejtoioksdserdeeeeeeeeeeee

The lack of response from Jordan F is probably a good indication he was just putting us on.

Todd,

I really like the way motion blur has isolated the two flyers in the upper center of the frame from the rest of the scene. The third flyer banking away to the right is a distraction that makes the shot only good, rather than outstanding. On him, next time, try a light load of birdshot from a .410 pump. Or, being quieter, maybe photoshop.

 

Birds in England look completely different. Or so they used to say.

The castle shot is only about 50% of the negative, so there is some grain in the sky.

When did they stop making it? My Kodak 1994 book only lists the Aero version at ISO 40. Speaking of the latter, I'm wondering if large format photographers used it, or was the aero stuff marketed to industrial or government users?

Microdol-X was my developer of choice. I think all of these shots I developed myself in that soup, standard dilution. I should add that I used Microdol-X 1:3 to good effect on Plus-X and Tri-X a few times. I don't develop my own B&W any more. Is Microdol-X still available?