ned_otter

Bruce - I offer my opinion based on three years of selling my father's photos here on the streets and in the parks of NYC. This is a 1st Amendment battle that has been waged since Robert Lederman and others sued Giuliani, NYC and the Parks Department in the mid-1990s.

 

Here are the golden rules of 1st Amendment protecting vending, but they also apply to street shooting:

 

1. always have a copy of the law with you

 

2. always record (preferably video) any interaction with police, parks officers, security guards etc.

 

3. never be intimidated by those who do not know the law

 

It is 100% legal to videotape police officers, unless they are in the process of arresting you, and you refuse to stop taping.

 

Your rights were vioiated, but it will be your word against the police unless you have documentation of what they said to you. It's amazing how instantly well-behaved people in uniform become when that red light comes on.....

 

In my case, if the police tell me to move (which has happened several times), and I refuse, they can arrest me for disorderly conduct (this would be the basis for a lawsuit). Each time you cave in to their outrageous demands, you make them more powerful, and make it harder for those who come after you.

 

I had two plain clothes detectives approach me the other day, and start to list all the reasons why I wasn't allowed to remain in the 100% legal space I had chosen to vend from. I refused to move, and when I offered to show them a copy of the vending laws, they stated they would go speak to the lieutenant, and be back to give me a summons (they never returned....). They don't know what to do with those of us who are educated and prepared.

 

The NYC police don't know the vending laws at all, and I doubt they know the laws about photography any better. If you were better prepared, and had a video tape rolling, that police officer would never have threatened to "lock you up...."

 

In public spaces, you don't need anyone's permission to photograph them or their children. If they threaten you, then you should call the police yourself (after you videotaped them threatening you, of course....)

 

I've had anti-vendor co-op owners call the police on me, and when they approached me, they demanded to see my "permit". Vendors of most forms of visual art have not needed a permit since 1997. They will make up laws on the spot in order to get you to move. The average citizen has implicit trust in what police officers say in legal matters. They are shockingly ignorant about many, many facets of the law.

 

Ned Otter

Hi Nick,

 

What you are describing sounds exactly what I've seen in the Pina Zangaro line.

 

Here's a link:

 

http://www.pinazangaro.com/

 

Good luck,

 

Ned Otter

Bart -

 

I speak from experience when I say that if you intend to scan silver-based film, i.e. Tri-x, you will be very disappointed with the Nikon scanner.

 

The light source is not good for this type of film, and Digital Ice can not penetrate the silver content.With no Digital Ice, you have to clean up each scan manually, which can be very time consuming.

Greetings --

 

I've just received my first delivery of Tru-Vue Museum Glass, and popped a 16x20

sheeet in a frame with a matted image, and held it up to the wall.

 

The tiny spot lights in my apartment are rather close to the wall, creating a

sharp angle between the light and the framed image.

 

In the white border around the image, you can see a "pattern" of horizontal

bands. I tried this with both sides of the glass, and the results are the same.

 

Has anyone else noticed this? It seems unacceptable that in order to reduce

reflected light, you live with a pattern or texture to your framed work.

 

I called Tru-Vue, and they said it's most likely due to the optical coating on

the glass.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Ned Otter

Greetings,

 

Not sure if this is the correct forum to post this--

 

I will have an exhibition in the spring of my father's photography, and it will

be in a "parlor room" in an old, but stylish building.

 

Since the space is not set up to be a gallery, there is no track/spot lighting

available. If the weather is good, there will be natural light for about half

the lenght of the room.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions for how to light a room like this, in order to

enhance the images displayed on the wall?

 

It may be possible to use some type of clip-on spots attached to a pipe on the

ceiling.

 

Thanks in advance--

 

Best wishes,

 

Ned Otter

Greetings to all --

 

I'm trying to find what's available - either books and/or CDs - to create

duotones in Photoshop, and them have them offset printed while minimizing the

guesswork.

 

I see that at one time Pantone created a "duotone studio", but it's not

currently available.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ned Otter

Jim,

 

I live in a single level apartment in New York City, which lately could not be more humid. Also, my printer is in the same room as the washer and dryer. Granted I don't do laundry that often, but I don't believe that getting a humidfier will solve the problem.

 

In my opinion, it's a lesser of several evils, requiring some waste of ink.

 

Jim - If you do get a humidifier, I'd be interested to hear if it makes any difference.

 

Good luck to everyone.

 

Ned

Rod -

 

Do yourself a favor, and download the Autoprint utility on this page:

 

http://www.inksupply.com/cobra.cfm#ap

 

As others have mentioned, a power clean consumes a heck of a lot of ink. I consistently have problems when leaving my 4800 idle for more than a few days. The first nozzle check is 95% ok, and then degrades from there, with 5 or so inks being completely absent from the subsequent nozzle checks.

 

I believe this is due to air in the lines that feed the print head. It then takes me an hour or so of doing head cleaning to get the lines flowing again. This of course fills the maintenance tank much more quickly. A major flaw in the Epson design, it appears.

 

I have recently downloaded the Autoprint utility, and then adjusted the 7-color image so that it doesn't use so much ink. I have it print each night at 5am. The only downside is that you have to leave both your printer and computer on all the time. But it's much cheaper than wasting buckets of ink....

 

Good luck--

 

Ned Otter

Greetings--

 

I've recently purchased a Nikon 9000 scanner, and am interested in purchasing

the FH-869G film holder with glass. It has been out of stock for months on B+H

and Adorama. Other online retailers don't have it in stock.

 

Any idea what gives?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Ned Otter

Thanks to all who have replied.

 

Here's the current info on using Scanhancer with the 9000:

 

"Tests with the Nikon LS-8000ED/LS-9000ED have been unfortunate so far, although a Scanhancer for those scanners is much desired by many. We'll keep trying, but cannot promise any serious improvements for the near future. Update: some new tests have shown that a Scanhancer can work with the Nikon glass holder for the 9000. Some interesting improvements for B&W scanning were reported. Grain grittyness was reduced quite apparently. Check back for new developments here."

 

A bit of Gaussian blur seems to be quite helpful.

Greetings to all,

 

Perhaps some of you more experienced than I can lend a hand here.

 

I recently purchased a Nikon 9000, which obviously included NikonScan, and also

I have a copy of Vuescan.

 

Try as I might, I can not seem to get acceptable 35mm scans from Tri-x with

either scanning software. I'm scanning at 4000 dpi and making 8x10 prints, which

are coming out very, very grainy.

 

Does anyone out there have a workflow for Tri-x that they can share?

 

Most of the images are from the early to mid-1960s, and I have already scanned a

lot of them on an Imacon 848/949, without the same issues.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ned Otter

Gerry -

 

I have a couple of questions:

 

1. When is the last time this camera was serviced

 

2. How cold is cold?

Bengt- thanks for the response. That's the first time I heard of the Mutar requiring additional exposure. But since my 3.5F doesn't have 1/2 stops, it seems I'll always be a bit off. Obviously not so critical for print film, but for slide film it could be an issue.

One further thought - if a modern-day filter could be fitted to the Mutar, would it have to be the "extra-wide" type in order to prevent vignetting?

 

The Mutar on a 3.5 Rollei has a very slight amount of vignetting in just the tips of the corners. It's not really a big deal for me.

 

I'm just wondering if others have any experience with this kind of setup.

 

Thanks--

Greetings to all,

 

I have a Rollei 3.5F with a Mutar Wide Angle attachment. In looking

through old Rollei literature/price lists, I see there were filters

available for the Mutar, i.e. Yellow/Green/Red, etc.

 

Does anyone know what size these filters were/are? I'm trying to

determine if the Mutar can be fitted with modern filters.

 

Thanks in advance --

I'd be interested to hear from others about a MF camera (classic or contemporary) that has 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments, and the pros/cons of various models, i.e. mirror slap, etc.

 

I really love my Rolleiflex, but perhaps I need to investigate the Rolleicord V, at least for the sake of economy.

 

What is the opinion of others regarding 120 slide film? On it's way out? Still great choices available? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Major Black - thanks for the compliment. Music is my first love, but I've fallen for photography in a big way. My late father was a pro photographer during the 1960s here in NYC. He shot MF and 35mm (his work can be seen at www.RobertOtter.com and was recently profiled in the Dec/Jan issue of Camera Arts magazine).

 

Thanks again to all have replied.

Thanks Stephen and Tim,

 

FYI Tim, the Rolleiflex 3.5F has the following f-stops:

 

3.5, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22

 

There is a half-stop between 3.5 and 4, but all the rest are full stops.

Greetings,

 

Forgive me if this has been covered before, but I could not find a

direct reference in the archives.

 

I've done some reading that says to properly expose slide film, one

needs to adjust the f-stop by 1/3 stop or /2 stop, etc. My Rollei 3.5F

doesn't have these interim stops, so how does one properly expose

slide film on an old Rollei TLR?

 

Thanks in advance --

Many thanks to all who have responded. I ordered a Bay II to 52mm step up ring from ebay, as suggested.

 

One more question - can you attach a lens hood when using the step up ring with filter, and if so, any recommendations?

 

Thanks --

Greetings,

 

Is it possible to adapt my 3.5F Bay II Rollei to use modern filters,

i.e. B+W, Heliopan, etc.?

 

I know that B+W and Heliopan make Bay II filters, but I'd rather not

wait 6 to 10 weeks and shell out the extra money.

 

I checked Fotocare and B+H today, and they both said that there is no

such thing as a step-up ring from Bay II to any modern format.

 

Thanks in advance for your help

 

Ned Otter

Thanks very much for that informative answer, Roger. I really appreciate all the detailed info.

 

I have another question, somewhat related. When you folks travel, do you place your camera through the xray machine? I have a classic Rollei 3.5F, and would rather not have it accumulate xrays exposure over its lifetime. I'm wondering what others have experienced. Can you ask for a hand inspection of camera equipment?

 

Thanks--

Many thanks to all who have responded thus far.

 

Peter - I will be staying in the Ginza area in the beginning of the trip, and very close to the Roppongi area at the end of the trip.

 

Thanks--

Greetings to all --

 

I shoot 120 negative film, both b/w and color, usually Tri-x and

Portra NC.

 

In late March, I will be travelling to Japan for about 1 month. The

beginning and the ending of the trip will be in Tokyo.

 

Here are my questions:

 

1. Given the potential hassle at airports with roll film, does it

make sense to instead purchase and process my film in Tokyo? I

understand that I may not be able to find Kodak film that easily in

that part of the world, so I'm open to other suggestions in the Fuji

world.

 

2. If the answer to question #1 is yes, what is the ballpark per-

roll price for film purchasing and processing for 120 film? I'm

interested in film processing only, no prints. I'd also be

interested in any recommendations for where to purchase and process

120 film.

 

Thanks in advance ---

 

Ned Otter

Greetings to all,

 

(sorry for the cross post....)

 

I have an Epson 4800 and print b/w almost exclusively on Epson Premium

Glossy paper, both sheet fed and roll paper. I have noticed that after

printing on the roll, after the paper cutter has finished, the

subsequent prints (sheet and roll) show tiny speckles that reflect

light at different angles than the K3 ink on the page. There is no

color to these speckles, there are simply tiny glossy bits.

 

I have verified by running my fingers over the cut edge of the roll

paper that there are indeed many, many glossy speckles on the end of

the roll.

 

I have contacted Epson support, and they seemed to think it's my

media, and sent me some sheets of Premium Glossy and Semimatte stock

of their own (I don't see this issue on anything else but glossy

paper). But the end result is the same. In very dark areas of the b/w

glossy prints, the tiny speckles are glaringly obvious, and can

sometimes - but not always - be removed.

 

This may not be specific to the 4800 or even the K3 line of printers.

I would imagine that any printer that cuts glossy roll paper would

have this issue.

 

Has anyone else experienced this?

 

Thannks in advance.

 

Ned Otter

I have a new Epson 2200, and have downloaded the English Gray

Balancer software, and acquired the Kodak Q13 reference chart.

 

No problem printing the test image, but *none* of the Gray Balancer 4

point adjustments will print. When attempting, I receive the

following error:

 

"EPDI API error"

 

I tried diabling anti-virus software, but no dice. The same problem

happens with the French version of GB as well.

 

I'm running an AMD XP Ahtlon +1900 on Windows 2000, with 512 MB RAM.

 

Anyone got a clue as to what might be going on here?

 

Thanks,

 

Ned Otter