ity

I was on holiday (vacation) a few years back and had purchased a copy of AP magazine

with a review of the new (new, as in I'd never heard of it) Pentax *ist Film Camera. A good

friend of mine, Barrie, was with me, and new to photography was intrigued by the review

and the cameras name. Asking the inevitable question - "how the hell do you pronounce

that?" I was forced into an interesting situation. Having been involved in photography as

(on and off) an amateur and professional for 26 years I felt my response was paramount. I

sipped from the glass of iced vodka, took another toke, and with confidence uttered the

first thing that came to mind - Pentax Pissed. With a raised eyebrow, and a hint of smile

he said "damn those Japanese are crazy, but you know what? I like it!". (Pissed in an

affectionate way, the British - drunk, not the US - disgruntled dictionary entries). - Ian.

Thanks Lindy. I'd not actually seen this list, but I knew it was coming.

Sadly, it seems that photography is becoming a consumer only field. I guess it was bound to

happen. I mean, who needs a two meter lens, or a 15mm ultra-wide rectilinear lens?

Oh wait! I do! Dammit!

I'm also sorry to see the end of the MZ-S body. Which was going to be the replacement to my

two LX's, if they ever become unreliable. - Ian.

Shawn, the EXIF data format was designed to be burnt only at the point of origination. As

such, one is not supposed to be able to edit, add or even create it. Only hardware (firmware)

is allowed to write it, and then only once. The reasons for this are obvious.

However, the reality is somewhat different. Whilst pretty much all cameras write the info,

many (all?) film scanners do not. Minolta, please pay close attention! If you do manage to find

an EXIF editor, I for one would be most grateful if you would let me know at ian@ity.co.uk.

Your search for an editor (and not just a viewer, as most are) is highly valid. I looked

exhaustively for an editor some months ago, with no success. - Ian.

Guys, many thanks for the advice. Ryan, my lens is a 37800. I've just run a roll of XP2 Super

through it and some frames are dark on the right hand side, I presume a shutter fault? The

meter seems to be OK. And although I've not looked in detail, the lens appears to be very

sharp indeed. I shall persevere.- Ian.

I have recently acquired a Pentax Spotmatic with a Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens. Both

appear to be functioning correctly and will soon be sent off for a CLA. Having noticed that

the body appears to be an early green "R" (on the rewind knob), would I be right in

thinking that the lens must be an early (first year) eight element Super-Tak? As I'm sure

your aware, Herbert Keppler's "The Pentax Way" book states that the later seven element

Super-Tak 50mm f/1.4 must only be used on later orange "R" bodies, else damage may

occur (I don't seem to have any damage - I hope!). So far I have not managed to deduce

the visible difference between these lenses. Also, my lens has what appears to be isotope

decay, which in time, I shall attempt to cure via UV exposure (yep, the kitchen window and

alu foil). Body is s/n. 1457659 and lens is s/n. 2288391. Many thanks for any help on this

matter. - Ian.

Can anybody recommend a lab for E6 processing in Mobile (Alabama). Or better still,

Daphne / Fairhope, because I can't find diddley squat on the net.

Many Thanks

Since you already have the 31 and 77 Limited lenses. May I state the obvious. Buy an

LX and the 43mm Limited lens. Although in your situation I'd buy the M or A Series 50

f1.7, and have one of the sharpest wide-open standards ever made. I'd also rather

have two LX bodies (one Tri-X, the other Kodachrome) and the above lenses, than one

Leica any day. But that's just me.

Solution! I had neglected to install "Scanner Launcher (5400)" option. Otherwise

known as "MFSButton Monitor". With it installed, the 5400 works fine on 10.3.1.

I'd previously left it out on my 10.2.6 install because it sucks 5% of my CPU even at

idle. I pack my scanner away to minimize dust, so its mostly not even plugged in.

Obviously a requrement in Panther. Drag it's icon into the dock and you can drop it

out of startup so that you can run it up manually a few seconds before you plug-in

your scanner. Hope it works for you. - Ian.

Rue, firstly I AM using 10.3.1 Panther, the moderator changed the heading to 10.2 by

accident. But we'd worked that out. Secondly It's NOT the boot sequence of the

scanner. Thanks, but I'm not a novice. However, thanks for letting me know it CAN

work in panther. I guess something is screwed in my installation. I'll keep on it.

Booting back to 10.2.6 is not what I'd call a solution (for me). - Ian

The good news is that if I boot my G4 from a 10.2.6 volume, the scanner works fine.

I've emailed Minolta (as I think it's the Dimage software thats at fault in some way).

However, heres a clue. Both Vuescan and SilverFast don't see the scanner either (in

Panther). - Ian.

Bloody good question! The pepper grain is the thing that puts me off this otherwise

most excellent film. But then I'm still in love with Kodachrome. Tried E100G ?

Thanks for the advise guys. Firstly, yes I'm using Firewire. Ok, I've just done the

10.3.1 upgrade. Still no luck. The system is still seeing the scanner (confirmed via

system profiler). But the Diamge software is still syaing that it can't see the scanner.

I'm still working on a solution. Does anyone have this scanner working via firewire in

Panther? I'm concerned that the Dimage software (v1.1.1) is not Panther compliant.

Many thanks. - Ian.

My Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 no longer works. The OS is seeing it, but the

Dimage Scan Software v1.1.1 says it can't see the scanner. I presume this is directly

related to my 10.2 upgrade to 10.3 Panther. Has anyone else experienced this

problem yet? In the mean time I'll check everything over again just in case the Panther

issue is a red-herring.

Hi Devan, to answer your question. Yes of course you could just make the exposure

twice as long. If you change the rating of the film, all your shots are consistent. You

don't have to remember anything. It's easier. It's an issue of consistancy. That all. Let

the camera do the work (film speed indexing). Remember to process accordingly, and

your done. Trust me on this one.

Thanks Mike, great idea. BTW, I forgot to mention that it's European HC-110, not the

USA syrup. I'd had to guess that the published Kodak times were at fault. 3.75 mins

just didn't sound at all right. But It sure as hell is not the old 7.5mins. Obviously I

don't want to go below 5 mins for consistency reasons.

Reference: OK, I've just processed a 35mm (Pentax LX) roll of "New" Tri-X rated at

400asa. HC-110 @ 1+9, 20c, 6mins. Twiddle agitation for 5 secs every 30 secs.

Paterson System 4 Plastic drum, one roll, 300ml fluid. The negs look awesome. The

kind of awesome that means they're very contrasty. I've scanned them (Minolta 5400).

On an Agfa IT8.7/2-1993 test scale photographed against a wall, black runs out at

around 16 or 17 on the long grey bars (bottom). Not a disaster, and some of the

shots have worked really well. It looks very Tri-X to me. Grain is rarther exagerated,

but ok. I'm a little disappointed with the mid range of course. Next roll will be done

the same except at 5 mins instead of 6. Hope this is of some help/reference. Mail me

if you need jpg's. Any comments/help/questions are most welcome.