astral

Is this is the official position?

I absolutely loathe it - so much so that I am unlikely to visit again. Firstly - the landing page is so "in your face" that it is clearly intended to appeal to Mums and Toddlers, not people who are seriously looking for a solid, no frills photo site, where content is paramount. Secondly, Mums and Toddlers websites which are designed by people who don't actually use them (this is a leading example) require the user to learn new symbols and pictograms for features which are easily explained in one word (which can be translated into different languages, unlike symbols). Also, they take up too much space. (The use of pictograms here while eiting a post is fine BTW). Thirdly, endless scrolling. Rather than the page content being compact and maximum use made of a page, we now have lots of borders . . . I have to use the mouse more which hurts my wrist more. Fourthly, I hate it. Really really hate it. Fifthly, the simple(!) pulldown navigation has been replaced with something I do not understand and which I an not prepared to take the time to learn. I am not going ta adapt to the stupid, over-designed layout which has been made so complicated and horrible that I don't want ever to come back . . . Sixthly, Flickr lost a lot of users by alienating the serious contributors in a vain attempt to make the horros more attractive to people whose opinions really mattered - the contributors. Pnet has just taken a big step in the same direction. Seventhly, I absolutely totally and completely loathe it. Eighthly - in an earlier post: "now it looks like every other forum on the web. And this is bad? I think not." I humbly submit that it does look like every other forum on the internet - dumbed down is not a great thing . . . . and there are much easier ones to navigate. Ninthly - edit post function can't be found . . . life's too short to chase around in ever decreasing circles. Enough - Gone . .

I absolutely loathe it - so much so that I am unlikely to visit again. Firstly - the landing page is so "in your face" that it is clearly intended to appeal to Mums and Toddlers, not people who are seriously looking for a solid, no frills photo site, where content is paramount. Secondly, Mums and Toddlers websites which are designed by people who don't actually use them (this is a leading example) require the user to learn new symbols and pictograms for features which are easily explained in one word (which can be translated into different languages, unlike symbols). Also, they take up too much space. (The use of pictograms here while eiting a post is fine BTW). Thirdly, endless scrolling. Rather than the page content being compact and maximum use made of a page, we now have lots of borders . . . I have to use the mouse more which hurts my wrist more. Fourthly, I hate it. Really really hate it. Fifthly, the simple(!) pulldown navigation has been replaced with something I do not understand and which I an not prepared to take the time to learn. I am not going ta adapt to the stupid, over-designed layout which has been made so complicated and horrible that I don't want ever to come back . . . Sixthly, Flickr lost a lot of users by alienating the serious contributors in a vain attempt to make the horros more attractive to people whose opinions really mattered - the contributors. Pnet has just taken a big step in the same direction. Seventhly, I absolutely totally and completely loathe it. Eighthly - in an earlier post: "now it looks like every other forum on the web. And this is bad? I think not." I humbly submit that it does look like every other forum on the internet - dumbed down is not a great thing . . . . and there are much easier ones to navigate. Enough - Gone . . .

<em>“</em><em>If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough.”</em> Robert Cappa. Works for me with, say, an Elmar on a Leica 111 or a 20mm on a MFT camera, especially when I want to explore a subject more. A bit more 'legwork' can often give more interesting results than standing still and using a zoom lens: it helps <em>develop new perspectives</em> - in all senses of the term. That said, all lenses can help to cultivate new techniques - zooms or primes: imagination and visualization are the key.<br />

<p>Hi, It would help greatly to know where you are and whether you wish to send it overseas.</p>

<p>I am wondering why the estate did not just donate the camera to the Red Cross for them to auction. It just seems to me that they are 'milking' the situation and sweetening it with a 50% donation. It feels decidedly ungenerous on the part of the estate - <em>even disingenuous</em> - since the camera has litle real worth and the "donation" will be actually made by the <em>buyer,</em> although the estate (and Mary Ellen Mark's reputation) will probably get the headline credit for it . . . </p>

<p>There has been some debate (in whaling history circles) about the extent to which Germany had access to spermaceti in the 1930s and what impact this had on German engineering and manufacture, etc.<br /><br />Germany did not have a significant whaling industry prior to 1939, and could not operate one from late '39 onwards. Like many other specialist materials, spermaceti either had to be imported, or alternatives and substitutes had to be developed. (Historically, the largest producer of spermaceti oil was the USA). During the First World War Germany faced a virtually total naval blockade which contributed significantly to its lack of animal or vegetable oil for margarine, soap, and glycerides (used in chemical manufacture and explosives), as well as some lubricants; petroleum imports were also severely affected. This led Germany to expand oil-seed (rape oil) production and to improve the extraction of a wide range of mineral oils from coal or to synthesise them. Whether Germany obtained - or really needed - spermaceti oil in any quantity in the 1914 to 1945 period appears not to be very well known - maybe there were several ingenious 'work-arounds'. Either way, the availability of spermaceti, except for the most specialised uses, may have been somewhat problematic for Germany until the 1950s. <br /><br />After 1945 until the late 1960s the international whaling industry went into overdrive, but (as in thje 1930s) the focus was primarily on baleen whales which could be found in large numbers, rather than the more solitary sperm whales. (The bulk of baleen whale oil was destined for the food, soap and chemical industries as in the 1930s). Spermaceti oil was by then very rapidly being replaced with mineral oils and synthetics, but continued to be used in some very narrow applications such as automatic transmissions in some motor cars, as a special lubricant used in engineering and manufacturing, and reputedly in some spacecraft. Supply and demand tended to make the use of spermaceti for non-specialist applications unduly expensive . . . and sperm whale populations reached near-extinction levels in the '60s.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Thanks Robin - I am re-learning Italian; using double t becomes a habitt! </p>

<p>Kamera Service in Netherlands (<a href="http://www.kamera-service.info/index.php/en/">http://www.kamera-service.info/index.php/en/</a>). There should be no problem with tax for items sent to the UK which is still part of the EU despite some <em>doom-mongers!</em> Similarly, postage to the UK will be similar to postage to any other part of the mainland EU that is covered by the CEPT agreement.</p> <p>Spermacetti oil was obtained from the sperm whale (physeter macrocephalus) - it is found in the whale's head. It retains its viscosity at low temperatures, and was not used on lenses or cameras except those which were prepared and lubricated for very low temperatures, which itself was quite rare. Conversely, spermacetti oil is much too thin to use as a camera lens lubricant at normal temperatures. Mineral-based grease was the normal lubricant, and was a mix of substances of different viscosity and volatility, some of which progressively evaoprate and may then re-condense in unwanted places.</p>

<p>FE2 and FM2n (as well as other Nikons) have interchangeable screens, some of which <em>may</em> require adjustment to the meter setting or EV compensation (etc). Check this website: <a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fefmshared/html/screens.htm">http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fefmshared/html/screens.htm</a></p>

<p>In my recent experience, car salesmen are usually keener to sell their own 'solutions' to presumed needs than to spend any time assessing a customer's actual requirements. That same attitude is still occasionally seen in some camera stores. </p> <p>Also, I do not consider it to be 'condescending' to request more information from an enquirer in order to help them define or refine their requirements, etc. Getting the facts right at the outset is much better than trying to unscramble matters later. Similarly, I feel that it is much more 'condescending' to offer an enquirer diverse hypothetical solutions and recommendations that are based on an imperfect understanding of that enquirer's needs or misconceptions. Put another way: a relevant question can be worth much more than any number of irrelevant suggestions . . . both need to be balanced.</p>

<p>Dave, have you contacted Peter at CRS in Luton.? I know his turnaround times are long, but the workmanship and range of services is fist class. Same with Malcolm Taylor. These two are able to do everything you could ever want and more. There is also a guy in Netherland with a top-notch reputation, I cannot recall the name.</p> <p>The issue with re-importing items that have been repaired outside the EU is tricky. In principle, if the item being returned has a Customs Declaration clearly stuck on the outside of a packet, the Border Agency (who are now responsible) should pass it. However, they use agents - usually the freight handlers, often Royal Mail - who sometimes disregard the declaration and you can then end up paying VAT and a handling charge, and with delays of up to a week as a parcel sits at a UK airport. In my experience, it is possible to obtain a refund of the VAT from UKBA/HMRC, but handling fees are non-refundable. Frankly, unless you need to send anything outside the EU, you could have aggrivations.</p> <p>If you can get the right phone number for UKBA (HMRC), the humans there are very helpful. If you do go ahead with the US service, get a guarantee that the camera (etc) is fully insured and that you have a tracking number. I have had stuff sent to me from the USA with only a US Postal Service receipt and no tracking number - it got lost in San Diego and USPS just did not have any clue about it. Insurers washed their hands of the issue too. Don't skimp on the paperwork. Good luck.</p>

<p>Check HMRC/UK Border Agency website for up to date information. There is a form for re-importation that should be used in such cases. However, it is possible that the freight handler for the return package (which may or not be Royal Mail) will try to make a handling charge - usually £18 - and even collect VAT on the value of the repair. But why do you need/want to send a Leica to the USA? There are two or three world-class repairers in the UK and their charges and turnaround will probably be very competitive.</p>

<p>The extent to which thoriated glass goes yellow or brown does seems to vary a little: I have a couple of identical lenses that exhibit individual colour differences. As I understand the situation, the browning and yellowing is the cumulative effect of irradiation of all glass constituents and therefore even the slightest batch-to-batch variation in the quantities of some of those constituents may be significant. That sort of special glass - sometimes termed 'crucible glass' - was typically made a few kilograms or so at a time: its wasn't "made by the mile and cut off by the yard as needed" (as Melville said of Nantucket whalers!).</p> <p>My experience is that shining ultra-violet light into a lens to reduce yellowing has always been an utter waste of time - it has never worked quickly or satisfactorily. Good quality blue colour correction filters (such as Wratten/Hoya 82A, or B+W KR1.5, etc) in various strengths are easily found very cheaply at camera fairs and on eBay, etc. <em>These work absolutely perfectly with colour negative and transparency film</em>, and there is simply no better or easier solution than screwing one on the lens.</p>

<p>This abandoned church is at Colston Basset in Nottinghamshire (England). Parts of the church date from Anglo-Saxon times, but some of it is Norman and it was variously enlarged and partially demolished over succeeding centuries until the mid 19th Century when it was replaced by a Victorian church situated nearby. The village is better known for its dairy which produces blue or white Stilton cheese, and which (by law) is only produced here and in a few surrounding villages. Minolta Autocord & Reala. Posted just before dinner time in rural England.</p><div></div>

<p>Q.G. If you really want a time zone there is a perfectly good, internationally recognised and much used one that has been around since 1960 - UTC . . aka GMT.</p>

<p>The only camera and lens I can afford <em>now</em> is exactly what I <em>could not really afford</em> many years ago(!) - an M2 and a late 35mm f2.8 Summaron. In reality, it is all that I '<em>need'</em>.</p>

<p>Photo.net is used by people from all over the world, and while Central Somewhere Time will work for some people, it will not be of much relevance to others elsewhere in the world. My view is that a preoccupation with timezones relating to this thread would be a distraction which could lead to inconsistencies and headaches, without helping to remove confusion for potential posters who live in remote and oft forgotten parts of the world like Europe, Africa and Asia. Let's not forget, that when it is 'today' where we are standing, it may be tomorrow somewhere else . . . and occasionally, in some parts of the world, it may still be yesterday.</p>

<p>Lyddington Bede House, Rutland, England. The Bede House in the picturesque village of Lyddington, was originally the medieval wing of a palace owned by the Bishops of Lincoln. By 1600 it was owned bySir Thomas Cecil, son of Queen Elizabeth’s chief minister. Cecil converted it into an almshouse for <em>"12 poor ‘bedesmen’ over 30 years old and two women (over 45), all free of lunacy, leprosy or the French pox."</em> <a href="http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/lyddington-bede-house/">Link </a></p> <div></div>

<p>There are many tests here - <a href="http://www.photozone.de/reviews">http://www.photozone.de/reviews</a>.</p>

<p>I have a similar problem with some vintage lenses, and <em>my interim solution</em> is to save plastic bottle / jar tops in the hope that some will fit, possibly with an old microfibre cloth (etc) to wedge them on . . . then I put them in a bag made from an old sock! Some such solutions have now become permanent.</p>

<p>PS <em>"Don't quote me, but . . . "</em> a plain prism <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/glyptolith/NIKON-F2">Nikon F2</a> and a Pre-AI lens or two is a real 'class act'.</p>

<p>Dave A, thank you. Mike rather "nailed it"</p> <p>I can't give you any hard answers, but there is plenty of choice in 35mm rangefinder (RF) cameras: <em>folders</em> (usually fixed lens); <em>fixed lens</em> (non-folding);<em> interchangeable lens</em>. There are all sorts of variations on these basic types, such as folders and fixed lens cameras that do not have coupled rangefinders. Here is a very broad perspective on what is possible:</p> <p><em>Folding fixed lens 35mm rangefinders:</em> these include Kodak Retina, Agfa Super Solinette and several Voigtlander models, plus numerous other makes. Some have f2 50mm lenses (meaning higher prices), but the f2.8 variants are much more common. These cameras do not normally have coupled meters. A good starting point is to look at a the Kodak Retina range from the model II through to IIIC.</p> <p><em>Fixed lens non-folding 35mm rangefinders</em>: there are far too many models to even start listing the more popular ones, but they include Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Rollei, Konica and many other well known brands. Most of these cameras have coupled meters and many have auto-exposure (usually but not always shutter priority). Beware of cameras that look like rangefinders but which are zone focussing only - it may not always be self-evident. Several Canon and Olympus models have fast (f1.7-1.9) lenses that are at least as good as most SLR 50mm lenses.</p> <p><em>Interchangeable lens 35mm cameras</em>: again there is much choice here, so research is essential. The top brand is Leica of course (bayonet or screw-mount lenses), but other manufacturers produced compatible bodies and lenses, which are now usually a fraction of the cost of Leica gear. Examples are vintage Canon LTM (Leica thread mount) cameras and bthe more recent Voigtlander "demi-classic" LTM and bayonet mount cameras. There are a few brands that are not Leica-compatible - Contax/Kiev for example. Kievs can be fun and fairly inexpensive; Russian lenses can vary in quality, model to model and specimen to specimen - mine are very good performers.</p> <p>That is a very basic outline, and in reality the choices are much wider to the point of being bewildering.</p> <p>Having a folding or rigid RF camera can be a useful addition to one's SLR arsenal. They are quite simple to use, although a separate meter is usually needed; they are fairly unobtrusive, pocketable, and near silent in operation. They may require a bit more forethought when taking photos than does an SLR, but that is a debateable point. For example, by using HFD focussing (hyperfocal distance) and knowing about light levels and scene contrast (rather than <em>relying</em> on a meter), these cameras can be really quick to deploy for, say, street photography.</p> <p>My personal preference is a Kodak Retina IIa (1947-49) or a late 50's-60's IIIc or similar model, with an Agfa Super Solinette (with a 'premium lens') coming second. However, if you want an interesting, quirky, 'learn-more' or 'talking piece' camera there is far more choice in RF cameras than for mainstream SLRs and usually at a price that won't break that bank. If you are aiming in <em>that</em> particular financial direction "plump for a Leica!" . . . . . And then there are rollfilm cameras . . "a whole new ballgame!"</p> <p>Finally (!), earlier suggestions about alternative SLRs all have merit, although no-one mentioned ALPA or EXAKTA. If you want <em>"interesting"</em> they are ones to look at (albeit that Alpa ain't ever been cheap). In the right hands they can/will produce exceptionally good photos - although the person behind the camera is almost invariably the most critical factor. I've always wanted an Exakta, but so-far commonsense has prevailed. Happy hunting.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Nowadays I find that carrying more than three prime lenses is often unnecessary, although that may be mostly laziness. To test this, a few months back year I looked at the exif data from shots taken with a DSLR with zoom lens. I found that the vast majority were taken at (or very close to) the 'traditional' 24mm, 35mm and 90mm focal lengths, and very few at in-between settings. The 50mm lens doesn't fit well in my preferred line-up.</p> <p>It seems that that my early expectations about what I 'needed' when I bought a veritable arsenal of lenses, and what I actually use day-by-day are really not the same. Maybe several decades of using prime lenses has 'conditioned' the way I see or <em>visualise</em> the sorts of scenes that I like to photograph. That said, I can quite happily go out with just a 28mm or 35mm lens and shoot all day long without feeling unduly inhibited. Sometimes being 'spoilt for choice' is a bigger problem than it needs to be: I was taught to <em>"work with what you have"</em>, and regularly remind myself of that basic advice. But there are lots of great lenses out there . . . it just seems that, in truth, "we" don't have to own them all.</p>