david_lyga

<p>OK, here goes:<br /> On the 'My Workspace' link there is a 'MAIN COLUMN' entitled 'Account Options' on the left. There is no place within that column that says 'Your personal information' or 'Update personal information'. Am I blind?<br /> <br /> Is the "Main Column' you refer to the one titled 'Account Options' or is there supposed to be a column named, specifically, "MAIN COLUMN"? Please specify columns by their respective TITLES. One person's perception of what constitues 'Main' might not be upbiquitous.<br /> <br /> In this 'Account Options' there are about 20 or so links. NONE of them specify 'personal information'. Do I have to drill down on one of these 20 links?<br>

<br /> It's not the technology, but, rather, the semantics that confuses me.<br /> - David Lyga</p>

<p>Please: where is the 'MAIN COLUMN'. On which page?</p>

<p>This site has to be one of the most confusing out there and makes healthcare.gov look simple!</p>

<p>How do I change my email address? It says to go to 'My Workspace' but when you do go there is not the "SITE BUREAUCRACY" needed to change that email address! It is impossible to be able to do this. WHY? WHY do sites have to be set up where you have to navigate dozens of links in order to do what is accomplished with one or two links on other sites. If I am stupid say so but I don't think so. Please don't give me info UNLESS YOU SPECIFY EACH AND EVERY STEP. How many reams of information do I have to wade through? <br /> <br />Now, moderator, make certain to delete this because the truth cannot be told and is wholly unsuitable for public consumption . - David Lyga</p>

<p>You are not going to find a sharper lens. The dried up helicoid is a hassle; if you were in Philadelphia I would show you how to take it apart and remove the gunk and renew the lubricant. It is not that hard but if you are not used to that, it would be formidable. Basically, you unscrew the front ring and then, maybe on this particular model, the side set screws. Then you remove the screws holding the lens body in place. Too difficult to put into words here. - David Lyga</p>

<p>Gee Jeff, was it so many years ago (maybe four) that Walgreens regularly had sales on its 400 and 800 film? One dollar per roll!?! - David Lyga</p>

<p>I live in Philadelphia but was also in Connecticut recently. Dollar Tree is a chain of dollar stores on the East Coast and they sell this battery (Sunbeam label) four for $1. (Other button batteries as well). Honestly, they might not last quite as long but I keep them in my freezer and never have to worry. - David Lyga</p>

<p>Jeff, a couple of years ago I took the train from Philadelphia to Penn Station and walked the long block to B&H to get the Kodak Flexicolor Fixer (C41), 25 gallon size. The damn box weighed 48 pounds. I took it on the train back to Philadelphia. Price? About $40.<br /> The really nuts part is that I did this THREE times within one month! Why? Because the Flexicolor fixer is the very best fiser that there is. It stretches TWICE as far as the RA4 fixer and lasts and lasts in its concentrate form. I have enought fixer to last for the rest of my life (and then some). It has no smell and stays pure. No sulphur?<br /> Just looked again at the B&H site and it is no longer available! If you can buy it somewhere, still, buy it: it is cheap and is, again, the best fixer out there.<br>

And Jeff, dilute this Flexicolor fixer 1+7 for film and 1+15 for paper. You will not be sorry. - David Lyga</p>

<p>I use PET plastic bottles, filled to the rim. (Gatorade, soft drinks, etc). Use glass marbles to take up the slack. NEVER goes bad. And they are stored in normal indoor lighting. Some PET plastic is slightly flexible (Pepsi) and can be squeezed a bit. - David Lyga</p>

<p>I was afraid that this would not be easy. I will, instead, create a 'complete' video and (through about 1000 'takes') create my full masterpiece in one fortunate 'take'. Thanks. - David Lyga</p>

<p>This model also makes sound movies. I know how to do this and make the appropriate adjustments as to frames per second and resolution, and also for adjusting sound level. There is also an editing capability, allowing one to either (or both) remove frames from the beginning or end or the movie. My question is this:<br /> <br /> Assuming I make three movies, all edited and complete. Can these three files be combined so that one continuous movie will result from only one file? I use library computers so computer software is limited and one cannot download other programs. I have no problem with Adobe being available to view the movies but combining is something that I am not familiar with: would this combining into one continuous movie be on the camera level or the PC level? Perhaps with this particular camera this combination cannot be done. The instruction manual gives no information on this but I ask this because editing (apparently) cannot be done to the movie at other than the beginning or end. In other words, I must delete all frames from the beginning or end and not from any other point in the movie. - David Lyga</p>

<p>And, Bob Bernhard, I would also disagree with my assessment that your advice was expensive.<br>

Numbers tell all and point to a much lower bottom line with the rechagables. Thanks all. - David Lyga</p>

<p>Thank you Rob. I just might have to finally adhere to your expensive advice. - David Lyga</p>

<p>With all my technical stupidity I am re-posting my response to the answers garnered by the same question on APUG.ORG. I really think that common sense is the answer here. Correct me if I err. I responded as such:</p>

<p><strong>Well, I guess these are answers 'of sorts'. But, intuitively, I'll bet that if I were able to put FIVE AA batteries on this circuit the camera would run fine. That's just intuition based upon much experience with batteries and gadgets in life. Reason? If ALMOST new batteries are deemed deficient you can bet that the camera will tolerate considerably more voltage, even 20% more without frying. Again, I ask, does anyone here think that putting five AA cells would fry the circuit? You are being put 'on the spot' here!</strong><br /> <br /><strong> How? I am very inventive: the AC power supply has a jack for the cable that supplies the final 7.4 volts to the camera. That cable can be disconnected from the AC transformer, spliced, then I can arrange to hook up five cells (in series, not parallel) and then simply plug in the jack for the camera into the camera. I am mildly afraid to do this but it is an option. I know that I am taking this to the nth degree but it is a thought. -David Lyga<br /></strong></p>

<p>This is my FIRST digital camera ever. I have decades experience with analog. I just want to know why AC current provides 7.4 volts and why that need does not follow with batteries. This could be easily accomplished by having to have FIVE (not FOUR) AA batteries. It seems to me to be a simple solution to this shortage of power because that is what it is: four AA batteries provide only just enough power and when they even BEGIN to die the camera cannot function. Be honest: FIVE AA batteries would not fry the circuit. (Even I know that!) - David Lyga</p>

<p>I have tried for 30 minutes to be able to post a query on DPUG and am 'considered a spammer' by default when I try to join. (I already have an account on APUG.ORG)<br>

<br /> I have a question that pertains to digital cameras and I do not know where else to post it other than on Photo.net. The question I have can probably be answered by most. This pertains to battery life:<br /> <br /> I recently bought my first digital camera (Canon S2 IS PowerShot) and am quite happy. However, unless the batteries are practically brand new, the camera signals low battery or, worse, shuts down completely after stating 'change batteries'. What gripes me to no avail is the fact that the AC powercord supplies 7.4volts DC to the camera. But four NEW alkaline AA batteries supply only 6 volts (4 x 1.5 V).<br /> <br /> My rational question: why does the camera not require FIVE AA batteries (5 X 1.5 volts = 7.5 volts) to make an almost identical voltage supplied by AC? This seems to be a question that cannot be answered any other way but to say that one is forced to keep buying new batteries. I already know that an alternative is NiCADs but I want to use alkalines. Thank you. - David Lyga</p>

<p>Mike, years ago I bought twenty 100 foot rolls of 2484 at a photo show (exp'd 1994) and it was SLOW and FOGGY. NOW it is worse! It seems to reach a point where it does not get any worse. The speed is not about 25 and needs about double the development time as for Tri-X. It does come out foggy and you might then use Farmers Reducer to make it printable. The biggest problem here is attaining sufficient contrast. That is why you must develop a long time. But the longer you develop it the foggier it gets! Still, develop a long time. The Farmers Reducer will attack the weakest parts of the negative first, thereby allowing a bit more contrast to remain. - David Lyga</p>

<p>Folks, thank you for offering input into this highly relevant survey.<br>

Mr Spirer, I do think that what I had intended here does, indeed, measure up to this Merriam Webster definition of a survey: "to query (someone) in order to collect data for the analysis of some aspect of a group or area ". I really do not see how 'subjective' elements must be resolutely barred from this rather liberal definition.<br>

<br />There was much more relevant input on apug.org, but this helps, also. Yes, as feared, most are of the age such that there was no choice as to which medium to use when they began photography. And we all learn from such as this in order to better assess both the industry's future and ours as well. - David Lyga<br /><br>

</p>

<h2 >A VERY RELEVANT SURVEY</h2>

 

 

<blockquote >I think that it almost becomes mandatory to know just how old the members and subscribers of both APUG.ORG and PHOTO.NET are in order to develop an understanding as to whether 'film' is here to stay or is truly dying out. Collectively, we love to wax about our love for analog but our mantras usually lack quantitative affirmation. Folks, there is NOTHING like knowing that YOUNG people are immersed into this method of capture and not only the 'old ones' who stay with it through familiarity and habit.<br /> <br /> I am 62 and grew up with analog capture. As a teenager I had 'no choice' in the matter. Thus, it is easy for me to be such a diehard. But I would be intrigued if people under, say 35 or 30, can attempt to honestly say that they feel likewise. When I say this I mean GENUINELY feel likewise and not simply enthralled with 'something new' as opposed to the pervasive digital environment. For this younger age: you genuinely had a choice when you got your first 'serious' camera, as 'serious' still digital has been with us for about 15 long years. You did not have only one option.<br /> <br /> Be honest with your assertion. And, obviously, the older ones need to state their (approximate) age in order to give balance to this survey. Am I prying too much? Am I asking for something not relevant? I think not. - David Lyga</blockquote>

<p>I have used PDISUPPLY.COM in Rochester NY. Good prices and they do ship. No problems. - David Lyga</p>

<p>As an experiment years ago I put a roll of Plus-X in my gas oven. The gas was off but there is always a pilot light on so the temp is always around 110F. Each few days I cut off an inch or so in the dark and exposed it in my camera. All was fine until about three or four weeks at the temp. But even then it was still OK if exposed for a bit more time (a stop of two). The real problems started after about five or six weeks and by the time I had reached six months the film was essentially unusable.<br /><br />Contrast this with Fuji Super G+ that I bought from Freestyle Photo as outdated in 2003. THEN, its expiration date was 1998 but I know that they had kept it cold. I keep it in the freezer and now, 2012, the film is absolutely perfect: full speed and no fog. - David Lyga</p>

<p>If anyone has Kodak Anti-Cal (sodium tetraphosphate) that he/she is willing to part with inexpensively, please respond. I live in Philadelphia. David 215.569.4949 or david33x@yahoo.com</p>

<p>Yes, Chris, I believe that that also works. But the original Kodak product (Anti-Cal) is sodium tetraphosphate.<br>

You know, Alan, the name 'quadrafos' does not come up even on a Google search!<br>

- David Lyga</p>

<p>If anyone has any Kodak Anti-Calcium (sodium tetraphosphate) that he / she does not need I will pay a small amount (zip 19103). This has been discontinued and is for preventing cloudiness in hard water when carbonate is added.<br>

<br />Also, if anyone knows of easily obtainable substitutes please let us know but I would prefer the sodium tetraphosphate. Thank you - David Lyga</p>

<p>Federal Bureau of Investigation Philadelphia 16 June 2011<br>

600 Arch Street, 8^th Floor<br>

Philadelphia, PA 19106 </p>

<p>Special Agent in Charge: George C Venizelos:</p>

<p>I am writing to you in hope of clarification of a matter that you are at least peripherally involved with on an ongoing basis. While my experience was specific to Philadelphia, it applies generically to many other venues throughout the United States. There are many people like myself who want and deserve clear, accurate parameters on this issue. The question I have is this: What may I photograph?</p>

<p>At noon, Monday 13 June 2011, I went to the VA Hospital at 3900 Woodland Ave, Philadelphia, PA in order to meet someone who had a Minolta XG1 35mm film camera for sale. This was a location convenient for both of us, as I live relatively close by and he was going to the VA for an appointment. I arrived at the guard post and was prevented from going further because I am not a veteran and had no ‘bona fide’ reason for being allowed to pass. I explained my situation: that I was to meet someone who had a camera for sale, and called the other party on my mobile phone to say that I could go no further than the guard post. This party arrived at the guard post a few minutes later and I greeted him and proceeded to look at his camera. The scenario I have outlined below is but a microcosm of what many serious and causal photographers experience daily in a hyped ‘post 911’ environment. Just last week New York’s MTA published a statement affirming the rights of people to be able to take photographs on its public transport, effectively negating law enforcement <em>ad hoc</em> policy, and the news story was read nationally with great interest. More often than not it seems that law enforcement ‘makes its own rules’ that are more congruent with their biases and emotions than are tied directly to applicable statutory law. I, we, many seek answers which will attenuate this unnecessary ambiguity, enlighten understanding, and refrain from merely placating, redundantly, solely the biased sensibilities of the lower tiers of the profession you are in: law enforcement (and not law <em>enactment</em>). In this regard my attempt is bold, my justification is legitimate, but my hope is tenuous.</p>

<p>The guard was not obnoxious but was adamant when he said (as I accurately paraphrase): "If you take a picture the guys will come down from the roof on bungee cords and I'll have to take you in". I had never intended to ‘take a picture’ but I feared that merely testing the shutter on this camera would have been sufficient to have ‘committed the crime’ in his sorry eyes. It seemed to be more a synergism of ignorance factors, both creation of ‘on the spot’, nonexistent legal statute and of a near-desperate reaffirmation of his personal enforcement status, as opposed to any in-depth, rational thinking. We both know that law enforcement personnel rarely appreciate intellect and too often consider others’ personal rights to be an impediment to their perceived effectiveness. Feeling that I really and truly deserved neither an acrimonious debate nor the same reception that an Osama bin Laden clone would merit, (although the scene would have provided a stellar opportunity for a photo student to record spectacular video footage if the bungees bungled), I was rather taken aback and more confused and stunned than angry. He was not a tyrant, after all, but merely ignorantly informed and adamantly arrogant. He could not possibly err. Why, I ask all readers (law enforcement or not), can we not have definitive, consistent answers to simple questions? I pondered about this and came to sensible conclusions; I can almost guarantee that the FBI will refuse to offer any direct assistance here because of the forthcoming conclusions I will impart. Truth hurts. Read on.</p>

<p>After a minute or two the guard sharply told me to ‘pack up and leave’ which I dutifully did. The Vet and I walked a couple of blocks until we were on ‘safe’ territory and transacted the business. (This Veteran told me, voicing some justified amazement, that he was not even asked for ID by these same guards when he came for his appointment and was apologetic for my experience in the predicament.) Why did we have to ‘escape’ the guard post? Because ‘enforcement’ seems to be formulated as a continuing <em>contest of egos</em> (that the FBI will feel necessity to ‘prop up’, regardless of the fallout, ambiguity, or blatant unfairness). Law enforcement cannot appear to be in the wrong, even at the expense of rectitude. And, although valor sometimes includes admitting that one is morally or ethically wrong, THAT personal admission takes a heck of a lot more courage than ‘kicking ass’ does. Thus, for benefit of this mere civilian, David Lyga, ambiguity, vagueness, and duplicity must be resolutely defended and promoted by law enforcement and incorporated into the 'answer' which I seek because there is simply no way that one law enforcement agency will allow another law enforcement agency to appear uninformed, wrong, (or worse.) These agencies stick together on the ‘civilian rights vs. enforcement’ front. On the other hand, this perception of 'super patriotism' that law enforcement loves to enshroud itself in is usually less a reflective ‘selfless love for one's country and people’ than a hidden, selfish desire to cover its collective butt. Proof? Why did actual legislation have to be passed forcing law enforcement agencies to share vital information with one another after '911'? 'Forcing', yes FORCING law enforcement to share information was necessarily mandated by Congress in order to protect people and property. Was one law enforcement agency's desire to 'look good' (in comparison with another competitive law enforcement agency) more important to said agency than proper dissemination of vital information amongst other law enforcement agencies? Yes, it was and is: Our legislators (prudently) thought so and acted accordingly. And being pacifist, anti-military, and anti-war, I can yet unqualifiedly state that I have more concern with 'safety for all' than do many law enforcement personnel in this regard. My ego means nothing to me when tested along that continuum; I do not need to 'look good' if I can offer information that will save lives. I do not need to ‘pick and choose’ which way to disseminate information in a manner that will make me look 'best'. I would not need to deprive other law enforcement agencies of relevant information in order to aggrandize my ego and status. Without being compelled to do otherwise, most law enforcement agencies would intentionally misplace priorities. And you know that, George.</p>

<p>Agent Venizelos, might you venture beyond my pejorative assessment and provide, finally, a meaningful reply for people who have no fame, fortune or favor in this skewed society? Or, would it be easier and more 'productive' (from your standpoint, of course) to allow a ‘default ambiguity’ to persist so that law enforcement can continue to enact new laws of their liking, and not merely enforce EXISTING laws (as they are mandated to do) in order to keep me and others 'in line', malleable, and manageable?</p>

<p>Agent Venizelos, I ask you again, is it legal to take a picture of the VA Hospital at 3900 Woodland Avenue in the City of Philadelphia? Refusal to answer this largely symbolic question will answer many other more relevant questions and will manifest as a truly salient, unified <em>de facto</em> response. Thus you are conveniently prevented from ‘not responding’.</p>

<p>Certainly, as you were growing up in the Bronx you were afforded bounteous opportunities to visualize, directly, the difference between 'winning with virtue' vs. 'winning with vermin'. I am positive that you are more than simply aware of that difference at this stage in your life.</p>

<p>I am available to visit you in person in your Philadelphia office: do you accept my offer? </p>

<p> Respectfully,</p>

<p> David Lyga</p>

<p>David Lyga 2003 Chestnut Street # 308 Philadelphia, PA 19103 landline: 215.569.4949 email: david33x@yahoo.com</p>

<p>For some reason this is often a problem with this model. But often I have purchased one and gently played with the levers in the mount while holding the shutter button down. This mount is rather complex as there is much movement just inside the mount. I'll bet that there is a slight gum-up of the levers. What I would do is try to gently jiggle these levers (stop down and the one on the side, just inside the mount). If you do get it to fire, then squirt a little lighter fluid to loosen things up (and let the blackened fluid pour back out into a cup). Be CERTAIN not to get any on the prism. - David Lyga</p>