mph

If it's any consolation, my local Walgreens has the opposite problem. Most of my prints come back with a dark band along one of the long edges, from the unexposed part of the negative. At least I don't see sprocket holes!

<blockquote><i>One advantage is not needing to trip the shutter when loading film.</i></blockquote>

 

Actually, that's not an advantage over a properly working GIII. Even when it's working right, the camera will advance to "1" without firing the shutter. I wish Canon had used the whole QL system in more cameras.

<div></div>

For bird photography, I just wrote the following in BIG LETTERS in the front of the field guide:

 

GET CLOSE!

Yep. Server doing the wrong thing, Mozilla (and w3m, for what it's worth) doing the right thing, MSIE not doing what it's told.

I can still get a 28L (lithium PX28) for my Canon A-1 at my local drug store or Wal-Mart. As far as I know, that's not a popular battery for new cameras, but it's still easy to find. I wouldn't really worry about the batteries disappearing.

I don't know for sure, but the Samy's branch in Pasadena (on Walnut near Fair Oaks) is probably a good bet.

I found the Hitech "soft" filter to be so soft that it's useless. Even on my widest lens (24mm), the whole frame was in the "transition" region. I returned it to B&H for the "hard" and am much happier with it.

The two are different, and complimentary. A teleconverter enlarges the image; for example, if you have a 300mm lens, adding a 2x teleconverter and shooting from the same spot gives you the same field of view that a 600mm lens would have. The teleconverter has no effect on how close your lens can focus. If your 300mm lens focuses to 10 feet, the "600mm" lens (300mm + 2x TC) will also focus to 10 feet, but clearly the subject will appear twice as large at that distance.

 

The extension tube lets your lens focus closer than it normally could (but it won't be able to focus on distant objects). For example, my 300mm lens can normally focus as close as 10 feet or so. Adding a 25mm extension tube lets it focus a lot closer, perhaps 6 feet (an estimate, off the top of my head). Obviously, getting closer to your subject will result in it appearing larger in the photograph... provided you can get closer without it flying or running away!

 

If you're using both an extension tube and a telecoverter, the tube will have the most effect on focus distance if you put it in front of the teleconverter (because 25mm of extension has more effect on the focus distance of a 300mm lens than a 600mm lens).

I'd doubt that it would mix in less than 5L. It takes a good bit of work to get it to dissolve in the correct volume.

If it's that good of a price, I'd say to go for it no matter what. I bought a 300mm f/4 without the collar (which I think is the same collar as the 400mm f/4.5), and bought one from a repair shop for $20 or so. Saw one on eBay recently for about the same. It may not be instantaneous, but if you end up needing the collar, you'll find one eventually for a lot less than the $200 difference!

Hey, isn't this the guy who's on the tail of Alaska Airlines planes?

<blockquote><i>Is it safe to mix XTOL to a stock syrup for storage</i></blockquote>

 

You mean (for example) mixing the 5 liter kit's powder into less than 5 L of water? I don't think that will work well. It takes a good amount of stirring to get the powders to dissolve in the normal amount of water, and I don't think you'll get them to dissolve in less.

I see my post has been deleted. Thank you.

 

I honestly do not remember who wrote that offensive remark. The original poster described the his slides as being "Harry Carey" and in disarray. Someone wrote that he meant "hari kari" (?) and described it as a Muslim term for suicide, and as "underutilized." In context, it was clear that he meant that the suicide method was underutilized, not the term. (Hara-kiri is a Japanese term and has nothing to do with Muslims.)

In <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Xiv">this

thread</a> I responded to two posts. One criticized an A&I rep for

not being a site supporter, and another incorrectly linked the phrase

"hara-kiri" to Muslims (and suggested that more Muslims should commit

suicide).

<p>

Those two posts were deleted from the thread, but my response to them

is still there, and doesn't make any sense now. I'd appreciate it if

my post would be deleted, too.

It can come pre-scratched from the factory. I had a couple of rolls of APX 25 (from the same emulsion batch) that had scratches running the length of the film. I was hand-processing, so there were no rollers to scratch the film, and no other types of film were coming out scratched at that time. I'm quite sure the APX 25 came that way.

Where are you getting your Reala? From B&H, it costs $2.69 for 36 exposures. At that cost per exposure, a 4x24 pack (like consumer films are sold in at discount stores) would be $7.17. Maybe not incredibly cheap, but not incredibly expensive, either.

 

To answer your question, my "cheap" film right now is a bunch of NPH that I got for under $1.50 a roll, shipped, on eBay. Can't beat that!

A&I uses cardboard mounts by default. Plastic is $1.00 extra.

 

It's a personal choice. I like cardboard. They're easier to write on, and some plastic mounts are thick enough to jam in projectors.

 

BTW, A&I has a message board on their website for questions. Some of these topics, like choice of cardboard or plastic, have come up there. The A&I staff is pretty good at responding to questions within a day or two. (Not that I'm complaining about people asking here, but the A&I staff is likely to be more accurate and thorough than random folks on photo.net!)

Man, lots of responses that don't address the question.

 

The question is: If the seller ships a lens, and the buyer lies to the escrow agency and says he got a box of rocks (and refuses to release the funds), what protects the seller? In other words, why should the escrow company believe the buyer rather than the seller?

1) Two stamps per mailer. If you have a lot to mail, you could put all the film and mailers in a box, and pay less.

 

2) Their mailers are for 36 exp. You can send 24, of course, but you're still paying for 36.

Here's an article on grinding your own (for view cameras):

<p>

<a href="http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/2003/mj-dokas/dokas.html">http://www.phototechmag.com/.../dokas.html</a>

<p>

He claims that the results are better than commercial ground glasses. Whether they're better than a laser-etched 35mm screen, I dunno.

I recently used it to photograph my girlfriend's dog at an agility match (jumping over hurdles, etc.). It was held in a horse pavillion (covered with open sides), and her dog is fast, requiring 1/500 or faster shutter speeds to prevent blur. Obviously flash is not an option, since we don't want to blind the dog! 1600 was just right for shooting with my 135/2.3 and 200/3.5 lenses.

Along the same lines as Robert, in recent months I've purchased a Canon A-1 and Canon FD 300mm f/4.0, whose prices totalled about $300. (In contrast to his case, I wasn't supplementing an AF system. Canon FD is my only SLR system.) It's something to think about.

Maybe Freestyle (www.freestylephoto.biz). Don't know about your specific film, but they usually have a good variety of expired/short-dated film. You may be best off calling them; I recently bought some expired film at their store that wasn't listed on the website.

In many cases, telephoto lenses are designed to focus "past" infinity. This is because in hot weather, the lens can expand in length; the extra range of motion is necessary for the lens to focus on infinity under those circumstances.