dhbebb

<p>aa</p>

<p>Fred, call me a reactionary crypto-fascist if you will, but I do perceive a slight difference between somebody who uses the pretext of photography to rape underage girls and another person who uses a slang expression for female genitals which all this person's female friends use without hesitation among themselves and to the person in question. If you take the ultra-PC view that speech crime is the worst of all crimes, there's probably very little more that I can say.</p>

<p><em>I am a translator working at home.</em> <br> So am I. I don't like wasting money on ink cartridges either - I now have two HP Deskjet printers of rhe 1000 series, I bought the second one a few weeks ago for a staggering £16 new with no cartridges, ink costs with the supersize XL cartridges are really not bad, photo output is OK but not great. Ink costs with my Epson 3880 are also OK, the cartridges are costly but very large, but the 3880 is not so good for text - not a very strong black.</p>

<p>If you need the money<br> http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?r_nkw=mamiya+645&_in_kw=1&_ex_kw=&_sacat=0&LH_Sold=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=15&_stpos=CT102ES&_sargn=-1%26saslc%3D1&_salic=3&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=50&LH_Complete=1<br> or haven't got the space AND are absolutely sure you'll never use it, either with film or a digital back - then yes.<br> The situation these days is that if you have a good film camera, you will probably not find another as good if you sell it AND with the price of film cameras at the moment, you will earn the price of a camera if you take just ONE picture which sells reasonably well. </p>

<p>In over 60 years' photography, both as an amateur and pro, I have scrupulously avoided wedding photography :-) (I have in fact done 4, all friends). My crude but effective technique is to have my camera on program mode all the time, with flash on TTL mode, and never look at camera settings except before the start. The reason for this, and the thing you can't learn from books, is that the most important factor is how to marshal people around efficiently but without annoying them and hold their attention while you are photographing them (which of course presupposes you are familiar enough with your photo gear to work quickly). I find this gives much more relaxed and spontaneous results. Like others, though, I would like to see some of your pictures - very likely there are no technical deficiencies - from a technical point of view wedding photography is easy, it's the people skills that count (same for portraiture and press work).</p>

<p>The easiest way of dusting out the interior of any camera without damage is to use compressed air in a can – well-known brands include Kenair and Dustoff. Don't point the nozzle directly at the glass - these cans use butane as an expellent. Frequency of cleaning depends on how much dust is present - could be once a day or more often if you are changing films on a windy beach. The same applies to a mechanical checkup – if the shutter is running accurately and all mechanical components are working correctly and without unusual noise, and the camera is used lightly in clean conditions, a checkup every few years will be fine. If the camera is used in filthy conditions, it will need checkingy much more often.</p>

<p><em>creepy faux porn</em><br> Interesting to read in the Guardian piece that when he felt he needed some new models:<br> <em>One of the girls who came forward after Flament accused Hamilton told Le Nouvel Observateur that he would send his girls off to find a new “mouse” on the beaches in the south of France. “Mouse”, she revealed, was the word he used for the girls’ genitals.</em><br> Convention has it it that, even if a photographer regards his work primarily as a way of "attaining relations" (edited by moderator), he refrains from saying so explicitly :-) if he wishes to be regarded as a serious artist.</p>

<p>Tim, I stand by what I said. Try to see things from the point of view of newbies and potential PN users/subscribers. Digital imaging is the standard today, both for commercial and private work, most young people take the view that photography is just another computer/i-phone app which can be learned through trial and error without necessarily taking advice from anyone. What PN does have is a number of people, including myself, with decades of experience in wet-process photography, which can help newbies who want to experiment with film basically to find out what it's all about. If this is an enjoyable and rewarding experience, they will continue, and film photography will take on a new lease of life. If on the other hand PN presents an image to the outside world of grumpy old men arguing, the reverse will occur. </p>

<p>Les, to be honest I see very little difference in tone of the 2 articles - the verbatim quotes are the same, the only slight difference is that the Guardian article is a fraction more defensive on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty".</p>

<p>British press has more, too:<br> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/25/british-photographer-david-hamilton-dies-paris-police-source/</p>

<p>I've said it before, and been told I am a "prissy scold", I'll say it again - if all PNers viewed themselves as ambassadors for photography and gave newbies considered and helpful answers, the forum would be in much better shape. I can't count the number of times I've tried to do this only to have my efforts negated by condescending smart-ass responses by others which have the predictable result of ensuring that the newbie in question disappears forever.</p>

<p>Highly successful commercially, virtually ignored or dismissed by critics - I was never sure what to make of DH. In today's ultra-PC environment, his work would unquestionably be illegal. We must of course be mindful that the rape allegations were unproven, to me they seem not impossible. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Not so easy to find, but:<br> http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/leic3f_e.htm<br> You can forget about delayed or undelayed - when the IIIF was made, flashbulbs were in widespread use and of various types, such as F (fast), M (medium) and FP ("focal plane" or long-burn) . Any flashbulbs you encounter today will be M class, which take about 1/50 sec. (20 msec.) to reach peak brilliance after being triggered (electronic flash is virtually instant, hence the recommended setting of 2 [ms] for the black dial IIIf). </p>

<p>At the risk of stating the obvious, this printer started life as a number of modules:<br> ftp://download.epson-europe.com/pub/download/3272/epson327296eu.pdf<br> (see pages 8 ff)<br> and could I presume be dismantled down to this level, by Epson technicians if no-one else. This I would imagine would cut down the number of strong men required and greatly reduce the risk of damage. Just a thought!</p>

<p>Different strokes for different folks! I'd be hard put to it to describe EM in philosophical terms, for me he was a pioneering technical photographer in the field of motion analysis. There is some talk of his being a motion picture pioneer, of course he never shot or projected a single foot of motion picture film, and his subject matter has in the meantime been covered more informatively by slo-mo photography, particularly digital. Plenty of material for an entertaining movie in his personal life - I look forward to seeing the movie.</p>

<p>The lighter fuel is indeed the kind you use with Zippo lighters. If the self-timer lever is moving a little bit when you press the shutter button and then apply pressure to the s/t lever, you might find that re-winding the s/t fully and repeating the "treatment" may encourage the lever to move a little further each time and ultimately fire the shutter. Once the s/t has fully unwound, you can use the shutter normally, leaving the s/t alone.</p>

<p>Sounds like a self-timer to me too. The only real long-term answer is a CLA (cleaning, lubrication, adjustment) BUT it may be possible by holding down the normal shutter release button and applying GENTLE pressure to the self-timer to persuade this to return to its initial position. Applying petrol lighter fuel VERY SPARINGLY to the slot from which the self-timer lever protrudes may help free it but is not without risk.</p>

<p>I know a lot about view cameras but nothing about Toyo. However, if I were confronted with your problem, I'd try to find out via the serial number when your camera was made and if a design change was made during its product life cycle. I'd also try to find out by using a caliper gauge exactly which dimension of the "new" backs is causing them not to fit and how easy/difficult it would be if necessary to have one of these backs machined to fit. As Bob says, talking to Toyo technical service would be a good idea.</p>

<p><em> Jupiter 3 is a Zeiss design</em><br> You are of course right. I should have said it was functionally similar!</p>

<p>If fungus is at all advanced, it will have eaten its way into the glass surface, at which point the only remedy is very costly regrinding and recoating. If the camera store did not declare these faults at the time of sale, I would exchange the lens pronto.<br> As you may know, the Summarit was the post-war coated version (optically identical) of the Schneider Xenon, which was uncoated and very prone to flare. I have a Jupiter 3 lens which is fundamentally the same design but coated and I love it - if you want a lens with some uncontrolled flare, a Summitar f2 is worth a look.<br> If you keep the Summarit, have it cleaned - haze and fungus have a nasty habit of getting worse quickly.</p>

<p>Now here's the Type 2:</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Justin!<br /> From a user's point of view, Rollei TLRs are very simple, but from a collector's point of view, things are very complicated, since every little technical change results in a new model name.<br /> I have been quoting you from the "Collectors guide to Rollei cameras" by Arthur Evans. It's out of print but available at various prices:<br /> http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0931838061/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=1479548178&sr=8-1<br /> I am posting the two entries for MX types 1 and 2. There is no official 3.5 A model - basically a Rollei [2.8 or 3.5] [letter] will be one with a Planar or Xenotar lens. There are 2.8 A, B, C, and D models - the first 3.5 model with this type of name is the 3.5 E.</p><div></div>

<p>Blaise, try your experiment by all means, but negative sandwiches are also 100% analog and offer a wide measure of fine-tuning!</p>

<p>Justin, the differences between some Rollei models are tiny! As I noted, I would need to see the base of the camera or the inside to tell a type 1 from a type 2!</p>

<p>@ Justin - no it doesn't, for the reason I stated :-)</p>