jeff_z.

<p>Sure, you're welcome!</p>

<p>Really interesting article about Eric and his life. He's made several repairs and rehab's for me and now it seems even more clear why Eric does such excellent work!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/columns/twenty-questions-eric-hendrickson-interview.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/columns/twenty-questions-eric-hendrickson-interview.html</a></p>

<p>Really interesting article about Eric and his life. He's made several repairs and rehab's for me and now it seems even more clear why Eric does such excellent work!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/columns/twenty-questions-eric-hendrickson-interview.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/columns/twenty-questions-eric-hendrickson-interview.html</a></p>

<p>Thanks very much, Craig, and sorry for the late reply! Great information for me to know and I appreciate you sharing your excellent experience! I feel lucky to be in this gallery, and I'm sure it's their reputation that's attracted the reporter's attention, but thank you!</p>

<p>Thanks so much, Mike! I think that's what I needed to understand- much appreciated!</p>

<p>Thanks, Mike, but no security concerns at the size you mention and saved at the highest quality setting?</p>

<p>I'd appreciate experienced advice regarding how high of a quality image file you would give to a newspaper reporter for use in an online article and also, for additional related publicity uses. The article is a write-up of a group show for our multi-member art gallery which the reporter wants to do. The image is one of my very best depicting a quite unusual natural scene and I've spent much time with it in order to make the best print I can. I am one of the only photographer-members; most are painters who don't seem to have any qualms sending their high resolution files to the reporter for this article (or for any other gallery use, it seems), and without any watermarking whatsoever. <br /><br />I fear I am worrying too much as I'm sure these things are very likely done all the time in other situations, but I seem to remember many discussions in the past on photo.net that would seem to warrant caution- and my general instincts regarding putting any imagery online, agrees very much. But maybe I am going off the deep end in this case of a reporter requesting them for this specific usage? If so, I still have to resolve the issue of other gallery requests for <em>"large, hi-resolution"</em> image files for gallery publicity... Many thanks in advance if you can help and it would be great if you could also include specific sizing/quality settings you might recommend for jpegs intended for these uses.</p>

<p>Les, thanks! That sounds much more to my liking. I had tried the older 160VC and it seemed surprisingly decent for nature, but I hadn't tried the NC version at all. This sounds great for people, of course, and for other possible uses, too. And I've seen some samples of how it renders skin tones today- a very exciting film!</p>

<p>Thanks Les. I was kind of hoping it might be more like the NC versions of the previous generation of Portras, but I will likely love this film, also, from the sound of the Kodak description.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Thanks Les, really impressive! The bright viewfinder was a big attraction for me, too! Had a chance to photograph with it late today, again, and I'm really starting to like it. And of course, it takes a regular cable release, which was one more plus. Thanks for that Portra 160 image, too. Its color palette is very attractive, maybe just a bit more subdued than Portra 400's? </p>

<p>I hear ya, Les :-D. Nice collection! Totally agree about all those brands. I have a few now, too, and really enjoy seeing the small differences in features and engineering in each one. They truly are "classic". I haven't had much opportunity to shoot them, though, or do much of any photography over the winter, but I'm really hoping that will change soon. The few times over the years that I've had a chance to shoot a few different classics, it seemed that whichever camera I happened to be using at the time would become my "favorite"! <br /><br />Very late this afternoon I loaded a film that's brand new to me, the latest version of Portra 160, and exposed several frames just walking around locally. It may have been smarter to load something faster for the low light, but I've heard so much about this film I couldn't resist finally getting closer to seeing results, especially through the Pentax lenses. I was also thinking of exposing the rest in better light later this week, so hopefully, that was a good choice.</p>

<p>Thanks Witold and sorry for the late response! That makes sense. So far, I've procrastinated on this, and been busy with other photo things. I agree and think only a possible self-repair would be the way to go for this camera.</p>

<p>Dennis, thanks. That had occurred to me, also (even if used without the grip). Do you shoot one that way?</p>

<p>You have some beautiful machines, Les! Kind of wish I had your LX viewfinder version, also, for the added compactness- very nice! Definitely, Eric is really first-rate all around. We're really lucky to have someone like him.<br /><br />Really interesting… And these features seem quite practical and useful! They are kind of making me wish I didn't already have a lot of Nikon equipment! The LX's not needing a viewfinder blind, especially, would often be handy for tripod-mounted nature photography. And the long exposure metering capability is awesome, too! That is a very cool night picture of the Hoover Dam!<br>

<br />It's been raining here for a few days and it may take a little longer than I'd like to finish out a roll, but I will post some pics as soon as possible. Thanks for all the great info and pics!<br /><br />Tony, thanks, and in looking for that flash socket cover on the auction site, I saw a few LXs and the prices weren't quite as high as I had thought. Not sure if that's a fluke and of course, I guess it's wise to also figure in servicing to be conservative. I hope you can find a decently priced good one before long. I have Nikons too, and still love them for several purposes, but totally agree with your description from what I sense so far. Hope to have some pics for you before long!<br /><br /> </p>

<p>Thanks Andrew and John- and it's really good to hear that you guys like this equipment! I've heard good things about all of it and look forward to finally being able to make some images. And that's really good to hear what you've said about the covers and socket, too, especially as I don't think I'll use this camera with flash, at least for now, especially as I have Nikon equipment and flash that I'm familiar with. So unless I get lucky, I just might forgo the cover, too, and be a bit more careful of that area if that sounds like an idea. I was thinking of the LX as what I'd like to take on town walks and on trips when a lot of equipment might not be necessary or practical. Thanks for the battery info., also, John. Yes, it sure doesn't seem like the sideways hanging idea succeeded very well.</p>

<p>Thanks for the excellent info. and insights, Jochen! That makes perfect sense and I should have mentioned that I don't think I'll use this with a motordrive or winder, at least for awhile. Yes, my search so far indicates that you are right that the FP cover is going to be hardest to find. Sorry to hear that you had so much trouble with the auto setting on yours. I'm not sure if it means anything at all, but even before this camera was sent to Eric, the meter was reading correctly on auto. But it had the "sticky mirror syndrome" and other issues. But it seems perfect, now, thankfully. I will definitely keep in mind what you mentioned about being careful when changing screens- I can see that easily happening. Thanks! </p>

<p>A few years ago, I was lucky to have purchased a fairly low cost, non-working Pentax LX and a few lenses that were improperly stored. Finally decided to go ahead and have everything repaired/refurbished and I'm excited to have recently received this equipment back from Eric Hendrickson (http://pentaxs.com/). My experience with Eric was everything I'd read of here, and more. The gear came back completely repaired, lenses cleaned out and focusing smoothly. Everything is working like new and Eric even included a few extras. A big thanks to Eric and to all of the forum members who've recommended Eric's fine work!</p>

<p>I was wondering if those who have experience with this equipment could shed some light on just a couple of things. The first is that I wondered exactly why Pentax made the accessory hand grip for this camera. I don't have the grip, but from various things I've seen online, it seems that they are popular. My hands are not real large and in handling the camera so far, I can't quite see how the hand grip would be of great benefit, but it's hard to tell without actually trying it. Does it really make a nice difference for most people, or perhaps, is it mainly a benefit for those with fairly large or bigger hands?<br /><br />Also, a very minor concern. Does anyone know where I might be able to obtain the small "flash pc sync socket cover"(not sure if this is the correct name)? Both the two-piece and single covers for older Pentax bodies seem to be readily available at the auction site, but I think the LX takes a one-piece cover which covers all three openings and they seem to be quite scarce. I did try calling Pentax (now Ricoh, it seems), but they said they are not available. <br /> <br />Thanks for any input and as this is the first LX I've owned, I'd be interested in any tips or experiences anyone has had and would like to share about this interesting camera, also.</p>

<p>I don't develop as of yet, but those characteristics you mention look great! I especially like that first image!</p>

<p>Thanks Mike! I think all the features I could ever need were in the cameras of this era. Minolta is really interesting, and I like the little touches on the SRT, like the textured surfaces on the battery compartment and on/off control, not to mention what seems to be a very nice metering system, "CLC". Time to explore the more automated mind of XD :)</p>

<p>Sorry for not being able to get back here sooner! <br /><br />Thanks very much, Gus, I greatly appreciate it! I hope I can return the favor at some point.<br /><br />C Watson, Mike and Bob, Greatly appreciate your experienced input, too! It makes sense... Depending on further advice, I might try to fix this, though, as I'm thinking it might suit a musician friend well due to it's size/weight- her universe of photo equipment has only included cell phones. I've photographed several concerts with fast lenses and she seemed impressed with the pics and she's interested in doing some music photography on the road. Do you think that once fixed, it should last a good while? I thought this might be a good set-up for her to casually use and learn with, and that it wouldn't be a huge loss if something happened to it...<br /><br />This XG-1 also has a fair amount of debris (fungus and/or mold, is my guess) in the viewfinder. Cosmetically, though, it could be cleaned up to look like new and inside the film door it looks almost pristine; the pressure plate like it was never used. But might fixing the viewfinder issue on top of the electronic issue make a diy repair too impractical/difficult for a newbie like me? But if you think I could do it, can anyone recommend a beginning tool set that would be adequate (it would be great if it were not made in China- just my personal beliefs about democracy, human rights, relatively fair trade and environoment...)<br /><br />I hear you about the SRT series! An SRT 101 has been my only previous experience with Minolta and I really liked it! I would give that to her, but for the slightly additional size/weight and mostly, I guess, for it's lack of automation- I think the more automated XG-1 would suit her more. But for me, I'd choose the SRT-101!</p>

 

<p>Hoping to get some help with this camera body. I'm totally unfamiliar with this model, but received it for next to nothing along with a 50mm lens. The body looks great and appears to have had very little use, though I'm fairly sure it was stored for awhile in a less than ideal environment. I've tried fresh batteries, but it seems dead; tried cleaning both of the contacts even though they appeared clean, and still nothing. <br /><br />In searching here before posting, it seems that this model has its share of problems, including something coming loose with the on/off/battery test switch, which is just my totally uninformed first area of suspicion. Fwiw, this one seems tight and working properly, just nothing happening...<br /><br />Any chance anyone is familiar with this kind of problem on this model? Also, is this a body worth repairing? I know it was an inexpensive type camera when new, but I like the small size and have heard that they have a quiet shutter. Any experienced input is appreciated.</p>

<p>This is well over a year and a half late, sorry, but I think that scene is beautifully rendered by the Portra, Tim! Thanks for posting this. I've used Portra for nature many times since my last post and totally agree; it is an amazing film!</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Thanks very much Jeff and John!<br /><br />I'm hoping that you might be able to clarify the practical meaning of this section:<br /><br />"...In addition: 1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."<br /><br />Where it says "you grant us... <strong>to use</strong>...", might this "to use" really mean the act of their owning the means of transmission (website), and the actions of the people (public) who see the images? <strong><em>Not</em></strong> that Facebook is actually going to possibly "use" the images for some arbitrary or opportunistic purpose? <br /><br /></p>

<p>I came across this thread, "Something really good happened yesterday", from five days ago in the "Street" forum here on Photo.net. It seems to be about the company, DKNY, using a photographer's images without permission, and might involve Facebook: <br />http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00bPF7<br /><br />The last post in this thread is what really disturbs me. I had thought that the ability of facebook to use a member's images was basically untrue and that this was a rumor that had been de-bunked here. Here's the part of the last post that seems to indicate that they can and did use someone's images:<br /><br />"I was disgusted to learn that one of the things you "agree" to when using a FB account is that they can use your photos for free, for any reason for as long as they are posted. I bet DKNY gave FB more than they were willing to give the artist..." <br /><br /><br /></p>