Dustin McAmera

I've spotted some of how this works. Mostly (perhaps completely) it's to do with forum participation, and intended to encourage us to post a lot. I think it's just a summary of more than one counter. I get five points for posting in a forum thread, it seems, and I get one point every time someone 'likes' anything I've posted. I don't think posts that happened before the transition are valued the same as new posts. Since 2005, I've made 1100 posts, and my rep is just under 1500 (if I get another 1500 points, I'll rank-up to a Veteran: wow! Roll on 2037!) So if I cared about my rep number, I'd post a lot, and include photos, because that's what people 'like'. I see Bill Boyd is on now; he posts pictures in many (most?) of the No Words threads - so that's several forum posts every day with a single photo each because of the No Words rules; he has made about 17,000 forum posts and his rep's 50,000-ish. I see John Seaman is on too. He also posts in a lot of No Words threads, but also in old-school camera-tech discussions (few photos and few likes); 5000 posts, and his rep's 7000-ish. Gerald Cafferty has 9600 posts and his rep's 66,000-ish. To me, they're all names that I recognise as on the site daily. The rep number doesn't help me rank one against the other more than the raw data about them: when they joined, how many posts, how many gallery images; but what I remember about their style (photographic style and 'netiquette') is more important than any of that.

A mirrorless camera has much less depth front-to-back than an SLR; so there's no reason for an adapter to be too long and rob you of infinity focus. Putting your lenses in front of an APS-C sensor, you'll be getting a cropped image. Your lenses will effectively all be a little longer; a 50mm will be a portrait lens. You will get less depth of field than shown by any guide-lines on the adapted lens (just because you will be enlarging the view more). I bought a couple of Fotodiox adapters for my EOS M50; one for Canon FD and one for Leica (FED!) lenses; with an extension tube I happened to have, that also lets me use old 39mm Zenit lenses. My adapters don't pass any electrical signals, or stop down the aperture for me. All they have to do is be the right length, and fit well at each end. I think they're ok: not Canon quality, but good enough for what they do. They're either aluminium or magnesium alloy. When I have gone back to Fotodiox's site, I see that some of their adapters just aren't available in some fittings. It seems like they make a batch of any new product, and don't replenish when those run out.

I see them. Go to your profile page, in the tab called Images: https://www.photo.net/profile/91329-fmueller/?tab=node_photonetgallery_galleryImages When I first got to that, I saw no images, but there are page-numbers at the top, so there must be pages of something. Also, at the top right, there are three icons: 'View as thumbnails', 'View as large preview' and 'View as list'. Click on one, and the pictures should display.

I have noticed that the pictures I put here (as links from Flickr) don't look quite as sharp as they do there. It's not a huge difference, and I assumed it's about changes in size. If I remember right, we were (whenever) supposed to use 1000-pixels wide: Flickr offers you 1024 wide (or 800 or 1600 are the next steps up and down). I don't know what Photo.net does about that, but I can imagine scaling-down by a tiny bit would affect how the image looks. Then of course, my browser is scaling it up, because the screen is 3840 pixels wide, and the images always fill the width of the box. I can't say I've noticed any change in colour. On colour, I read somewhere here that images in sRGB are recommended. Is that relevant?

Hewes in the uk say they make reels for 70mm: http://www.hewes.co.uk/ Hewes stuff is all stainless steel. It lists spirals for 3m or 5m length. The only tanks they show are dip-and-dunk ones to be used in darkness, and I think you must load your reels into what they call a 'spiral cage', and have it on a rod to dip into the tank. They might well know if people are putting their spirals in a daylight tank though. It would be bigger in diameter than the familiar Paterson tanks, and I don't think it could have the funnel top because the wire spirals don't load onto a centre column (so the tank wouldn't be light-tight). Good luck!

A camera story in the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/05/mountaineers-recover-cameras-lost-in-1937-expedition-to-canadian-peak The camera is a Fairchild F-8 aerial camera; there are also a couple of cine cameras. Not finders keepers: Parks Canada get the cameras.

On the page you posted, it's a cog-wheel. When you click it, it should offer you actions like Share and Report; when I go to your image, I don't see the cog-wheel, just text; 'Report image'. Don't know if that's because it's your image not mine, or because you're Pro and I'm not. But if you look at an image which has comments, each comment should have the three dots ... at the top right of its box, and you can report the comment.

Someone in another thread just recommended Midwest Camera Repair in Wyandotte MI. That was for Nikon, but they say they are an authorised Canon repairer.

I don't do portraits either, but one of the very few things I know is that people often choose a longer-than-standard lens. It allows you to fill the frame without having to put the camera close up to the sitter's face, which may prevent them from relaxing. I can imagine this being particularly so with a dog. I have the EF 50/1.8 which I use on an APS-C mirrorless camera. On the APS-C format, it is a reasonable 'portrait-length' lens, giving an equivalent view to an 80 mm on full-frame. It's convenient that it's one of the cheapest EF lenses. It's worth putting a hood on it. Regarding background, I don't think your friend is going to be interested in the texture of out-of-focus areas. I'd look for a background that's relevant to the sitters: the garden where your friend often sits with the dogs, or some place where they walk; and fit your depth of field to keep that background recognisable, though out of focus. In a family photo, the background may add to the value of the photo in later years, when they've maybe moved on from that house. Good luck!

This does something: https://www.photo.net/profile/44041-sanford/content/?type=gallery_image and if you click on one of the images it opens bigger, but the browse-arrows in the big view don't work: keeps sending me back to the first picture.

I blamed my trouble with Paterson spirals on humidity from my sweaty hands in the black bag, though I did ok with brand-new reels. Some became completely unusable (I may have cleaned them too vigorously, and jumped from one cause of trouble to another). It's a special kind of panic, when your film, carrying your whole day's effort, is open in the bag, and the only way forward doesn't work.

EOS M50, EF50mm f/1.8 STM

I don't think it's the short dimension of the paper that's limiting, in the 35mm case. That is, if you enlarge 35mm to fill the 8-inch width of an 8x10 sheet, you've gone over the 10-inch length. The enlargement to fill the 10-inch length is 10x25.4/36 = 7.06 Enlarging 6x7 onto 20x24-inch, it is the short dimension that limits it. The enlargement to fill the 20-inch dimension is 20*25.4/58 = 8.76 So it is a significant difference, I think. (editing to add:) It really matters how many mm you let the '6' dimension be. I took 58 because that's what I measured on some of my 2¼x3¼ negatives - as the absolute edges of the exposed frame, but I know it varies in some of my cameras. I only have one that will take 6x7 - I have a 6x7 back for the Century Graphic, but couldn't tell you if I have ever used it.

Also, if these images are to be blurred in the Gallery, maybe they should be blurred (for users who haven't opted in) when they appear as thumbnails in the Activity view; maybe even on the image-poster's profile page (again, when viewed by a non-opted-in user). At present they aren't.

No: I never had any galleries here. I just mean the multi-picture view for the nude category. Under 'Explore' at the top, select 'Gallery'. Then scroll down - Nude is in the 5th row - might vary with how big your screen is I guess. Click on that and you have an array of pictures from many users (the view Sandy Vongries posted above). That's what I meant by 'gallery view'. Also, I worked out how to opt back out of NSFW images, but not using the forum's controls. The status is stored as a cookie. In Firefox, you can do Tools>Browser tools>Web developer tools: that opens a panel across the bottom of the screen. At the top of that panel, there's a section called Storage. If you click that, one of the types of storage you can inspect is cookies (at the left of the panel). The NSFW opt-in status cookie is quite clearly named. I just deleted it, and I have the blurred images and opt-in buttons back. Not that I have any great beef with NSFW images; but I may sometimes looking at the site while in a work- or work-like setting, and anyway I wanted to see how it worked. I think there should be an opt-back-out button.

On my laptop (Windows 11, Firefox 106.0.1) I see the opt-in buttons, one on each image in the gallery view. Just for fun (🙈) I clicked on one. All the images are now clear, but only in the gallery view; if I click on a single image to open it full-size, it's still blurred. Also, I don't see an opt-back-out control 🍈🍈😳

I see that opt-in button in Firefox (version 105.2.0) on my Android phone. The laptop is upstairs; I'll see if shows on that in a few minutes.

That's changed! I can now search ten years back! 🙂

EF 50mm f/1.8 - must be the cheapest lens Canon will sell you - on my EOS M50.

Are you sure it's a light leak? The streakiness of it makes me wonder if it isn't chemical. Is it all the way along the film? If it's a light leak via the centre column, you'd expect the end of the film at the centre of the spiral to be affected worse than the other. Even though you don't think these are the problem, it might be worth telling us what film, what developer, concentration and agitation details.

Went into town to see 'Light Night'; wasn't so good, so here's a picture from the walk down. EOS M50 with the EF-M 15-45mm.

Duo-Ensign 2¼B box camera, HP5, Paterson Aculux.