Dustin McAmera

Do you mean the terms & conditions? I only saw that once, and it hasn't appeared again. I guess there must be a cookie that stores that you clicked Accept; so if you block that cookie, or maybe script, maybe it doesn't record that you did it.

I have only started to find these right-hand columns irritating since they began to be full of spammers' pictures. For the time being I have blocked the 'Albums' pane using the 'Block specific element' feature of Adblock Plus. However, this just stops that block appearing, and I get an empty white space where it was; the space isn't freed up for other stuff to be wider. I was blocking the wrong element. If you select the right piece, the main text areas do widen and use the whole width. What I have blocked is photo.net###ipsLayout_sidebar , and photo.net##.ipsLayout_sidebarright

As for 'giving it a try', how is saying that, or doing it, disrespectful to another photographer? Photographers of all people will use summary language to discuss photographic techniques. Describing those techniques in efficient language doesn't automatically imply a contempt for the techniques or the people who use them. Or are the 'great' photographers above having their technique discussed by us unpublishables? I sometimes stake out street corners in my own town. Either places where I have seen interesting things happen before, or where I think the arrangement of the street itself is somewhat interesting, but needs something going on to complete the scene. It's perfect for digital; I have wasted trips to those street corners where I stood watching the world go by for as long as I wanted, and came home with no photos worth keeping. The longer I do it, the more I think I need a new city: bad workman blaming tools, on a grand scale. Staging an ostensible street scene is a different matter. I don't have a lot of time for that. The one picture linked above might be staged; I'd be disappointed if the ones in the Guardian set, on what look like railway station staircases, were staged.

If you bought the camera very recently, I think you should return it to the seller. Repairers aren't so easy to find,and anyway the fault shouldn't be your problem (unless you got the camera cheap with no promises). I downloaded a service manual for the A-1 from the old canonfd.org site (Christian Rollinger's site); you can still get it thanks to the excellent Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20060825062820/http://www.canonfd.com/choose.htm But most of the lube points are hidden behind panels, and you'd take out the mirror/shutter/etc assembly to do the relubrication, I think. I wouldn't attempt it myself.

Look at cmuseum's post in this other thread: there, the problem was with a particular lens, but it sounds like the lever in your camera isn't moving freely. Do what cmuseum describes. If the lever isn't moving all the way down freely, I'd look for somewhere to get it repaired. It's quite likely just a bit of lubrication needed. It's even possible exercising it gently will leave it more free.

I see I am no longer a Mentor, and someone has pinched all my badges!

Kyoto. FED 4, HP5.

The closed Agfa printing-plate factory. Doesn't tell any kind of time now.

The dark part of a grad will darken everything to the same degree. If that's what you want done to the sky, that's great. Coloured filters are for a different job though. A yellow stops a lot of the blue and violet, so it will darken the blue of a blue sky a lot, but leave clouds relatively bright. It will sometimes bring out detail in a cloudy sky by darkening dark clouds more than bright ones. In digital terms, it turns down the blue channel; and you could do the effect that way in post-proc, if you took the photograph with a digital or with colour film, treat the colours, and only then convert it to B&W. But if you take the picture on B&W film, there's no way to change the relative values of blue and yellow after you've made the exposure. For me, a yellow is the most important filter. My most capable film camera (haven't used it for a while) is probably my Mamiya 645 Pro. The three lenses I use most all take 58mm accessories, so I have two different-strength yellows, a yellow-green, and an orange. I rarely want the extreme look of a red. I also have an inra-red filter, from playing a little with super-panchromatic film. I don't have an ND or a grad for that camera. I don't have as big a set of filters for any other camera. I bought myself (some time ago now, and still not used it seriously) a 180mm Fujinon for an old 4x5 inch camera I have, and that happens to have a 58mm filter ring too.

They do different jobs. What do you want the filter to do? If you mean a simple grey grad, you can't expect it to separate clouds from a blue sky like a yellow, or separate pale greens from darker greens in foliage. Also, a grad more or less has to be a big, rectangular filter, with a separate holder, whereas a plain coloured filter can be screw-on and no bigger than the filter ring. I have used a fair amount of Adox CHS films (there is now only CHS 100 II). This is supposed to behave like you are using a mild yellow filter all the time - they allow a deliberate fall-off in sensitivity toward the blue end, to keep it similar to the old-recipe films they used to sell.

Thanks for the link!

I don't think the site now has any way to start a new paid-for membership; so I'd be surprised if they were still charging renewals.

charles_webster also exists, but has no activity. I think this must be the result of a glitch occurring when the site data was transferred onto the new software. The same thing has happened to rws/rws1664886018, and 'rws' still exists, and has just one piece of activity. There are also various variations on rws to confuse the issue. https://www.photo.net/search/?&q=Charles_Webster&type=core_members&joinedDate=any&group[3]=1&group[7]=1 https://www.photo.net/search/?&q=rws&type=core_members&joinedDate=any&group[3]=1&group[7]=1 There are quite a few more: I saw you both have numbers starting with 1664, and searched for that: https://www.photo.net/search/?&q=1664&type=core_members&page=1&joinedDate=any&group[3]=1&group[7]=1&sortby=member_posts&sortdirection=desc If that other charles_webster is also you, maybe you could log in as them; but the new name would still have all the posts attributed to it.

Plainly, I didn't find the effect ugly or exaggerated, or I wouldn't have been doing it. I only did the full one-hour stand a few times. That's a long time to wait. If I was reducing the agitation, I mostly developed for about twenty minutes; just time to drink a beer; with an inversion at (say) one, two, four and eight minutes. As I said above, this wasn't devised by me: I think I copied it from someone either here or at flickr. On my most artful days I have consciously increased or decreased the amount of agitation to vary the effect. The edge effects are modest; you have to look for them; and in some pictures it enhances the edge, say of a silhouetted feature. But the main effect is to give you some detail in deep shadows.

I think the answer is that it can be, if the solution is weak enough. As I understand it, a compensating effect is where the developer in highly-exposed areas of the film becomes significantly depleted. That means the development there slows down, while less-exposed areas still have plenty of developer left, and they get to catch up. Whether this is a good or bad things is up to you and your situation. Compensation can bring out shadow detail without burning in the printing/photoshop stage; but another way of describing the effect is that it lowers the contrast. Several developers can give a compensation effect. I have done it with Rodinal and less often with HC110. I copied from other people's accounts here and at Flickr. This is one of the effects of 'stand' development, where people include hardly enough developer in the solution, and then don't agitate at all, with development times of an hour or so. This will also give you edge effects, where the plentiful developer in a shadow area diffuses across the border and gives extra development to just the edge of the highlit area next to it. Some people give less time and 'not much' agitation and call that 'semi-stand'. You will only see the effect with low concentration, or the developer won't become limiting in the exposed areas. With Rodinal, I was putting 3ml of concentrate in the solution for a 36-exposure roll of 35mm; and I worked out the volume for other film sizes from that in proportion to the area of film. Offhand, I forget what amount of HC110 I have used.

Balaclavas on everybody! Bring your crowbars, and we'll meet in Dodgy Backstreet, Seattle at the dead of night. We'll force that back window above the CreativeLive dumpster, set what permissions we need and be gone like shadows before they know anything about it.. 🥷

At the top, you can click Forums, then scroll down and choose the Canon FD forum, then Choose the recent thread (called 'Canon T90 Reminder' ) Here's a direct link to the forum https://www.photo.net/forums/forum/14-canon-fd/ and this is the post I think: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/525484-canon-t90-reminder/?do=findComment&comment=5761495

The problem there was the same question was posted in two different fora. We used to have rules, and they used to discourage cross-posting.

'Gold', if you mean the metal parts, might mean the chrome plating was in poor condition, and a previous owner has polished away what was left of it; so it would be brass, presumaby with a layer of lacquer to stop it tarnishing. I guess the same sort of person would be likely to re-cover it with snakeskin leatherette.

How often Ken do training?

'The Cartier-Bresson of the East', it says here: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2022/dec/09/the-cartier-bresson-of-the-east-fan-hos-hong-kong-in-pictures ..and not long ago the Guardian had some other Cartier-Bresson too: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/oct/21/henri-cartier-bresson-photographe-new-edition-french-photographer For today, I'll take the Fan Ho; maybe in part because I didn't know about him at all. I'm not convinced HCB* is the comparison I'd make: quite a bit more dramatic. He's keen on shooting against the light, and he uses the effect of big light on little people, a bit like Salgado (I have mixed feelings about Salgado). I think he must have spotted the potential for an effect-of-light photograph, and staked out some of his locations. I think he uses an accutance developer, and he burns and dodges quite a lot, which you don't notice with HCB. He crops his pictures, so you can't tell what format he was using (well I can't; I like to know that stuff). I was peeved to find I couldn't get any of his stuff from my usual booksellers, but it looks like I could order from Hong Kong. Not sure what the shipping will be like. It might have to wait until I get a new job. *My sister insists that HCB is the correct abbreviation for hot cross bun, not Henri Cartier-Bresson.

I'm a Brit, and I do say 'ten-by-eight' (but not often; I don't know if I've ever been in the same room as a camera that size, and I haven't printed a ten-by-eight for years), but I would also say 'five-by-seven', by habit. Early Photography shows some old plate packs. They vary: there's a picture of a stack of Kodak packets: there's a pack of 9x12cm, sitting on top of a pack of 5x4 inch; and under that is a pack of 6½x4¾ inch/12x16.5 cm. Certainly I say 'four-by-five'. That's what's printed on all my current film-boxes. I have current 3¼x4¼ inch film labelled short-side-first, and old British plates the same size labelled long-side-first. I call it Royale with cheese quarter-plate. When I did some writing for Camera-wiki, size categories had long ago been set up with small dimension first, and mostly in centimetres: we categorise a camera as 6x9, not as 2¼x3¼ inch, though there's no rule about what you call the size in the text. There is an uncommon (Japanese) format that's four-by-five centimetres, so four-by-five-inch has to be called that, at least in the category. People trip over 4.5x6, because we're so used to hearing that one the other way round, or as '645'. We have a rule about editing that it's not acceptable to go through someone else's writing changing (say) 'colour' to 'color' or vice versa. Whoever starts an article sets the usage for that article, and later contributors respect it.

Maybe you bought it from this guy: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/514197-film-how-to-get-great-exposure-without-aperture-needle/ If you can get your money back, I'd do that. If not, and the camera works otherwise, then make the best of it as a camera without a meter.

I like 'fora': if we're going to use the classical word, why not use it correctly? Or we could just call this a message board.