wogears

<p>I think...<br> Have to recalibrate the monitor...<br> Hell, a stuck pixel. Let me map it out...<br> Okay, almost have the mouse pad lined up...<br> Jesus, I left the printer door open...<br> Did someone mess with my Wacom? It's tilted!...<br> Almost there. Just need to count the USB ports again...</p>

<blockquote> <p>Bottom line.....Leica are the King of lenses....cry about it, have a tantrum, beat up Leica folk....just the way it is.</p> </blockquote> <p>Right. No evidence, of course, but The Truth is Out There. Sure it is.</p> <blockquote> <p>The eye of the photographer is everything.</p> </blockquote> <p>As long as he uses the King of Lenses™. </p>

<p>Why do words like Minolta or Canon turn into links in my forum posts?</p>

<p>Huh? Third-party lenses are current models. Nothing wrong with them; in fact, some like the Sigma "Art" series are better than the OEM lenses.</p> <p>If you mean so-called "legacy" lenses, yes a lot of older lenses are still superb performers. The 105 f2.5 Nikkor comes immediately to mind, as does the 35mm Canon FD. I use a 50mm f1.8 Olympus OM on my Fuji X-E1. It's small, light and sharp, and its blur is just fine.</p>

<p>How are you scanning the b/w neg? As b/w? As RGB? What you show is not unusual for ISO 400 film--you are looking at an enormous print with your 100% crop.</p>

<p>Having successfully repaired an F100 and a few Classic Manual cameras and lenses, it IS possible to do this. You will need a GOOD set of precision screwdrivers--not cheap ones from the local Home Despot. You may need a vacuum desoldering tool if you have to remove wiring. The most important accessory will be a plastic tray with dozens of little compartments to sort screws.</p>

<p>I've always loved this photograph, and have always assumed it was a setup. It still works today, because of the perfect direction of the photographer (?) or whoever 'posed' the interactions. Those interactions look real, because they undoubtedly <em>were</em> real. These men knew each other from years working together. There was, in fact. no way this could have looked other than authentic in that respect. You recognize that the scene was created for the photo, and you also realize that the subjects were entirely authentic.</p> <p>On the sociopolitical aspects: These were high-iron workers in the 1930s. If you had suggested to them that they needed safety harnesses and work rules, you'd have gotten a reply that began with knuckles. Those were the times. In the middle of a crippling depression, these guys had <em>highly paid work</em>! They knew the risks, and took them. Me, in 2014? I support rules that protect workers, whether created by government or negotiations between workers and management, but I don't try to project my sensibilities on a prior age.</p>

<p>Cosmic rays? Can I get a cool superpower?</p> <p>Yes, the base fog level is very high. Threw out remainder of film (three rolls, bought for $1 ea.). Got some in-date stuff.</p>

<p>Hi all!</p> <p>Just put a roll of Kodak Max 400 (CG 400-8) through my F100. All of the negs looked about 1.5 stops underexposed (possibly more). Checked the camera--meter reads the same as my D300 and Sekonic L-508. Shutter sounds fine. Now Max is an old film--could it have lost that much speed over time? It has no expiration date, but I believe it was first manufactured in 2001.</p> <p>TIA,<br> Les</p>

<p>Hmmmm. Copy some of the bottle blonde to a new image or layer. Rotate it until the direction matches the roots. Clone from the new layer to the roots in Color mode.</p>

<p><strong>Stephen:</strong> That's odd. I like my F100's screen/finder setup. I was 'testing' it (actually my eyes) the other day, and found that my focus on the screen agreed with the 'green dot thingie' every time. I do prefer a microprism, but I was surprised how accurate my aging vision was. YMMV of course.</p>

<p>Film photography really is not dead. Yes, there are relatively few film shooters in relation to digital, but there are a reasonable number of working pros who use some or all film. The film groups on Flickr are sizable, APUG.org has quite a few members, etc. Depending on which statistics you quote, film sales are either declining very slowly, rising or stable over the last couple of years. There <em>is</em> a trend among so-called "hipsters" to use film, and the Lomography company is riding this trend with some degree of financial success.</p> <p>The F3HP and the F5, along with the F4 and FM/FM2/FM3a are considered by some to be the finest cameras Nikon ever made, film or digital. My F3HP was USD 150 on eBay, and my F4 cost me two lenses I wasn't using. I wanted these cameras when they were new, but they were far out of my budget. Now? They cost the same as three batteries for my DSLR and "mirrorless" cameras. And they will <em>definitely</em> outlast the batteries.</p>