steve m smith

<blockquote> <p>My hope is that someday someone will say about me: "he has more money than brains".</p> </blockquote> <p>For me, it's the other way round. And lookng at my bank balance, that's not too difficult!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Does anybody know why the Nikon FA did not sell well ? Unlike the FM2, FE2</p> </blockquote> <p>Probably because the FM2 and FE2 existed at the same time.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Is collecting film cameras addictive?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes (slightly corrected!).</p> <p> </p>

<p>It's certainly possible... if you can afford it!</p>

<p>Perhaps Adam doesn't own a Nikon D810!</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have a no-name DKL-to-Nikon F adapter that accepts both flavors.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />I'm glad I looked at this thread. I have three Retina Reflex III cameras and a few lenses but didn't know anyone made adaptors for them. I will have to get a Nikon adaptor.<br /><br /><br />Does the adaptor control the aperture? The one I saw on eBay had a little lever on one side.</p>

<p>5x4 processing in the UK:<br> http://www.photech.co.uk/film-processing/<br> http://www.peak-imaging.com/htmls/film_processing.htm<br> http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/prices/film-processing<br> http://www.digitalab.co.uk/process.html<br> http://www.genieimaging.co.uk/film-processing/</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>But I tend to side with those who say that it's easier on a film scanner and that you're going to get more consistent results on a scanner.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />Whilst this is true, it's also going to take a lot longer. Some people post here saying they are going to scan thousands of slides and negatives but haven't worked out how many years it is going to take them given the amount of spare time they might have for doing it.</p>

<p>Between the markings in the 100s it is probably 1/3 stops.</p> <p>e.g. 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800.<br> 64 is 2/3 stops down from 100 so there might be one mark between 64 and 100 and 32 is a whole stop from 64 so there are probably two 1/3 stop markings between them.</p>

<p>RB67.</p>

<blockquote> <p>There was cleric who dedicated his poems to a married woman who<strong> could</strong> care less about him</p> </blockquote> <p>I assume you mean couldn't.</p>

<p>As a parallel, people also thought the days of vinyl records were over, however, on the radio today I heard that vinyl sales in the UK this year are the highest for twenty years.<br /><br />Like film, it's no longer mainstream, but it's still there.</p>

<p>A typical comment from ten years ago:<em> "Film has about five years left".</em></p>

<p>Colour is just a passing fad.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If Leica can get some publicity and turn a decent profit on these 'concept cameras' then good luck to them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Absolutely. Even if they are only bought by the rich and are kept in display cabinets, if it helps Leica stay in business, then that's a good thing.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Only if the clouds are low can you bounce the flash</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br /><br />Well, you can use a bounce card or adaptor.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If the scanner is reading the slide mount, the white cardboard or plastic is causing the underexposure.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />That was my first thought - but if it is scanning the mount using light above it, it would see it as black rather than white so any auto setting would increase exposure to compensate, leading to lighter images rather than darker.</p>

<p>The problem is, there are chemists' rules and normal people's rules!<br> <br /><br />A chemist sees 1:4 as 1 part in a total of 4 whereas non chemists see 1:4 as a ratio of 1 to 4 to make a total of 5.</p> <p>The only un-ambiguous way is to use 1+4.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you follow the chemistry notation rules, there is no ambiguity.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />Until someone tells you to dilute 1:1.</p>

<p>Paterson Orbital for small quantities.</p>

<p>It's not going to work if you don't open it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Valves became obsolete sometime in the early 1960s for most purposes. In 2014 I have five pieces of valve equipment that I use regularly, four of which are commercial products, of which three started production within the last ten years (and one within the last two). Yes, I am a guitarist, and four of the five pieces of equipment are guitar-related.</p> </blockquote> <p>I build audio recording equipment with valves. As you say, there is no problem sourcing them. In fact, it is probably less of a hit and miss affair than it was years ago as companies such as Groove Tubes now measure and grade them and sell them as matched sets.</p> <p>As for film, ten years ago, people were giving film five years before it was gone.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm convinced the court will side with Wikipedia should it proceeds to trial.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />I'm convinced that Wikipedia would back down if it got that far. The (human) photographer set up the shot and presumably has the original RAW files. If he asserts his ownership of copyright, only the monkey can challenge that if he believes he is the true copyright owner - and I don't think that would happen!<br> <br />Wikipedia cannot do it on the monkey's behalf.</p> <p> </p>

<p>A couple of years ago I donated a spare enlarger to a local high school who were planning to enlarge their darkroom facilities.</p>

<p>I have in the past poured out the developer and put the fix straight in without a stop bath or rinse with no ill effects.<br /><br />I'm sure someone will come along and tell me why that's a bad idea though!</p>