steve m smith

<p>Are you planning on re-using the fix? If not, a single rinse woud be enough between develop and fix.</p>

<p>Don't have air conditioning.<br> If you are worried, build some sort of storage space at least a yard underground. The temperature will be fairly constant all year round.</p>

<blockquote> <p> If both were left in safe deposit boxes side by side for 100 or even 300 yrs, I think there is about an equal likliehood you'd be able to recover usable images.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fifty years perhaps. After 300, the data might be o.k. but what are you going to read it with?</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm somewhat concerned about my Laptop. - I don't have a working battery for it at all and see no personal need to get one.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p><br />I think the worry is that a battery which does not power up the device might be an explosive disguised as a battery. If you don't have a battery at all then you don't need to prove it's real.</p>

<p>I have enough cameras. I would buy lots of film and paper.</p>

<p>Done.</p> <p>The correct answer to question 1, <em>are you male or female?</em> should be yes!!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Also...might I suggest basing comparisons of digital vs film output on what one might consider "best practices" for each? In other words, take the weak link of scanning out of the equation altogether...and take your film into a darkroom environment to print - assuming that you know how to do this well enough to make the comparison truly meaningful.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />Absolutely agree. Almost all film vs. digital comparisons are really scanner vs. digital comparisons. The scanner is always going to be the weak link.</p> <blockquote> <p>Makes sense when you think about trying to cram the same information into a 35mm (FF) sensor, versus a spacious sheet of 4x5 film, which is what? 20 times bigger or something.</p> </blockquote> <p>About fifteen times. A 35mm frame is 1.33 square inches.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I use one of the AccuVue daily wear brands (wear them for a day, then toss them), and they are very comfortable, to the point I barely notice them all day.<br> My only problem is I then need readers to chimp the photos!</p> </blockquote> <p>Same problem here (except that I don't do chimping). I changed from glasses to one day contacts last year only to find I now need reading glasses.<br /><br />Previously with glasses I could just take them off for good close up vision such as small print or focusing on a ground glass screen. Not any more!</p>

<blockquote> <p>I suspect most D3200 owners are not extensive users of older equipment and prefer the G lenses that it works best with.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />Very likely. However, I use pre AI lenses with my D3200 with no problems.</p>

<blockquote> <p>And they simply look gorgeous when mounted on any camera</p> </blockquote> <p>They do. A few years ago, a friend wanted to get into film photography. I got him a Pentax KM and a Pentax 50mm f1.7 lens from separate eBay auctions.<br> The lens looked so nice that I didn't want to give it to him!<br> <br /><br /></p>

<p>If I was doing this, I would make it with five cells and run it at 7.5 volts. <br /><br />The extra cell size on its own will give you more capacity but won't speed up charging time. A small increase in voltage will.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I remember the heated discussions on this very forum around the prediction of film's extinction some ten years ago</p> </blockquote> <p>I remember that. When it was predicted that film only had five years left!</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Meanwhile, sales of film and film cameras continue to<br> (1) decrease<br> (2) increase<br> or (3) remain the same.</p> </blockquote> <p>Cameras - decrease.<br> Film - increas (slightly).</p>

<p>Take off your watch with a luminescent face before loading a film in a changing bag... apparently.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Today you can buy purpose-made liquid-concentrate stop baths that are easier and safer to deal with, not to mention readily-available and inexpensive.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />Or even cheaper, water out of the tap.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Think I might need a service on my model T Ford....great car better than all this new fangled stuff</p> </blockquote> <p>Now you're making sense!</p>

<p>Just a minor point - That's not Big Ben, that's the clock tower. Big Ben is the bell inside.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Thus the new thinner film base is not pressed as tightly against the frame in older cameras</p> </blockquote> <p><br />That doesn't happen. The pressure plate is pressed against the two outer rails leaving a clearance gap for the film between the plate and the inner rails. No pressure is applied to the film. If there was, it would be difficult to wind on.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>Prior arts</em> does not apply only to things that have been patented, but also things that are common practice.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. Otherwise I would have patented the wheel by now!</p> <p>This patent would be rendered invalid by just about any challenge to it. It wouldn't ever get to court on an infringement case, but if it did, it would be dealt with very quickly with lots of laughter.</p> <p>Also, how would Amazon ever know that anyone used a few of the same settings, let alone all of them.<br /><br />It's complete nonsense and should just be ignored.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The word "process" is important here, as this is merely a patent on that process. It is a very narrow patent.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />I thought patents were supposed to protect ideas, not processes.</p>

<blockquote> <p>But if you shop around carefully you'll discover some retailers inflate the item costs to cover the "free" shipping.</p> </blockquote> <p>There is no such thing as free shipping. The customer pays for it.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>When I shot my first weddings for free I had a contract.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />You didn't. You had an agreement.</p>

<blockquote> <p>All the world wants to know. Are they right or wrong?</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br /><br />Yes.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I took this with my home made cement mixer</p> </blockquote> <p>You should have used a camera!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Why the IR filter, Steve?</p> </blockquote> <p>I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that the intention was to trigger the three manual flashes without the on camera flash contributing to the light. An IR filter will trigger the flashes but not allow the on camera flash to be visible.</p>

<p>Opto triggers on all of the off camera flashes and an infra red filter over the on camera flash.</p>