steve m smith

<p>The Berne Convention states that a photograph of a building does not infringe the building's copyright (if one exists).<br>

You can only do this by building an identical or very similar building.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Years later, a couple of professors at Waterloo University wrote a paper proving the design to be technically flawed, rather the capsule should be embedded in the boundary surface, facing upward.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have made a few boundary mics with the capsule facing the surface. They work very well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>More interestingly what kind of liability insurance do you have?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably nowhere near as much as the plant has.</p>

<p>I still have my first 35mm SLR which is an Edixa Prismaflex which I got in 1982. It still works.<br>

My first camera was an Agfa Isolette. I don't have it but I do have one similar.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They tend to hide 2 f-stops in their sleeves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't think so.</p>

<p>http://www.apug.org<br>

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never made an HDR image in my life.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br />You probably have - an image with real high dynamic range. What is being referred to as HDR today normally looks to have a low dynamic range with everything being pushed towards a mid tone. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But i too think it would be a terrible shame to preserve everything for eternity. Most things are meant to be enjoyed once, and then forgotten. Please do let things disappear again!</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />A lot of sense in that statement.</p>

<p>Last week I saw a post on a forum where someone was asking about the best way to have music he had on cassettes transferred to his computer. What for? Why does everything have to be converted to digital format? Just enjoy it as it is. Listen to cassettes and records on their respective players, watch super 8 movies and view your slide collection on projectors... etc.<br /><br />Back in the late 1970s my wife's great aunt had all of her super 8 movies transferred to video so future generations could watch them. Unfortunately, she chose Betamax. Now when we want to watch them, it's with a projector - as intended.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If negative is available, scanned negative at 2400dpi / 48-bit and .TIFF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the negative is available, put it in a box in a cupboard and forget about it. I bet it will still be there when you go back to look for it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They are looking to buy one of my photographs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my opinion, it depends on how much they are willing to pay.<br /><br />If someone paid me enough, I would sell all rights, the negative and give a promise not to produce anything very similar in the future.<br /><br />It would have to be a lot of money though and I doubt that it's going to happen!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film is definitely slit and perfed at Kodak after the emulsion is complete and dry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Same at Ilford.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Discussion crushers. Its been happening more often lately. It will definitely make me quieter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Really? It would make me louder!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Analogy warning >> Vinyl was around for decades. Then CD's replaced vinyl, but CD's only lasted a short period of time. We don't even have anything in our house that will play a CD anymore. I wonder if we will look back at conventional 2d sensors and see the same thing. Film was around for decades and decades. 2d sensors may be the 20 year bridge between film and the next thing and maybe this is the next thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Film and vinyl are still around.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film is easy. Shoot it. Drop it off. Download the scans. Little to no time spent staring at monitor. A number of years ago when I switched back to film, I cut my post processing time down by about 80% to 90%. Saved me a lot of money in the long run. Why anyone would spend a mountain of time post processing and using filters to try and make their digital files look like film is beyond me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My thoughts exactly. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I have done a few weddings for friends. Usually with an RB67. Films sent off for processing, proofs returned from the lab with re-ordering numbers on the back, No post processing - in fact, no computer time at all!!<br>

<br />Just as my father used to do it from the 1950s to the 1980s.</p>

<p>For those who want the products other than the traditional photo album and need digital files, just download. None of the hours of post processing which some people say they do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The peel away sticky back black felt is by far the best material for the hinge seal and mirror bumper,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is... but in most cases, there is no point in removing the backing paper. Just cut to size and place in the slot. For 99.9999% of the cameras life the door will be closed and will hold the foam in place. When the door is open, foam cut to a snug fit will stay in place in the slot, helped out by any sticky residue from the previous foam.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>does this mean ive become a kind of ""expert"" or is there something wrong with me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it's probably both!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That comment would have made me snort beer out my nose had I been drinking it. After I just mentioned the 12-shot rolls through a Rolleiflex. I used to work with several guys who had done weddings with 4x5 press cameras; they would have probably laughed if I told them how limiting a Rollei was.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My father was given ten glass plates when he was sent out to do his first wedding. He was sent on his way with the comment <em>"don't waste any"</em> !!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An attorney is best qualified to answer these questions for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or anyone who knows how to read and can find the relevant legislation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And do also consider the scanner's capabilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And your own capabilities. Scanning 8,000 slides/negatives is going to take a long time and you would likely not take as much care over it towards the end as you would when you start.<br>

<br />I would do a bit of editing and reduce the number.</p>

<p>(Actually I would only scan as and when I needed to rather than embark on doing the whole lot).</p>