ishi_p

<p>Naa, they only just received it. I gave them there money back and let em keep the tank. <br>

Thanks for the help anyway. I knew i'd get good info on here, Good to see it's still a nice little online community. I often send people here. <br>

<br />Best regards. </p>

<p>I know. i'm useless. I used these at uni lots, but I only use an old one now myself.<br>

<br />I do remember checking it over and thinking it's all light baffles, and once together it looked OK. I really should have looked closer. </p>

<p>Hi Chris, Yes that part is with it. I think i'd better offer a refund or something as this was sold to someone.</p>

<p><img src="http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n424/ishim42/P8313231.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hi folks.<br>

I was just wondering (as my memory is old) if anyone can help. <br>

Is this tank broken, ie the lid is separate from the funnel? It's been ages since I used these often and I thought this was how this tank is meant to be. </p>

<p><img src="http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n424/ishim42/P8313230.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="509" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I go through this thought now and again. I guess the above answers are the only or best answers.<br>

I have wondered if you can get some kind of moon filter though? I know that would mean having a filter but theses reflections should be reduced with a hood and could maybe be dealt with in photo-shop. It would be something like a small semi opaque dot on an otherwise clear filter.</p>

<p>I guess that does nothing for the stars, which now I think about it would probably need much longer? I guess it depends on there brightness and how lit the landscape is.</p>

<p>I would agree above, that you don't need to travel and it can be incredibility useful to push yourself and find things in your local surroundings.<br /> But I also feel travelling to some place where you've never been (that's very different) can be the thing that makes it all click into place (excuse the pun). Thinking about it, for me it's like food. You can eat the same local food and enjoy it but go somewhere completely different and it will challenge you, Maybe even make you think different about food altogether. Putting that different taste in your mouth can only enrich. If you already have drive discipline and direction you may be able to make good things with the ingredients around you but if it's something you want to do you should at least try it.</p>

<p>I feel you really do need to spend some time about it. As said above, I agree, you are lucky in the US, If I lived there I would have been to Peru or Chile by now and maybe far north also. Not only do you have diverse landscape but cultures.</p>

<p>I worked in local factories in the past. But it was totally worth it. My photography is now at least some part of my job, I restore old cameras atm and taking good pictures of them really helps. It may not be just what I want to do but it's one step closer. <br /> Maybe if I had never made that trip I would have got less involved or learned less and would now be still in one of those (for me) soul crushing factories. As it stands I have both the opportunity to use my skills (that I do still enjoy) and try and push my preferred things further. In fact taking pictures OF cameras in a studio way teaches me about more that just lighting but form and composition, things that i'm able to then use to grow my art more.</p>

<p>I don't know how it works in the US but here in the UK many grants are tied to university. I never really bothered at the time, I had enough to be going on with by the time I reached university. <br /> But getting down to brass tacks, it's about the work you have and are capable of doing that counts, and it may be hard to find people willing to pay you to learn. A formal education can also be good but i'd say from my experience you get so much more from doing just what you want.<br /> If you enjoy or have some affinity for photography and would love to travel and take pictures then do it. Find a way. It may seem like burning money but you will come back so much richer. A lot of people spend a lot of money on vacations but imo it's often not the same. Part of that may be because a couple of weeks is little time to settle. Unless you travel a lot it takes time to feel at ease and get into things. <br /> Just pick some far flung location you like the look of and book at least a month away. It should cost no more than two shorter trips, probably less.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>There must be a thousand ways into this.</p>

<p>For me (I don't earn a living just with my art, In fact none atm) but I have travelled in the past and photography was an important part, And I have sold work related to some of those shots, I used them for painting. </p>

<p>Travel does not have to be expensive. Some of the most interesting places are not the most wealthy economies. I have lived for some time from just a couple of months of other work. I guess there are others who make it happen before they "Make it" and have to do things they don't want in the mean time.</p>

<p>In fact unless you have some body of work i'd imagine it's hard to sell yourself to any agency.</p>

<p>It was some time ago, but I lasted 3+ month's in India on a few hundred pounds, I could have lasted a lot longer, I was not uncomfortable (most of the time). Also the further east you go lifestyle changes, people live more in the streets so you meet a lot of people who can be very hospitable, so things get even cheaper. Planning helps if you don't want to rough it and it won't always mean more cost.</p>

<p>I just took an OM10 and a 50mm (not that it matters) but cheap and light and batteries are not an issue. If I was going to do it again i'd take something similar. I guess it depends how you shoot and how you travel, my point is gear does not have to be expensive either.</p>

<p>There is a book I recall seeing, "The Freelance Photographer's Market Handbook". It is updated every year and looked useful to me. But I guess it will always depend on what work you have?</p>

<p>Reminds me of a funny story in a 2000AD comic. Judge Dread sees a "Runner" and the whole strip is him basically trying to catch the guy as he legs it through Maga-City One at breakneck speed . After several distant warnings (which go unheeded or unnoticed by the incessant runner) Dread finely gets close enough as the runner reaches his destination, and shoots him dead. Problem solved.</p>

<p>He was just a regular runner about to beat his best time. </p>

<p>"I can't break the law, I am the law!"</p>

<p>As a motorcyclist myself I am amazed at this. If someone is a criminal doing a runner or something they are not going to be popping wheelies along the road. To pull a gun on the guy?</p>

<p>The camera was obviously there to record his riding. How paranoid to think otherwise.<br /> 5 years? Just what harm did he do to this officer. Madness, Complete Madness. Law gone mad.</p>

<p>I hope the guy gets off with reckless riding or something, it seems the only reasonable charge.</p>

<p>http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/info/1.htm</p>

<p>This may be helpful. I would use use it because they should be basically the same (if I have the correct model in mind), but you may still have to pay attention just in case there are any differences.</p>

<p>Just remember it may help to mark any gears/threads you remove just in case. The best thing to do IMO is take your time and try to understand what things do, this is better than any manual. </p>

<p>

<p>I Just found this, Strange, Maybe some of the later versions where not coupled. If you have just front cell focusing it's easy. You may just have to mark the lens where it comes out so the treads stay meeting in the same place.<br>

It's all just guess work without knowing the actual model tough,</p>

<p>I will try to remember to check up on this thread. </p>

<p>That is a complex focusing that is tied to the rangefinder. Got any pictures.?</p>

<p>I will assume it is the older version. You could try lighter fluid. The thing is finding the stiff bit (which may be lens or the focus wheel area), And avoiding getting lighter fluid in the actual lens, or the shutter.</p>

<p>If you are lucky it will be the wheel you turn above the lens, and you may be able to flush it without to much trouble. Maybe find some watch oil to mix in to stop it drying up (which can be worse). You don't want oil near the shutter though. It may be helped with luck but if it is the area around the lens think twice, Any dirt or dry old oil, (any oil in fact) that gets pushed toward the shutter is very likely to gum it up. </p>

<p>If you don't have clear instructions and you want to disassemble i'm sure it can be done. But you may have to reset infinity focus and would (somehow) want to keep the focus coupled to the rangefinder. This could mean marking things as you dissemble but sometimes you just need to reset anyway. </p>

<p>There may also be resources on-line about the Russian Moskva copys.</p>

<p>I think it's a great idea. But I can't see how you would do it with eos or any other current slr mounts, Unless you made the sensor smaller. You would not be able to fit a larger mirror in without moving the mount forward.<br>

But no reason you can't do it on the current mirror-less lot, not that I can think of.</p>

<p> It would be great never having to turn your camera to 90.</p>

<p>I dont exactly know John but I think for awarness it's useful info. There is much descussion about this now so I though it was relivent to post somthing about it, I guess i could have posted any of the many news stories on the subect.<br>

I (and I feel others) Know absolutley nothing about this, maybe it's worth keeping and eye on. Maybe we should not be coserned but I for one am glad to get this news.<br>

It's about our power and the information with which to make chooses. I do find it kind of strange the cameras are marketed as pro, but you (may) not be able to do much with them in the future if this format becomes common. Like MP3 it could easily be locked down.<br>

Why would they do that you ask? well companies have a way of doing things against there own interest when large sums of cash are involved.<br>

I would say "the codec can't be used for commercial video" it a stretch, it is what it is and there is a lot to it.<br>

But that itself is something to consider. As someone who enjoys video content on sites there are issues here that I hope people are at least are aware of. As many on this forum own such cameras. <br>

Leslie, I don't exactly know, As I understand it in the US there are no fees until 2015, but by then if everyone has adopted it and they do decide to peruse it ? who knows.</p>

<p><em>Josh can't please everyone.</em> Totally agree. I just am giving my view. <br /> Hopefuly you can understand, When I don't own or even close to paying for my own home, worrying if I can afford the next dentist treatment, and living back at my folks, How I wonder about businesses real needs.<br /> Many I have worked for have had bosses living very nice of the profits (relatively speaking) and many are just not prepared to make the sacrifices, or can't be bothered to keep it going because they simple don't need to or want to. I'm not saying that is this case here, I have no idea. Just that there are ads and there is content. And for me the balance is not good.</p>

<p><img src="http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/1200146.gif" alt="" /></p>

<p>You have to consider that ads like this appear on white, mainly next to just text, When I said punchier I did not mean something jarring like this....If things fit in they become easier on the eye because there is less contrast from one thing to the other, Just look how much that stands out on a full white page with just text. <br /> Flicker gets over this with avatars and some nice colours which balances things, with less (better looking) and well placed ads. I'm not saying that's best for photo.net, it has to gear around the forum. But not much has changed aside from many more ads on every page, and aesthetics are really important. to me. <br /> <br /><br /> Anyway I have said what I have said and it's useful or not. I don't want argue about it.</p>

<p>Thanks Josh. It's just I read similar things few weeks ago and assume it has been going on for some time, and that makes me think if your on the job and there are still losts of them that it's not working. Though that's totally an assumption. I am sorry but I assumed you would have a team of people working on it from the get go. <br>

I did not mean to be unrealistic, It was just a suggestions/ideas I wanted to say. Pehaps this was not the thread to say them in, but I will try and make it clearer now I started.<br>

I donate to wikipedia specificity because they work to keep any ads off. Not that I mind ads that much, but at least they practice (and tell us about) this kind of thing that they do. It could be anything, not just keeping ads off. So I am inclined to think there content will be safer. People don't mind paying because of this, or things like it. I know nothing of any photo.net ideas (or actions) in this regard, and I have looked. <br>

I don't presume to know about photo.net's future success. There are many things which keep sites going. But I tend to go with things I feel are safer for the content we all add. <br>

I don't mind ads. especially for Ektar. Though they do stand out a lot no matter what ads. Just saying that's all. I notice them a lot less on flicker but they are still there. <br>

I was just suggesting that maybe if the look of the site was punchier they may sit better, and it may get more people paying for what it is. People don't pay for what they want it to be. I don't assume you suggest just me paying is going to change anything. And that was not my point. I was just giving you my point of view. Feel free to disregard it. Honestly. <br>

I'm not saying how valid I think my view is. Just putting it out there. </p>

<p> This was on Goggle chrome. Top right on the front page. <br>

</p>

<tr>

<td id="taw0" align="center" valign="middle">

http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?cid=228121&mid=424947&sid=53273&m=6&c=0

<img src="http://cdn.fastclick.net/fastclick.net/cid228121/media424947.gif" alt="Click Here" />

This was on the bottom.

http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?cid=211286&mid=395369&sid=53273&m=1&c=0

<img src="http://cdn.fastclick.net/fastclick.net/cid211286/media395369.jpg" alt="Click Here" /><br />

</td>

</tr>

<p>Hang on a second. So it's the users job to help clean this up.<br /> IMO this is a far bigger issue than that if you have to keep repeating yourself. Maybe it's between you an adsence or whatever. Not for us to sort out. <br /> For your information most ads on this site are unrelated to the content and look cheap. Is posting them going to change that? I think not, this could go on forever with new ads. <br /> I give up for now also. I see no real movement. That's cool, but why don't you just ignore these posts then? It took me an hour to write so i'd rather that than the reply I got.<br>

I don't think you got what I said at all.</p>

<p>I will take my time to voice some things that have been running though my head about this. Please don't take this like I enjoy having a dig or get a kick out of doing it. I'd rather not post it (at all) for me, But I am not posting it just for me.</p>

<p>The content of photo.net as a cummunity is very valuble to me and I have always appreciated the users content as well as the articles and such. Not a big fan of online critique of other members work, but that's just me. I don't need to go there so fine. <br /> However I have noticed the ads have become much more distracting than before, And the quality of them is often very poor. Not just the way they look but "Whiten your Teeth"?<br /> I have never contributed much to the site, just a few comments here and there, But I often recommend it to other shooters. However recently I was thinking about adding some more of my recent work. But it just feels this site is becoming more about directing people to the ads, I'm sure that's not how it is (totally) at all. But it feels more like that.</p>

<p>I don't really want my work juxtaposed along with these adds, Nor do I want to direct people here to see it. I may still do for the forums and content, but not to host work.<br /> Cartoon Youself? I mean come on. Does photo.net regard how this looks to many?, or the value that's being lost, How much does this undermine the value there is ?<br>

<br /> I don't know, I don't know what photo.net are set on being. I can say I have become conserned about using photo.net more. If i want to add some content to the web I (generaly) do it to help, as many do. But I wonder about what happens to all this info and content, are there any kind of safeguards. I mean if photonet is purely about money then surey if it becomes "unfeasible" all that content will just be lost.?<br /> I don't earn much, below minimum wage atm. I was happy to contribute to wikapidia, but I feel hard pressed to contribute to photo.net in it's present form with money.<br>

<br /> I know I am just one guy and I don't expect or need anything to change to suit me. I still think it's OK for what it is.</p>

<p>I have posted this with a view to contributing to the site, not to criticize un-constructively and I hope it's taken that way.</p>

<p>PS. I wonder if photo.net could use a complete overhaul to the look of the site? At least make these ads sit better. Having colourful flash ads on a minimalist look site like this just over-imposes them. <br /> Best regards.</p>

<p>Just to add some info, I am currently working on two of these from the same period (a IIIa and a Standard) Nether of them have this felt and it looks like they never did have. But I notice one has narrower curtains.... As said, I guess it was not so critical back then if people where using such slow film. That's news to me. </p>

<p>Can I get me some (:</p>

<p>Anyway, I am glad the problems solved, I had a similar thing with a kiev 60, it's nice once you know the cause so you can get a good full roll. </p>

<p>Or leaving lens open to bright light for a long time, without a cap. This looks like the light has warped around the curtain and got to the film. With a rangefinder there is less things to baffle the light. Maybe during service the curtains where not cut as high.</p>

<p>The thing to do is shoot a roll, keeping the lens well covered between shots. Then take the lens off towards the end of the roll and leave it in daylight for a while, If the exposure that was in the frame at the time is like this, you know the cause.</p>