jamastersphotos

<p>What an amazing variety of quality work! Inspiring.<br>

I don't get out much any more because of health issues, but the last time Lovely Wife and I went on a local photo excursion, I took a few shots of this heron on the Indian River Lagoon in Melbourne, Florida.<br>

When I got the pics on the computer, I loved how the intense light glaring off the water gave the photos of this guy a dreamy quality.<br>

Nikon D90 with 18-200mm lens @90mm; f/22, 1/400s, ISO 200<br>

<img src="http://jamasters.smugmug.com/Other/BlogPhotos/i-MLG6SN2/0/O/D90100120113276crop.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="465" /></p>

<p>I have a similar situation, and a problem with the very first BW negative I photographed with my digital camera. I'm hoping y'all can help me.<br>

I looked, searched the photo.net archives and haven't found a situation quite like mine. This was the most recent post I found about photographing old 120, 220, etc., negatives with a digital camera.<br>

I have a large envelope of 6cm x 6cm, 6cm x 9cm, and 6.5cm x 10.5cm (Kodak 616) BW negatives of my mother and her sister as little girls from the 1930s and 1940s. <br>

There are very few actual photos in print form left, so I'd love to use my Nikon D90 to carefully photograph some of these negatives to email to my mom and aunt (and to the kids, grandkids, etc.).<br>

Eventually I'll get these scanned professionally, but for now, I know that my D90 can take good enough images to send everyone while Mom and Aunt are still alive (both in late 70s).<br>

I took one negative, in front of a sheet of white paper, on a diffused white light, with a clean flat piece of glass on top to flatten the negative and made a couple of trial shots with my nikon and my 28-200 zoom in the telephoto range.<br>

I know this photo could be photoshopped to look presentable enough to please Mom and Aunt while they're still alive to see these photos again after decades, but a problem on my first shot.<br>

THE PROBLEM:<br>

A fine, perfectly formed grid of lines across the whole image...like a fine net.<br>

<img src="http://jamasters.smugmug.com/photos/i-prSQTZC/0/M/i-prSQTZC-M.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://jamasters.smugmug.com/photos/i-Lf7fs6C/0/M/i-Lf7fs6C-M.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Since this was a problem with THE very first attempt to photograph a (6.5cm x 10.5cm) negative, I feel I must have done something wrong that is truly basic and simple.<br>

I photographed this negative at 1/15sec, f/11, ISO 1600.<br>

Can you guys that have tried this process tell me what is wrong?<br>

Thank you!<br>

John M./Palm Bay, FL</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Pony IV is the camera I learned photography on. I was interested in photography in 7th grade and asked my mother (the family photographer) if she had an old camera I could use, expecting some cheapo instamatic type thing she usually used. </p>

<p>She pointed me to our home's "storage closet" and I found a box with a 35mm camera in it. It was the Kodak Pony IV that she had stopped using years before.</p>

<p>I wrote a bit about it on my photography blog a few years ago and have images of the camera, the original box, and the included accessories. </p>

<p>Take a look if you get a minute: <a href="http://jampictures.blogspot.com/2007/04/humble-beginnings.html">http://jampictures.blogspot.com/2007/04/humble-beginnings.html</a></p><div></div>

<p>The Pony IV is the camera I learned photography on. I was interested in photography in 7th grade and asked my mother (the family photographer) if she had an old camera I could use, expecting some cheapo instamatic type thing she usually used. <br>

She pointed me to our home's "storage closet" and I found a box with a 35mm camera in it. It was the Kodak Pony IV that she had stopped using years before.<br>

I wrote a bit about it on my photography blog a few years ago and have images of the camera, the original box, and the included accessories. <br>

Take a look if you get a minute: <a href="http://jampictures.blogspot.com/2007/04/humble-beginnings.html">http://jampictures.blogspot.com/2007/04/humble-beginnings.html</a></p>

I just received a Nikon D70s, two lens kit, yesterday, from Adorama in NY.

Body, 18-70mm lens, and 55-20mm lens. Each lens has it's own warranty paper,

the 'carbon copy' kind that says on front that "You must present the attached

warranty form together with proof of purchase and proof of purchase date to

obtain warranty service".

The D70s body does NOT have one of these forms with the serial number already

printed on it.

I called Adorama customer service and was told that my invoice that lists

everything will suffice. My only problem is that there's no way to prove this

particular D70s body is the one from the invoice. It's serial number is not

listed on the Adorama invoice like the lenses and the flash I bought.

Do Nikon camera bodies normally include the "You must present..." form? Is

Adorama correct that their invoice will suffice if I have a problem with this

body within the warranty period? I hate to try to return it just for this, but

I don't want to get burned down the road somewhere either.

Thanks,

John M.