dangoldman

<p>frankly, i am all in favor of <em>commercial </em>use of drones being regulated to some extent. The only time in my life i think i've ever said i want something regulated. In any event, i would hope to see the FAA draft something up that would require commercial operators, especially those that intend to operate beyond visual range and rely on FPV and GPS, operate above 400ft, etc, to know and demonstrate understanding of visual flight rules (VFR) aeronautical charts, as well as basic communication over controlled and common frequencies. Additionally, i think that the license should also include knowledge of the specific regulations that apply to drones (just as real pilots know the limitations of their license), and that there would be an endorsement for real pilots that wish to operate drones to cover the gap between real airplane regs and the drone regs. Regulations aside, it only takes a few of hours of instruction and studying to figure out whats going on-on a chart, and the regs for even a private pilot are not completely onerous to learn either. The last thing we need is some realtor taking a picture of a property(s) under the pattern of a local airport and having a Cessna crash into their drone - killing the pilot and people on the ground. Full disclosure: i am a licensed private pilot and, once upon a time, avid RC airplane hobbyist. </p>

<p>if you want the look of film, then shoot film. If you dont trust your cameras's meter, you can sometimes use a digital camera's histogram. I used to do that when shooting slide film with my A1, but i also had a rough idea in my head of how to take the raw information and apply it to the film i was using - ie, simply copying the settings usually wasnt good enough. </p>

<p>*sigh*<br>

I finally got another chance to fiddle with it, and again, it didnt work... Until i opened the filter flap in the condenser... Then it came on like nothing was ever wrong... Now, i have no idea - none, what the cause and effect of that is, but i guess its more direct than the time i plugged a monitor into my computer at work and the server crashed! thanks for the help everyone! Now i just need to find an easel, a grain focusing aid, and some paper developer... </p>

<p>I picked this enlarger up last fall, but i've somewhat stalled getting it going. I tested it when i first brought it home, and to my recollection the light worked fine. There is an in-line switch that i assume is OEM. I finally got a timer last week (may have been a month now...) and the light no longer worked, even when plugged directly into the wall and not the timer. I suppose the first thing to check is the bulb, but im not even sure how to get to it or if there's something obvious i've missed. Thanks for any help. </p>

<p>Back when kodachrome was still around, people used to ask all the time how to manipulate digital to look like film, often kodacrhome. Back then, i used to answer: Shoot it!. Now, meh. You can try and tweak something that isnt as good as kodachrome, to look as good as kodachrome... but you wont... you can only polish a youknowwhatwouldgetmypost deleted, but its still just a youknowwhat. <br>

*good, in this sense, is the good attribute of kodachrome. in the right application, it was the right look. i sure do miss it. </p>

<p>i think Lex is right, rather than taking the good aspects of film to make a digital image look like film, they take the bad attributes... for what, to make it more recognizable and to quell a nostalgic feeling? furthermore, whats with instagram and the fake film look... </p>

<p>my friends tend to not like when i photograph them because i grab it documentary style when they arent paying attention, then they think i got their bad side or something (or the flash goes off if its a nighttime thing). But, then when i show the photos to them, they're happy that everything looks as it was, and that, on reflection, i wasnt jabbing for them to pose for the camera every 10seconds like a lot of event photographers do. </p>

<p>Mr. Shriver got it in one. It really is amazing how fast the transformation happened - and how so many moviegoers embrace it! "no more grain" "no more pin pricks" "no more cig burns". Gimme a break. </p>

<p>knew i wouldn't be the only one... thanks for the help Colin and Curt. </p>

<p>So i've got an organizational problem... Right now all of my slides are stored in an array of binders, i would like to change them to hanging in a metal filing cabinet (i am concerned about the binders damaging the film over time). The problem is, i dont want to have to buy all new sleeves and repack all those slides just to change my method... Im hoping im not the only one who's wanted to change from binders to hanging, and if anyone knows of a product to just grab the ring holes of my sheets and hang them in the cabinet... thanks.</p>

<p>the last time my A1 went in for a CLA they touched up the brassing. frankly, i was a little dissapointed. Thankfully, i wore that paint touchup off as well. </p>

<p>Fuji handles their processing at Dwayne's , i believe. they are usually pretty on top of their processing - although i havent sent them anything since Kodachrome ended. </p>

<p>definitely prefer buttons. i hate finger smears on the screen, and once you have the button positions memorized its not the hard to keep your eye in the VF while changing the basic settings. </p>

<p>as far as digital shooting is concerned, I saw Skyfall last week and i thought it looked like crap. The most obvious giveaway was that the blacks were much more of an off gray. A little looking shows it was shot in digital. I thought it was only projected in digital (fairly easy to tell - no burn marks), but i wonder if the lack of deep blacks is also due to the fact that it was shot in digital. not really too much complaining or ranting will accomplish, its the way its all going to be. i thought the movie itself was great, one of the better Bond films for sure. But the picture in combination with a blown speaker detracted quite a bit from the movie for me. </p>

<p>kodak is looking for a way to pay back its lenders and lawyers before it liquidates. </p>

<p>my A1 squeak went away with a good CLA. for me that was the cost of the camera since it was a handmedown, but it was well worth it. </p>

<p>does it matter, for kodak, what the film is shot on? its the distribution that, i assume, they made their money and volume. </p>

<p>if you use walmart im fairly certain that they have to mount it, and it will definitely be cardboard. if you send it to dwayne's you can ask for it back uncut or mounted. they will be mounted by default if you dont say otherwise. </p>

<p>in this day and age where someone can take a picture with their cellphone and nobody would be none the wiser, why go after someone holding an actual camera? i've never quite understood that dichotomy. </p>

<p>when i shoot wwII airplanes at sunrise with my 7d i always make sure to set my kite lens to 27mm, 1/60sec, F11, and ISO100. a</p>

<p>i believe all film in the US goes to Dwayne's - as do the Fuji mailers. </p>

<p>i never really liked the idea of expressly starting with one thing if you wanted another (scanning film for digital excepted...). ie, people who want their digital images to look like Kodachrome should have shot kodachrome - when it was around, etc. Its the same, to me, with BW images in most cases. I prefer to not convert digital or color film images to BW in most cases. There are exceptions of course, such as an image that i dont feel like color correcting or an image that really doesnt seem to work properly in color...but in most cases, if i want a BW image, i will shoot a traditional BW film and wet process it for prints or scan the negative. </p>

<p>i use a mpeg stream clip to convert my raw video files to Avid DNxHD codec for editing and export at h264. </p>

<p>no, only Nikon users are allowed to use cameras with capabilities beyond what the photographer can take advantage of. </p>

<p>the price of ilford warmtone fiber paper (8x10 100pack) has gone up nearly 50$ since last spring - to 150$ or so. ilford RC paper has gone up about 40$ or so since 2008 or so. maybe more than that. pretty soon this is going to push out a lot of people - at least there is Arista (freestylephoto), Kentmore, Foma, etc that havent yet totally spiked their prices. </p>

<p>Im blanking on their name, but i saw a photo of an Osprey catching a fish used on a presentation board hanging in a hallway in the business school just a couple hours ago. Nothing malicious there (educational purposes and all that...) but i had a little chuckle knowing who took the picture (if i could only remember their name...)</p>