vaughnbrines

<p>Thanks for the feedback. I know of those pinhole caps and how to make a pinhole camera; the issue is in modifying the FM. I've removed the mirror, prism, lens mount, etc., pretty much everything between the lens and the film plane except for the winding mechanism and shutter. I did this in order to put the pinhole closer to the film plane for a wider angle of view more akin to a matchbox pinhole camera . I'm going to make adjustable risers for the pinholes of various focal lengths. <br>

The shutter fires great on all modes. The only annoyance is that there is a lever incorporated into the mirror system that triggers the shutter release on the right of the timing mechanism. I can get the shutter to fire by pressing both of these points at once, which is great, but I would like to be able to use a cable release to eliminate jitter. This is why I need the service manuals and a few pointers from a good technician, if possible. I'd like to eventually buy a few more on Ebay and turn them into pinhole cameras. <br>

If anyone has any comments or suggestion relevant to the modification feel free to chime in!</p>

<p>Hi All, <br>

I'm working an a cool project in which I'm deconstructing a Nikon FM and turning it into a pinhole camera. I seem to be doing alright on my own, finding ways to accomplish the conversion, but I was wondering if anyone is or knows of a technician who works on these cameras. I'd love to collaborate a little bit. I am sure that there are ways I could make this look a little bit less janky and more durable if I could get my hands on the right tools and a manual. <br>

I'd love to bounce some more ideas off of someone who knows a thing or two about these cameras via email or phone. I think that think you folks could appreciate the project, and I look forward to sharing some photos taken with it. <br>

Best, <br>

Vaughn </p>

<p>If anyone's curious, I found one of these 300/2's, modified for cinema use with many thousands of dollars of investment into it (including for a rotating filter stage) for $6,500. It comes with custom case, PL/PV mounts, filters, etc. It's in good shape--not perfect, but not any noteworthy flaws either.<br>

<br />If you're looking for one, keep your eye out and you will find it.</p>

<p>That's unfortunate--my idea was actually to not expose two negatives, but to put a mirror behind the camera's negative, to reflect the light back onto the negative after passing through a filter on its way back through. <br>

The important thing wouldn't be to have a pristine reflected image, but to create an in-camera effect. <br>

Advisable, plausible, with Adox? </p>

<p>Hello all,<br>

Would it be possible to expose two layers of negatives in one exposure in a pinhole camera? I'm wondering how much light would pass through the first negative onto the second--100% as much? 10% as much?<br>

Thank you,<br />Vaughn Brines </p>

<p>I've read some things online about how long film can be stored, but I haven't been able to find anything about film that's 10-15 years old.<br>

It was bought new at the time and immediately refrigerated. It has remained refrigerated ever since.<br>

<br />Worth buying 100ft for $25 at that rate? What are the likely results?</p>

<p>Devin</p>

<p>Awesome--thank you guys for all of your suggestions and warnings. There is definitely a lot to contemplate here, and your help has been completely useful. <br>

Thank you,<br>

Vaughn</p>

<p>What would be the equivalent of a 85mm f/1.2 for 35mm?<br>

On 6x7, that is. </p>

<p>Does anyone have examples from a 600mm or higher on a 4x5?<br>

<br />Also, how much is a 4x5 scanning back?<br /><br /><br />I'm going to ask for some kind of conclusive answer:</p>

<p>If I am looking for the most shallow depth of field possible, at the equivalent of 250-400mm for a 35mm...<br>

<br />...what option is my best one for $1,000 or less?<br>

<br />For $2,000 or less?<br>

<br />For $3,000 or less?<br>

<br />For $4,000 or less?<br>

<br />For $5,000 or less? </p>

<p>If the depth of field is shallow enough, the 35mm-equivalent focal length doesn't have to be between 250-400mm. What I'm really looking for is the most shallow depth of field possible at the shortest focal length possible, when the subject is between 40-80 feet from the lens. </p>

<p>Thank you so much everyone,<br>

Vaughn</p>

<p>Also, I hear the 600mm f/4.0 from Pentax suffers a lot of chromatic aberration. Anyone's experiences?<br>

I'd love to see samples from either the 800mm f/4.0 or the 600mm f/4.0?<br>

Another question: how much would a tripod cost to mount these lenses?</p>

<p>In response to the 200mm f/2.0 suggestion--<br>

I'm already planning to use a 85mm f/1.2 for closer shots of the subject. The longer lens is for when the subject is farther away--I'd prefer something a little longer than the 200mm, as it has some overlap of usefulness with the 85mm, in my estimation.<br>

My goal is to isolate the subject, not just in a small field of view, but in a large one. </p>

<p>I found a 6x7 600mm f/4.0 for $1,400.<br>

The problem is that I need to work with the files digitally.<br>

6x7 digital camera bodies aren't available at the moment, correct? What would it work like to shoot on a 645 digital body? Could the 6x7 lens be used? What would it be equivalent to, in terms of field of view? <br>

At the moment, I'm thinking somewhere in the range of a 250mm to 300mm 35mm-equivalent FOV would be ideal, with an equivalent aperture at or near f/2.0. What would be equivalent to this on 645? I found a Mamiya 500mm f/5.6 for near $500; how would that equate in 35mm terms?<br>

How would that 800mm f/4.0 even look? It is enticing. Perhaps I'll look into it again someday when 6x7 digital bodies are made. <br>

And yes, I'm interested in this for the shallow DOF implications; I'm stitching together photos to make wide fields of view but with shallow depths of field. Then I'll be moving their elements and animating them in a stop-motion short film.<br>

I can spend $4,000 max, but would prefer to spend less, obviously. I'm likely to be awarded a $2,500 grant from my school; beyond that would be out of pocket expenses, but I can always sell the equipment after the project is finished. <br>

Because DOF is my concern, it almost makes sense at that point to go with a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 for 35mm. Not quite 300mm f/2.0, but close. I would definitely prefer a shorter focal length--250mm.<br>

Best,<br />Vaughn </p>

<p>Any idea as to the best place to find an Olympus 250mm f/2? Any idea what price I might find it?<br>

As a matter of fact, what is the best place to find any of these?</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

<br />Does anyone know where I could buy a Nikon 300mm f/2.0 or the same, similar version that Tochogi made? Although I am a college student, it is for a very specialized project that I am conducting this summer, for which I need this long focal length and the fastest aperture I can find.</p>

<p>Thank you so much,<br>

Vaughn Brines</p>

<p>I'm sure this has been asked before and I did my best to find the answer in the forums, but I just didn't know the right keywords to search for.<br>

Long story short, I've been bedazzled for years by the quality of my mom's prints made in the 80's through a professional lab locally. I've taken rolls of 35 in there and paid top dollar to have them printed and they just don't look near as good. I've yet to find a lab that does a job on par with those of the 80's and 90's, no matter how hard I try.<br>

From what I understand, nowadays a machine uses a laser to make a scan of the negatives and then projects the scanned image on the same emulsion paper. It seems to me that this intermediate step is causing the loss of quality. When you think about it, they'd have to scan each negative for under 20 seconds to be able to process and print the film in 1 hour. The colors aren't as vivid and overall, it lacks in detail. Whenever I've scanned a print using my Nikon Supercool Scan, it takes a good 2 minutes.<br>

What do you guys know about all this? Are there any labs that do as well or better than the best of the old days? I'd love to find out. I'm in Michigan, but I could send out if necessary.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Vaughn</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi All! I found this old post about editing images after scanning them with the Nikon Cool Scan 4000. I can't for the life of me figure out how to do this section in Photoshop CS3 and I was wondering if someone could help me along. Basically, if I scan for proper exposure in the highlights, my darks become too dark. If i scan to make the dark areas acceptable, the highlights blow out. I've been scanning just so the highlights are in the dynamic range and the darks still have color data in the histogram and can be brightened in the RAW format. I need to edit the darks and lights on multiple layers. This seems like it'll do the trick; I just don't know how this translates into photoshop cs3.</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Lighting up dark areas 1</strong> <ol>

<li>Adjust the analog gain in the scanner software so that no light areas are blown out.</li>

<li>Scan the image.</li>

<li>The image will be too dark.</li>

<li>In Photoshop make four layers of the same image.</li>

<li>Overlay the top layer nr. 4 with nr. 3 below it in 'screen' mode and merge the two layers.</li>

<li>Create a layer mask for layer 2 and paste the above result into it as an alpha channel. <a href="../photo/357904"><img src="../photodb/image-display?size=sm&photo_id=357904" alt="" width="200" height="133" /> </a> </li>

<li>Invert the alpha channel (the layer mask).</li>

<li>Delete the merged layer of 4 and 3.</li>

<li>Layer 2 should be overlaying the ground layer with the light areas masked out.</li>

<li>Change the overlaying mode of layer 2 to 'screen' mode.</li>

<li>Adjust the opacity of layer 2 and flatten the image.</li>

<li>Alternatively use the curves and levels functions with somewhat different results</li>

</ol> </li>

</ul>

<p>Here's the original post!<br>

Thanks Everyone! Looking forward to getting my slides consistently contrasty and beautiful.</p>