chromatic-aberration

I don't think I will ever fully forgive Kodak for pulling HIE... *sigh*

The nice thing is that it still seems to be working perfectly. It isn't calibrated for ASA film speeds though, so that's a clue right there that it's probably not postwar.

...and the reverse:

I picked up a GM Model B Exposure meter at the flea market today, and I was

wondering if anyone knew when these things were manufactured.

Cut the guy some slack. He came to a camera forum to ask about a camera. There would probably be someone ripping him a new one for being off topic if he didn't talk about the camera.

Honestly, I've only managed to shoot about half the roll that's in there. The miniscule rangefinder windows are such a pain in the butt to use, that I tend to take a couple of shots, put it away, and then forget about it for a couple of months. Since this thread started, I've got a non-RF Kodak 35. Given my rather poor track record with guess focus cameras, I haven't done much with that either. I have an accessory rangefinder on the way to me, and hopefully when that arrives I'll actually get a sample roll through that camera. *sigh*

Drew... Not to totally hijack the thread, but what vintage is that rangefinder? I just picked up an identical Saymon-Brown, and don't really know much about it.

Oddly enough, I've actually used a bayonet to trim a leader with that exact same trimming template...

To get the colors that I think you're looking for, set the color balance with the IR filter in place against a patch of grass in bright sunlight. With the D70, that should give you tobacco brown skies and cyan highlights.

 

Here's a page with a few useful tricks:

 

http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/digital-infrared-photography-instructions.html

Interesting to see this particular version of the Spartus 35, as they also made one that was a direct rip off of the Argus A. Mine didn't come with the clown art though...

Not meaning to totally hijack the thread, but where in CA was that?

I certainly can't speak for all vintage LTM users, but for me the main reason that I use them is expressly for the vintage "look" that they produce. The lenses, especially the old uncoated ones, seem to have far more impact on the relative vintageness of the photographs than does the chosen film. I'm not opposed to Photoshop by any stretch of the imagination, but there are qualities that the old glass has that can't really be replicated by a filter.

 

Personally, I think the comment that no "really good" photographers use LTM seriously is a bit harsh. Then again, I'm one of those oddballs that believes that sharpness isn't the main factor that decides whether or not a photograph or a photographer is good.

There were plenty of examples of Sig C guys with non-issue cameras in WW2, even in the dedicated Signal Photographic Companies. This was even more so in the more ad hoc photo sections. The photo section of the 3rd ID (where I've devoted most of my research), only had one Speed Graphic collectively. Everything else was a hodge-podge of 35mm and 120, along with a large format roll film aerial camera.

He's definitely US Army Signal Corps, nothing strange about his insignia other than that his branch insignia (the lower of the two pins on his lapel) has rotated a little more than 45 degrees off kilter.

I'm probably in an odd and fairly unique category amongst rangefinder users - those that don't think they're inherently superior, but love them anyhow. It's the historical aspect of them that attracts me. It's something akin to the old roadster that you take out on weekends, versus the reliable Honda that you commute to work every day. Modern rangefinders hold very little appeal to me.

No further info to provide any sort of context, I'm afraid.

...

These came out of a local antique store.

It's simple. Anyone can pick up a camera and create a photograph. That may not make them any good, but it's easy to get deluded. It's the same in some other areas. A lot of people who can manage to drive on the freeway fancy themselves a fraction of an inch from the Indy 500. In some other areas, lack of skill becomes much more pointed - drawing, swimming the English Channel, etc.

Brooks is at 125 Kearney, and you've got Discount Camera at 33 Kearney. (200 Kearney is a hotel now.) Neither is really worth writing home about, but if you're in the area with some time to kill. Gasser is the best of a fairly mediocre bunch, and they leave a lot to be desired. If you're able to make it down the peninsula to Palo Alto, Keeble & Schuchat is worth a visit. Camerawest in Monterey would be a fun roadtrip, especially if you're fond of Leicas.

I think the strangest one I've come across was a Kodak Auto 27 at a flea market in California with an address in France written on the inside of the case.

It all depends on the sort of photographer you are, and what you're trying to photograph. Plenty of people have, and still do, use them professionally. Using it to professionally cover the local pro basketball game, well...

Over $70K and they haven't even hit the reserve yet??? Eeep.

Omega? Pshaw, that's sooooo pedestrian. Pick yourself up a nice Patek Philippe. Better. Vespa? I won't even go there. You can have your grand Left Bank delusions on your own time.

Paris Hilton probably isn't the best analogy... If it was, they'd have gone out of style well before the Great Depression, and they'd have problems with the bottoms dropping off and exposing their film from time to time.