dave_powell2

They are very light and convenient, but most of them don't approach the quality of the larger, heavier teles. Also, since the mirror lenses are SO light, camera shake can be harder to control. I tried shooting swans with a 500mm mirror tele and the camera on a sturdy Slik tripod, and the breeze still caused enough shake to blur the images. So hand-holding or even monopods are (for me) out of the question...

...With one exception, though. I first used the lens at a local air show. And when the Stealth Bomber suddenly appeared from over the woods behind us and screamed past overhead, I managed to get one quick panning shot of its belly with my manual-focus Nikon FE. And I just KNEW that the shot was sharp... it was like a "Luke, feel the Force" moment. My uncle (who gave us the tickets for the show) was a former bomber pilot, and when he saw the photo, he asked to keep it 'cause he saw some techhnologies that he did not recognize...and wanted to "make some calls and check it out." Never heard what he discovered...but then again, I woouldn't expect to.

Back on subject...another characteristic of the mirror teles is that out-of-focus highlights will look like bright little rings. You'll see this a lot in wildlife photos.

Personally, I'm saving my mirror tele for when a UFO appears over my house...probably any day now!

--Dave

Hi Rebecca,

Several ideas:

* Hold your hand out as far in front of you (or beside you) as it will go. Focus on your hand, then put the camera in it and shoot back toward your face. Take multiple shots...to either increase the chances of getting a single centered image, or to combine several of them into a collage.

* Turn off the TV, position yourself so that you can see your brightly lit face reflected toward the LEFT edge of the dark screen. Focus on your face. Then carefully move the camera to the left (but keep it pointing toward the screen at about the same distance). To the camera, your face should appear reasonably centered on the screen. Again, take multiple exposures.

* Do you have (or can you borrow) a wide-angle lens for your camera (something in the order of 18-24mm)? Wide angle lenses have great depth-of-field, and allow you to shoot very close to the subject without having to fine-tune the focus. If so, you could try putting your face near a spherical reflective surface (like a brass andiron) holding the camera slightly to the side and shooting your distorted reflection.

* For something really "out there" (and if your cmaera has a "T" shutter speed), one of these nights, put your camera on a tripod, and prefocus it just a few inches in FRONT of the point where your head normally would be when you sit in a chair (or ask a friend to focus it on your face while you sit). Then, set the camera to its maximum aperture, the shutter speed to T (time exposure), turn out the lights, trip the shutter, sit back in the chair, and "paint" all (or parts of) your face with a flashlight. Then turn off the flashlight, and trip the shutter again to close the shutter. Try several different exposure times. This can produce freaky results...especially if you change expressions while the lens is open!

* You said that you "don't have a nice digital camera..." But do you have any digital camera that can play its images through your TV? If so, hook it up to the TV, sit down nearby, point the camera toward your face. When you see a composition that you like, set and trigger the camera's self-timer and smile.

* Now, brainstorm some other novel ways to capture your face!

And let us know how it goes!

Sincerely,

Dave

My favorites include the Rollei 35... small, light, fast, silent, and capable of taking EXCELLENT photos. A little larger and heavier (but a wonderful street performer) is the Leica CL. Canon's older Sure Shot AF35ML also has a nice f/1.9 lens for existing light.

But since this IS the "Alternative Cameras" forum, I'll take the liberty to stray from your 35mm specification, and recommend three great 110 cameras that have performed superbly for me as small, compact, street shooters (even at night): the Canon ED-20 (wonderful f/2 lens), Kodak Ektramax (aspheric f/1.9 lens), and the Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 (slower lens, but still top-of-the-110-class). I once took all three of them to Rome in a belly bag...each loaded with a different film...and had a grand time.

In side-by-side comparisons, the Canon ED20 and Kodak 60 actually seemed to handle contrasty scenes better than my 35mm Konica Big Mini (which is another very good 35mm P&S).

If you'd like to read more about the 110's, check out this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GqXg

But whatever you use--and have FUN using--will be an ideal tool...even a 35mm "Time" promotional cam (one of the many 35mm plastic conterparts to the popular 120-film Diana or Holga).

Enjoy!

--Dave

Thanks Daniel...Good idea! Which camera are you using...a Polaroid?

Sincerely,

Dave

I too receive similar emails daily "from" Wachovia, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, PayPal, and many other orgs with whom I've never done business. I'm still amazed at how many of the people I know are fooled by them, simply because they look right and seem to have an appropriate reply address. Hey...It's not hard to capture corporate logos over the net and plop them into one's own HTML code!

But for sheer originality, I must give a nod to the spammer that sent the following message to me last night. (It was "From" about 300 people, and "To" about 1,000!):

---------------

"Dear Benefactor Of 2006 Masory Grant,

The Freemason society of Bournemout under the jurisdiction of the all Seeing Eye, Master Nicholas Brenner has after series of secret deliberations selected you to be a beneficiary of our 2006 foundation laying grants and also an optional opening at the round table of the Freemason society.

These grants are issued every year around the world in accordance with the objective of the Freemasons as stated by Thomas Paine in 1808 which is to ensure the continuous freedom of man and to enhance mans living conditions.

We will also advice that these funds which amount to USD2.5million be used to better the lot of man through your own initiative and also we will go further to inform that the open slot to become a Freemason is optional, you can decline the offer.In order to claim your grant, contact the Grand Lodge Office co-secretary

Dr Charles Anthony Catagnus Grand Lodge Office Co-Secretary's

email:( dr.chaeleanthonyc@yahoo.co.uk )

Dr Charles Anthony Catagnus,

Co-Secretary Freemason Society of Holdenhurst Road,

Bournemouth.

John C. Gerspach,

Secretary Freemason Society of Holdenhurst Road,"

---------------

After my winning the UK Lottery about 900+ times already, it's about time that the "U.K. Freemasons" hopped on the bandwagon too!

--Dave

As does "Ocean Physics," I also receive about 20-25 of these types of emails every day. Also be on the lookout for bogus emails that look like standard eBay message screens! These (or any other eBay-oriented phishing messages) can be similarly reported to spoof@ebay.com.

Before sending them, be sure to open the message's "Full Header" (or whatever the option is on your email system)...and then send the email as an attachment.

There have been cases where opening the full headers has allowed me to see an identifiable company server from which (or through which) the bogus email has come. In those cases, I do a web search for the company, and if they have a contact address, I also send the email to them. I basically tell them that "someone inside or outside your organization may be sending illegal phishing messages through your servers." In one case, they investigated and found the employee respondible.

--Dave

Hello Everyone,

I'm seeking a 3-5 MP digital camera that does NOT have a built-in IR blocking

mirror. Theoretically, this may be possible with some of the cheaper "consumer-

oriented" units, such as the Polaroid PDC-3030, PDC-3070, or the iZone

digitals. (My old PDC-800 doesn't have an IR blocker, and allows me to shoot

hand-held through a Tiffen 89 filter. But the camera IS only 0.8 MP...hence my

interest in upgrading!)

I already have a Minolta Dimage A1 for general photography, so I'm looking for

a unit that I'll dedicate to IR. (As a result, its image color fidelity isn't

critical.)

Has anyone had experience shooting IR with the 3-5 MP digital Polaroids (or

Arguses...or Concords...)? And do you know if any of them indeed have no IR

blocking glass?

Many Thanks!

Dave

Hello Everyone,

I'm seeking a 3-5 MP digital camera that does NOT have a built-in IR blocking

mirror. Theoretically, this may be possible with some of the cheaper "consumer-

oriented" units, such as the Polaroid PDC-3030, PDC-3070, or the iZone

digitals. (My old PDC-800 doesn't have an IR blocker, and allows me to shoot

hand-held through a Tiffen 89 filter. But the camera IS only 0.8 MP...hence my

interest in upgrading!)

I already have a Minolta Dimage A1 for general photography, so I'm looking for

a unit that I'll dedicate to IR. (As a result, its image color fidelity isn't

critical.)

Has anyone had experience shooting IR with the 3-5 MP digital Polaroids (or

Arguses...or Concords...)? And do you know if any of them indeed have no IR

blocking glass?

Many Thanks!

Dave

Hi Chandos,

Love all the photos in this thread! But I'm going nuts here. In your second-to-last B/W photo (the one with 7 people in it...both men and women), the second lady from the left (the left-most woman of the front 3) looks terribly familiar to me. Was this party in the Boston area? I think she was a co-worker at one point!

Sincerely,

Dave

Sorry 'bout all the closing "--Dave"'s !

(Anonymous)

Hi P.C.D.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the technology for screw-to-K mount adapters has changed at all over the years! Due to the registration distances for these lens types, the adapter has to be as thin as possible. And while getting it into the camera's K mount is fairly easy, getting it out again is usually a little inconvenient. So you already may own the best available adapter (that will still maintain infinity focus).

You could take your adapter, one of your favorite screw-mount lenses, and an *ist-compatible storage card to the camera store, and see if they'll let you put a few *ist shots with your lens onto your card. Then review the images at home. You might want to try this before buying any K-mount lenses. If the store also has used lenses for sale, and if they know you're serious about possibly buying an *ist, they may even let you shoot some similar tests through one of their used K-mount lenses.

I'm (again) not sure, since I don't own an *ist, but you may not gain any more camera functionality when using a K-mount lens than when using a screw-mount. They'd both be "non-automatic" on the *ist (I think).

But if you do decide to buy K-mount lens, many people (including I) might heartily recommend the 50/1.4 as a really nice prime to begin with!

Good luck with it!

Sincerely,

Dave

If you want a fun (?) challenge, shoot the still-available 600 films in the SX-70. To get the cartridges into the camera, you need to file down the little nubs in the middle of the bottom-front edge of the cartridge.

But 600 film is much more sensitive to light than TZ.. and the SX-70's brighter-darker dial can't compensate enough for the difference. So I've taped a strong ND filter over the lens, and it's worked out pretty well. Aternatively, I've taped some deep red sheet plastic over the lens, and shot some really high-contrast images on the dwindling supply of 600-speed B/W that I purchsed in the company store when I worked at Polaroid.

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi everyone,

Konica/Minolta's "in body" anti-shake technology has certain advantages in DSLRs (where one can obtain A-S benefits with any mountable lens). But it was also used in the fixed-lens Dimage A1 and A2.

It seems to work very well on my A1, where...if I try to hold my hands as steady as possible...it saves photos taken at down to 1/8 second. Only problem that I've seen is that the hand grip tends to get a little warm if I shoot a lot of A-S images in a short time. I've read reports that this heating can even cause the camera to change the "hand-shake" warning icon that appears in the viewfinder from blue to red...at which point the camera may lock up until it is allowed to cool down. But I haven't seen that happen, even when firing off qute a few shots yesterday, which was quite hot in New England!

--Dave

You could check e*ay for a used Konica Minolta Dimage A1. I got mine for less than $200, and LOVE its DSLR-like controllability (which is good, since it tends to produce better results in full manual mode, than in its many automatic modes).

...and it can shoot RAW if you wish...

Good luck with your search!

Dave

P.S. The A1 uses a proprietary battery and battery charger, which you will also want to purchase. It's good, though, because the previous Dimage 7 models reportedly burned through rechargable AA's. My A1 has shown considerably improved power management!

Oddly, I was only limited to two posts for the first day of membership. After that, I did a lot of posting and responding!

Dave

Hi Mars,

Just wondering if you've disassembled (and reassembled) any lenses before? Non-zoom prime lenses are tricky, and zooms are even more so. I'd search the web for detailed instructions from someone else who has gone before...and who can tell you what to watch out for.

I actually did succeed in cleaning (and reassembling) an Olympus 50/1.8 lens that had mold, but then failed misearbly with a no-name zoom. Some pins, springs, and rods popped out, and I didn't have a clue how to get 'em back...or even WHERE to get 'em back to! So I chucked the poor thing, and consoled myself that it was moldy!

Also, be sure to keep this lens away from your other equipment. Mold can spread!

--Dave

Hi Julian,

Interesting bokeh in the second image! The little "donut" highlights are almost like those from a mirror-tele.

Like the pix a lot...but fear for the fate of the cat that ran away!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Again Ralf,

Hope all's well with your Monitor 620's lens! I just thought of something that you may already know...but here 'goes anyway! If your camera is like mine (which has the Anastigmat Special lens), it also has a built-in mechanism/procedure for implementing automatic film stops. This allows you to cover the film-number window with electrical tape and get 16 6x9 images on a roll of 220 film.

If you're not familiar with the procedure, I'll describe it in a post tomorrow!

--Dave

Thanks Don!

I just bought a new PC to replace my 10-year-old Windows-98 system. I'll definitely look into setting this preference for both Photoshop and Elements 3.

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Pico,

Very sorry to hear about the developments there! Your suggested thread sounds great, though, as does your title. I'll look in the forum's unified view to see if you started it!

Good luck with everything!

--Dave

P.S. My first real camera, where I concentrated on the image alone, was the Olympus OM-1. I was taking a B/W photography course at Boston University, and it was one of their cameras. Did a lot of streeet shooting at night in Boston. Learned to develope and print my own negs. Still some of my best people shots!

So when I later found an OM-1 for $20 at a local sale, I snagged it. It's now one of my favorite vacation cameras. Unfortunately, the lens now seems to be locked onto the body. But it still shoots. So it's become an "SLR point-and-shoot." Still love it.

--Dave

--Dave

I held off contributing until after this weekend's trip to coastal NH. We visited quite a galleries and higher-end Antique Shoppes. In the galleries, I saw unsigned photos and photos signed in pencil on the mat below the photo. Didn't see any signed photos in the Antique Shoppes. But one higher-end framing store did have a selection of photos for sale by a photog who signs the white photo-paper border outside the image area with the gold pen.

As soon as I saw it, I realized that I'd never seen that approach before. Also noticed that the "gold" didn't even look all that gold any more...closer to an umber color. So it may not have worked too well as an approach to doing "archival" signatures!

For my exhibits of digital-infrared prints, I:

* Don't sign the mat or the photo.

* Sign an informational sticker that includes the image's name and date. I place the sticker on a thin, stiff, archival sheet, which is the last thing to go into the back of the frame. That way, if people want to change frames, they can simply move the sheet to the new frame (and even cut it down in size to fit a smaller frame).

That has seemed to satisfy all of my customers but one...who wanted me to ALSO sign the front of the photo using a very-fine-point permanent Sharpie!

--Dave

Hi Jamie Joe,

It looks like the Spectra camera...a pretty good camera actually (if you like the fairly soft Polaroid images)! So I think you could try "Spectra" film. It may be that the term "Image" is used instead of "Spectra" in Europe?

Sincerely,

Dave

Me too!

Dave

Like others have said, RAW can be a blessing for some images and shooting situations. The first (and currently only) camera that I own that shoots RAW is a Minolta Dimage A1. I started shooting RAW a lot more often when I actually compared identical RAW and highest-quality JPEG images...taken one after the other, of the same scene, from a tripod, in good light, with an optimum histogram showing on the LCD for each. I then tried to "adjust" the RAW file, simply to match the appearance of the camera's output JPEG, and was floored by how much I had to blow out highlights to even come close.

The other thing that impressed me was the amount of noise and JPEG artifacts that were not in the RAW file...even when I blew out the highlights and matched the JPEG. Of course, that's not news to anyone here...but it was to me at the time!

I still don't shoot every image in RAW. If it's just a family snap that's going to the relatives in California, no. But I've definitely started to shoot more digital-infrareds (which can be very noisy) and other exhibit images in RAW.

I've even been able (for very special images) to shoot a single RAW file of a highly contrasty scene, make two copies of the file, adjust one to optimize the appearance of the brightest areas of the image, adjust the other to do the same for the darkest areas, overlay them in two layers, and gradually erase through the bad parts of one to let the good parts of the other show through. Again, with mimimal digital noise and artifacts to contend with.

And I find that the results actually look a lot more like the real scene appeared to my eyes and brain, than did my best processing of corresponding JPEGs. That might have been becuase I was starting from a RAW file, without a lot of blown-out highlights and blocked-up shadows. Maybe too, it's because our eyes don't "blow-out and block-up" the world as much as digital sensors do!

And yes, you can do the same with either JPEG or RAW using two separate optimized shots taken from a tripod. But it's kinda fun to try it from a single well-exposed RAW capture!

--Dave

And sometimes, one just can't say WHY these things happen! Several years ago, I brought a fixed-focus digital point-and-shoot to a nephew's wedding, and took a "Royal Family" portrait of his older brother's family. The one print that I never gave to anyone had everything about the baby in focus, except for just his eyes. They weren't blurred (blinking would explain that)...they were twisted in opposite directions! Everything else about his face was sharp and unblurred...no facial motion evident at all. I didn't really like that photo very much...gave me the creeps.

--Dave