William Michael

Paris, France 2014 - ridiculously slow shutter speed and high ISO - EOS 5D; EF35/1.4L

Ta.

If the second mentioned are the exact negative measurements, sans border, my guess would be 126 Roll Film. Introduced 1906. 126 was used in Kodak 4 Series Folding Cameras, and typically in those cameras provided a neg. 6 1/2 x 4 1/4, I am almost certain, with a border. The extra 1/4 inch on your negatives could probably be accommodated by encroaching 1/8" into each side of the strip border. WW

I know Matt Murray is well versed as a collector, pod-caster and journalist with a passion for this type of gear. I don't know if he is still writing, etc but maybe send him an email - he might be able to assist. LINK WW

Kodak Roll Film 111. Neg Measurements 6 1/2 x 4 3/4 inches. Released 1898. WW

This should provide assistance. LINK Temperature, humidity and NON-airtight storage are key points to consider. At one stage early in my career I worked close by a Film, TV and Radio Archive Department: they took correct storage protocol and the threat of combustion seriously, this was before we had mandated rules here. If they were mine I would firstly cull down to the ones I really wanted to keep and then copy them to digital files, and then properly dispose of the lot. It's probably a good idea to be aware of what laws there might be in your area and what caveats there might be on your house insurance. Bottom line - If stored properly I think the danger is slight, however, I think the above is not an overreaction and is sound advice. WW

For clarity, history and reason; the "edit" facility for forum posts at Photo.net is (relatively) recent. When Philip Greenspun developed Photo.net, there was not ever an edit function in the forums. If one digs into the early posts there appear to be two main strands of reason for this approach. Firstly, once a piece is published it is "published"; any corrections or retractions must follow later in an additional publication. Secondly, the format of a web based forum is such that the flow, context and meaning can be lost or deformed if earlier posts are able to be individually edited by the individual authors. The first reason could be argued as being esoteric in nature: yet it does have appeal to the purist, perhaps those whose pathway has been through proofreading, typesetting, sub-editing and like professions. The second reason certainly has practical implications for the ease of forum management: consider an opening post which takes a point of view "A" and then that is discussed and argued within four subsequent posts. If the opening poster has facility to edit the opening post, then at the least context could be lost, at the worst the thread goes down a black hole because the opening post's edits could be made such that the subsequent posts resemble ignorance. *** It was after the first big reshuffle of Photo.net and just before the Editor-in-Chief position was removed that an edit function was introduced - I think that was around 2016, and I think that was only 5 minutes: the logic being that 5 minutes would allow the author to correct minor details, errors or omissions before a respondent's post might directly relate to the previously published post. I think the edit time now is no longer than 15 minutes, and no less than 10 minutes. Though I have never looked closely at the exact time. Moreover, I reckon that the time will vary between ten and fifteen minutes and that is because of how the system's servers cycle to update. Such detail is beyond the scope of my IT knowledge, but I think "how the system's servers cycle to update" if not the correct terminology, is at least a good descriptive phrase to use. *** Regarding the OP's question, as Sandy mentioned, if the publication contains content which is important/imperative to be corrected or removed, then contact a Moderator: if not an obvious reason, you'll probably be asked "why?" Alternatively, as you mentioned, "I'm thinking now that for correcting errors or adding information it might be better for me to write a new post rather than counting on people re-reading an older one." - I concur, and for all the reasons and also because of history, outlined above. You will find some posts which have been edited without the author asking - I am not referring to Moderation intervention of spam, or other infraction - I am referring to corrections such as inserting an obvious negative which was omitted (e.g 'not' or similar) - I certainly have made these types of corrections and would send a PM to the author for information or a Moderator can leave a message at the bottom of the edited section indicating the edit and why it was made. WW

Yes - agree. In the link above, one member comments on the 'flicking between scene and filter' method: I completed my Cine course in the 1970s, my teacher did not prescribe to this method, but rather encouraged a quick and decisive output from us, with no 'dilly-dallying' (his words). WW

Most likely. Viewing Filters were used extensively by B&W Cinematographers, Directors and Lighting Technicians. More history here: LINK WW

I used one for a job, in harsh conditions, and for which I decided I would not change lenses on my main camera. I have since also used the 28 to 350, it is a tad better optically and for me the wider FL was an exceptional advantage. The IS is very useful on both lenses. I rented both lenses: neither would I buy, because for 99% of scenarios I would opt to carry a second or third camera, or change lenses. The 35 to 350 IS L was released in 1993, subsequently replaced in 2004 by the 28 to 350 IS L - the point here being that spare parts for the 35 to 350 might be scarce, maybe also too technicians familiar with the lens: good lens technicians seem scarcer each day, anyway. My comment regarding IQ, is that both suffered a bit when fully open, across the whole zoom compass, but one has to realize, as nicely stated above "but surprisingly good given the inevitable design compromises". One can crop in post to attain a tighter FoV, therefore, for inexpensive alternatives, I'd suggest: EF28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM or the EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (note the latter has IS the former does not). If the long end is more important to you, then, I think Ken might be referring to the two EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses - I concur that both are pretty good but the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM (2016) is much better. WW

Assuming the OP refers to the two original versions of each lens: I have both and I agree with the point regarding Image Quality. Discussing the four lenses: The 24 to 105 F/4 L IS II, is a tad sharper than the original, but not significantly enough to warrant me upgrading to the MkII version. Many of the 24 to 105 F/4 L IS lenses reportedly suffer from Zoom Creep, mine does, but that doesn't worry me. For me the IS is a significant feature in making my 24 to 105 F/4 L IS 'versatile' as a one carry 'travel/holiday' lens, especially for interior shots where flash is not allowed. The 24 to 70 F/2.8 L is (I believe) unique in so far as the lens's zoom function moves the barrel through the Lens Hood, this feature results in significantly better flare control than any other zoom lens I have used and such was a substantial enough feature for me not to buy the 24 to 70 F/2.8 L II, even though the latter, is a tad sharper. WW

Spot on. You triggered my memory. There's a metal one also. A mate of mine had one, I forgot all about it. Found this with a quick search - (how's your German?) https://www.stativfreak.de/GALERIES/BASTEL/UMBAU-WBJL-055X/index.htm

Certainly there are times when publication of fact are required, this is one such time. Facts have been articulated previously and have been ignored or dismissed. Above is contained a synopsis of an historic log of events, concerning only a snippet in time, of the long Photo.net journey. In and of itself, that snapshot published by Papa Tango is a worthy and true recognition of the value which many Members have given and received. WW

As per Papa Tango's reply this was not a clock issue. In a previous comment I wrote: "My expectation is that it will be fixed when someone with access to fix it, realizes that there is an issue, which, on the face of it, appears to be a clock sync/certificate issue which on most internet search engines triggers either a warning not to proceed or denies the capacity to proceed to the site." Sorry for the ambiguity - the phrase clock sync/certificate issue meant 'clock sync and/or certificate issue". At that time, I didn't know which was the cause or if it were both. I concur with Papa Tango's technical analysis above; moreover I defer to his knowledge and experience and thank him for the details he provided. WW

I think we have Admin [argh] to thank - anyway whomever it was - thank you.

Correct. I do not. As you phrase it - "a lifeline" - I have the same options as any member. I was contacted two days ago by email from two other Moderators asking if I had any direct contacts - which I do not have, nor do they. I have sent a PM to the Temporary Administrator IPS who logged on Tuesday morning (USA time) - REF please see the post above by Papa Tango "A temporary administrator IPS joined this site about 20 hours ago, and it is still broken." My expectation is that it will be fixed when someone with access to fix it, realizes that there is an issue, which, on the face of it, appears to be a clock sync/certificate issue which on most internet search engines triggers either a warning not to proceed or denies the capacity to proceed to the site. If you're interested, I attained my log to Photo.net in via Firefox, which allows the security warning to be ignored. WW

Check with your supplier if Manfrotto 055XSCC will fit: I am not sure of the compatibility. It is the the "Short Centre Column" for 055 Series, pretty sure it is shorter than 15". I had a look at the specs for your rig - it notes the minimum height is 230mm (9"), from what you wrote I expect that's with the base of the existing centre column touching the ground - so you'd have about 8" of that existing centre column above the tripod top sleeve. - so it seems you really want to get very low to the ground. One other option would be to buy another (i.e. as a spare part) centre column for the MT057 and cut it to length. Or even cut the one you have if you never want the maximum height. Another (lateral) thought - buy a column top plate and set it on a thick, dense piece of hard wood - e.g. 8"x8"x3" and mount the geared head on the top of that. I have a square of hardwood for my "portable" metal working vice, it it quite stable, but also heavy - nothing like the (lack of) weight in a carbon fibre tripod. WW

Indeed. well stated. Certainly that statement forwards the conversation, rather than adding kerosene to yet another, in part, bemoaning chat. Now all I require is more time available from my business commitments. I hope to be more regularly FotoFora available around March next year. WW

Since it is relevant - and - as an explanation was sent to the OP: This conversation would have seen my intervention earlier; it did not because I was traveling outback without reliable digital communication and have not logged in to Photo.net for a few weeks. It is unfortunate that such a simple request for advice, went down the drain. William

Conversation terminated.

Doug, I believe that your summary is correct and articulate. Member's images were transferred; the location of those images, in the (old) folders, was not. This information has been mentioned in at least two previous conversations in the Site Help Forum, though noted, one would have to read much to find the detail. Additionally I note that there are a few (very few) members whose portfolio exhibits a condition whereby some of their images are "Hidden". I found this glitch when addressing queries of 'missing images' - (there is a conversation in Site Help on this topic also). I have looked at the first 500 images in your portfolio, and also the first 500 images in the portfolio of member 'Life Photo-Documentaries' and it appears all the images are viewable - so I expect neither of your portfolios display this glitch. Some members have chosen a similar path. I did - I deleted all my images and then reloaded a select few, in newly created folders. If you, or the OP want ALL your photos deleted (i.e. not "most") I have assisted other members to do that and I can assist you too; send me a PM, please don't discuss here. WW

The topic of this conversation has been changed to reflect same. William

Mr Coyote has been found and is now resting under the shade of a tree - cryptic, but I couldn't resist. The issue is resolved - PW's old account has been merged into his new account which is [shadetree407]. Thank you Dustin, for your assistance. William