chase canadé1664880639

April 12, 2018

Okay I think I've got a contender for the longest life photo flash battery...

These batteries were in a Jacobson Synchronizer Flash unit. The flash being part of a Leica kit I got that was in a storage unit being cleaned out. Lucky, because everything was going to the trash as it was all boxes of old files.

Anyway...

They're made by Bright Star.

"Dated. High Flash Power" is on the front and on the back.

Date code: "1-64" making them just over 54 year old batteries. Look brand new, vintage.

I was curious... Why didn't these leak? So I hooked them up to a multi meter just for the goof.

Can you believe, not only didn't they leak after 54 years but they still have a charge?

Check out the pic I attached.

Now, I had to take the pic one handed with a smart phone so the voltage dropped trying to fiddle with the phone and take the pic. Voltage just holding the meter is .85 volts on both of them.

That's pretty impressive. And puts new meaning to what it says on the back of the base.

"Extra Long Life"

And.. FYI, they were made in Clifton, New Jersey.

Well, there you go folks. My contender for longest life photo flash battery.

Life is amazing sometimes.

April 12, 2018

Hey all,

It's been a while since I've been here.

Nice look to Photo Net! Wow!

What brings me back is a couple things.

One being I could use some help IDing a Leica 35mm.

I've uploaded a pic. And if it's not there, there's the same in my gallery I just added.

Serial number: 246869

Which checking two sites claimed two different bodies. Both stated the year as 1937.

One says it was a Leica II. The other a Leica IIIa.

It's not a Leica II from what I can tell because it had the slow speed shutter setting knob on the front.

A Leica IIIa has the composition and focus close together. This one doesn't. Which has me thinking it's pre Leica IIIa.

Which Leica is it?

Thanks in advance.

September 19, 2016

@ Alan Klien - I'll have to see

what camera does what.

I just checked a roll from one

which is a 6x6 format; the 6 on

the length of the roll includes

half the border width.

One of my 6x7's is just the

opposite, in which the image is

actually slightly larger than 7

per frame, not including the

border. Almost an 8 including the

border.

Another has barely a border at

all between frames.

I have a small variety of 120

format cameras, from point and

shoot to Pro. I'll have to go

through them and see what's what.

You found you can fit 3 6x7's in

the stock v600 120 film holder

correct?

- chase -

September 17, 2016

In response to Alan's comment:

The actual scan window on the v500 after just measuring it comes to 82x270mm. So if 3 6x9's equal a total length of 27cm it should by all rights scan 3 at a time.

The v600 120 holders just arrived. It fits perfectly, nested in tab B I think it was on the scanner bed.

I haven't scanned anything yet as I haven't cut any of my rolls for archiving. They're all full length still. I was waiting to see what I could scan versus best archival strip length. I may choose to cut my 6x9's in pairs anyway so I don't have a single frame left at the end.

When looking for a scanner years back I was really hoping to pick up the v4990 as it has the capability to scan full sheet transparencies. But with my budget, and no one turning loose of one used, I picked up the v500 on sale as a display model from Comp USA when the v600's came out. Minus everything. AC adapter, film holders, manual, software. Considering I just got the AC adapter and film holders over the past couple months, and when Comp USA when out of business. You can see, I've been waiting a very long time to bee able to get the parts it needed and be able to use it.

I'd still like a full bed transparency capability as I shoot 4x5 as well, but for now at least I can scan my 120 in.

It'll be interesting to see how well they scan in.

Thanx for the input guys.

- chase -

September 15, 2016

I was looking at the 35mm slide holder as well. It's a

much larger scan area than is given in the 120/Brownie

holder.

Someone modified the 35mm holder by cutting out the

center piece that holds film over on Flicker. They did

that in order to be able to scan the holes in the film.

I also did a search and they are selling the v600

120/Brownie film holder as compatible with the

v500/v550/v600 and one other I believe.

The same as with the v500 120/Brownie film holder.

Compatible with said scanners.

I'n light of that, I said the heck with it and ordered a

couple from Compass Micro.

Still not big enough for 3 6x9s... but I have a bunch of 6x6, 6x7 as well so it won't go to waste.

I'll give that a try with the three 6x9's on the glass and let you know the out come.

September 15, 2016

Thankyou for your responses and suggestions.

I have a small light box if don't get good results scanning.

And no, I have no intention of taking them apart.

I like the pencil idea for checking dof on my v500.

I don't think the focus on it can be adjusted. I literally just got the parts for it to be able to use it this

week. But, I'll check.

My digital camera is not the best. A semi pro, or called as such, though I have my reservations about

that. It's a Ricoh GX100 I picked up a few years back to shoot textures and as a carry along camera.

I'm not sure if it or the scanner would do a better job for this application.

That said, they would be digitized either way.

Which would be the emulation side on the lantern slides? These two slides are super thin. The glass

almost as thin as microscope slide glass.

It is safe to clean the glass with eye glass cleaner correct?

Call me weird but, I just think they're neat.

I have to wonder... do you think they smiled after the picture was taken? ;-)

September 14, 2016

I have an Epson v500 scanner.

I picked up a couple, what look to be early 1900 late

1800 "Lantern Slides" in approximately a 2x3 format.

Best guess as they look very similar in characteristics to

the following image, but borderless. They just have

black tape on the edges holding the micro thin glass and

image sandwich together.

<img src="http://photoseed.com/uploads/2012/08/16/jam

es-lawrence-breese-woman-graduate-holding-

diploma.jpg">

Is there a preferred method to make digital copy of these

photos?

I was thinking of scanning them, but in thinking about it,

the tape on the edges will not allow them to lay perfectly

flat.

Would better results be achieved using the back light or

just use the white background scanner thing? I don't

know what it's called. You use it to scan paper on the

upper lid.

Thanks

September 14, 2016

Hi,

Quick question and confirmation before ordering.

I have an Epson v500. I have the stock 120/Brownie film holders for it. The stock holders only allow

for 2 6x9 to be scanned at a time.

I noticed the v600 120/Brownie film holder has a larger opening for the film. Which I believe allows for

3 6x9's to be scanned at a time.

Can someone here confirm if the v600 120/Brownie film holder also works with the v500?

Everything lines up, little markers match etc etc.

tia,

- chase -

October 17, 2014

For anyone reading this and those that don't yet know (I just found out myself this evening)

Fred passed away August 12, 2014.

He'll be greatly missed. And I offer my condolences to his wife and family.

If amyone cares to they started a.legacy page for him over at

http://legacy.com/obituaries/rgj/obituary.aspx?n=&pid=172765897&referrer=0&preview=True

You can read his obituary and sign a guest book.

It'll be online from what I read till Nov 11, 2014

Fred contributed a lot and was such a nice person to talk to. He shared his knowledge freely.

And for that, I thank him.

- chase -

February 20, 2010

@Jorge - The GX is discontinued and the GX8 not the GX series as far as the Ricoh site states. they are still selling and promoing both as Professional grade cameras.

Ricoh Discontinued models here: <a href="http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/past/">http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/past/</a>

Besides Sea and Sea has the GX100/200 as their camera with housing under a different name of course. the DX i think is their name but it's a Ricoh GX100/200 underwater kit with the Sea and Sea name on it.

I'll never buy another Ricoh if they don't do something about it. And they should - if all complain to them - As mentioned no - you don't have to live with it. They [Ricoh] might have to live with a recall and fix the problem.

The squeaking wheel gets the grease as they say.

Funny thought - i was talking to someone after my last post about this camera and the GX200 and remarked that I could take a old Film Semi-Pro compact - shatter the viewer so any light would refract though out the image - and rig it so any film put in it over 100 iso it tosses a handfull of sand on the lens when you click the shutter. The higher iso film you use - the more sand it tosses on the lens.

Call it a Pro camera - cause all the manual settings and ask 6 and a half bills for it USA. Should sell pretty good considering all the rave reviews of the Ricoh GX100/200.

Hey the image wouldn't be half bad - equal to a 29mp digi too - i could even throw in a wide angle lens attachement for an extra $200 for it - and if any one bitches - i just say that it's all inherent to the film plane.

lol

- And to think i coulda had a Leica for this price - even a Hassi

... live and learn but don't lay down!

btw - it is a nice pic you posted.

February 20, 2010

Mine didn't do it until after an update to the firmware v1.51.

And CCDs or all do not do this. The small sensor i would expect more noise but not this much Blooming or Smearing as they [Ricoh] are terming it.

Where are they terming it Professional - lol - just ask Ricoh or follow the link below to their Professional line of cameras:

<a href="http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/professional.html">http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/professional.html</a>

You'll find both the GX100 and the GX200 listed in the Pro gear.

The point of this thread is that most camera companies are admitting that they used an inferior CCD - Canon has - Fuji Has - even Ricoh as mentioned above. And offering to fix and/or replace those cameras with the inferior CCD in them which causes Purple stripping in verticle axis in the LCD and/or images or both.

Ricoh has yet to admit it about the GX100 or GX200 as of yet - both produced in the same years that the inferior CCD was used in Ricoh's other cameras and were recalled.

I don't think this is normal and i tested along with 14 other photgs with pro gear and a few none Pro cameras.

None produced this type effect when pointed at a Murcury vapor lamp just 8 ft away - ( there is one used for our back drive way area) The only ones that produced the Purple stripping was the Ricoh GX100s and a Fuji compact - which they [Fuji] took back after being told about it, a GE $59 dollar P&S - and a Canon which was on the recall list from Canon.

The cameras that did show this Purple stripping were all less than a hundred bucks - except the GX100s. All Pro gear - $500 and over price range did not show this effect.

And as stated - The GX100 in the pic which had never had a firmware update till two days ago and was tested specifically for this issue - didn't show the effect until after the update in the exact same lighting cinerios.

Ricoh claims it's not the firmware... well it is something causeing it as far as i'm conserned and i for one am not happy with it.

What can i say - the more that people voice out about it happing to the GX's - perhaps Ricoh will fix the issue - and not at the cusumers expense as the camera companies are doing. And ricoh has had to do in the past.

I don't know how you compose your images - You may be able to compose an image and fine focus with purple strips all through your image prior to chlicking the shutter. and that's what you're used too, but some of us do still use manual modes. Which this makes it impossible to do so with all this purple verticle crap in the way.

Maybe i just expect more for almost grand of gear. And in my case that's times 2.

If it was just a matter of over exposure - you could stop down and it would go away - it's doens't go away but shows up worse or more promenant in the LCD viewer.

To me that BS for a supposed Pro camera - or any camera for that matter. I don't and many others don't compose by Point - Auto mode - hope for the best and crop in PS later.

I want more from my gear and my money. but that's me

- but then i'm not settling for a fat chick as my wife either...

I want a Penthouse pet.. and she better have her own money. Oh that's right - that's what i already got. Because i didn't settle for less. ;0)

February 20, 2010

Hey all - been a while... hope everyone is still happily shooting away be it film or Digital.

Weeellll - got a couple new cameras since i was here posting last and a question.

The famed i supposed to believe Pupple verticle lines should be present in the LCD so I can't compose an image question. This conserning the Ricoh GX100 and GX200 compacts in this case.

Okay promoted as a PROFESSIONAL compact camera and i yell that pro word as it is touted as such and after talking to the Ricoh tech support team whom calim this is normal - which i never saw prior to the new update and quite honestly can't image any Pro grabing a $600 + compact that has verticle lines in the LCD if pointed towards a light source or light bouncing off an object is in the viewer.

It is known that Ricoh has recalled other cameras due to a CCD issue - with the same issue only they are holding out till it attually shows up in to the recorded image to be whilling to repair these cameras.

Canon has recalled what 20 to 30 cameras - Fuji several cameas all with the same issue - Puple verticle lines showing in either the LCD and/or Image.

Currently Ricoh is claiming nothing... pushing it off on the consumer to fix the issue. Now in my mind and maybe yours - a base compact camera price of $600 then add in all the excessories and lens adds up to over a grand for this little camera. I do believe it should last more than 1.5 to 2 years...

Wouldn't you agree.

So _ i ask all those Ricoh camera users - Especially those using the Ricoh GX100 or GX200.

Is your camera now showing purple verticle lines int he LCD and/or are they also showing up in the images? Like the below images show as example?

And notice the last one - the stripping almost covers the entire LCD screen. And that is a South window shaded - blinds half pulled closed - ambient light entering the room causing this to acure... not the pro grade i'm looking for.

Point being if there are enough of us Ricoh GX100/200 showing this issue - this is terms for a recall.

All i want is for Ricoh to fix the dang cameras after putting in a inferior ccd if that is the case. I think all the Ricoh GX owners will agree - This isn't a $60 throw away digi camera. If it is... hell... maybe Ricoh needs to pull the PRO tag off the cameras they produce. I'll save my $800 bucks forget about digital and go back to film as a carry around camera. They dang sure last longer.

And if your Ricoh isn't producing such verticle lines at this point when bright subject matter is in the veiwing area - post them too... I would but both mine are now doing it since i upgraded the firmware this weekend. Just to show this isn't supposed to be... especially in a pro camera as Ricoh claims this is.

thanks all.

- chase -

November 5, 2009

PS: that is why i didn't become a journalist photographer - not only does the media manipulate - but the media can be manipulated...

And talk about suspicion

- Two cops stop a person walking down the street taking pics claiming they look suspicous, according the origianl post, and never mentioned the "occuring break ins in the area....?"

Ask - "No pics of cops?"

And someone else just happens to ask What she is doing and "Offers" the excuse of suspicion due to break ins in the area...

The entire scenerio is suspect.

just my two or three cents

November 5, 2009

I don't think i matters what type camera - be it mobile phone - P&S - DSLR - SLR MF or Large format... it depends on area at times. And policy - and the BS games that go on in this country.

For a while the two ajacent counties in our area - were having this on going battle for a while as to whether it was legal or illegal to shoot in a public area or private area.

One county as taking the position No, the other Yes... the rest that occured was probaly BS - staged to change or ammend policy.

In the original posters incedent - with-out knowing what she looks like - manner of dress etc - (ie: did she actually look suspicous or like the average person taking a walk stopig to take a pic) - Flags woud go up due to at least one of the questions by the cops - Perhaps she missed a pic they didn't want her to take?

There's only so many coincidences that occur before you have know - or at least have a gut feeling - they aren't coincidences. Just be careful your not the pawn or the guinni pig because you carry a camera.

November 5, 2009

You never know really what you could or could not be photographing - you may be completely unaware that you just photographed something someone doesn't want seen. You may stumble upon something all innocently - taking pics of butterflies one minute snap a pic of who knows what.

And all you wanted to do was photograph a dang butterfly...

as far as taking pics from the street - no one can stop you. Public is public - now he might of thought you were a realestate person....

November 5, 2009

;0) - thankyou Patrick... great summation

nice pic btw...

on instant films - A funny story before i go,

- I showed a snap i took to a guy - he's around 18 - knew nothing but digital - told him to look through the loop at the 67 snap i took. (Mamiya loop - Mamiya 67 camera - Just a BS snap i took testing a 180 lense) anyway...

He looked through the loop and freaked a bit - "It looks 3d! - what printer did you use? What kind of paper is it that makes it look 3d?" he asked...

All i could do was smile... thinking to myself - guess the lense is good

November 4, 2009

Oh - just a note here about the second one - I found it kinda funny that one of the people in that facility was indited a year maybe 2 years later for taking bribes and payoffs - along with some other people in local government.

strange world we live in.

November 4, 2009

I've had a couple during filming - once was for show by the cops (which was obvious) to find out how i was doing what i was doing at the time - they serached my bags looking for the gear that enabled me to do what i was doing - which they couldn't find. That probably deserves better explaination - i was doing something new with some new techologies at the time - i'll leave it at that. Nothing illigal - just new. Second time - i ended up being "indefinity banned" from the premise - a public facility. I brought video gear to record some crap that was going on. I did nothing wrong - they just didn't want me filming... that film you shoud see - funny as heck, as staff scattered like cockroaches - security - "wanted to talk to me" but not really talk to me if you catch my drift at least that was the drift i got from them - but not with camera recording - I refused to turn it off.

- and a Cop suggesting the " Indefinite banning" Man i had so many people around me - coming to see who i was - from the Head of the Facility to the Head of Security to the Police - LOL - and the things they said...? My thoughts were like WTF?! Have they all gone insane? What are these people up to to warrent all this?

The un-justified banning from the premise - totally done on the sly.

In your case - they probably were just checking out that you were who you said you were due to break ins - no biggy - take it in stride and keep shooting.

Journalistic Photogs have alot more run ins with the law than most i presume - i've heard funny and not so funny war stories of such too.

Part of the life of a photographer - well sometimes. Something to tell the kids about one day.

November 4, 2009

I think there is enough differences in the processes dispite their commonalities of Digital versus Traditional film one can safely seperate the two as the differences are rather wide.

I think Darwin would agree = Digital Imagry - is a new species.

The fact still remains - paintings are more valuable than a print from film - I think you'll see a rise in that figure as time goes on...

The old arguement about Photography (traditional) was due i believe to the two view points - one being it was like a painting and the other like printing.

As well, let us not forget the Goverment would have lost a huge amount of revenues from all the "artist" if it had deemed it an Artform

- now traditional photography does not pose a huge loss or threat to government tax revenues and should be more easilly accepted as it should have been - an art form.

Get Darwin - i'm sure he can convince any one that the two Digital and Traditaonal Photography are different enough to be claimed - seperate species

November 4, 2009

Though i say just go for it - and i say this becuase your initial queston is one of age...

So lets remove the age part of the question for a moment.

Should you consider a career in photography?

Oneof the big pros you mention is your contacts... huge pro for success.

You mention the younger - eleminate age - make it "Newer techniques and styles"

Yes there are new techniques and styles being created and more so - demanded by the potential customer. YOu'll have to learn these and perhaps create some your self depending on how far you want to take your photography...

Is this a good time to start a photography business? - tough one to answer - the trend shown <a href="http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends">HERE </a> and some more info <a href="http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_People_with_Jobs_as_Photographers">HERE</a> shows a downward trend. You can also fond more charts for stock photogrphers by type etc etc all seem to show downward trends. Both in jobs and annual income. Some types of photography higher than others. but still all trending downward...

Will it pick up - of course - so this may be a good time to study and hone skills and open some doors for yourself as a customer base.

Consumer based photography from what i see - is definetly down - Photographing kids etc etc.

Business based - Down some or stayed level. Architectural falling in the business catagory i would presume.

But... you also have to watch the market for building - it is down now... are clients willing to spend during a buyers market - maybe...

As mentioned your contacts are going to play big with your success or failure as it does with any business - but especially in an over saturated market and a trending down market... the more good contacts - the better you'll do.

Money - don't expect to make a fortune being a photographer - unless you've got something or know someone that no one else does that can help pull you to the top.

I do wish anyone going into the business success but it's a given all will not succeed. I would have to agree with one statement above...

Don't quit your day job at the same time - don't hesitate - don't second guess yourself.

- be confident and jump in with both feet.

November 4, 2009

lol - naaa - wouldn't want that

oh- did i fail to mention the tax benifits that go along with art of traditional phography, front to back, being deemed finally as an true "art form". And those that do it - "artists" of the art of tradtional photography? - might want to look at that.

As mentioned - i'm not knocking digital as an art form or saying by any means there are not great aesthectily pleasing pieces created digitally - Digital does have short term value.

Long term value - nope

Investment value for the collector - nope

and if you think your signature makes a differnce - well - that's digital too...

The good thing here is that those that do take up the art of traditional film - darkroom - even if you just added it to your current digital bread and butter stuff - becoming a Master at the craft... the prints you create using the art of traditional phography could be worth millions one day. I don't think you can say the same for someone's digital file - well - i guess you coud print out a million originals and sell them for a buck a piece.

but it would sure be nice to have ONE print worth a milllion...or 3 million

aaahh - what a legacy - now that is timeless.

November 4, 2009

PS - And Digital - please - don't start back peddling now. Your perfect - timeless - limitless...

too bad that makes digitals value less.

And you can debate that till the cows come home - but it won't change it.

November 4, 2009

A big difference between traditional film and digital photography and value is - consistancy.

It has been noted many times that film degrades this is a downside of film...

value is created by supply and demand.

Digital doesn't afford lack of supply as a matter of fact it is designed for just the opposite. And to give perfect copies of the original - unlimited times. That is the downside of digital as far a value is concerned.

It is also a fact that even if someone has the negative - say of Moon Rising by Adams or many other famous prints - you can't recreate it exactly like the final chosen by the artist.

Plus there are too many variables in film that are in-consitant - making it more like being an artist of paint or some other media. Though granted, Kodak and many other film makers strive to be more consitant with batches of film. And are pretty good no doubt,

Then add the variables of the traditonal darkroom- that are also inconsitant. They strive to be - but there are variables.

Then add the variables of the artist him or her self. Andhow they ocomplished the final print.

IN digital - you create the final before print - the print isn't part of the final. IF you follow that.

I painted a copy of a Nagel i wanted - and it was pretty good - good enough to fool everyone that saw it until they saw the signature - but it wasn't a Nagel original - it wasn't exactly like the one he painted. And damn sure didn't command the price he got for his. /But i'll be t you anything it has more value than his poster of the same. It - dispite all other factors is an "original" and can't be duplicated - it's a one of a kind.

Again supply and demand. Ask any Master of traditional Film techniques - they can explain this better than i can - i'm not a Master of it yet, just striving to be.

November 3, 2009

A rare print taken by US photography pioneer Edward Steichen has set a world record for the highest price paid for a photograph auction.

The Pond-Moonlight - taken in New York in 1904 - was sold for $2.9m (£1.6m), more than doubling the previous record.

The only other two copies in existence are in museum collections.

As the Art dealer said of digital created images -

"Push print today - no value tomorrow... Unlimited originals can be made exactly like the first."

November 3, 2009

No - not at all like painters argueing about oil or acrylic - both are painters both create works of art - both don't "save as" - "print to" both - no digital involved. Both retain value as Artists - Both once passed on - Painting goes up in value. Both - Painting cannot be re-created as a true "original" by any means...

Give me your best digital photographer - using digital means of darkrooom - when they are gone - give me their HD or file of what ever image they created and had digitally printed

And i'll give you a ten year old that can re-create it. unlimited times.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by chase canadé1664880639