a._t._burke

Hmmmmm... Could it really be the perception of wide angle because of the screen ratio? Many of the phone cams are set to record a ratio like the screen. Maybe panoramic would be a better description. In the 1990s some small pocket cameras had a lever which moved sliding doors in font of the top and bottom of the exposure area. The result was a much wider picture than it was tall.when printed. This happened no matter how wide angle or telephoto the lens was. A T Burke

P.S. to my comment above. Maybe the guy is even a member of your saxophone group and voted its place in the ranking as #1, which could be taken as a sign that he doesn't know the difference between music and photography.

Mr. Morrell, There are obviously still-enthusiastic people like yourself who make quality contributions. Otherwise, you wouldn't post this for me to comment on. There used to be a lot of people I could say that about. Most of those people have moved on. I quit putting my one-and-a-half cent's worth in and quit paying years ago. But I am old, my world gets smaller every day. Maybe both my interest and abilities have downsized enough that I took another look at Photonet. I have to wonder what the author of the piece that voted Photonet third was thinking. What kind of photo experiences and life experiences does he or she have? What do they have in the way of background, experience, discernment, etc., to give merit or authority to their conclusion? Did the author pen the opinion from his or her residence as a tenured fine arts full professor in a major university? Or, could it have come from somebody who was heavily medicated enough to let out of their strait jacket for the time it took to write the article? If you're old enough to remember an automobile, the Yugo, remember that it did sell a few examples. The question is why? What did they see or, more relevantly, not see in a Yugo that would cause them to buy that horrible little car? A.T. Burke

Mr. H... Looking at the Fujifilm Instax Data Sheet, the film is inserted onto the cartridge with the back facing the lens. The light goes through the film back which later becomes black. In development, the dyes are pushed forward causing the image to migrate up against the front clear window. This process seems much different than the Polaroid SX-70 and 600 series film. A T Burke

Mr. H., Yes, it's SUPPOSED to be quoted in line pairs. As you say, after all, there has to be a contrast between lines. However, both film and lens makers started just saying lines so they could double the public perception of their film and lenses. If both Brand X and Y are 50/lpmm, and Brand X decides to overstate their specs by saying it resolves 100 lines, Brand Y is going to see that as unfair competition and also advertise 100 lines. That's how standards become meaningless. As of 20-30 years ago, the figure quoted for the same film would be stated as both lines and line pairs. In a situation I'm thinking of, the film would actually meet the line pairs spec so they weren't cheating but also maybe got negatively compared by people who were. When I get back to Montana, I'm going to figure out a way of exposing my Edmunds Scientific 1951 USAF glass resolution scale directly to Instax and see what the results are. At either 10 lines or 10 lp/mm, I wouldn't need more than a 10 power loupe to know the truth. I don't think Polaroid Originals has the same definition as Fuji Instax. That makes me wonder why I bother using my good four-element SX-70 lens rather than a cheap single element lens boxy camera. Using the SX-70 is probably putting lipstick on a pig in spirit but not meant to denigrate the magnificent effort that the Impossible Project has made to try and duplicate Polaroid film without access to the same chemicals and trade secrets that were not mentioned in their patents. Do you mean the Instax wide exposes direct rather than from the rear? In my Instax 100, the film pack faces the lens directly. The lens does not face the back of the pack. A.T. Burke

Thank you, Mr Stevens... It is not something that is likely to repeat itself much in the future. At my age most everyone is gone.I'm probably the last survivor for most things in my life. That could be good, that could be bad. About 15 years ago Viagra spam was in its heyday. I got my share. Also, there were ads for a 'male enhancer". I got a lot of them and wondered how all those advertisers had seen me in the gym shower and would know I needed it???? A T Burke

Gentlepersons: You think that is intrusive..... I started getting ads for a turquoise pocket Bible, what??? My very devout Christian friend had visited us in Montana and left behind his constant companion, a turquoise pocket Bible. He returned to California and I traveled to Florida. He died. I wanted to return the Bible at the funeral and texted a neighbor to look for the item so she could send it to me. That same day I started getting turquoise pocket Bible ads pop up while I looked at several on-line sites. By the next morning my e-mail box was full of spam for a turquoise pocket Bible. My wife also started getting ads (both of our phones are billed on the same account). The only time I had ever used that term was in the one text message. The patent holder of the keystroke program most smart phones use retained the right to log every keystroke (and sell the information). Go figure, A T Burke

Gentlepersons: 1. I find Polaroid Originals SX-70 film itself much less sharp and to have much less definition than Instax Wide. It also is grainier. 2. The first Polaroid™ SX-70 and Alpha 1 versions had a 4 element Tessar like glass lens of good quality probably resolving 50 + o r-.lp/mm It could far out resolve the original Polaroid™ film let alone the Polaroid Originals film. 3. Do the Instax Wide specs mean 10 lines (5 line pairs) or 10 line pairs. 5 line pairs is about what the average 35 year old eye can resolve. Sharp vision and younger eyes can resolve in the 8-10 range. Back when I was about 90, I tested out at about 7 lp/mm, but then I had better than average vision than average. Even today, at my age I see Instax Wide taken with a 100 camera to be sharper than Polaroid Originals with my good SX-70 lens. 4. I look forward to traveling back to Montana this summer and testing the Polaroid with my full size 1951 USAF chart and can give a more science based answer. A T Burke

Saw you mention Montana. What area number is your licence plate, if I may ask. I'm 7 (plate number, age MUCH more)

Gentlepersons: Anyone remember the Minolta 500mm F:8 Cat in autofocus? The focus sensor on the 9xi made for fast and accurate autofocus. A. T. Burke

Mr. Bergman... Thank you again, Sir. A. T. Burke

Mr. Lookingbill... I took my first Kodachrome pictures in the late 1930s. I also took a few, but very few during WWII (I was busy with other things like that pesky war). All were processed in the USA. Each batch seemed to look a little different. I only took one large format 4x5 photo. Most were taken on 35mm rolls with an Argus AF. At one time I had a number of them posted on Photonet, all stateside, ie. no grizzly war stills. I had to remove them because many viewers claimed they were warlike or whatever, like the one with me in uniform holding my young son’s hand on a public sidewalk. It must have been that darned uniform! I moved them to another site but the rules do not permit me to refer them to you so you can see the different hues. A. T. Burke

Mr. Sanford, "The duplicate was on purpose to post the same photo in color and then B&W to show how the hawk virtually disappears in B&W." You are far to subtle for the likes of Photonet. A. T. Burke

I just got an e-mail from [photo @ sudjam . com] saying they had billed me for a premium subscription at Photonet starting October 1. ??? sudjam

Gentlepersons: You young folks are fortunate enough to live in an era where even the cheap lenses are pretty good. I bought my first camera in the late 1930s, an Argus AF. Most of the people I photographed are gone. Many of the places/things I photographed are gone and/or changed. I often wish I had been a little more flush and could have bought a better lens to show detail I think I remember but could not be resolved on film and so I'm not so sure anymore. But I'm pushing 98. In a few days, months, or at the most, years it will never matter again. In the long run I guess it is a big "So what?" A. T. Burke

I quit paying "dues" a few years back, and I was one of the first to pay dues . I only look in now to see those fine posts by Mark Bergman. It has been so long since I posted that I had to find my log-in data. On the other hand at 97 not forgetting is not an option..... A. T. Burke

I'm trying, I'm trying.... I just cannot find a single thing. A. T. Burke

Mr. Radevych... On my Flicker space I often describe the scanner that scanned the photo. I've copied a few notes from the posts concerning scanners below. I own quite a few, but not a Noritsu. The Scanner, Minolta 5400 II: The Minolta 5400 was advertised at 5400 PPI and actually gave out not only a scan of that size but also of that resolution. Testing was done using a 1951USAF glass microscope resolution bought from Edmond Scientific. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment. The Scanner, a Nikon 5000: The Nikon 5000 was rated by the manufacture to scan at 4000 PPI. Unlike most other scanners testing with a glass plate USAF 1951 with the resolution chart metal deposited on it, showed both vertical and horizontal resolution to be very close to that figure. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment. I’d rate the 5000 at or very near 4000 PPI on film. Most scanners are over rated by 50-100% The Scanner: PrimeFilm XE, 2014 This is a small, under $500.00 scanner that actually works pretty well for 35mm slides and film. It advertises 10,000 PPI, but that grossly exaggerates its capability. When scanning at 10,000 PPI, there is no more information than when scanning at 5000 PPI. The file is just four times the size on disk. However, when scanning at 5000 PPI, you get an actual 4000+ PPI. However, you have to scan at 5000 PPI to get the 4000. As far as actual scanning information gained from a scan, it delivers far more PPI at the 5000 PPI setting than the Epson flatbeds do at the 6400 PPI setting. The apparent Dmax seems much lower than the Nikon 5000. You’d better tweak the color a little bit for each slide. It does seem to focus well and has as much actual resolution as the Nikon 5000. It also does not have a Kodachrome setting. As an old guy, I miss that. However, anybody taking pictures today can no longer use Kodachrome so it does not matter. The Scanner, a Nikon IV ED: The Nikon IV ED was rated by the manufacture to scan at 2900 PPI. Unlike most other scanners testing with a glass plate USAF 1951 with the resolution chart metal deposited on it, showed both vertical and horizontal resolution to be very close to that figure. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment. I’d rate the IV ED at or very near 2900 PPI on film. Most scanners are over rated by 50-100% The Scanner, a Noritsu fitted to a QSS-32_33 processor/printer: This scanner is rated at 4600 PPI and in fact has that many sensors in the array. However, due to software or the lens (I suspect the lens) there is only about 3000 PPI worth of information in the scan in .jpg form. Some of the flatbed scanners have the same problem with lenses and are infamous for not resolving the potential of the sensor count. Most under $2000.00 flatbed scanners only give 40% to 60% of their rating. I would have thought Noritsu would do a better job. I’ve found that in order to scan over 4000 true PPI which the Nikons would approach (except for the out-of-production Minolta 5400 II), one has to get a true drum scan and with a talented operator to boot. Addendum: Amending the above standard boilerplate paragraph, this particular scan appears to have 4000 PPI or better of actual information. Perhaps the machine had been serviced or adjusted. In any event, at least this roll of film was scanned closer to its stated output than scans I’ve received from the same photofinisher and machine in the past. The Scanner: Epson V500: The scanner is an Epson V500. It was bought in about 2012 and was a current offering at that time. It is supposed to scan at 6400 PPI and probably has the sensors to equal that. However, the optics are pretty poor. Furthermore, the scan point is not at the glass, but usually somewhere above, different on each like item produced. Maximizing the focus scan point, I guess at about 2500+ not-so-clear PPI. I do not have my Edmunds Scientific USAF1951 microscope test slide to test it with. I do however have a number of scans on my hard drive here from some of the ten other scanners I have, so comparing the results my guess is probably somewhat accurate. Should I ever make it back to Montana, I will redo this paragraph with numbers off the actual test slide. This flatbed also does film up to about 58mm wide. Using templates, you can do Minox, 16mm, 135, 828, 127, 120, and a pretty long strip of 58mm of anything bigger than that. With my 4180, I have scanned 8X10s a section at a time and stitched them together semi-successfully. You’d have to use the same process with this scanner. I bought it refurbished and calibrated for about $100 shipped, just to do a single project and have long since got my money out of it. As a flatbed, its resolution exceeds even the best 1950s black and white contact print that I own. The color restore works better than the older Epson generations that would include the 4990, but still is not as good as Applied Science Fiction’s Return of Color Pro. The Scanner, Epson 4990: The Epson 4990 was the first consumer grade flatbed scanner to be able to scan film up to 8”x10”. It has 4990 PPI worth of CCD elements but the actual resolution through its glass appears to be about 2500 PPI. I usually test my scanners with an Edmonds Scientific glass plate with the USAF 1951 resolution chart metal deposited on it. I do not have the glass plate here in Florida so I estimate with the experience of having tested many other scanners. Some of the Specs from the Epson Website: Flatbed color image scanner with Digital ICE™ technology for Film and Photo Prints It uses a Color Epson MatrixCCD™ line sensor Optical Resolution is 4800 dpi Hardware Resolution is 4800 x 9600 dpi with Micro Step Drive™ technology Maximum Resolution is 12,800 x 12,800 dpi with software interpolation Effective Pixels are 40,800 x 56,160 (4800 dpi) Color Hardware Bit Depth is 48-bits per pixel internal, 48-bits per pixel external (External bit depth is selectable to 48 bits depending on the image editing software.) Grayscale Hardware Bit Depth is 16-bits per pixel internal, 16-bits per pixel external (External bit depth is selectable to 16 bits depending on the image editing software.) Optical Density is 4.0 Dmax The Scanner: Epson 2450, Circa 2002 Scanning was done with an Epson 2450 flatbed scanner at the 2400PPI setting but probably only 1600PPI of information went into the scan. Even at 1600 REAL PPI, the Duoflex image was probably the weakest link. The Scanner, an Epson 4180: Oops! This was scanned with an Epson 4180 flatbed scanner@ 4800 PPI. However it was measured with a 1951USAF glass microscope test piece and found to have about 2200-2400 PPI of information. So, there is detail such as the year sticker on the Toyota license plate that can be read with a 60x microscope. Information is free and worth every penny... A. T. Burke

Gentlepersons, It is popular amongst mealy-mouth, can't-do business organizations, some of them publishers, to blame their current failures on the internet, electronic media, digital cameras, and even the fact that people just don't appreciate them to the degree they should be appreciated. The real cause is poor business management, sloppy business practices, poor cash flow management, bad customer service, and the arrogance that comes from really thinking, deep down inside, that people should buy what they have to sell because they are, of course, themselves. Popular Photography kept changing in a way and "reinventing" themselves and "improving" their format and depreciating their content until they became irrelevant. Maybe their higher-salaried people learned that in the same classes as did Sears and Kodak mis-managers, etc., etc., etc. Modern Photography is missed. Herb Kepler and his various columns and editorship are missed. Today's Popular Photography won't be. A.T. Burke

Mr. Puderse... The 110 although a smaller format was not square at 13mm x 17mm. The original Instamatic in 126 was square and nominally 28mm x 28mm. A. T. Burke

Polaroid 360.

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>Mr. Calhoun said, “...As I understand it there are technical problems that prevent any of the previous Ektachromes from coming back in their old exact form so the new film will be a reformulation. To reformulate and test will take some time so that's why the delay.” </p> <p>And Mr. Ghantous said, “.....I wonder if "lines" should be "cycles" or "line pairs"?” </p> <p>Perhaps some of the ex-Kodak employees like the knowledgeable Ron Andrews could clarify? For Kodak at least, when they advertised a film as having a certain low/high resolution number, was it in line pairs (cycles) or was a black space and a white space each a “line” for the line number stated. </p> <p>And, could Kodak still make the same formulation for the Ektachrome if they so choose? </p> <p>Also as a general question to everyone..... Any guesses whether Kodak will make a faithful reproduction of Ektachrome (look and feel wise) itself or will it sub contract with others for production or re-brand using their faded reputation in an effort to exploit a has-been, used-to-be name brand? </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p> <p>With my Mamiya 7II and 80mm lens, I can see a big difference between the resolution of Ektar 100 negative and Velvia 50 in favor of Velvia. Recently I became aware that Kodak’s specs for VR 100 negative film showed it to be their highest color negative film resolution, higher than Fuji's Velvia 50. All my VR 100 negatives are gone so I cannot go back and look with my good quality 60 power microscope scope. Results from my shots with VR 100 never seemed outstandingly sharp but I was not judging it at the time. </p> <p>Has anybody compared the resolution of Cinistill 50D against other high resolution color films? </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Greenspun: </p> <p>What a nice offer. What a nice outreach. Everybody on this board has benefited from the fact that you started it so many years ago. Many of us still wish you were running it. </p> <p>If I weren’t stuck in Florida with health issues of the elderly, I’d consider flying to Palo Alto. I was always sorry that you didn’t take another “Travels with Samantha” trip through Montana when I was living there. </p> <p>I don’t understand the “highly irregular” post at all. Photonet has always been used to post events and get-togethers like camera club showings, secondhand photography equipment shows, etc. The inference that you are doing something wrong, that you would need pull to be allowed to post a topic like this, seems highly irregular, almost out of line. </p> <p>I continue to appreciate your Photonet start-up, as well as your writings and photographs. I remember your offering a picture of your beautiful white dog as a way to raise funds to help pay for Photonet. </p> <p>I wish you well and wish I could be there, </p> <p>A.T. Burke </p>