a._t._burke

<p>Mr. Tai...</p> <p> I remember those. I think I took this with one. The lens was sharp. For some reason I took the below referenced picture with the camera hidden in my hand while moving. The film was slow (8-10ASA) so the shutter speed had to be slow also. The lens was probably wide open. Still it gave good detail. When judging sharpness please remember this is a scan of a small chip of film, masked to boot. </p> <p><a href=" </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p> <p>Kinda makes ya' appreciate Philip Greenspun all the more! </p> <p><a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/">http://philip.greenspun.com/</a></p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Imler...</p> <p>I think you are right in suspecting a bad scan as part of the problem. Here is an example of a "Pro" scan vs. a low priced home film scanner. Their model scanner can do a better job than my cheapo, if they use it right (but they did not). These are only about 1200PPI, far below the rating or either scanner which should make them sharp. The film processor has a very good reputation but did not do well on my roll. </p> <p><a href=" <p>My Scanner: PrimeFilm XE, 2014 </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Their Scanner: a Noritsu fitted to a QSS-32_33 processor/printer: </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>That being said, these quick-and-dirty low res scans producing a scan 1024 pixels on the short side stunk. The color was bad and one could get the same resolution with chalk on a concrete sidewalk. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>Glad to see this edition of the photonet software back!!</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Drawbridge: </p> <p>Thank you for your mini-review of the Signet 35. My, you have a nice looking example! </p> <p>I did not have one when they were new, but bought several used ones in the 1990s. Camerapedia claims the shutter holds up well. My first Signet 35 was sent to three different CLA "experts". None of them got the shutter working on time, hence the multi-purchases as I tried to get a good one. But the lens is excellent. It is a "modified Tesar". Kodak ads described the lens as equal to any 35mm lens including its own high priced Retina 35mm examples. That is not true, but it is as good as the much vaunted Yashica T4 Super with a Zeiss Tessar lens. </p> <p>Here are two pictures (2008?) using Kodachrome 64 taken about 10 minutes apart with both the Signet 35 and a T4 Super, scanned with a Nikon 5000 at 4000PPI for your comparison. </p> <p>Yashica T4 Super:</p> <p><a href=" </p> <p>Signet 35: </p> <p><a href=" </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Gammill…<br> <br> I noticed the name “Impar” on the lens. Aren’t they the ones who set the high lens standards that Zeiss, Leitz and Schneider tried so hard to duplicate? <br> <br> A.T.Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Photos...</p> <p>"Why Do Lab Scans Look Richer?" </p> <p>That sounds like the law school question "When did you stop beating your wife?" The point being, how would a person answer that if he never beat his wife. The objection to that kind of question used to be "Petito Principia.", which has been watered down to "Assumes facts not yet in evidence." </p> <p>With that in mind may I refer you to an example that does not fit into your assumption? </p> <p><a href=" </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. L...<br> <br> 1. “Bridge camera” is marketing term without technical merit. <br> <br> 2. One of my better so-called bridge cameras is an Olympus IS-3. It has large diameter glass to enable it to have a relative low numbered F:stop with the exposure size. The glass is also of quite high quality. The sensor is about 35mm by 1600mm. About 24mmx36mm of that sensor is exposed to light at any one time. <br> <br> 3. Most modern day digital shooters would put it into an “F” group due to the sensor material. <br> <br> A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bergman...</p> <p>Thank you. I just bought the same issue (sleezebay) after seeing your excerpts. I wanted to have the stereo section on hand. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. G…<br> <br> Yes, I must have misread that, so now I’ll respond to no money. <br> <br> That journalism teacher I mentioned before would be an example. He was attempting to get us students to bias the news to champion a social/political viewpoint. He made no bones about what his viewpoint was. Society has changed, but in the mid-1960s, it would be what most people would have considered extremely far to the left. Among some of the specific issues where he wanted a liberal viewpoint were such things as anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-war, etc. This was the Vietnam era and he was very big on anti-war. <br> <br> Of course, many people thought then, and would be thinking while reading this, “of course, that’s the only right way to think.” Anything else is bad, foolish, hateful, etc., etc. <br> <br> I saw no particular monetary profit in an anti-war stance, at least not for the media per se. Perhaps it would have encouraged more readership or viewership from that political bent, but would have discouraged it from the other. At the time of that class, statistically the majority opinion probably supported the war. So a newspaper or station that took on a strong anti-war bias might pay for it at the cash register. Some years later, the reverse would probably be true and perhaps it would profit them. However, at the time, I don’t think the Professor’s stance was for monetary profit, but was for the purpose of political proselytizing, as well as the satisfaction of making other people see it his way (the one and only right way), even if by deception. <br> <br> As an aside, had his gist of political persuasion been to the ultra-conservative side, or with any other purpose of deception, I would have dropped the class just as fast. I might not have been in total agreement with his politics, but if he hadn’t insisted upon deception, I would have continued on and maybe enjoyed learning some journalistic skills, which might have helped me with some of my business endeavors like marketing or salesmanship. In my life, I’ve learned a lot from people with an opposite opinion. The only thing I’ve learned from liars, cheats, and deceivers is to keep one hand on my wallet and the other on my zipper. <br> <br> Going off watch, <br /><br> <br> A. T. Burke<br /></p>

<p><br /> Mr. G...<br> <br /> "I also try to do my best to recognize and maintain awareness of my own biases. If you have something specific in mind with regard to a bias I've exhibited here and a coherent reason why it's important for me, in particular, to begin looking for bias at home, please specify. Otherwise, I'll just take your comment as a platitude and cheap shot."</p> <p><br /> My comment was neither a pat on the back nor a shot at you. I thought I got your drift (although it was a bit obscure) and that as the great-unwashed public, we could do something about it. Since you made the point I mentioned you. Since that was not clear might I now expand to say you (the point maker), and I, and those others that might see a need for improvement, can all take a shot at doing something positive. We are not helpless and can upgrade the situation especially if we start at home (for the compressively impaired, that means ourselves).</p> <p><br /> Now, I remain thinking the media will not. From their commercial position and power to persuade points of view, they most likely do not see a change as being in their best interest and the hell with us.</p> <p><br /> “It's possible that there is no economic motive resulting in bias as I've suggested and, A.T., if you have information to the contrary, I will remain open to seeing such evidence and adjusting my views based on what you might provide.”</p> <p><br /> OK.</p> <p><br /> 1. Look at the so-called news media. I feel some is biased to the left and some to the right. I have watched news with folks of both types of views. Those folks that I’d consider liberal like to have their bias reinforced by the liberal media. Conversely they will again cover the same territory on a conservative show. Then they delight in scoffing, cursing and getting negatively emotional. Folks with conservative views do the same thing, but just in reverse. That old ad money just keeps rolling in as they watch and emote to both sides.<br> <br /> 2. Good ol’ Rush. I retired in 1988 and started spending 600-mile travel days, often in remote areas where one could only get those “big midwestern broadcasters.” Rush was starting to get big and occupied some of the time. He often claimed things happened that day that I had not heard on the regular "all-encompassing, totally honest?" network news. He also often gave a much different set of facts for an incident that had been described on network news. My destination was often the Canadian border, where I could pick up Canadian television and broadcast radio. There, the Rush-announced, but otherwise broadcast-absent news would be delivered. Who was right? Often the Canadian news included a video or still shot which I considered a more believable recounting. Also, if there was a large discrepancy in the facts (not opinions) between major U.S. news broadcasters and Rush, the Canadian stations either proved, through visual media, or coincided with audio media that which Rush had said.</p> <p><br /> Then he became a blowhard junkie. He could repeat, “I’m right, I’m right” continually for over sixty seconds at a time. His comments, which didn’t exactly begin to the left of center, started sounding like a rather stoned imaginary series of events. His ratings shot up, his income shot up, his popularity shot up, the amount of stations carrying him shot up. Then he got caught. Oppressed by sobriety and less delusional than before (but still a little exaggerating), his time of more moderate views coincided with a big drop in ratings, station coverage, etc., etc.</p> <p><br /> I’m old, I’m tired, and if my arguments have not been convincing, I just don’t have the energy to expand.</p> <p><br /> A. T. Burke</p> <p> </p>

<p>Mr. G...</p> <p>I think I see your point. If I'm right, you can improve the average by conscientiously being unbiased yourself. Yes, perhaps nobody is perfect and there will be slip-ups. However some real effort in that area by us terrible Americans would help the situation. For you, like charity, it could begin at home. </p> <p>Now as to the media… They get so much better ratings by being biased and abrasive as well as feeling the joy of venting their particular spleen that I think they will not reverse course. <br> A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. D’Amato…<br> <br> Yes, I too agree with Ms. Goldberg. When I tried your link, it did not work. So I have included the internet pathway below: <br> <br> <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/editors-note-images-and-ethics/">http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/editors-note-images-and-ethics/</a> <br> <br> There’s been some pretty nasty arguments on here (Photonet) about fully exercising one’s artistic juices vs. what you see is what you get. Surprisingly, the Photoshop artists who enjoy using Photoshop and/or are talented in Photoshop are supporting of the artistic license. <br> <br> Art for art is fine. Manipulating reality for the sake of swaying public opinion in what is supposed to be an informative news article is not. In the mid-1960s, I thought it would be interesting to take a journalism class at the local university. All the rest of the students were green kids. The first day of class, and as almost the opening statement, the professor said (as close as my memory allows me to quote), “The purpose of modern journalism is no longer to inform the public, but should sway or create public opinion. Those of you who feel differently than that should come up and sign up to drop my class because any of your work that does not reflect that philosophy will get you an F.” I dropped. <br> <br> I’m really old, but the boys and girls who were of normal college age back then have become the most senior members of the various news organizations or did so prior to their retirement. It’s no surprise that so much of what is passed off as a news story, whether print, internet, or broadcast media, contains so little factual data and so much untruthful data passed off as being truthful, with a strong bent toward the news room’s political, social, or economic outlook. Furthermore, at this point, I no longer feel compelled to give special fourth estate privileges to these liars and hustlers. But of course, 99% of you people reading this will violently disagree. <br> <br> There’s a rather quaint black and white old-time movie that is probably available with at least some of the premium channels or Firestick-type entertainment suppliers entitled “Teacher’s Pet.” Doris Day portraying a journalism teacher attempts to impress upon her class the importance of the Who, What, Where, How, Why, and When. Clark Gable plays a cantankerous newspaper editor who poses as a student. When my contemporaries saw this as a new film, we all thought, “of course, why would anybody do it differently?” All but a few have since gone to the grave wondering how we got so far away from that concept. <br> <br> The Superman television slogan used to be “Truth, justice, and the American way.” Time has made that such a ridiculous concept in its entirety. <br> <br> A.T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bergman...</p> <p>Thank you Sir, for your continued postings of old photo magazines. I especially enjoy revisiting Kodachrome through them. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Derickson…<br> <br> 1971?? That is not old. <br> <br> On the other hand you are being responded to by someone who drove his 1954 Pontiac yesterday, so consider the source. <br> <br> A. T. Burke <br> <br> P.S. Your Rolleiflex 3.5F is (not was) a nice camera. </p>

<p>Mr. Laur...<br> <br> Thank you for your comment. I understand your point and it’s well said. In fact, I was doing all that when I received the comment about my “Brownie.” It took a lot more time and effort to get the right shot for my buddy than it did getting the camera out of the case. <br> <br> I thought Mr. G was referring back to a previous comment where a poster was in despair because bypassers wanted to talk about his camera, not him. Maybe it’s just me, but I thought that was a bit much and not the attitude I take with people (at least not since the 1920s). <br> <br> Additionally, in the early days of Photonet, many of us discussed our gear. Today, that seems to be frowned upon by the majority of the users, who simply want to be complimented on their art. That’s just not my type of outlook on the world. I do enjoy nice precision well-made equipment, whether it’s a camera, a machine tool, some electronics, etc. I try not to be taken in by hype and emotionality, thereby getting talked into buying cheaply made or knock-off type items, thinking I’ve got something a tad better. In my life, I most often put utility before style. Yes, I know that’s yesterday’s thinking, but I’m a yesterday’s guy. <br> <br> I’ve always appreciated your extensive participation over the years and have been saddened to see the board drifting away from the type of thoughtful comments that you and some others make. <br> <br> A.T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. G…<br /> <br /> You said “I have honestly never tried to convey to a stranger that a camera is just another tool in my toolkit.” referring to a previous poster’s comment. <br /> <br /> I don’t answer a stranger’s question that way, especially since I wouldn’t agree with the premise. I actually like cameras, especially when they’re well made. Also, I don’t have the need to let people know that it’s not the camera, but me, important ME! I might have been that way at one point in my life, but I think I got over it when I was in short pants in the 1920s. <br /> <br /> Most of what I take is either Polaroid or Fujiroid, and more often, they’re Fujiroids. My stash of genuine Polaroid film is getting small and the results are a little dim. The instant picture concept often gets some comment. <br /> <br /> I’ve gotten old and cannot maintain a kitchen anymore. I eat out every day, often at the same place (like us really, really old people do). I know many of the regulars and most of the staff. The restaurant tries to attract events like birthdays and, consequently, gets more than its fair share. If a birthday or graduation party seems to be festive and have brought balloons, gifts, or even a birthday cake, I will often offer them a Polaroid picture of themselves with the cake or of the event. Many of the younger people have never seen a Polaroid develop and, for many of the older, it’s a pleasant trip back through time. It starts a lot of conversations, most of them pleasant. As I’m a regular, I’ve ended up taking one person’s 100^th and 101^st birthdays. Perhaps I’m pointing that out because they’re one of the few people who are older than I am. <br /> <br /> Also, in about 1995 I was most kindly gifted a 75^th Anniversary Rolleiflex with gold trim and brown lizard covering. I took it to a car show with a friend who wanted to get a good picture of his car which could then be blown up a lot. I had it on a sturdy tripod trying to get maximum focus when another old fart approached me and said to his wife “Look honey, that’s one of those old cheap Kodak Brownies.” I complimented him on his knowledgeable recognition (“You have a good eye, Sir.”) and told him I’d been saving for 50 years and was hoping to get a new one soon. <br /> <br /> A.T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Tai...</p> <p>Yes, they work. I bought one of its first generation several years ago, and one of the later generations a year ago. I have a large commercial Bowen's analog unit from the old days. The first thing I did with both of these testers from your vendor was to of course see if I got the same readings as the Bowen's, which I did. The Bowen's had been calibrated against an oscilloscope. So, both of those testers I bought from your questioned vendor were right on. </p> <p>One of the advantages of that fellow's design is that you can insert either the light or receiving unit into a very small area, such as found in a miniature camera. </p> <p>Considering what's out there, I think his tester is a good value at about a hundred bucks. </p> <p>A.T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. Lang… <br> <br> Mr. Bowes does have a good idea. I have about a dozen folders bought from Certo6. They have all been CLAed and most every (and every AGFA or ANSCO) one has new bellows. <br> <br> Of the AGFA/Ansco brands, there are usually 4 lens qualities. The lowest is the Agnar. Better than meniscus lens but??? Acceptable is the Apotar which is a good three element lens as long as you do not shoot wide open. Next for a 6x6, is the desirable F:4.5, 85mm Solinar lens. If you want to pay a little more, and can find one with a Solinar F:3.5 lens, they were slightly sharper and equal to the Rolleicord V. <br> <br> Certo just sold a “buy-it-now” Agfa Isolette III with f:4.5 / 85mm Solinar which is a 6x6 with uncoupled rangefinder and new bellows for $210.00. That would have been about as much as you could get in your $200.00+or- range. <br> <br> I have one just like it from him. I bought it about 5 years ago. Everything worked, shutter speeds (I have an old fashion tester) were within new camera tolerances. I’d rate the lens condition and coating as “fine”. The transparencies are about the same as my two Yashica 126Gs as to clarity, color and lp/mms resolved. <br> <br> Beware getting any older medium format, all mechanical camera from someone you don’t know, as those old shutters just don’t last. Sixty to seventy years of mechanical and lubrication problems is a stretch. For the bellows-ed models, a few of the leather ones might be okay, but almost every fiber bellows has pinholes to large tears. <br> <br> The best thing about Mr. Bowes’s suggestion about Certo6 is that he is a responsible seller who has backed his work and ensures you get a working CLA-ed and light-tight camera. The few other sellers, whether on auction sites or personal websites, that I’ve known to be responsible have retired out, as I believe Certo6 is soon to do. <br> <br> A number of folders, including the AGFA/Ansco also come in 6X9. One is the AGFA Billy-Record which has a slightly tinnier body than the Isolettes, but you can still get a good four element f:4.5 lens if you’re willing to wait. <br> <br> Additionally, right now there is an Agfa BillyRecord 6x9 folder - Leather Bellows , W/L finder CLA'd, for $135.00 on that ole auction site from a responsible seller. I have one like it and find the Apotar stopped down to f:8 through f:16 (where I use it with 100 speed transparency film) is a decent performer. You also get the same height to width ratio as 35mm. Most flatbed scanners don’t scan more than 2000 ppi at best. Using a larger transparency or negative out of the Billy Record will get you more scanned information than the 35mm with the finest Zeiss lens. <br> <br> I hope you’ll enjoy the medium format experience. <br> <br> A.T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Gelfand,</p> <p>Most of the IBM PCs and clones skipped the 80186 and went from the 8086 to the 80286. The American Tandy 2000 was an exception. Also many Ford products used the 80186. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. McLure,</p> <p>By the time Rolleicords reached the Rolleicord V they had excellent 4 element lenses, usually Schneider lenses. I have 2 of them and 2 124Gs (124Gs also had 4 element lenses). My Rolleicords edge out the 124Gs in sharpness. Also the 124G's shutter winder is delicate. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Jonaitis, </p> <p>There is a socket on the lens extension for the release. Note: Some releases had tapered threads, some straight. I do not remember which was #2.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>MS. Castner. <br> "I didn't realize the fp3000-b film sets at a different focus because of the plastic back, but wouldn't Fujifilm compensate for the lens focus?"<br> Yes, but only in the cameras they made for themselves. <br> lp/mm is twice l/mm. Mathematics does not change. Some resolution reporters do not get the distinction and have been known to use the wrong label. <br> Both Fuji and Kodak made materials for Polaroid Instant Film, Roll, Pack, SX-70 680style and Spectra. If you are lucky, your original might be made of the same material. <br> The lens, its iris, the light source and placement, film, paper, and processing will all determine the characteristics of the out of focus parts of the exposure. You may have insufficient resources to properly complete this project, but not for want of trying. <br> Mr. C. <br> Could there have been a clarification when ANSI PH-3.50 was superseded by ANSI FP-3.609?<br> A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Ms. Castner: <br> <br> The Fuji specs here: <br> <br> <a href="https://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/fp3000b-ds.pdf">https://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/fp3000b-ds.pdf</a> <br> <br> say the resolving power for 3000b is 20 lines/mm or 10 lp/mm. A young “perfect” human eye resolves about 7.5 lp/mm, depending on who you believe. Some WWII pilots were tested at over 10lp/mm which gave them an advantage spotting their opposition. <br> <br> The three-element lens in the 100 should get you about 25-30lp/mm on a good film that will resolve twice that much, but only in the center. The Polaroid 360 had a good glass four-element lens that could probably go 50 lp/mm +or- in the center, down to below 20 at the edges. Back when we had much more film choices I did a lot of film/lens tests with a 1951 USAF chart. <br> <br> You might want to do you focus testing and adjusting on higher resolving sheet film then do your “blur” calculations. <br> <br> Are you aware that the film plane in the plastic Fuji FP series pack films sits at a different rear focus than the Polaroid pack films in their steel cases? Are you also aware that Polaroid changed the materials of both the negative film and print papers many times over the history of roll films and pack films? Your old Polaroid film may have very different grain and blur patterns than the Fuji FP 3000b. <br> <br> Also the various lenses used by Polaroid on their pack film and roll film cameras will certainly give different blur patterns along with giving different patterns as the adjustment point on the print moves away from the center. <br> <br> Is your project feasible without really being able to duplicate the original equipment both as to film and camera? <br> <br> A. T. Burke <br> <br> P.S. Mr. Darnton has a good suggestion about using a scale on an angle. A yard stick or meter stick placed at an angle with the center at the scaled distance from the film plane is a way to see if you are on or not. Also when calculating where the focus is, remember to adjust the distance reading using the triangle formulae, A squared plus B squared equals C squared. </p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>Here are some older fashion stereo pictures...</p> <p>Loreo beam splitter: <br> <br> <a href=" <br> <a href=" <br> <br> <br> Stereotach beam splitter in front of camera lens:<br> <br> <a href=" <br> <a href=" <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Stereo Realist with F:3.5 David White lenses: <br> <br> <a href=" <br> <br> <a href=" <br> <br> A. T. Burke<br /></p>