a._t._burke

<p>Gentlepersons:<br> <br> Mr. Henderson said “To even approach that quality you need to be using a film scanner such as a Nikon Coolscan 9000….” </p> <p>He is right. But in addition, your scanned film must have a combination of film quality, lens, exposure and focus that exceeds the almost true 4000PPI ability of the 9000. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Howard,<br /> <br /> I agree with your assessment regarding film users. Of course, many of us old timers started shortly after the talented Mr. Greenspun created Photonet. Most all photography was film. Photonet has since been sold and the membership base has changed. Not only has digital, and then cell phone-type photography replaced us in numbers, but also in acceptance. <br /> <br /> I’m old enough to remember small business window signs “Help Wanted, No Irish Need Apply.” Now Photonet does not go that far with its film buffs, but its membership and management seem to have set a tone to imply that our dinosaur-like participation, outside of specific forums like Film and Classic Cameras, is unwelcome and irrelevant. <br /> <br /> There is a new sheriff in town, <br /> <br /> A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Lookingbill…<br> <br> “…free ourselves as photographers from the slavery of photo processing and the computer…” </p> <p>Would the ultimate freedom be ours by using a Fijiroid? </p> <p>Despite all the nice film and digital cameras I’ve foolishly accumulated, I’ll bet over 50% of the pictures I’ve taken in 2015 have been with Fuji’s Instax Wide. I’ve gone through about 15 ten-packs of film. Only 4-5 have been kept. The others were give-aways. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: <br> <br> Mamiya made a die punch to facilitate sizing 120/620 film for superslide mounting. <br> <br> A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Well said Mr. Schaefer,</p> <p>“Not going to succumb to the "pay for life" subscription model… The $10 per month is not the issue - the fact that one has to pay in perpetuity is.” </p> <p>I will not do it on principle. A whole generation had grown up with captured forever contracts, starting with cell phones. They have been tricked into economic slavery. Many accept this as normal. </p> <p>I’ll do without rather than be just another sucker. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Laur...</p> <p>No, I did not know who the picture taker/drone pilot/slimy real estate person was. I also did not hear about it until after the fact as I was not on premise. </p> <p>Yes, if someone put up a ladder and looked in my window, I'd resent it as much as a drone. </p> <p>Yes, if somebody used one of those long poles to hold a camera up to my window, I'd resent it as much as a drone. </p> <p>Additionally, although society would not accept my actions, I would not feel morally wrong by reaching out the window and pushing the ladder over. I'm just not a nice guy. Or maybe I just don't roll over when somebody's trying to take advantage of me. I know that attitude is terribly non-PC. </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. Laur....</p> <p>Oops, I closed out the above message without addressing a second part.</p> <p>" How many people do you know who hate drones because they've ever had their privacy in some way actually compromised by a flying robot?"</p> <p>Between fifty and several hundred as a matter of fact. I have a condo in a condo project which is on the grounds of what used to be the 150 acre plus Paradise Lakes Nudist Club. The club had financial problems and the properties were sold. The actual club is now just a few acres, which happened to be adjacent to the condo project I live in most of the year. Some sleazebag real estate clown decided to fly his drone around the neighborhood "in case he ever got a listing in there, he could show the pictures." Of course, the drone ended up over the actual club of five swimming pools and was freely taking pictures of everybody in there. Many of my neighbors have a membership to the club facilities. Many other people I know who are generally within the old Paradise project also were in the club area. There are no real estate units that could come for sale on the actual club grounds. I believe he was invading those people's privacy. Anyone who approached the door of the club for admittance would have seen a large sign noting that photography was prohibited. It is my understanding he had been on the club grounds before, so certainly knew the rules and the wishes of the people on the club grounds. His excuse for having the drone in the area is suspect at the very least, and in my mind, when over the club itself was a clear privacy violation of many people whom I know both casually and quite well.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p> <p>P.S. Had I been in the condo at the time, I would NOT have shot it down. But…only because I would not know where the bullet would come down. </p>

<p>Mr. Laur....</p> <p>Yes, I can be more specific and probably should have been. Yes, I really have my problems with inappropriate government surveillance, but that is not a subject for the board, nor was I referring to that. </p> <p>What I was referring to with my comment was the privacy issue where a drone is able to look in someone's window and see an area or human action, only by that method. In other words, if you're on the 20th floor of a building across the street from another 20-story building whose stories are reasonably even with yours, you might not have the expectation of privacy, even though you're 20 stories up. If you're 20 stories up, surrounded by three-story buildings, you could expect privacy a few feet back from the window. Somebody running a drone up and taking pictures through that window, in my opinion, would be violating personal privacy. In a residential area of one-story houses, a family might feel free to go skinny-dipping in their pool behind a ten-foot tall block wall. For a drone to hover above the pool, feeding back pictures which are going on You Tube or Facebook, I feel is an invasion of personal privacy. </p> <p>Thank you for your comment. As talk of governmental peeping is verboten on the board, I had not thought to differentiate between governmental and personal peeping. </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. Atkins....</p> <p>First, let me thank you for your many contributions to Photonet.</p> <p>Back on subject, perhaps being old and feeble-minded, I could see Manhattan, even at rush hour, as being part of a nature photo. Take, for instance, some of those cute little pictures that show a traffic officer stopping traffic for a line of ducks to cross the street safely. Having it downtown Manhattan at rush hour, rather than having it in a small rural less-crowded road would actually add, in my mind, to its appeal.</p> <p>Like they said in the hippie era, "Different strokes for different folks."</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p> <p>P.S. Maybe I should do a Get Smart "Sorry about that, Chief." over using the word "hippie." How un-PC.</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>My answer is "Privacy." </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr Kahn...</p> <p>"Last, this shot of my "office". Do you really think telephone poles are a part of nature here?" </p> <p>Just as much as the US Forest Service office is part of nature there. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bergman...</p> <p>Thank you, Sir. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Manire....</p> <p>Mr. Sarile to the rescue, as he's done many times before. Unless you're into nostalgia, scratch my suggestion of the Kodak Signet. The Pentax MX with the 40mm pancake lens, although a little wider, will have less fore to aft distance, which will stick out less in your pocket. I've used an example of that lens and it is sharp, sharp, sharp. If you want wet prints, it will probably out-resolve the enlarging lens. If you have your film scanned, unless you use the most expensive drum scanner, it's going to out-resolve the scanner, including that nice Noritsu commercial that does about a real 6000 ppi (provided the goofball who is bulk scanning your film at the photo finisher has set it right). Plus the SMC coating will make the most of the color palette of any color film you might use, and do well with a range of tones in B&W films. Don't forget to use a tight lens cover that is not prone to come off. Older Pentax focal plane shutters tend to retain shutter speeds closer to the markings than the Kodak Signet's iris/leaf style.</p> <p>Since you're new to the board, notice how much quantity and quality of effort Mr. Sarile put in your reply. I can also name several others with similar knowledge bases here on Photonet who are also willing to share their years of experience with you.</p> <p>Again, welcome to Photonet.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Manire… <br /> <br /> I see you’re new to the board today. Welcome aboard. <br /> <br /> Have you considered an early 1950s era Kodak Signet 35? <br /> <br /> The Signet 35 advertising stated this lens as being as sharp as their German, more expensive Retina 35mm cameras. My experience would be that would be true for the Retina with the four-element lens, but not the Retina with the six-element lens. The coating on the lens was one of the better for both Kodachrome and black and white contemporary films. Some of the other cameras mentioned in this thread are quite costly. If you want a small framed fully manual camera, but want to maintain the sharp results of your SLR, this is probably the most cost effective way to do it. It has a 44mm four-element Ektar lens. Top shutter speed is 1/300^th, limiting the use of fast film at fast F stops. Also, any adjustable quality lens is going to protrude, making it less pocketable than the later electronic retractable lens cameras, which would lie flatter in your pocket. The trick is getting one with either accurate or known shutter speeds. I bought some apparently good condition samples from Ebay until I got one with shutter speeds I could use. I have a shutter tester. The one I use is 1/160^th at the 300 mark, about 1/125^th at the 100 mark, and about 1/64^th at the 50 mark. Those are shutter speeds I can use with the films I was using. For instance, the then end run of Kodachrome was rated at ISO 25 and 64. Both Fuji and Kodak made a pretty decent negative film rated at ISO 160. Kodak had just put out the latest Ektar negative film at ISO100. By using shutter speeds that were the same as the film ISO rating, I could then adjust the F stop for the light conditions and get an excellent exposure. The Kodachrome 25 just had to be two stops away from the light value I would have chosen for 100. None of the shutter speeds were spot on, but they were ones I could work with to get a perfect exposure. For a compact, fully manual 35mm camera with a sharp lens, I believe it is the bang for buck champion with today’s Sleazebay prices. <br /> <br /> An expensive consideration, but high quality and very pocketable, is the much-heralded Yashica T4 Super (T5 in some markets). It is full auto and perhaps is off topic in a classic manual camera forum. It’s classic, but not manual. It is well weather/dust sealed and is very pocketable. The four-element genuine Karl Zeiss Tessar lens has a superb reputation that my examples have lived up to. It was being sold new in the same era as the Nikon F4, the Canon 1N, and the Minolta 9XI which were top of the line cameras from the Big Three used by working professionals. Their pocket camera was usually the T4 Super. It was also known to be the only full-auto compact in its era that would measure the light accurately enough to be used with fussy slide film. Today’s prices are high due to its quality reputation. The drawbacks are lack of manual override for exposure settings and it will not do intermittent shutter speeds like 64, 100, 250, 320, etc. It also will not go below 50, so some of that Adox high definition 20 and 25 ISO film can’t be used. Still, the high price is fair, considering the pocketability and excellent lens coating. <br /> <br /> In the early 2000s, being a Kodachrome fanatic, I used both of the above side by side one day with some Kodachrome 64. I will refer you to the results below. Open each one up to the original size so, moving around on your screen, you can look through the two glass doors to some plantings that are about 150 yards/meters away. You’ll notice things look a little larger with the Signet because it’s a 44mm lens vs. the Yashica’s 35mm lens. The lenses were set to the front of the building. Still, as you look through both a heavy glass door and a heavy rear commercial picture window, both tinted, you’ll see a lot of detail in the plantings despite the fact that the focus is about 130 yards in front. Both shots are in Kodachrome 64. Both were processed back to back at Dwayne’s in Kansas. And both were scanned at 4000 ppi on a Nikon 5000 dedicated film scanner. Detail is terrific for a fixed four-element lens. Remarkable too is that the Signet lens serial number indicates a 1956 manufacturing date. <br /> <br /> Here is the result for the Signet 35: <br /> <br /> /> <br /> Here is the result for the Yashica T4 Super: <br /> <br /> /> <br /> A. T. Burke <br /> <br />P.S. Mr. Amos’s recommendation of the Olympus XA fits the most pocketable category. I have three. Only one had the lens resolving power of the Signet 35 even though it is years more modern and has a six-element lens. I got OK semi-automatic exposures, but not always on enough for a critical shot with fussy slide film. So.. Pocketble it is, but there was wide area of lens quality control and exposure is more suited to B&W or color negative films that have a wide latitude and a second chance to get exposure right in the printing process. One more point for the XA is the pocketability WITH flash attached! Opt for the A16 flash over the more common A11 if possible</p>

<p>Mr. Andrews: </p> <p>"40 year old negatives will show some fading. It is not hard to recover a good image, but it will require separate settings for the red, green, and blue channels." </p> <p>When purchasing a Nikon 5000 slide scanner, the software included Applied Science Fiction's ROC (for return of color). I don't know that one could not use programs like DXO, Photoshop, and Paint Shop Pro or some combination thereof to get the same results, but ROC automatically got you 90-100% back to the original colors in most cases. It was especially effective with Ektachrome that turned reddish-brown. Applied Science Fiction was acquired by Kodak and then apparently was sold to a marketing company. You can still purchase it as a separate module for use with any scanner. Normally, I'd be leery of a marketing company, but these people have been responsible and have even sent me new codes for one of their products I had bought from Kodak as I changed computers. Somebody there is bright enough to make the most out of the goodwill they paid as they bought the product, which is to our benefit. The only downside is they are marketers, not engineers, and the software has not been improved upon. Still, it's plenty good as the last generation change was made by ASF. </p> <p>The limitations are on size of the input file. With my Nikon 9000, the purchased ROC will do a 6X6 and 6X7 slide, but often runs out of memory on 6X9s. With my Minolta 5400 II that scans at 5400 ppi, the purchased package will easily do the max scan. The supposedly 6400 ppi scan from the Epsons, using 6X9 or 4X5 film, are not doable. I don't know there's enough of that equipment used that it would pay the marketers to port it up to a 64 bit iteration, which would solve the problem. </p> <p>ROC has saved me untold hours of manual adjustment. </p> <p>With my continued acknowledgement for both your work on Kodachrome and your sharing of its knowledge here on Photonet, </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. Drawbridge…<br> <br> What an interesting resurrected piece of history. Things like that were used during the depression. People did just about anything to make a living. May I refer you to a picture, which is the product of another type of depression era street vendor? <br> <br> <a href=" <br> <br> A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. G...</p> <p>I guess times change. The meaning of words has certainly changed over time. I see where you got your posted definition of “platitude”. It was not as I understood it (educated in the late 20s and 30s) from my hearing and using it over my lifetime. So I looked for other definitions and this one from Wikipedia is more what I spent my life time understanding the word to mean: </p> <p>“A platitude is a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, generally directed at quelling social, emotional, or cognitive unease. The word derives from plat, French word for "flat." Platitudes are geared towards presenting a shallow, unifying wisdom over a difficult topic. However, they are too overused and general to be anything more than undirected statements with ultimately little meaningful contribution towards a solution.” </p> <p>Heavy on the terms "trite" and “shallow”, if you will. </p> <p>Used in the Wikipedia sense, I would understand Mr. Gubins point. I would not necessarily be one to whom he was referring? </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Thoughts of a nonagenarian...</p> <p>1. The nudity or showing/viewing of the dreaded genitals.... In my youth, the Naturist movement had just started in Germany (FKK) and had NOT made it to the USA. Still, some members of my family were quite liberal (labor, Communists, Socialists) and some of those thought whole body exposure to the sun was a good health thing. As they got older, they made use of the Post WWII nudist places. The Kids are now quite old themselves. All in all I have seen no negative effect on the children born during or just after WWII. They have had a whole life to go through (now in their 70s) and if there were nudist related deficiencies, I did not see them. </p> <p>1a. Some became members of the ASA (American Sunbathing Association) in the late 1950s. The association put out a pamphlet in about 1990 citing a study concerning the differences between a nudist child and “others.” I remember a few of the statistics. (1) 15% of the teen pregnancy. (2) 3/8^th of a point higher GPA. (3) 1/3 lower divorce rate. (4) 50% higher college entrance rate. </p> <p>Ok, it was their results and I do not know who the “others” were. Still, those results were not bad and not unlike those I saw among my friends nudist/non-nudist kids. </p> <p>2. When I was about 7-10, my mother had an old grammar school friend (female) who used to flash me from time to time. I don’t think it hurt me or changed my thinking in a negative way. </p> <p>3. In 95 years I’ve known far too many women who were molested as children. Most all of those I subsequently found out about have had some problem related to the molestation, ranging from a little to quite a bit. From appearances to me, the worst case was of a gal I met and dated in high school. In our 60s, I found out she had had a pretty steady molestation from about 8 to 11. The oafs were a small group of her father’s drinking buddies. They evidently wanted pre-pubescent girls only. As she entered puberty, they pushed her aside. It was the rejection that affected her the most. To me, that confession explained a lot of her high school age behavior/feelings/fitting in problems. I did not first know her until about a decade after molestation, but have thought if only I’d have known when we were dating in school. On the other hand I might still be in jail. </p> <p>4. As to the defense of her mother by the younger Mann, the mother must have done something right in her role of Mother to make the child that protective and supportive of her mother. Children will also accept the standards of their parents until told otherwise by society et.al. I was about 6 when a large group of friends and neighbors traveled to the desert. There was an unexpected river. All the kids (20-25) were invited to disrobe and jump in. I chose not to but most did. Later on, we kids did not think much of it except that it had been a swell time.</p> <p>5. Society in the USA has gone ape. I took the usual naked-baby-on-the-rug pictures. But, with times like they are and nearing the end I have distributed them to the kids and/or shredded them. I don’t want my executor to get in trouble because he/she was found guilty of finding them as he/she clears out my stuff, geeeeeese! </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>New, not really...</p> <p>In the 1950s, America was in a prosperous time. Having a picture taken of your table at a posh eatery, private dinner, golf or yacht club, and commercial night club (77 Sunset Strip type) was de rigueur. The photographer usually used a medium format camera with bulb flash. </p> <p>An enterprising photographer would teach nice looking youngish women how to take table pictures. He (usually a “He”) would drop off the picture takers from his step van at suitable places along night club row. He would retrieve the shot film from the sales gals and hot soup it in the van. Enlargements were hurriedly made and the pictures were then dropped off so the gals could deliver, collect and shoot some more as the tables were turned. Often the brick and mortar establishment would get a cut and sometimes the Head Waiter. </p> <p>Some of the larger places such as a casino or a hotel during conventions would rent space for the van or even a room for the work to be done. </p> <p>Today, in the few places and events that do that kind of thing, the photographer just has a digital camera in his hand and a small delivery van outside with extra battery and inverter to run a computer and inkjet printer. </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. Cozine...</p> <p>I was 40 years old that year. I had a family, had owned a home for 10 years and had a pretty decent job. In my situation, had I to do it over again, I would have bought the Kodak Retina Reflex S with the 50mm, F:1.9 six element lens. I loved Kodachrome. The lens would have out resolved Kodachrome and the later 1962’s Kodachrome II. Enlargements with a good enlarger lens would go 10x.</p> <p>If asked about the early 1950s when I was less well situated, I would have bought something for under $100. I would take the Kodak Signet 35 which had usable shutter speeds and a very good coated four element lens.</p> <p>Into the 1960s and since, I would be able to buy much better gear than the Kodak brand for less money.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p> <p>Mr. von Weinberg. </p> <p>I may well be one of the ones you do not miss. Nevertheless, I have greatly appreciated both your participation and the quality of your participation. You have continued the sprit promoted by the founder Mr. Greenspun “People helping each other to improve their photographic skills.” </p> <p>I wish you well in all you do,</p> <p>A. T. Burke </p> <p>P.S. Today I received my copy of your recommended “The Commissar Vanishes.” I have only thumbed through it briefly, but remember some of the included photos “way back when.” Some were first published when I was a schoolboy. Others preceded my literacy, but were probably seen while doing a school paper on a related subject. As a naive lad, I would have never questioned their authenticity. </p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p> <p>A Walmart Supercenter in Lutz, FL has just removed the row of stand-alone photo printing machines. The row of user terminals that feed the large Fuji printer is still there. However, in this last calendar year I have never seen a person behind the “Photo Desk.” I probably only average going there about once every two weeks but always use the entrance next to the photo center. I go at different times of the day. Still 12 visits seeing an empty desk and now the removal of all totally self service stations seems like a progression away from the service. </p> <p>Anyone closer to the corporation know their immediate intentions for Walmart in general? </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. von Weinberg. </p> <p>I may well be one of the ones you do not miss. Nevertheless, I have greatly appreciated both your participation and the quality of your participation. You have continued the sprit promoted by the founder Mr. Greenspun “People helping each other to improve their photographic skills.” </p> <p>I wish you well in all you do,</p> <p>A. T. Burke </p> <p>P.S. Today I received my copy of your recommended “The Commissar Vanishes.” I have only thumbed through it briefly, but remember some of the included photos “way back when.” Some were first published when I was a schoolboy. Others preceded my literacy, but were probably seen while doing a school paper on a related subject. As a naive lad, I would have never questioned their authenticity. </p>

<p>Mr. Klein... </p> <p>"This is when a good editor steps in to make sure the photos that are selected for publishing meets certain standards."</p> <p>Yes, and they are not doing a right and proper job. Some taint content with their own political, social and/or moral views. Others pimp for their bosses and employers. Either way the title “Editor” has been well tarnished.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>May I divert anyway? </p> <p>Was it just a little boy’s salute like we took it at the time? Was it a cheesy publicity stunt as some have said? What is the truth? Was it tautology truth? Was it Orwellian truth? Who really knows? </p> <p>As an ex WWII serviceman and a graduate of the canoe school, many of the friends I maintained contact with were also in government service. The Secret Service is government service. They are pretty tight lipped. However I did hear a UNVERIFIRD story second or third hand many years ago from an old school source. </p> <p>John-John could not grasp death per se, but was told his father was gone for good. He was a very unhappy little boy, to say the least. His mother was telling him about what would take place the next day (funereal day). One of the things she said was that all the soldiers (he liked soldiers) would be saluting his father as the Caisson passed. John-John confused and bewildered, never the less evidentially had some understanding and asked if he too could do that. The mother naturally replied in the affirmative. </p> <p>If that is just a story or untrue rumor, at least it is a nice one. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>