a._t._burke

<p>Mr. Klein...</p> <p>Gotta like your statement! </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bhattacharya... </p> <p>Well said. </p> <p>I like your term “preferential truth”. I think that term that would apply to the type of “knowledge” my boy would have gotten from the dropped Journalism class. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. G...</p> <p>When I responded your post I did not mention the other two lines in the paragraph that named me and Mr. Bayer. So may I correct my replying post? </p> <p>As to the part of that paragraph that reads “But that preference really has nothing to do with truth, little if anything to do with political propaganda, and does not prevent any sort of fall onto the supposedly slippery slope toward Nazism or some other malignant political cancer.”, I respectfully but totally disagree. </p> <p>In the early 1960s my son was in college and needed three undergraduate “English” credits. Not into the English subject, he thought he would get the credits by taking a Journalism class. On the first day the professor stated something like----The purpose of Journalism is no longer to just report the facts but is to change public opinion. Furthermore anyone who would not accept that mission was to drop his class.--- My son did so and chose to take a dreaded regular English class. Good for him! </p> <p>However, unfortunately we are now living with the work product of that generation’s Journalists. </p> <p>Mr. Bayer...</p> <p>No, please do not drop those young minds. Yours may be the only voice of dissent. Without your class participation they will never have the ability to choose between the two philosophies. Despite peer and professor pressure, a few might react to your teachings positively. </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. G...</p> <p>“It seems to me that Mr. Burke and Daniel Bayer are simply expressing their own preferences for non-post-processed photos (to the extent that's even possible).” </p> <p>Not speaking for Mr. Bayer, your statement is right on if you add the thought of limiting that preference to Photo Journalism. For art, fun, intellectual interest, etc., Photoshoping (generic term) is useful and has a legitimate place. </p> <p>General comment...(not answering Mr. G.)</p> <p>Another use of photo manipulation besides supposedly legitimate news sources and government mischief that I do not care for is advertising. This loooooooong yacht, now the Frances Amy B used to be the Christabel when I owned it (as a corporate asset) in the early 1980s. I know the current on-line advertising photo is not how it looks. So, I used Paint Shop Pro ver. 9 to shorten the .jpg. By golly, then it looked like it did when I owned it, surprise! I think I reduced it by about 30% to get it right. Yes, I realize in the pre-Photoshop days perspective printing was used to make those Cadillac class cars look a little longer and lower. Advertising artists had also been enhancing automotive reality since autos were first sold. </p> <p>At the lease rates the boat goes for some stupid people must have gotten pretty rich. That ad has been there for years and so I doubt any customer has called them on it. The lessors know darn well they can get away with it. Truth in advertising is a mercantile concern. Still I don’t have to like it. </p> <p>Here is the enhanced (only for artistic purposes naturally) advertising view: </p> <p><a href="http://www.superyachtintelligence.com/fleetdata_image.html?SYNO=3001079">http://www.superyachtintelligence.com/fleetdata_image.html?SYNO=3001079</a> </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. G...</p> <p>Ok, The Photoshop question may be solved? But then why is it so bad to bring up what I see as the wrong in the Nazi regime? Do you feel that I am a Nazi basher? Do you feel that I was bullying them? Do you feel that my stance as just prejudice against a regime that does not deserve some distaste? </p> <p>I do not get it. Perhaps I just don’t see them in the “right” light. </p> <p>On the Iraq photos...Some media seemed to show photos that put our efforts in good light, others in a bad light. Also, in the beginning, much of the media hyped that we were doing everything right. As the public grew weary, the media portrayed the war in a lesser light. I resent the news pandering rather than reporting. That is not news but is propaganda and belongs on a talk show with someone like Allen Combs to pander to the left or ol’ Rush to pander to the right. That is talk..like bar talk or water cooler talk. People who convince themselves that talk shows are hard news deserved to remain ignorant. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Gubin...</p> <p>“Based upon what he had seen of the world since 1919, his viewpoint, though interpreted as a bit extreme by those of us born decades later, gives him a certain wariness and concern toward technological developments which we take for granted and generally see as beneficial.” </p> <p>Yes, living through history does give me a different viewpoint. May I say that it is not the technology I’m concerned about (see my point 1 in an earlier post) but the increased in the amount of purposeful disinformation coming from so-called trusted sources like the “Free Press” and government. I see history repeating itself. Different technology is in use to propagate the same old stuff for the same old reason. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bayer...</p> <p>Good for you! </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p> <p>Point 1: I think (but don’t know for sure) what caused Mr. G’s ire with my post was that he thought I was decrying or bashing the Photoshop program. I was using Photoshop in the current lexicon as a generic term for photo altering. If I had used old fashion terms like airbrushing or going back farther, etching or scraping fewer folks would connect those words to photo altering.</p> <p>Point 2: I was addressing the photo part of disinformation rather than the spoken or printed word, not because I was unaware that the other existed but because this is a photo oriented web site.</p> <p>Point 3: I don’t know how chatrooms came into a discussion of photo journalism. I was a child in the 1920s. We did not have chatrooms. We did have sandlots, parks, playgrounds and back yards. Sometimes when a group of children seemed to be having a good time, all of a sudden some child would start wailing with tears running down his/her cheeks. Often the child ran home and cried something like “Mommy, do you know what little Billy said.”</p> <p>“Mommy” then took action with little Billy or told their child to dust it off. Either way, the group play resumed, often like nothing happened.</p> <p>Aren’t today’s chatrooms no more than yesterday’s sandlot for people who are over 21 but not adults? Maybe the biggest difference is that chatroom users lack the ability to dust it off. </p> <p>It is not photo journalism.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Lee</p> <p>I have both the 50mm f1.9 Retina-Xenon and the 50mm f2.8 Retina-Xenar in DKL mount. Both are probably only single coated (early 1960s) but quite sharp. The 50mm f1.9 at F:1.9 is a little sharper than the 50mm f2.8 at F:2.8. The 50mm f1.9 is a even more sharp at F:2.8. Around F:8 to F:16 both are excellent and not too far apart in resolution. </p> <p>I also have the 45mm f2.8 Retina-Xenar which came as the standard lens on Retina’s 126 Instamatic outfitted SLR. It is sharper than the 50mm f2.8 but not quite up to the 50mm f1.9. Although supposedly designed for the smaller diameter 126 film exposure (39.82mm vs 43.27mm) it seems to cover the standard 35mm quite well and is a smaller lens like the 50mm f2.8. </p> <p>Ya’ pays ya’ money and ya’ takes ya’ chance. </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. von Weinberg...</p> <p>Thanks. I just ordered the book. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Willemse...</p> <p>“The point made was more that words can twist the news as much as Photoshop can.” Yes, I understand that. I, rightly or wrongly, got out of the article and sub-authors that the writers are (or can be) even bigger deceivers than photo manipulators. My point is that it is all wrong. </p> <p>The reason I brought up the Nazis is that their whole culture, government, party policy etc. were built, based on and made successful on public information manipulation. </p> <p>Mr. Mike Godwin (Godwin’s law) was born in 1956. He went to Jr. High, High School and college in the 1970s. Maybe he feels free to smirk over ancient history. I was born in 1919. I spent about the same formative years of my life in the 1930s as I watched the rise and exercise of Nazi power. I heard the defenders, the detractors, the enthusiasts and the appeasers. Then I had to pay the price and sometimes even worse, watch others pay the price. </p> <p>History has a way of repeating itself. </p> <p>So, I stand firmly against the manipulation of public perception in any form. I realize most board members will think I should apologize for my stance, I don’t. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>I realize I’m in the minority opinion by disapproving Photoshop manipulated (sensationalized) so-called news pictures. On the other hand I did witness the rise of Nazi Germany. </p> <p>The article mentioned story telling. But is it a guise for manipulation? Is it conditioning us to accept the big lies? Manipulation is advocated by many, provided it is the right kind of manipulation. You know, it’s for the right reasons or right cause. How does the manipulator determine what the right reason/cause is? Why it is their cause, dummy! </p> <p>And so Orwellian dishonesty is defended... by those with something to gain. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Smith...</p> <p>Here all this time I thought it was Buffy who was bent out of shape. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Smith...</p> <p>Sorry to bore you and make you yawn, like REAL sorry. Well, at least we now have a more expert, experienced and learned view. BTW I did put in parentheses (that does not mean challenging or threatening). </p> <p>I include below a picture tag of a poor soul who did not have the benefit of the obvious wisdom. </p> <p><a href=" </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Hill...</p> <p>Perhaps his squatting down was the triggering event. I’ve had a number of big cat encounters of which three turned semi-risky. I believe the only reason I lived to be really old is that I NEVER took my eyes off of theirs. I also puffed up or rose up a little and projected a no-nonsense attitude (that does not mean challenging or threatening) when required. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Spinoza: </p> <p>The ground glass images are right side up. The whole world had turned upside down. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bergman...</p> <p>That was a lot of work and I thank you. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Edelstein,</p> <p>I’m 95.</p> <p>I have never worried about feeling creative in any aspect of my life. I’ve never even thought much about being creative. I’m sure I’m not typical. Except when learning to use my first NEW camera in 1937 or 1938, most of the pictures I’ve taken have been for someone else, but never for money.</p> <p>I’ve never cared much what people thought unless there was a purpose, such as putting on the dog for an employer. Age has not changed me in that regard. I’m sure I’m not typical.</p> <p>The professional photographers I’ve known like (the late) John Dominus were creative in high school, the war years, his “premium” years, and his last projects. His last major project, photographing food, he considered to be his most challenging. He was still meeting that challenge superbly at 90+.</p> <p>Mr. Arnold was right when he said, “Life is not all smooth as one ages.” My observation has been that age causes folks to HAVE to spend more time to get the same results. Someone younger may see the elderly as being more contemplative when they have just slowed down some.</p> <p>That is one person’s view at 95. Perhaps I’ll change my mind when I get old.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Funka...</p> <p>Your choice #2 of the Schneider 28mm f4 for the Kodak Retina is a good one. Color is good and sharpness is pretty high. I have tested a lot of lenses with my 1951USAF chart. Although I have not tested my Retina 28mm F:4, I would, from comparison with the results of other tested lenses, think it would not limit your camera’s output. Your sensor has 83 lp/mm of pixels. I think the lens can provide that much resolution at F:8, at least in the center.<br> <br /> The lens has seven elements in six groups. Since it does not have modern coatings, I keep my front glass in the shade at all times. It may do well even with light on the front element but I just have not tried that.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bergman....</p> <p>Thank you again for all the work you put in scanning these old magazines. What a treat it is to see them again. </p> <p>I look forward to your Kodachrome article in the early part of 2015. </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. Nascimento...</p> <p>About 15 years ago, I stacked a 2X on top of a 3X and attached them to a 2000mm catadioptric lens. I used a Contax 137MD which automatically set the shutter speed for the F:stop and the light. It was a big heavy rig. However, with some strain, I panned the unit towards jets landing about five miles away and got several sharp shots out of half a roll of 100 speed film. </p> <p>Of course, I was much younger then, a mere lad of 80.</p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr. von Weinberg...</p> <p>Oops! I forgot to give you the web address???<br> <a href=" </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. von Weinberg. </p> <p>I just received my USA version, the PrimeFilm XE. I have not yet received my Stereo Realist film back from The Darkroom. I do not have any 35mm slides here in Florida, away from my home. I did have an old Kodachrome II Stereo Realist stereo slide from about 1978. I cut it in half and did a scan. The film is dirty and the view underexposed. I believe it was from a Kodak Stereo camera that only had three-element lenses, but still good quality for a three-element lens. I suspect the lens resolved the equivalent of about 3500 PPI at best. </p> <p>I have uploaded the scan to Flickr. They convert .tif files to .jpg with some compression. They are not as sharp as the upload. I have a Nikon 5000 at my home in Montana along with a Minolta 5400 II. I also have tested many scanners with the same test slide the German site uses. Edmond Scientific sells them here in the USA. From my experience I would guess the PrimeFilm XE does scan about 4000 PPI +or- which jibes with scans I have downloaded from other Reflecta ProScan 10Ts and Primescan XEs which get sharp when reduced to 80% or about 4000 PPI. I also can confirm that scanning at 10,000 PPI only produces a larger file with no more information. BUT, one must scan at 5000 PPI to get a 4000+ PPI net. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Moxham...</p> <p>I just bought one here in the USA after reading your post. I have both the Nikon 5000 and the Minolta 5400 II which scan a real 3900-4000 and over 5000 PPI respectively (as tested by me with the same glass slide the German site uses.) Unfortunately, I have neither with me here in Florida.</p> <p>I noticed the German test slide view was quite “dirty.” I hope my sample does better. I will post the results on Flickr (where one can post full size) and leave a tag for it on this forum. The films and cameras I have here are very limited. Probably the best lens is the 6 element on the Kodak Retina Reflex. With Velvia 50 I may have a film with 4000 PPI on it? Too bad that I do not have my Contax RX with the 50mm F:1.4 lens and some Techpan. That combo could over resolve the scanner which is the only way to have a good test.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Hill.... I'm away from home in Florida so I don't have my good scanner with me. I did however make a fairly large version, side by side (not cross-eyed). The view is only 9666 pixels by 5702 pixels. I hope that is large enough for your purposes.</p> <p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>