a._t._burke

<p>Ms. Oretsky....</p> <p>You’ve gotten some good pointers here. Are you the Kite flyer on Flicker? If you are, may I say a word towards using an alternative slower film. The shutters only go up to 1/500^th. The 1/500^th usually does not get near specs even when fine-tuned. That leaves 1/250^th and slower for a chance of accuracy. You take some of your pictures in bright light. Using 400 speed film, that means you would be limited to F:32 where diffraction reduces sharpness. The sweet spot on most of Mamiya’s lenses is around F:8. Many of the lenses have better native resolution than the diffraction limit up to about F:8. </p> <p>Using 100 speed film would get you down to 1/250^th at F:11 on the brightest days. Just a little overcast and you would be 1/250^th at F:8. If you take indoor natural light shots, like seen on Flickr, 400 would be fine and in B&W when you can find it. Your (?) outdoor “bridge” shot on Flickr could take 400 speed film. </p> <p>About the various lenses and Mamiya TLR iterations, you’ll find a lot of information here: </p> <p><a href="http://grahampatterson.home.comcast.net/~grahampatterson/grahamp/mfaq/m_faq.pdf">http://grahampatterson.home.comcast.net/~grahampatterson/grahamp/mfaq/m_faq.pdf</a> </p> <p>Notice that there are two 80mm lenses. The F:2.8 is sharper than the F:3.7 at all apertures . The blue dot lenses are thought to be sharper in general than the others. There IS a sample to sample variation. </p> <p>Welcome to film? </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Ms. Morris,</p> <p>I've owned a 2450 since new. I also have later flatbeds, as well as the latest generation Nikon film-only scanners, the 5000 and 9000. The 2450 does a better job that you'd think. Below I have put a tag for a scan from a medium format slide done on a 2450. You might take a look at the resolution on both the license plate and the little lettering that can be seen on the right rear hubcap.</p> <p><a href=" </p> <p>Also at the top of the page, tap on the 2048 size and take a look at how sharp that is. Move the view around on your screen and you can see how really crisp that would be on a very large enlargement. If you tap on the other size numbers, 1600, etc., you can kind of get an idea of how sharp it will be at various size prints. Of course, the print may be printed even sharper at up to 300 ppi where your screen has less than 100 ppi. </p> <p>Next to that in my photo stream is the same slide done on two other scanners, supposedly having much more resolution. It's true they do a little better job, but the 2450 is quite adequate. It also does 4X5 positive and negative film. In its day, it was their top of the line unit and is better made than some of the higher numbered later models that weren't at the absolute top of the range at that later time.</p> <p>It is an excellent starter scanner. The USB 1.1 is not as slow compared to the 4180 with the USB 2, which technically should be much faster, but isn't.</p> <p>You're a good girlfriend to have. Not only are you willing to give him a gift that he would like, but you're using extra effort and trying extra hard to get just the right product. It seems not many people care that much, but you do.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Dalquist: </p> <p>For only $450, you would probably be better off having the slides commercially made. </p> <p>You would have to buy some bulk maskless movie film negative. You would need to buy a cassette reloader and reloadable cassettes. If you did not want to purchase a professional slide duplicator, they do have adapter mount lenses for SLRs which you could purchase to expose the movie film. Of course, you would have to mount each negative in a slide mount for use in the adapter. The tricky part is getting the right filter for each of the various brand, model and year manufactured negative film to compensate for the contrast mask. Then you would either have to develop at home and purchase all that equipment if you did not have it, along with chemicals, etc. Then you would have to mount the negatives. There would be a lot of waste as you tried to get the demasking filters correct. Plus of course all the cost of development, whether done at home or jobbed out. If you were good at trying to get the masking right, and not too fussy about the results, you would probably only end up exposing at least 750 slides (movie film). But if you were not proficient and fussy about the colors, you could end up exposing a minimum of 1000-2000 movie film shots that would become the “slide” as the negative of a negative. </p> <p>I wouldn’t even think about going through the process, especially with the materials available today vs. 20 years ago for less than 3000-5000 slides. Then you add the aggravation factor. </p> <p>On the other hand, if you already own all the equipment necessary (and I don’t think you do or you would not be asking the question), even then the break-even point financially might be at least 1000 slides, providing you did not factor in your time, frustration and aggravation. </p> <p>One more thought would be at $1/slide they can’t afford the waste to filter properly for each different roll of negatives, considering the various brands, models, time they were manufactured, and how well they have been kept. Twenty to thirty years ago, there were some tremendous labs in the midwest and on both coasts that had a combination of tenured knowledgeable people and early computer technology, which made it possible to produce well-colored slides without a lot of waste. Additionally, a copy of a copy, even when contact printed, is never as sharp as the original. I own both an SLR adapter lens and a professional grade machine for duping slides, a similar exposure process except for the demasking filters. The SLR unit uses over 50% of the resolution. The professional unit keeps 75-80% of the resolution. Contact printing keeps about 90% but that’s still a 10% loss in sharpness. </p> <p>My guess is you really don’t want to do those yourself, or will come to that conclusion long before you finish the project. </p> <p>I can’t fault your wanting to do it, as I’m one of the old dinosaurs here who loves film. As much as it pains me to say it, you’d probably be better off digitizing. Done yourself, it would be a lot cheaper than a buck a piece. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Glad to see you back, Mr. M. </p> <p>Are you sure that the Vredeborch Felica is not just a Hit that shared a can of spinach with Popeye? </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>“When the Viewer Doesn't Get it”. Hmmm...</p> <p>Wow, does that piss off some artists who then look down on the viewer as ignorant or tasteless. Many times I’ve seen that reaction and been tempted to say to the so called artist “When you thought you were being so cleverly subtle and artistic, you were simply being obtuse.” </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Bergman,<br> Thank you for your continuing series of same-month many years ago. I have some of the same magazines and even read some of them when they were new. It takes a lot of effort to do all the photocopying and posting to Flickr. Yet each month, you continue to make that effort on behalf of your fellow photo enthusiasts. You're truly a Photonet member who operates on the original Photonet spirit of sharing the hobby with one another. </p> <p>I look forward to your February posts showing Dynachrome vs Kodachrome. I have tried to buy that old issue but have not been able to find it. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Hector...</p> <p>I'll bet your 1960 Oldsmobile is really a 1960 Chevrolet. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Henderson:</p> <p>Please see the following for a "bear story".</p> <p><a href=" <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p> <p>Yikes, how rude. Why those folks must think it a public park rather than the private preserve for the all-important wildlife photographer. That is truly a display of temerity and failure to properly recognize their obvious betters.</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. M. said “I've got piles of exposed film but little desire to process and present it.” </p> <p>Sir,</p> <p>Your found film posts were some of the best ever presented on Photonet. Many of us would like to see you back. We have considerable desire to see you process it and present it. Of course that means you do all the work, as appreciated as it is. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p> <p>I’m sure you people are a great disappointment to the KEH marketing weenies. How dare you?</p> <p>A. T. Burke</p> <p>P.S. Just because you are right is no excuse.</p>

<p>Mr. Bergman...</p> <p>Several years ago, Gene M’s Found Film posts were the best on Photonet. I sure missed his posts. But, now we have your excellent Old Magazine posts to bring life back to the site. </p> <p>Thank you for the hours of work you do for each magazine issue. I remember reading many of your posts 50 to 65 years ago when they were hot off the press. They are better the second time around! </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Herrmannsfeldt...</p> <p>Kodachrome from beginning to end was always available in roll film cut to 35mm widths. This included, at various time periods, the standard 135 size, the 828 size and the 126 size. </p> <p>Kodachrome was also made in the popular 16mm movie format which was sometimes sold as 8mm by using a splitter. Some re-branders re-spooled and sometimes re-cut this film for use in micro cameras such as the Minox. </p> <p>For a short time in the 80s Kodachrome was available in 120 size, 64 speed. I can find no evidence that 127 was even test marketed. Some may have been made for in house use as an experiment? I have seen 127 Kodachrome slides in 127 mounts. They were made by using a Mamiya film punch that punched a 127 size chunk out of 120 Kodachrome. In a way it was kind of interesting. In another way it was a shame to deface some of the rare 120 Kodachrome slides taken with a quality lensed camera. </p> <p>Additionally, in the late 30s, 40s, and early 50s Kodachrome was available in sheet film sizes. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Horton....</p> <p>If the image is a little less than 1” square it could be made with a Stereo Realist type camera or a Robot brand non-stereo camera on 35mm Kodachrome film. </p> <p>If you are trying to scan them in a dedicated slide scanner, many scanners will factor in its calculated exposure the slide mount part that would normally be in a 35mm slide frame. This usually results in a bad scan exposure. With some dedicated slide scanners such as the Nikon 5000, you can overcome this by using your pointer to bring in the sides of the usual scan area to the edges of the image. With other scanners such as the Nikon IV ED it improves the results a little but can still give off exposure and/or off color slides. </p> <p>If you use an Epson brand flatbed scanner with the top backlight, just adjust the scan area to the film area and you should get acceptable results. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Cloven.....</p> <p>Yes the Nortisu scanner is pretty good. If you look here: </p> <p><a href=" <p>and open the picture at full size you can see just how good. I own a Nikon 5000 and a Minolta 5400II. The Nortisu scanner comes out with more pixels than the Nikon 5000, but a little less detail. I also resized the Noritsu from 4600 PPI down to the Nikon’s rating of 4000 PPI. There was a little more detail in the Nikon scan that was not in the Noritsu scan. I do not have a Noritsu so I cannot test it with my USAF1951 test slide. However, judging the Noritsu results against other tested scanners I would guess the actual resolution is about 3000 PPI against 3800-4000 with the Nikon 5000. The Minolta 5400 II tested out very close to its rated 5400 PPI and easily outdoes both the Nikon and Noritsu units. </p> <p>I also quote from the caption below my post of the referenced comparison picture on Flickr. </p> <p>“The 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. 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.” </p> <p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p> <p>May I vote the Classic Manual Cameras Forum “most informative and helpful”? </p> <p>When Photonet was started it mainly appealed to people who were trying to learn to be better photographers. Every thing about photography was not full auto. It took some skill to take a good picture. Film cameras were not as good at masking our errors, as is today’s modern all electric marvels. We all did not have Photoshop to undo our poor shots. </p> <p>Today the camera does our work for us. It even has features like HDR. HDR takes away the need for proper lighting. One used to have to know how to use reflectors and light filters (like a big sheet held by four people over the head of a model on the beach), set multiple lights in their proportional ratios and placements so highlights were not burnt out and to build up light in the darker places. </p> <p>Reciprocity, mechanical shutter accuracy, compensation for film age all made or broke the final output. </p> <p>Today, who cares about talent or workmanship? The most important and popular aspect about most of the discussion I see here now is receiving personal superlatives. </p> <p>Times and values change. Probably the only reason I see value in informational forums like the Classic Manual Cameras Forum is that I’m as out of date as my old body. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>