bernard_lazareff

<blockquote> <p>If somebody has inaccurately described something he's selling, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. You've done more than enough by telling him about his error.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry, but don't agree. Is that your notion of free trade between free agents? Description has (intentional?) internal contradiction between text and images. Seller response shows he has no intent to rectify this. And none of our exchange appears to prospective buyers (I thought questions and replies were for the benefit of all potential buyers). Suppose NaiveBuyer buys the camera with the legendary Yashinon, and finds out opening the box he got Yashikors; files complaint; Seller and Ebay jointly reply: "you should have looked at the pictures".</p> <p>It happened in the past that I pointed out a text/image contradiction; seller promptly rectified and thanked me. Here it's a different story (leaving aside the tone of the reply as immaterial).</p>

<p>This concerns a current sale of a classic camera -- a Yashica TLR -- on e**y. While my post is not about the camera itself, or pictures obtained with it, I believe the information below is of interest, and primarily to "Classic Camera" aficionados.<br /> I will not call names, use adjectives, or emit judgements. Just facts.<br /> This concerns object #331402966705,<br /> http://www.ebay.it/itm/Yashica-D-biottica-bioptic-camera-yashinon-80mm-f3-5-no-rolleiflex-planar-/331402966705?ssPageName=ADME:X:AAQ:IT:1123</p> <p>From the text of the announcement:<br /> <strong>Dotata dello straordinario obiettivo Yashinon 80mm f 3.5</strong><br /> <strong><strong>With the legendary lens yashinon 80mm f.3.5</strong></strong><br /> <br /> From the provided pics (see attached below). Can you read the model of the lens? <br /><br /> <br /> My message #1 to seller:</p> <blockquote> <p>You advertise :"Dotata dello __straordinario__ obiettivo Yashinon 80mm f 3.5"<br />But all your pics show a YashiKOR, with not-so-extraordinary reputation.</p> </blockquote> <p>After 2 days, sent second message:</p> <blockquote> <p>Once again: The TEXT of your offer says "straordinario obiettivo Yashinon"; the PICTURES clearly show a Yashikor, of far less value. <br />You have not answered my similar question sent more than 2 days ago.</p> </blockquote> <p>And got an answer:</p> <blockquote> <p>Don't worry about my auction.<br />It can be possible a mistake with a sh***y lens...usually we shoot with leica and 5k euros lens...so I don't care about cheap biptical.<br />Happy new year and take care of you business...not of mine.</p> </blockquote> <p>"Legendary lens" has become "sh***y lens". (*** substututed by me to bypass pnet's language filter; seller's original message had no such restriction )<br /><br /> I found NO WAY to contact e**y on this matter. All comunication is carefully restricted by a limited number of formats. <br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Thank you all for looking and for the kind comments.</p> <p>I should have mentioned that my test film had a stray light problem, but confined to the rebate (perforation region). I brought this up to John Goodman (famous expert on light seals). Despite the fact that the Olympus wide does not have foam seals (just two short felt bands) and John could not sell me anything (I bought one of his kits a few years ago), he was available for a pleasant and instructive exchange on the detailed path of that stray light. One conclusion is that the latch mechanism for the back door also plays a role as a light trap. Darin, if it somhow pops up from your drawers, I'd be happy to have it. </p>

<p>Oh, one more. Last, promise.</p> <div></div>

<p>There is, indeed, some improvement from f/3.5 to f/8, but the wide-aperture image is not ridiculous, considering the display scale (special for pixel peepers).</p> <p>All in all, a nice little camera that may become a frequent user. Decidedly better than another 35mm F.L. oldie that I presented here before: the Foca with Oplar 35/3.5. The bad news is I need to build from scratch a rear door latch mechanism, missing from my camera. I'm lucky to have a Fab Lab in Grenoble, will need to learn how to use NC mill... This little beaut deserves better than gaffer tape.</p>

<p>And now at f/8, presumably close to optimum perf. Assuming your monitor displays @100dpi, the full image would be 37 inches wide. </p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>And now at f/8, presumably close to optimum perf.</p>

<p>And now to illustrate wide-open performance. Both crops from a 2700dpi scan.<br> First wide-open 1/100@f/3.5</p> <div></div>

<p>Maybe not immediately obvious, but that scene had a large contrast; The sun was within the F.O.V., harldy veiled by a thin cloud. Yet the separation of tones of shadows in valleys is well preserved. That is one of the good surprises of the Olympus-Wide D-Zuiko: good flare resIstance.</p> <div></div>

<p>Another snow scene</p> <div></div>

<p>A backlit scene with snow and twigs; can't help doing that one over and over.</p><div></div>

<p>On the picture above, foreground right, a nice little accessory that I chanced upon last September at a rummage sale. A medium yellow filter with a flexible attachment; will solve many problems with those old classics having all odd filter sizes.<br> I loaded the Olympus with a roll of Adox Silvemax, shot over 2-3 distinct occcasions. Developed HC-110 B 8min @ 19°C. With the camera and film taken care of, I suppose you want pictures? </p><div></div>

<p>Having something like an embryo of a time sequence of Olympus (non-reflex) cameras from Pen EE-2 to Mju2 (yessir, that's a classic), I jumped on the occasion to buy a lot of one Olympus 35-S and one Olympus Wide, extending my, er, collection into the 50's.<br> Both have issues (adequately desctibed by the seller). The easiest to bring to usability was the Wide. I like the simple design and clean layout. No RF, but a nice collimated viewfinder. The shutter spans B-1/300. Shutter release very smooth. Film advance by round knob; not for action. Max aperture is 1/3.5, but I don't miss 2.8, or 1.9, or whatever, for a walkabout camera. </p> <div></div>

<p>Free for the cost of postage. <br /> <strong>Four (4) boxes each 20 GEPE Anti-Newton Slim slide mounts.</strong> <br /> <em>E.U. only.</em> Just to keep shipping costs in proportion and to keep things simple for me. <br /> If 2 (at least) claims are made within 48hrs, I'll split 2+2 boxes to make two people happy rather than just 1.<br /> 2 boxes <=0.5kg; 4 boxes <=1kg, see rates at bottom.<br /> ==============================================<br /> Free for the cost of postage.<br /> <strong>One hundred</strong> (give or take a few) <strong>filing sleeves for 35mm film, 7 strips of 6 frames. Pergamin.</strong> <br /> EU <em>only</em>. The catch: the manufacturer (Fotoimpex/Adox) thought it was a good idea to make the top sheet of pergamin 2-3mm shorter than a 6-frame strip. Possibly the idea is that the strip never gets caught "inside" the sleeve. My idea of a filing sleeve is to keep <em>all</em> parts of all strips protecetd from dust. So I give them away.<br /> Shipping weight : 0.5kg. Be aware that original purchase was 9.00€ +10.00€ (shipping), so "free for the cost of postage" is a real but not huge advantage. <br /> ==============================================<br /> zone A : Allemagne, Autriche, Belgique, Bulgarie, Chypre, Croatie,<br /> Danemark, Espagne, Estonie, Finlande, Grèce, Hongrie, Irlande, Italie, Lettonie, Lituanie,<br /> Luxembourg, Malte, Pays-Bas, Pologne, Portugal, République Tchèque, Roumanie, Royaume-<br /> Uni, Slovaquie, Slovénie, Suède, Suisse, y compris Liechtenstein, Saint-Marin, Vatican<br /> 0,5 kg 12,15€; 1 kg 14,85€<br /> <br />To France: 0,5 kg 6.45€; 1 kg 7.25€<br /> ==============================================<br /> Claim by PM. Payment by Paypal (I absorb the fee).</p><div></div>

<p>Second. A bog area, now a natural preserved zone, on the slopes of Chamrousse (1968 olympics, should anyone care/remember). Again no technical data on record.</p><div></div>

<p>Following on JDMvW's proposal; two from my C220.<br> First one is a derelict warehouse on the bank of a canal north of Paris. End December, before sunrise. <br> Apart from this being obviously shot with the 55mm, I do not have technical details. </p><div></div>

<p>Have you pointed out this "similarity" to Mr Heinz Richter? Would be interesting his explanation, if any.</p>

<p>Development for Tri-X: 15min in straight D-76 @ 20°C !!<br> Tri-X in 1954 was a different animal, but I find it hard to believe this explains everything. To me, seems to confirm a drift towards low contrast negatives, that has gone too far IMO. Sure, I can establish my own times, etc... Anyone care to comment? </p> <p>And, a big thank you, Marc, for making these available</p>

<p>After some cleaning and prostetic work, it is fully functional. Re-skinned in red faux ostritch. Didn't get around to put a film through it. Not yet. So many cameras...</p><div></div>

<p>Possibly my favorite rescue is that Olympus Trip. Must have been subjected to a flood, or stored in a damp basement. Rust had (a.o.) eaten through one of the shutter mechanism springs.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>+1 for PTGui; many years of use. Win/Mac<br /> Hugin is a free alternative Win/Mac/Linux<br /> Think twice about "distortion" (ditto for "distortion" of wideangle lenses). Basically you are asking to map a sphere to a plane, so compromises are inevitable.<br /> - Rectilinear: straight lines remain straight. But objects near the edges of the field look "stretched"<br /> - Cylindrical, spherical, etc: mitigates stretching, but straight lines come out curved.</p> <p>To answer the title of your OP: in the end, your choice. </p>

<p>Penny,<br> I'm puzzled by your remarks. <em>[The difference is clear from those. Bernard's Epson scan really gives me pause.]</em> Could you state what clear difference you see? (color balance is different, but that is a subject by itself, and I bet that, while anyone can see the colors are different, most people would not declare "wrong" the colors or either version seen in isolation).<br> The point I was trying to make was that, in view of your stated goal [<em>slides for both web and prints (not huge)</em>], the Epson scans were not <em>significantly</em> (and that is the important word) below the Nikon scans. Did you realize that the two 100% crops I showed were at twice the scale of a 8x10inch print? Are you going to pay +100% to gain that extra +5% in quality that you will only see with you nose on the print?<br> Also, keep in mind also that scanning is not like dropping a CD into the slot of a player; there are some skills that any normal and motivated individual can master in a limited time.</p> <p>To pursue in the way of practical tests, performed with your own eyes, I suggest that you print them "not huge" and judge on the actual end result, wich is really the best way. You can get the two files at:<br> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/aqc67zrkbfqslgd/AAAGBOnzepMrXYnB14uYykkta?dl=0<br> And I would be interested to know what results of that test.</p>

<p>See this thread<br> http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cwCa<br> where I posted an actual A/B comparison flatbed (V700) versus dedicated 35mm (LS-2000). <br> To obtain significant advice, you need to <em><strong>define</strong></em> to yourself and to this audience your <em><strong>intended use</strong></em> of these scans (screen viewing; internet posting, 4x6" prints, 8x10" prints, etc, whatever). <br> In the absolute, there is always better, more expensive; if we know your need better, we'll be able to suggest what is "just right". </p>

<p>Thank you Marc. Those I found most interesting:<br> - Ektacolor. The claim that an amateur can in one evening develop the negative and make a print by dye transfer(!)<br> - Mt Palomar. Project cost 6 million USD. Nowadays a major new telescope costs of order 1 billion USD. <br> - Flashbulbs. Now I understand these cryptic markings on the sync selector of the old folders</p>