erikdenhouter

<p>Good morning... Andrea.<br /><br />that is a long time ago that I have been here, really. The analogue problems with my OM-2 are far behind me, although I never got the camera working again. It was simply to much to dig in a second time, and in the mean time I went digital. Still, I have the camera here in my possession.<br /><br />What I can remember: cleaning the small surface between magnet-core and lever would get it working again, every time, but in no time the same problem occurred.<br /><br />My thoughts are:<br />as far as i could see, that foam is also used to light-seal the curtains of the shutter, two long narrow strips on top and below. And since I did not de-assemble the shutter, the stuff is still there to be spread with ever release of that shutter. It is a guess, but I am fairly convinced.<br /><br />I do not think that the stuff penetrated the coil & core, since cleaning resolves the problem for a short while.<br /><br />I hope this info serves your insight in the problem.<br /><br />Erik den Houter</p>

If you still notice problems around the shutterspeed of any of the OM's mentioned, have a look here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ENzN&tag=

And don't forget the funny site of the story

http://www.photo.net/photo/4822987

For David, you gave me some grip on understanding it, although i think you still missed the point; my understanding now is not as you said "to grow up", but " I have grown up", and for that I am not attracted to these images or such practice as others are.

 

And the smell of "I am not top rated..." is not so much coming from me (i smell of other things), although it is not felt as right by me to be moved out of vision trough unfair practice. Ratings are not so much my thing, the "view" amount is slightly more appealing to me.

Not that i am working on such scheme, but it would or could be my goal to get rated a zero, have a "view" skyhigh, and still be allowed to stay on the site.

 

And about to show some evidence ?

Look what i found on page 2131-2140/2218 with O=3,75 A=3,92

http://www.photo.net/photo/5946665

 

or at page 11-20/2218 O= 5.93 A= 5.87

http://www.photo.net/photo/5945550

 

I think maybe a good rater must start at the last page ?

Thank you Elke for tackling my deeply felt and suffered conspiracy theory, but no serious, i am not sure about all this. It is just that i can not see anything special in all the nudes i have seen passing, except for one or two maybe, and I need to grasp what is happening. Still if you mention that "fashion" and "portraits" would suffer the same, i could try to explain that i feel these worlds are quite different, if not opposite. But yes, you are right, it can't be that alone.

 

What i really want to show is that manipulation (on purpose, but even without...) is biasing this site.

A adolescent without access to "hotter stuff" could get the "views" up like a rocket, and the same is true for a technically bad photograph of something difficult to see so the viewer would enlarge (view) the image just to get a grip on what is shown. Maybe this way "spontaneity" kills the cat.

I for myself have even refused to view a few photos for that.

 

OK, i am very new at Photo.net, and have to get used to ratings, but the first impression of the system made me think "when will someone manipulate this for their needs..."

What i technically saw was that on the PN site it is very important to get a high rating fast for the simple fact that i have not yet seen a way to quickly browse the photo's; page 5 is only to be reached by loading 1, 2, 3, and 4... Or have i missed something ? (please tell me if i have) Automatically the first few get rated (and seen) more often than the last. So "push" a photo a little to the front, and whala, the ball is rolling... Or do you think that everyone will keep loading the pages until they think a "fair" distribution have taken place ? I have once tried to see the middle pages, and almost fell asleep ! And i have an above average speedy connection.

For that i think another default in the "show"-criteria that is shown at the top of the page (maybe "RANDOM ?" or just "LATEST" ?) could give a more fair outcome, choosing another criteria would then be the viewers choice.

 

Still, at the end somehow that way also would treat some unfairly.

For now, the ratings are not leading me, i just have to plow trough them when searching for something beautiful.

"My God, there must be desperately deprived men out there to think any show of any womens skin deserves such high praise"

 

100 % totally agree about the overrating, some photo's wouldn't even survive the average shoebox, but isn't it a bit naughty to assume that only man gave these ratings ? BAD discussion...

If you narrow the criteria to show to Category: All last: 3 days by: rate recent sum

Then you will see that 28 OF THE FIRST 30 (!) are all female nudes (and the two not nude, are very very average)

Many more have rated the nudes, and also higher.... Why ?

The model wants to be seen, don't you think ?

Isn't it possible that in the case of nudes, as model, it is easy to join PN for a sec, and add a rating 7/7 as subject. Maybe even family ?

I know this is half the conspiracy theory, but hé, what will explain what so many see ?

Depends...

What is not said or known in this is what the interface is that you use now.

You first need to have an (inexpensive) card reader to access the card.

You can't do the file-recovery until the card is read as a station (say "drive") on your computer, and probably that is not possible trough the software that is used when the camera is connected directly to your computer.

And a card reader can do that for you.

Then use any file recovery program (I use PC inspector File Recovery, freeware)

"I really can't see any way in which an absence of photography

prevents harm to children"

 

Love this turn... Read it enough, and you almost ask yourselves:

can a safe environment do WITHOUT freedom of photography...

(and i don't mean anonymous, even abusive security cameras)

There's indeed a positive side of your ordeal:

 

"Count yourself lucky that the parents called the cops instead of taking the law in their own hands."

Below, that photo, that shows a woman accusing me publicly of abusing and sexually harassing her and other children. The way i was accused gave me no room to proof her wrong, and many people (under which a lot of young children) could now have their doubts.

For you, you were arrested, and the person(s) that called the cops will look rather foolish when your memory card shows them wrong.

 

"Whether or not the cops treated you fairly has nothing to do with the fact you made people at the park worried enough to call the cops"

 

I was NOT taking pictures, my camera was in my bag, i just walked by.

"Worried people" can hurt you just as much as their own fears dwell.<div></div>

I think James Lai is the one here to hit the nail on the head, although it is not necessary oil that is the cause.

 

I have an OM2, and got into trouble with it due to slow shutter speed. especially the first shots of the day were always overexposed, and sometimes a 1/500 even did 1 sec, but the following shots were much better and better, and later shots i couldn't "hear" a problem. Deteriorating foam, of course, is the problem. Not only was this foam used above the prism, but also on other places where body parts needed to be made fit, so no light would enter the camera, like fitting the back. All this foam doesn't only damages the prism, but also, in a more "broken" state, starts to "dwell" trough the camera. And in my case, got in a VERY VERY tiny amount, between the two poles of the electro-magnet that takes care of the timing of the second shutter curtain. When I carefully manually moved the movable part of this mechanism (e.g. with a pointy wooden cocktail-pricker) I could see that the two metal parts were sticky due to a tiny foam partical there in between. In my case it was a bit of a disaster for the fact that after good cleaning with alcohol, with also compressed air to get the rest of the body clean, the shutter performed PERFECT again, but, after assembling the camera, and using it for a week, EXACT the same problem suddenly occurred, with exact the same cause, so disassembling was necessary again. Not a nice life for someone with deteriorating eyesight. So be sure not to get disappointed due to undetectable parts of foam haunting you. For now, the camera has made a few hundred shutter-releases without problems.

 

Reach the electro-magnet (the metal poles of it) by removing the bottom plate in the mirror house (one screw, and some glue, and de-solder a ground wire) I have used a small piece of copper plate (foil), very thin of course, around which i winded one layer of thin cotton with alcohol. When you work with the electronics there, use techniques to deal with electrostatic discharge, and just don't try to touch anything unnecessary there. Very delicate.

 

For anyone at this job, success.