s.l.

Reasonably, these fish probably aren't rocketing around their tank, right? So he won't need the crazy fast autofocus of the 1D. He mostly needs a good fast shutter to catch them moving. So, a 30 or 40D (fast frame rate) would be ideal. How big are the fish? Maybe a fast macro lens would be good as well.

 

I don't know what the setup is, but an underwater strobe flash or something might be useful if it doesn't spook the fish too much. With DSLRs, my opinion is that you can never have too much light...

I have a B and just bought a load of film from frugalphotographer.

 

When I have time to work on my own projects (as opposed to those required by school :p)

I work on my film slitter. I just finished machining the most crucial parts: the film tension

roller and the gauge blocks that keep the blades at the proper width. The body is all

acrylic and the mechanical parts are all aluminum, so it should hold up nicely.

 

Next step: build a mask for the Focomat and find a wider lens so that I can print

traditionally as well as just scanning.

As an update: I ended up ordering 100 bucks' worth of film from frugal photographer; seems like the only places you can still reliably buy it from are frugalphotographer, blue moon, and 8x11film.com. The newer snap-closed cassettes are reloadable, so I'll just reuse those. I figure 100 bucks for 360 exposures is a pretty decent price considering the rarity of the film.

 

So what I've determined is the following.

Buying: frugalphotographer or Blue Moon if you're in north america; 8x11film.com if you're in the EU. Seems that 8x11film doesn't ship outside the EU anyway. No idea if you're in the middle east, asia, africa or australia; perhaps there's a place in the Hong Kong area?

 

Processing: looks like Blue Moon is one of the few places that still process minox film. I recommend doing it yourself...there are simple methods using a standard 120 stainless steel reel and a Kindermann tank that work quite well. See http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/developing_minox_film.html

 

Printing: Again, Blue Moon will do it for you. Most flatbed film scanners will do a great job with a strip of Minox negatives, though high resolution is crucial (think 3000 dpi+). Even this kind of resolution will result in a small image, less than 1500 pixels on the long side, but for anything faster than ASA 25 you're limited by grain and camera blur more than a higher scan resolution would solve.

 

Printing the old-fashioned way, there are tons of resources at subclub.org. They discuss the existing minox enlargers, other enlargers for submini film, and the wide-angle lenses and film gates you'll need to print 9.5mm film on a 35mm enlarger.

 

Hope that helps.

I second that. I'm currently looking mostly for empty cartridges, as I'm building myself a

nice mechanical slitter and can develop/print the film myself. Outside of buying old

cartridges from eBay (with the associated *COLLECTOR ITEM* markup, ugh :P ), is there

any way to get lots of empty cartridges for cheap? 8x11film seems to be the best place -

any good results getting stuff shipped by them?

 

Even places I've been quoted in person turn out to no longer exist. I suppose that with film

on the whole dying out like crazy, esoteric film is just going to be harder to find, but

there's got to be something out there. Right?

Build one and see if it works. Some people might be interested in buying it. However, "don't quit your day job" is right. Any minox film slitter is about as much of a niche product as you can get, and one that turns a moderately uncommon film format into a less-common one is even more so.

Does this "unpublished collection" apply to any works you feel like? What about works that

are created after the date you filed for the copyright? What about works created before?

 

That could be a really useful thing...I'd love to know more about it. Or if you know of a site

that describes the concept in greater detail, that would be awesome too.

Micki --

 

I recognize what you're saying. And, as I stated, I would be upset if someone took my photos

and claimed them as their own.

 

However -- and I say this without any pedantry -- I don't think it's such a big deal if some kids

use the image on their website. If they start making icons out of them and selling them, or

something, then it would be a serious issue. But just taking the image and posting it

somewhere as a user icon...well, I don't see how that has caused any damages. I agree with

everyone here who says that, if you're going to use the internet to gain exposure, you are going

to have to deal with a certain lack of control over where and when your images are used. The

best protection from people stealing your photos over the internet is to not put them on the

internet in the first place.

 

To reiterate: my response to Doug is that yes, it is bad, or at least not-good. However, since no

one is trying to sell his images as their own, and no one (so far, that we know of) is using the

image in any commercial way, I think it may not be worth pursuing in a legal context.

Yes, that was poor phrasing. You can be snippy about it if you like, but we both mean the

same thing.

First, take the whole thing and give it a good wash. The dishwasher is a good place but

don't use any bleach. Take all the cables and braid them together so they have company.

Unplug the hard drives and put them in freezer bags to keep the data from evaporating.

Put the mouse in a separate box so it doesn't eat the other components; it can get pretty

hungry when it doesn't have power to feed on. Put everything in separate mylar bags, then

put all the bags in a steel or lead box with minimum 2 cm walls. Fill the container with

xenon, seal it hermetically and maintain at exactly 223.33 (repeating) degrees kelvin and

0.6 atmospheres of pressure. Make sure to use an earthquake-stable mounting (steel rods

drilled 18 feet into bedrock will do the trick).

 

Seriously? Dust out the inside and put it in a box in a place with low humidity. Think about

replacing the PRAM battery when you open it up again. Computers are generally very good

at sitting in one place for a long time :P

By getting close to the fence and focusing on the distance, you're putting the wire so far

outside the zone of focus that it blurs into a gray translucent fog. It's not so much that

you're seeing through it; rather, you're sort of seeing "around" the wires. The fence is still

there in the shots, though -- If you compare two images, you'll notice that the ones shot

through the fence are a little greyer and flatter.

 

The reason this works is specifically because you are using a long lens which has a very

narrow depth of field. If you go down to something like a 50, you'll have a much harder

time getting the fence to disappear, if you can do it at all; the depth of field is much

larger. If you need to get close, you're better off sticking the lens through a hole than

trying to blur the fence to invisibility. I would recommend taking a 35 or 28 (or their

equivalents for your sensor, if you have a DSLR) and putting it though a hole in the fence

to get shots at the plate. 50mm might work great if you want slightly closer cropping.

See, sometimes celebrities just get a camera because it was reviewed in Stuff magazine, or

they saw someone else using it, or what have you. Just recently I saw a photo of Paris

Hilton carrying a Nikon DSLR with what looked like a 70-300. Ahuh, she knows what she's

doing.<br><br>

 

Then, on the other hand, there are the people who actually use their cameras. Like Jim

Marshall, for instance.

<a href=http://members.lycos.co.uk/JemK/Pic-A-Week/marshall.htm>Check out his

M4.</a>

 

Now there's a guy who actually loved his camera. All the Leica fans can go up in arms

about how awful it is to see their precious camera in that condition -- but I say there's

nothing more sad than seeing a mint-quality M3 still in its original box, because it means

that it's never been used. I hope that someday all my cameras look like Marshall's.

Sorry about the problems you've been having. I understand where you're coming from,

and I'd be really upset if someone was claiming my images as theirs, but if it's just people

saying "I like this" then I guess it's not too bad.

 

My solution to that problem is to only show images online at low resolution (712x475,

maximum quality JPEG) and only on my own website. I feel that if someone wants to steal

it and print it for themselves, they can go ahead and do it; I'm flattered. And, if someone

wants to try and sell the image as theirs -- well, it'll only make a 3.5" long print at

acceptable saleable quality, so I'm not worried about that either. Watermarks, I feel, ruin

the image, so I don't use them.

 

Oh, and I always keep all my camera originals -- things like other shots taken from a

sequence are quite good proof that you were the original photographer. EXIF data can be

spoofed but it might help as well.

If they've copied your photo and put it on their own sites, without acknowledging where the

image came from, that would seem to me to be bad.

 

Can you clarify exactly what's happened?

Print the image and see. The white lines are where there was no data in the original scan;

when you increased the contrast of the shot, Photoshop sort of pulled the edges of the

histogram out and left those blank spots.

 

That will show up as poor tonal gradation in smooth areas, and maybe an enhancement of

graininess or slightly harsher contrast. Generally, the effects of an overextended

histogram like that will show up at any print size, so make a 5x7 and see if you like it. If

it's decent, go with it. If not, rescan and retry -- can't take all that long.

 

The final verdict on any photo is whether you think it looks good, not whether the

histogram is continuous or any other scientific measure.

It could still be an SLR, provided it had the reflex mirror.

 

Course, I don't know why you'd do that if it didn't have an optical viewfinder...

Eventually you'll get dust inside the body. Take the lens off somewhere smart (ie., not

during a sandstorm) and brush off the ground glass on the bottom of the prism (that's

where the focusing screen actually is most of the time). Hold the camera with the lens

mount facing down so that whatever comes off falls out, and not further into the body. Try

to spend as little time as you can with the body cap off, but I think it's not really as big a

deal as people make it out to be. Of course, I clean my SLR's sensor myself with a bottle of

methanol and lint-free optical wipes.

 

Also, keep in mind that dirt in the viewfinder won't affect your pictures. People have been

shooting great shots for ages with dusty finders.

DVD+R has some minor technical enhancements that probably won't make the slightest

difference to you. It's also not certified as an official DVD format by the DVD Forum (DVD-R

is).

 

For your uses, it makes no difference.

But where is the fungus, you say? And I say...<div></div>

<div></div>

Right, forgot about those. OK -- I've never seen a lens with an iris diaphragm and manual

aperture settings where you can't shoot between stops.

Latex gloves are inherently sticky -- it's the nature of the rubber. That makes it harder to

handle the negatives without damaging them (maybe). Cotton gloves are soft and will

slide across the emulsion if you accidentally touch it, rather than binding and potentially

damaging it. The bigger problem is that some brands of latex gloves come with powdered

talc on them to get rid of this stickiness. That talc gets on everything and is about as awful

a thing as you can have in a darkroom.

 

That said, I've seen more people using unpowdered latex gloves than cotton ones, mostly

because they're easier to find. I don't wear gloves, but I'm finding that it would be nice to

get a few sets of cotton ones so that I don't have to be quite as careful about touching the

film.

I've never seen a lens with manual aperture settings, from any manufacturer, where you can't

shoot between stops. The detents are only there to make it easy to move in stops. Many old

lenses had no stops at all, just one smooth motion from open to closed.

If you're starting a business, but you're not going to be promoting it or doing the printing

yourself, you're going to have to accept that you're going to pay for it. 15% is not a bad take

considering that you don't have to pay for anything but your equipment -- no materials, no

hosting fees, etc.

Could be just about any Kodak film. Kodak puts red and purple dye in most of their products.

As everyone else says -- develop, fix, read edge markings.

"I'll shoot by focusing on an area and waiting for the members of the band to walk into it."

 

You have an SLR -- why not just track the people? It's not hard to manually focus on a

moving subject, unless they're coming straight at you at high speed. Practice keeping moving

cars or birds in focus for a few hours before the show. People were shooting moving subjects

for many years before they invented autofocus ;)