jim_gardner4

<p>I like talking to people and I am a gynaecologist.......Oh no, wait, I'm not am I. Bugger.</p>

<p>The kids been fighting. He knows it, we know it, the grin says it.</p>

<p>Eric, I had the same problem but much worse a few years ago. I now believe it was the way I was agitating. I would hold the top of the tank and "swill" it like stiring a cup of tea. Since I started rotating and inverting the tank at the same time the problem seems to have stopped.<br>

A friend of mine has a tank with a ramp in it. The reel rotates and goes up and down together. He uses the "stick" to rotate the reel and never seems to have the problem.</p>

<p>45 minutes later..</p><div></div>

<p>I did make (very quickly) a pinhole with a mate of mine last year. We simply cut a hole in an old biscuit tin, taped a bit of copper shim over the hole, made a tiny hole in the shim, painted the inside black then taped (yes taped) a sheet of 5x4 film in the back.</p><div></div>

<p>Film was Ilford FP4+ rated at 80 ISO developed in ID11 1+1 for 10 minutes. From memory the other two shots were about 10 minute exposure.</p><div></div>

<p>Camera is a Zero 2000 6x6. Larry, I think the shot with the girl and tree was about 2 sec exposure.</p><div></div>

<p>Last one. I forget how short the focal length is on this camera but thats the tripod shadow on her arm and I was close!</p><div></div>

<p>No 3</p><div></div>

<p>No 2</p><div></div>

<p>Just wanted to share some results from my latest pinhole MF film. I am not sure if this is the right place so feel free to move if I should have posted elsewhere.</p><div></div>

<p>JDM Thanks for the advice. I did check by pulling out the leader and inspecting it under a bright light. It didnt smell of anything but I washed it in some old stuff called fixer just to make sure. Now I just have to figuer out how to stuff the whole lot in my new wizz bang digital camera!</p>

<p>Bugger! I didnt know 35mm film was dead. I wish someone had told me earlier then I wouldnt have just brought some. I must assume I was sold the canister with nothing inside it.</p>

<p>Oh thank you all. That was a great thread (not joking) and made me chuckle throughout. Now I'm off to think about my childhood, wether I should look down when I go to the loo and wether I really am self aware or only aware that I think I am.</p>

<p>Kamal, I have a few nice bright, sharp shots of leopards but would swap many of them for your original. Without trying to open a discussion about what is art etc, I think yours sums up the essence of a leopard very well. Good photographs dont always have to be technically perfect. I took a shot I am really pleased with on a Holga (cheap plastic camera that is known for its "poor" quality) recently. You could submit yours for rating or critique and see what other people think.</p>

<p>Marc, it sounds to me like the "teacher" is more like a "teller".<br>

The question of film vs digital is so old now and it cannot have an right answer. Its like asking which is better? BMW or Mecedes? - Kindle or hard back book? Mechanical watch or quartz? Trainers or shoes? Its up to you what you use, when and why. Personaly I use both film and digital. One of them once or twice a year and the other once a week.</p>

<p>If that was guess work on your third time ever, write down exactly what you did and keep doing it! Very nice results. You and the camera did each other proud.</p>

<p>I could go on and on and on and.......but its all been said before so, in your case it seems there is no reason to stay with MF. I dare say your digital camera is auto focus, has auto or semi auto exposure, you dont need to wind it on, reasonably light? has a very wide range of shutter speeds, doesnt need rolls of film stuffing in the back, fairly quick to use. Sell the MF film gear.<br>

Thats just my opinion of course but I was writing with a quill pen that I made from a swan feather earlier. (yes really).</p>

<p>Some very good answers there and a bad one. I admit to speed reading the posts mainly because there is no right answer. You may as well ask "what is art?" which is also a fair question. From where I am right now I can see nine photographs I have taken that are mounted and framed and on the wall. I like them all. They include a pair of old boots on paper background, three dead daffodils on slate, the hand of an African boy holdind an assegai, an unknown white flower on dark leaves, a naked girl in undergrowth, three old suitcases on paper background, clouds, oyster mushroom, an old post and wire fence. All black and white.<br>

I would call numbers one, two, poss four and definately six fine art. I think I would say this because to me it is the shape,tone,texture and simplicity that I like. Maybe the others are art, who am I to say? Yes, they are to me but I like the photograph for the subject moreso than the other reasons given above,<br>

Other people might have different choices or disagree entierly and thats fair enough. What I like is what I like and no-one can tell me what that is.<br>

Of the three photos I can see below as I type, I would call one of them fine art. I wont say which because it shoulnt matter to the photographers. If they are pleased with them, what more can they ask?</p>

<p>Philip, Have you thought about buying mounts in quantity and then mounting them yourself? The cost would be minimal especially if you found mounts on ebay.</p>

<p>I often look at the Nudes section but have never noticed an add for Playboy, or anything else for that matter. Maybe for some reason I dont get the adds or maybe I am not looking so dont notice them. Either way, from what I have heard of Playboy, and what I remember from my school boy days, some of the images "we" post may be more graphic than Playboy.</p>

<p>I dont feel dirty looking at the nudes section at all. If I or anyone else wanted a cheap thrill by looking at pretty tame images of people with little or nothing on, there are lots of websites they could do that on.</p>

<p>Antonio, in my opinion (and I say that because quite a few people will disagreee with this) there are two reasons why your shots are not as sharp as they used to be. 1. Autofocus. It simply isnt as good as some people think it is. Try manual and see if that helps. 2. Those great big zooms! 28-300 is a massive 10.7 x zoom. There is no way on Gods earth that will be anywhere near as sharp as a prime. Also you mentioned you used the 28-300 at 1/100th or 1/250. If you were at or near 300mm at 1/100th sec I seriously doubt you could keep it still enough.<br>

Try a prime or zoom with much shorter range, manual focus, turn the vr off and put the camera on a tripod. I think you will be pleased with the results.</p>

<p>Sounds like they have got it spot on. (Joking)<br>

By the way, that village is listed somewhere as the most dangerous place in England. A couple of people are murdered every week.</p>

<p>With respect I think a lot of us would be guessing at this so while the possibility of return/refund still exists, put the screw driver down, walk away from the screw driver.</p>

<p>Have you tried relesing the shutter now you have the back off?</p>

<p>Does the body have the lock ring around the shutter release and if so have you checked to see if it has got partially turned?</p>

<p>I will third what Chris and J.W said. Depth of field is very basically what is in focus within the shot and how far that focus extends, while depth of focus relates to the film plane.<br>

D o Field may be 10 feet while at the same time D o focus may be 1mm (as a rough example)</p>