jarred mcdaniel

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I was out shooting in temperatures between -5 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and I believe I may have discovered the minimum operating temperature for a couple of my lenses, specifically my 90C and my 180C. I was shooting Velvia 50 in a Pro-S 120 back, and Rollei Pan 25 in a non-Pro-S back. I shot one frame of Velvia with a 65mm non-C lens, then pretty much shot the whole roll of Rollei film, then shot the rest of the Velvia. When I was shooting the Velvia, I noticed that the mirror was frequently flipping, but I couldn't hear the shutter, and the used frame indicator would not indicate exposure. I reexposed the frame on several of the shots to make sure that I had exposed it, and checked the mirror up cable release to make sure it was functioning properly, which it seemed to be. Snyway, I developed the rolls and found that the Pan 25 was exposed perfectly, but only the first and last frames of velvia were exposed at all (and these were somewhat overexposed by about 1/2 a stop). I believe I used the 65mm non-C for the first frame and my 180mm C for the last frame. I don't have an explanation for why the last frame was exposed, but I can only suppose the ambient temperature warmed up enough to allow shutter release. Anyway, interesting occurrence. </p>

<div></div>

Thanks, fellas. I think I understand the way it works a little better now.

 

Jarred

Matt,

 

Just because I believe that there are no truly original photographs out there in the strict sense doesn't mean that I would give "3's" to all photos in that column (1's would be more appropriate-- just kidding). Surely some are more original than others. Even so, I happen to like many "unoriginal" shots personally more than some more avant garde photos out there that are personally unappealing. And BTW, our response actually spoke to my actual question-- I was not sure that there was an actual effect of anonymous ratings in terms of more visibility, etc., and even in this post I seem to have gotten conflicting answers.

 

Lex,

 

Thanks for the explanation. We may have different opinions about the benefit of saving time for writing redundancies vs. anonymously giving a 3/3, but I appreciate your point of view. It is not the anonymous low ratings that irk me, but what I perceived to be a lack of instructive value in unexplained numerical ratings-- heck, if I only got 1/1's, I'm still going to frame some of the photos and hang them around my house! :)

As has been pointed out by several people, I had previously only commented on one other photo, which surprised me as well (I guess those mental comments you make while surfing through the critique forum don't actually appear!). One comment doesn't exactly help inform anyone else either about their photography, does it? I have made an effort today and will keep making an effort to comment on more of the photos I view. Thanks for the instruction.

 

Jarred

Carl,

 

BTW, just looked at your page. Left a comment regarding your 'Yogi' folder. One of these days I'll have to make a 'Bentley' folder!

Matt,

 

You are correct in asserting that I have never rated another's photos. When I have seen a photograph that strikes me, I leave a comment instead. As I described in my post, that to me is more helpful, therefore I do it for other people as I have opportunity. Why would I give someone a rating, anonymous or otherwise, if it does not help me to improve myself? Perhaps I misunderstood this site as one that primarily functions in the respect that you mentioned of "going over to where some other photographers are sitting". That is what I thought I had been doing with my photographs.

 

Lex,

 

I certainly don't mean to be complaining "look at me," and hope that's not the impression that my question gives. I will work to comment more and find a more "socially acceptable" way of requesting criticism of my photographs (which is what I thought the "request critique" forum was there for, in all honesty).

 

Oh, and by the way, I have no problem with ratings being used to identify images to display more prominently. It only makes sense to use that as one tool, in my opinion.

What is the exact purpose of a rating system for images? The most specific use that I can conceive is to identify

photographs that may be desirable for prominent placement within the site. I suppose that an alternate use may be

to encourage those individuals whose images the critic finds compelling/pleasing/inventive/etc. to continue in

their work (or conversely, to discourage those whose work one finds unpleasantly

disturbing/unappealing/unimaginative/etc. from continuing).

 

My motivation for asking is that it seems to me after I have received many ratings (and about 2 total comments)

from my posts, I have come to realize that the ratings mean nothing to me. Certainly, it is a bit of a wound to

my pride to receive a 3/3 or a 4/4, but in the end what does that actually communicate to me about my

photography? That I should be more original? There is not a single original photograph that exists on this

website. All of these images have their roots, influences, sometimes exact (if inadvertent) copies that have

previously existed before the creation of this website. Does it tell me that my aesthetic does not match with

certain individuals? I will hereafter post for critique only. In that case, if I get two comments, at least I

have been educated by two individuals, and not confused by many 'anonymous' users.

Joe,

 

Just watched the video. Definitely didn't load the film correctly. Funny how I can operate an RB67 but can still have problems with a new 35mm SLR. :)

 

Jarred

Thanks for the responses. The film was very dark; as it is transparency, I figured that meant underexposed. I went back after posting the original question and checked the shutter, mirror, lenses, and everything seemed to be working correctly. I more or less assumed operator error before, as it was the first roll of film I had loaded, but now that I think about it, I was pretty unsure about how the film was seated on the sprockets, and actually tried to fit it on there better a second time. So, I'm betting thats the problem. Kind of makes me appreciate my Canonet with the plate that secures the film onto the winding mechanism.

 

Thanks again for your help.

 

Jarred

Just went and shot my first roll (Velvia 50) with my Nikon FE2 from KEH. The

film came back blank-- completely underexposed. I used two different lenses, so

I don't think that they were the problem, plus they seemed to "whir"

appropriately for the range of shutter speeds I used. I had the film speed dial

set appropriately. Any suggestions?

 

TYhanks,

 

Jarred

I second BWC. Excellent and prompt service, not too spendy. On weekdays you can drop off the film and get it back the same afternoon (if you only want development and not prints). However, the person who performs development is (I'm pretty sure) off on the weekend, so you may have to wait until Monday.

 

Jarred

Photographing gas stations ("petrol" is a word unfamiliar to us here in the US :)) does not particularly fit my sense of the word "art." However, I do not believe that all those who paint or draw possess the creative vision or skill to classify them as artists, whereas a few photographers are able to convey art through their work, even though the medium was originally for the purposes of documentation. Therefore, I don't believe that naming photographers "artists" can be categorically considered an insult to painters, etc.

 

Jarred McDaniel

Eric,

 

I think that was the problem. I performed the fix and now the shutter/lens works. However, I am going to take the camera back, because the meter doesn't seem to be functioning properly. Probably look on KEH for one instead.

 

Thanks for your responses,

 

Jarred

So I just saw the recent post regarding the same issue with the FM-2 and the responses, and checked out the shutter in the camera body. It is not opening when the shutter release button is depressed. Is the shutter coupled with the mirror release (i.e. will the shutter not functioning prevent mirror letdown and lens shutter function)?

 

Thanks,

 

Jarred

I just purchased a Nikon FE-2 from a reputable used camera dealer in Montana.

The dealer installed new batteries (I did not read the package, but the

batteries have "357" stamped into the back), and I dry shot the camera a few

times with no apparent problems from the shutter or mirror lock. I brought the

camera home, placed the camera on "bulb," and when I had depressed and released

the shutter release button I noticed that the shutter itself was stuck at the

aperture that I had set it at. I tried depressing the shutter release again--

nothing. I tried switching the speed selector to M250, which did not release the

shutter.

 

I then removed the lens and noticed that the mirror was locked in the "up"

position. I reset it manually. However, every subsequent time I have depressed

the shutter release (on all manner of shutter speeds), the exact same problem

has occurred. I checked the batteries, ensured that they were in the correct

orientation, but this has not fixed the problem.

 

I will obviously return the camera if I cannot get the issue resolved, but would

like to get input on any possible solutions. Would the batteries affect the

shutter on the lens as well as the mirror? If the mirror locked up because of

sticky foam, would that affect the shutter as well?

 

Thanks for any input!

 

Jarred