michael_darnton1

You're up against the wall, and if you were in Chicago, I'd help you out. I don't think that what you need to do is possible with the equipment you have. For a start, the best way to do it would be by stitching a couple of individual shots together. But lighting is the real problem, and without some sort of real lighting, independent of what you have, I think you're screwed.

Yes, that's the best part of Daguerrotypes, isn't it?

Maybe not a lot of help, but the color looks very similar to what I'm getting with my Nikon D300 with D-lighting turned on and saturation turned down a couple of clicks. . .

I really liked everything about my Leicas, and had used Leicas constantly since around 1967, but after waiting for an up-to-date technology digital from them (I know, I know--expecting them to lead rather than follow a half-decade or so behind everyone else is unreasonable) I gave up and sold all of my Leica stuff at the start of this year and replaced it with a Nikon D300 kit. Aside from the weight issue, I'm not sorry I did.

 

The reason I sold is because I realized that digital technology is changing so quickly there is no way that such a hesitant and backward company can keep up with the speed of things now,and I'd always be wishing I had something more modern than what they were offering. I was willing to put up with some of that because I really like the equipment, but I couldn't deal with how very far they've fallen behind everyone else, and it seems like they're falling farther and farther behind by the month. Aside from the support of fanboys (of which I was one for a very long time) I don't think they have a viable product in today's world, so I jumped ship, the same as I had dumped my darkroom while someone still wanted it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060205050520/www.scannerphotography.com/

All of my classic RF lenses did this, one way or another (sometimes there's a locking ring to take off first), even my 28mm Elmarit.

The most important thing is the thing you've left out: how do the prints look?

Normal, yes. Temperature differences can result in expansion and contraction of various things in various undesirable ways. If they hadn't done it the way they did, some warm or cold day you might have discovered you couldn't quite make it to infinity.

For ten years I lived in a small country house with a very small tank and field, and dumped a lot of chemicals down, fix included. No problem at all. I researched it at the time, and I think I remember that most problems would have been with color stuff, but reasonable amounts of B&W were fine.

B&H doesn't list them, but someone on the unmentionable auction site has a set right now--around $7 or so.

Assuming these are 43mm filter threads, you need half of what B&H calls a filter stack cap. They're made for protecting the front and back of piles of filters.

It's not the format your file is in--all files are equal once Photoshop opens them. Your particular problem is because you need to make a duplicate layer of the image to do the correction (you can't stretch the underlying image--it only works on a layer). Then, after that, you won't be able to save as a jpg unless you compress the multiple layers into one again. . . or you can save the multiple-layered image as a psd.

IIIf models do not necessarily have a self timer. If it's not mentioned in the listing, assume it doesn't have one.

Have you wiped off the electrical contacts on the back of the lens really well?

As repair jobs go, that's one of the easiest. Just get it fixed.

Do you remember what kind of digital? Probably a back on some 4x5?

The subject line says it all. I know they used to use 8x10, but now, with all the nifty digital stuff available,

do they still?

Prediction: what will be revealed today will be some fuzzy photos of what appears to be an old rug in a box. No actual evidence will make an appearance, but someone's backwoods guide business will briefly skyrocket.

As for the ballhead question, Manfrotto makes a very nice ONE-way head for monopods that costs not too much. Manfrotto 3232-$20--seems perfect for the job.

I think you will get the most mileage by getting SOME kind of calibration equipment. I got a Spyder 2, and it was a quantum leap from nothing at all, though I'm sure many will tell you it's kids' stuff.

But Gary, photographers aren't doctors, lawyers, or accountants--they're tradesmen.

I think the criticism she's given is actually pretty good, but not clearly stated enough, apparently. The two photos are very diffuse, without a center of interest, and therefore not too interesting--just a mash of nature, without a point. The crop showed one alternative for making the picture more direct and clarifying it a bit, but I still think it lacks focus. Perhaps you are too sensitive to be asking for criticism?

Try walking up to a stranger on the street and giving him a $5 bill. I bet many will look at you angrily and refuse. Regardless of what you're asking people to do, the kneejerk response is for people to say "no". This response from bureaucracies is legendary.

 

People on the street do NOT have a right to privacy (regardless of how some people here feel), but they have the right not to be assaulted by strangers. The solution for photographers is to be polite, but don't ask.

 

When I was a newspaper photographer I shot many, many pictures of strangers, and I don't think anyone ever complained, but that's because I wasn't using photography as a vehicle of being a jerk. This reminds me of a video clip someone linked to a while ago of a real jerk of a street photographer. Without a camera, doing what he was doing, he should have been arrested. The camera is not the deciding factor; the behavior is.

Ellis believes the photo is so spectacular that someone will desire to steal it, so he has taken the precaution of debasing it with a huge copyright symbol.

In these days of slow zooms being used as normal lenses, I think a lot of people have forgotten the reasons for large lens openings.