escu

Two years ago, I received for free with processing a "Life 100 ISO" film, which was made in Japan. It proved to be the Konica VX 100, the film with the highest number of pastel colors ever made, the film that will never switch the turquoise to cyan, the only film that sees the salmon pink or the duck egg green. Well, as the 100 ISO films are disappearing from the market, I couldn't buy other VX100 or Life 100. Recently I've seen in Loblaws the home brand "Everyday Essentials" and inside was the Konica VX film (made in Japan, as usual). Unfortunately there was no 100, but only 200 and 400. Fogg it!

 

Today I bought a roll of this Likon 100 (made in China) film for $1, just to see how it works. I was surprised to see that the plastic canister is just like the Fuji's ones, only more transparent, and what you say about the magenta makes me think it really should be a Fuji license made film. I'll mark "Fuji?" on the lab's envelope when I'll send it for processing, or I'll look for a Fuji lab.

 

The canisters never lie, I've learned this with Konica, store labeled films, I hope it is the same with this Likon. But I still am looking for the Konica VX100 at an affordable price, not at 4$CA as it sells in Japan Camera or in Canadian Tire (if you're lucky).

Of course, all I previously wrote are for democratic societies only. And yes Harvey, English is not my first language, but let me ask you something: is English the only language spoken in "western" countries, as your intervention suggests it? I should have write "did, do and will never?", sorry for the typo.

 

As for what you say about censorship, protecting workers, Jews or Arabs rights (and dignity is one of these rights too), you make confusion: law protects them, not censorship. And low is not censorship! These things are under the first point in my previous intervention. I repeat, this happens in democratic countries only. And democratic countries are also at east of your home yard.

I know it is late. Still I wish to write my point of view on the initial question.

 

1) The rights and the freedoms are about civilisation: the freedom of somebody has to stop when it cuts on the rights of somebody else. In other words, the rights are taking over the freedoms.

 

2) Is art, as an expression of freedom, cutting on somebody else's rights? I know only a case when it does: the copyright, might it be another piece of art by another artist, or the subject in it (example: the person in a portrait). And this issue is a legal one, not a censorship.

 

3) Anything else, that can bother some people, keeps only with offences. But offences have nothing to do with rights, just with feelings and morality. And here comes the censorship: to protect these feelings of individuals, and these moral values of a society, both in a certain place on the Earth, and at a certain moment in the history.

 

The censorship did, does, and will never protect any rights!

You're right Michael, I completely forgot about the Mig 23, maybe

because it looks just like the 21, being about 2ft longer. The one in

the photo might be a 23 too. Still, the 21, because of its

performances at that time and the period it was produced (during the

core of the cold war), become the most popular fighting aircraft in

the communist block. And despite its design for high speed and

altitude, but lower manoeuvrability, I've seen pilots bringing it to

behave like a hunting aircraft (lower speed and altitude, and maximum

manoeuvrability). They used the special properties of its delta type

plane to reverse the functionalities imposed by designers, but these

were very risky manoeuvres.

Second is a Mig 21, dating the '60s-'70s, the Soviet first supersonic,

a recognition engine too. It was a marvel at its time, and was

surpassed only much later (the '90s?), by the very sophisticated

technologically Mig 27. The intermediary model, the Mig 25 ('80s),

only replaced the 21 without bringing a spectacular change.

The 50/1.4 has 7 elements (one radioactive - Leiz Summicron technology) making of this lens one of the best ever made along with the Zuico (Olympus) one. This technology was abbandoned for newer lenses (I'm not sure, but I think the SMC was the last line using the radioactive element - look through it: does it have a small yellowish like the Hoya UV filters, than it is built with the radioactive element).

 

The 50/1.7 has 6 elements, but I have no clue about it. I have another 50/1.7 and a 45/1.8, both with 6 elements, and both are amazing lenses.

 

The 50/2 has only 5 elements, and is the worst 50mm I've ever seen (sold it after two rolls). When I say the worst, I mean the Pentax lens, although other manufacturers have excellent 50/2: Ricoh has a 6 elements, very contrasty one.

The 50/1.4 has 7 elements (one radioactive - Leiz Summicron technology) making of this lens one of the best ever made along with the Zuico (Olympus) one. This technology was abbandoned for newer lenses (I'm not sure, but I think the SMC was the last line using the radioactive element - look through it: does it have a small yellowish like the Hoya UV filters, than it is built with the radioactive element).

 

The 50/1.7 has 6 elements and have no clue about it. But I have two other 50/1.7 and one 45/1.8, all with 6 elements, and all are very good lenses.

 

The 50/2 has only 5 elements, and is the worst 50mm I ever seen (sold it after two rolls).

The 50/1.7 performs best in f/4-5.6, surprisingly good in f/2.8-4 and f/5.6-8, average below f/2.8 and above f/8. If the light and the film's speed are asking f/11-16, than I would have used a 50/2 (but not the 5 elements Pentax one � I recommend the 6 elements Ricoh�s 50/2). Than film is another issue (400 ISO), and exposure a third one.

If it works well with the K-mount adapter and screw mount lenses, than the light-meter should be OK.

 

You should check first the lens, if the two levers at its back are and move OK (one of them moves when turning the aperture ring), and if there is some oil on the aperture blades.

 

Than you should check the levers inside the camera's bayonet mount. I guess by the first click you hear at half mounting the lens, that the aperture lever on the lens does not couple with the aperture lever on the camera, and the camera reads the light like the aperture would have been completely closed. If this is the cause, you can easily correct it: just push the lever on the camera to correct its position. It has to be oriented in the same direction with the lens, to the front. Do it with care and it will work fine.

 

The same symptom occurs with some cheap K-mount adapters too, because these have no cam to couple to the aperture lever on the camera. The same can happen when the levers on a K-mount lens and on the camera are not coupling together.

I�ve made apart several lenses of very different brands, and cleaned them piece by piece. And found that the simplest solutions are far better than the special promoted ones, and at least as safer, just much cheaper. To put the lenses apart I oil them at any screw joint with extra-fine sewing machine oil and leave them 24 hours. Next day they come apart very easy. Once disassembled I wash them with dishwasher cleaner, which is the safest and most efficient possible, even in washing 50 years old lenses presenting haze from evaporated oil condensed on the glass. I never use solvents: you don�t know which to trust. Dishwasher cleaner is just perfect. Metal parts, I drop them in 70% USP isopropyl alcohol. I tried the isopropyl on one glass-lens too and worked. Still I avoid it for any other lenses: don�t trust it at 100%. On glass I always use the $1 spray cleaner for glasses, which works just perfect. As for other substances, it is imperative to avoid any window cleaner as these are made with ammoniac and might damage the coating. I also avoid methanol, as it behaves like a painting solvent. And finally I avoid ethanol, not because it would damage the coating (it never will), but because it leaves cleaning traces on the glass. As for fabrics, I always use cotton puffs, as I don�t trust microfiber or special cleaning paper (tried them and stain, as not so absorbent as the cotton is). Anyway, the paper, might be a special made one to use with optics, as long it is dry it might scratch the glass. Paper is to be used only wet, never dry (so you cannot dry the lens with it). When cleaning just the front or the back element of a lens I always use the $1 glasses cleaner, but never spray directly on the lens. I spray on a cotton puff, clean the lens, and dry it with another cotton puff. Never got a single scratch on my lenses. You might flash through them or look to the glass surface with a magnifier: you won�t see a single scratch.

No, I didn�t see the documentary �My Architect� made by Kahn�s sun. I heard about, but with Kahn, as with all the artists influencing my life or simply liking their works, I staid with the works and their philosophy only, trying to avoid as much possible any biographical biases. I have to recognize there sometime is one, but never understood it, a gasp between SOME artists� private lives and the altitude of their works.

 

And BTW, I forgot to mention another artist, which is a 5th �landmark� in my life: the film director Andrei Tarkovsky. His �Stalker�, years ago, had a strong impact on me, defining my predilection for the symbolic language in art. For a moment I thought David Lynch went on the same way, but I later discovered that Lynch uses only signs, not symbols. Signs are formal codes, with no propre content, part of a puzzle that owns all the identifiable content (message). While symbols are informal codes, with their own content (message), that might be mount in a composition of higher complexity. Signs are working with the rationality, while symbols are working with the consciousness. In conclusion: I like Lynch, but Tarkovsky is the �landmark� for me.

 

PS: None of these artists� names is used for any of my passwords (Ha, Ha, Ha...)

There was not a single artwork, but the complete work and thinking of four artists: a sculptor, an architect, an orchestra conductor, and a composer. In the same order these are: Constantin Brancusi, Louis I. Kahn, Herbert von Karajan, and Gustav Mahler. These artists have changed in just few seconds the course of my life: both, the human and the professional sides, and two of them even saved it, acting like healing drogues. Here are very few details about these four artists and their work:

 

Brancusi said, when quitting Rodin, his master: �Under a big tree (Rodin), only grass can grow up�. He than went in opposition with his master, and starting from what was called at that time �primitive art�, he reached the limits of the simplicity and purity of the forms, while encrypting powerful existential messages.

 

Louis I. Kahn said, when teaching: �Silence to Light, Light to Silence. The threshold of their crossing is the Singularity, is Inspiration (Where the desire to express meets the possible), is the Sanctuary of Art, is the Treasury of the Shadows (Material casts shadows, shadows belong to light)�, and also (from memory): �Art doesn�t have to search for beauty. Beauty is just a selection made by people and time�. Luis I. Kahn built his aesthetics on two concepts: the Silence and the Light. He created exceptional structured forms, achieved with brute materials (usually brick and cement with no finish other than their own colors and textures). All these create the unique feeling of walking through perfectly functional �ruins� (out of time buildings).

 

Karajan was in music what Louis I. Kahn was in architecture: silence and light, structure and authenticity, out of time feeling.

 

Finally, Mahler is the artist who exceeded the human limits: he transcended the highest pain and even the death in some of his works, and all these in a pure humanistic (not religious) way.

This Tamron 60-300/3.8-5.4 also has an amazing optical structure of: 15 elements in 11 groups! Because of it, at 300mm even wide open (f/5.4), the sharpness in the center is incredible high, and this allows you to shoot wildlife and macros handheld. Macro ratio of 1:1.5 is also wonderful. And something more: it has a beautifully soft bukeh.

 

Still, to be the perfect long zoom, should have come with a tripod socket too, and it doesn't: the only failure of this optical artwork.

Check the focus at both, infinity and the closest distance, and see if accurate comparing with the scale marked on the lens. Do this in bright light, of course, and if possible by using the ground glass, not the micro-prisms or the split-image. If the focus is accurate, I don't know where your problem comes from. But if the focus is inaccurate, than it means somebody has cleaned the lens and mounted an element reversed. This might also cause the darkening of the focussing screen, especially out of the center, and especially in wide-angles.

But you'll not be able to shoot up-down with the beanbag.

Try a beanbag: much more stable on rocks than any tripod (not to talk about tabletop tripods), easy to carry with you especially when hiking, no heads, no screws, no vibrations from the wind, works better with zooms than with short lenses, and you can afford to lose one beanbag each day. Cheap on eBay, with color choices too.

You're right: slim is for use with wide angles, but also for sticking two or even three filters together, even on normal (round 50mm) lenses. Why two filters? Let say you don't want to remove the UV when screwing on a close-up, a polarizer or a warming filter or even two of these.

 

28mm is wide angle, of course (anything below 500mm is), so at least for this lens go with slim. For the long zoom is not necessary, so if normal filters are cheaper go with these.

 

Most zooms are today contrast lenses, so I would suggest using Skylight instead of UV, but this is not strict.

 

Another issue, and a very serious one is to have good coating on filters. I would recommend you multicoating. Exceptions are polarizers, where you might find only simple coating on one side of the filter (the side to the lens - it is OK for this type of filters), and for soft-focus, diffusers, and other special effect filters, where coating is not available because of the irregular surface of the glass.

First, I found it: both abstractions, formal and symbolic ones, in the same picture, and I like the result. Is true, there might be a hierarchy between them (the abstraction types). See the link here below:

 

http://www.pixiport.com/Cgi-Bin/PixiDetail.pl?IMAGE=Gallery-C/GC2-12.jpg&LINK=GALLERY-C02.htm&CAP=

 

Secondly, I see that MOST of formal abstractions are "found", while the symbolic ones are "created". But this is not exclusive.

At symbolic abstraction, instead of "To encrypt them in a composition with an unusual, even abnormal, look", read please: "To encrypt them in a composition, that will result in a more or less unusual, even abnormal, image." The idea is that this unreal and even abnormal image is a result not a purpose.

Well, there are two abstraction axis I know: the first, the most common, and the one I don't want to talk about here (non-pertinent subject), is the axis "scientific vs. artistic abstraction" - Boooooooring! But the second axis looks to be much more interesting: "formal vs. symbolic abstraction".

 

Things are simple: "formal" means abstracting the form, while "symbolic" means abstracting the content (message, ideas). And these two abstraction forms are not specific only to the art, they can be found in science too: "formal vs. symbolic logic" is the best example. That's all.

 

Abstraction in photography now. Well, formal abstraction is decorative: decontextualised excerpts, textures, things like that... The lines of a fence or steers, the texture of a pavement, some shadows, all these, if decontextualised, might create formal abstractions. The idea of such abstractions is that the subject loses more or less its original identity and becomes pure decorative. As for the symbolic abstractions, the idea is to work with messages and ideas. To encrypt them in a composition with an unusual, even abnormal, look. The objects used might be very concrete objects, doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is the composition: the relation between these objects, and the relation with the context, all these have to generate an unreal image. Finally, the more connotative the message is, the higher the artistic quality (of symbolic abstraction).

 

Can these two sorts of abstraction coexist in the same image? Have no clue! Independently they work. Together...?

I heared that many Star-D tripods (if not all) were made by Tiltall, in Holywood. Tiltall also is off of business or was sold, but you can look for its tripods too, in the used market.

Look on eBay if available in your region, for a Vivitar Series-1 (or S-1), 28-105mm f/2.8-?? in the mount type K, PK, KR, PKA, KAR, etc. (has to have a "K"). This is a pro lens at a bargain price (by 50-80$).

You asked: "...what is more beautiful than the greatest creation of GOD. It doesn't get any more beautiful or true or artistic than the human body my friends..."

 

Well, I think there is something more beautiful: the human mind, a creation of... God's ever Competitor (see the PS)! - You know, the story with the prohibited fruit!

 

So, you see the body, but this becomes beautiful only if you see it with your mind, although it might be only a (very) "interesting" object. And I wouldn't generalize these to all bodies, nor to all minds. Ha, ha, ha...

 

PS: While not agreeing with Nietzsche's options, I have to recognize that he saw God in his "real light"...

Than you need two tripods with two heads!

 

1) Studio: stable but not too rigid legs, with geared column, and a 3-way head.

 

2) Land and especially Wildlife: rigid and not too stable legs, with geared column too, and a ballhead.

 

Stability means strong like a table (for the studio), and rigid means no vibrations (from the wind). Imagine the studio tripod like a huge passengers jet and the land tripod like a hunting airplane. For tripods it means that:

 

1) You get high stability and low rigidity from large-section squared-profile legs made out of thin material, plus a spreader, plus a dolly, and

 

2) You get low stability and high rigidity from circular-profile small-section legs made out of thick material, with no spreader, and of course no dolly.

 

Of course, there are solutions to get both, stability and rigidity, in the same tripod, but this will make a too heavy unit and besides all, you'll never need stability and rigidity at the same time, so it would also be useless. I'm specking for photography use, not for movies. In a word a stupid thing: sum of weaknesses instead of sum of strengths!

Tamron SP 60-300 f"3.8-5.4 or the huge Sigma 50-500, both +++ lenses. The Tamron has a special feature: 1:1.5 macro ratio, which would make it my first choice.