art_thomas1

<p>Jurgen Kreckel rebuilds the Agfa Ambi Silette. </p> <p><a href="http://www.certo6.com/">http://www.certo6.com/</a></p>

<p>" The same shake that results in a 1 pixel blur at 12 MP makes a 2 pixel blur at 48 MP (square law)." </p> <p>Truth from a knowledgeable source. </p> <p>Also, all image stabilizers are not created equal. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Commenting on the above post by Karim Ghantous..<br> The D2X assertion was a Johnny-come-lately statement. In 1996 or 1997 Kodak had already declared and some of the photography magazines "confirmed" that the APS negative had more information on it than 35mm. Also when Kodak introduced its first 1+mp non SLR camera, one of the more Popular of the Photography magazines declared that digital had finally exceeded the information in a 35mm negative and "proved" it. That too, was amusing. <br> Figures don't lie, but liars......</p>

<p>From past Photonet contributor A. T. Burke...If you are using the word "analog" to mean film through glass printing, yes. First flash the film using a bright white (lots of titanium dioxide pigment in the white mix) reflector board in noon day sun. Then in the enlarger filter pack, over filter both opposite colors which will balance each other and reduce coloration. It takes a little trial and error to get the look you want.</p>

<p>No, you're not. You still get your choice of what to like even if the syncopahants don't approve.</p>

<p>To Fred G...</p> <p>1. Your comment "Yawn!" I get. After all, you are you and entitled to your interest levels, perspective, etc.. But Off Topic? Reuters buys photos and articles. Is it off topic to suggest that the buyer does not have to take that what the seller wants him to buy (usually) simply because the Photonet users are more sellers than buyers? Is it wrong to point out to Photonet photo sellers that even though one runs with the hounds, the fox may have a different point of view, especially when the foxes have the cash they want? </p> <p>2. Depending on the moderator <b>Moderator: Do not discuss moderation in threads.</b> </p> <p>To Clive Murray-White... </p> <p>"The definition of Freelance is very important and to me always implies that you are free to offer your work to whoever may wish to use it." </p> <p>Yes, that is the essence. Freelancers are free to sell what they want to and to whom they want to. Reuters is free to buy what they want to and from whom they want to. That philosophy of life is rapidly going out of fashion here in the USA, but has not YET been displaced and/or disallowed for most products and services.</p>

<p>A nice reminder of the days when we had sharp films like Panatomic-X and Techpan. </p>

<p>Some years ago I bought a tabletop projection screen. I'm 2000 miles from it so cannot measure it for you. In my mind it is under 24" square. I also bought an old bellows type 1000w slide projector with a 3x4 capability. 6x9 positive film, being smaller, works fine. I have used it on an 8 foot long table (with lesser 500w bulb) which held the almost 3 foot long projector and screen. I'll bet you can still buy a small screen or cut one from a larger swap meet purchased screen. </p>

<p>1. Any buyer of anything should get to choose what they want to buy. Of course, that does not apply anymore to products that have been politicized/government controlled like healthcare or automobiles here in the USA.<br> 2. Photojournalism has taken a few hits because of altered photos. At least they are making a good faith attempt to revive a sense of journalistic integrity among the readership of publications they contribute to.<br> 3. Most newspaper photos are printed at a screen rate that needs little detail. Compressed jpegs can meet that standard and take up less hard drive space.<br> 4. I can understand why unskillful photographers would hate the rule.<br> 5. I like it.</p>

<p>The Epson flatbed scanners although rated for 6400PPI can only resolve (poor optics?) about 2000-2400 real PPI of information. Still that gives you about 150 to 190 real megapixels. You can make a decent size inkjet print off of that. </p>

<p>Hmmmmm....<br> I must do everything wrong. I hold most prints 2x3" to 12x18" with my forearms about 45 degrees to perpendicular. My 20x30" tend to be less than an arm's length away.<br> The diagonal of a 2x3' would be about 2.5" which is too close for me. Is there really a "correct" distance? If so, who determined it?</p>

<p>Thanks, guys!</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me if the last rolls of K25, if kept in the freezer since purchase, would develop properly today if some entity was able to get a processing machine working with the right chemicals? </p>

<p>“He asked the young woman behind the counter to remove the roll of film in the camera and to load a new roll. I asked the young woman later how often this happened. "Every day" she replied.” </p> <p>I hope she replied with a smile and not an eye-roll. What a lucky camera shop. All they had to do was load film and they got film, processing and printing income. Plus, your employer was able to pay your wages. The old man had a nice human interaction. Life was sweet! </p> <p>The film pack and full auto type cameras got new customers who were formerly intimidated by loading the film, figuring the exposure and focus, so did not take pictures. </p> <p>How many million cameras and rolls of film did Kodak alone sell in the first few years? That was in the era when Kodak executives could read and write. </p>

<p>Responding to: Larry Dressler , Nov 01, 2015; 05:17 p.m., and quoting a previous post:</p> <p>“In the late '90s, between the various film manufacturing companies, there were films marketed specifically for some non-lily-white or non-pinkish-white races or groups of people. There was a little family-run camera store where I saw, on their shelves, a space that had three different baby films (?). One row of boxes had what appeared to be a Caucasian-looking baby on the box. Another row of boxes had what appeared to be an Asian-looking baby. The third row of boxes had what appeared to be an African-looking baby. I wondered if the film in the boxes was any different.” </p>

<p><a name="00ZYJK"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=589033">Walter Degroot</a> , Nov 03, 2011; 09:26 a.m.<br> "I have been married 51 years" </p> <p>Congrads!</p>

<p>The Ektar 127mm lens in excellent shape, coating and all, is a nice sharp picture take. However it was designed for 3x4 or quarter plate cameras and vignettes on 4x5. </p>

<p>1. Unlike a previous poster, I’ve seen too much legal abuse to be very respectful of the “rule of law” per se. </p> <p>2. Despite being a very strong 2^nd Amendment supporter, shooting a gun in the air is foolish. What goes up must come down. Small shot (high number) probably falls to earth at under 100 fps, but can damage skin and put out an eye. New Year’s Eve celebrants shooting guns in the air have caused collateral damage. Some deaths are attributed to that. A typical .30 caliber 150-165gr bullet reaches 300+ fps on the way down. A .38spl or .45 ACP is in the 150-200 fps range. Dumb. </p> <p>3. Not wanting to light off Fred G. again with something sounding masculine, some males and females both do want to see to their family and home safe and private and are willing to take aggressive steps. Arguing against my assertion, American society is trending away from both property rights and the right of self-protection. My guess is that public opinion is getting close to 50-50 that only the State should have those rights. </p> <p>4. Is it logical for the same society to want to make it illegal to take a picture of private (or especially government) property from a public street, but wants to defend the “right” for a photo drone to slip over a private property fence and take pictures in your window where one might otherwise have a reasonable feeling of privacy? </p> <p> </p>

<p>Good human interest subject. It is a great idea. There is some real history there. Too bad the producer needed to flash the pictures meaninglessly and hype the music volume above the narration. </p> <p>Sooooooooooooooo artsy. </p>

<p>Hee is a non Sleezebay listing from a few years ago...<br> <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3517574">http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3517574</a> </p> <p>Look at THAT price!</p>

<p>Yes, scratched film seems more common than not, even through non-drugstore type film developers. Neither higher cost nor a big name necessarily guarantee scratch less film. It is getting worse, not better as time marches on. </p> <p>“Those films also have long perfectly straight scratches, though all of them at slightly different heights.” </p> <p>Many film developing machines are set up so one can run 2 rolls through at the same time. Most have a film path wider than necessary for 35mm film. So the scratches at a different place on the film could have been made by the same burr in the processing path, just mounted differently on the leader. </p>

<p>I'll go with George Orwell. </p>

<p>In the lower left...Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral? </p>

<p>I’ve never owned a slave. Anyone in the USA who is still living and is a former slave was not a slave in the USA, but was a slave elsewhere and is now free having reached the shores of the USA. I don’t think Fred G. owns/owned any slaves, but what do I know? I’ll let him address that. </p> <p>As to the USA being built on slavery, The USA did not start (and or build) slave owning on the North American continent, the USA ended it. </p> <p>I thought the “New World” was opened up by Europe to provide wealth for Europe by the French, Spanish, Portuguese, and British. THEY brought in slaves, mostly from Africa, but other places as well. THEY also killed, displaced and booted out the people living there on the North American Continent. Formerly oppressed subjects of those slave-owning countries, some slaves themselves and/or de-facto slaves, fought or bought their way into being the USA. The USA then did away with their inherited slave owning system. I don’t think that was a bad thing for the USA to do. </p> <p>Back to a photography point (if that is allowed) I still saw a good representation of ALL American culture, with the exception of the very wealthy urban segment, in the FSA’s collection of both Kodachrome and B&W pictures. Was that prejudicial against the Wall Street wealthy or just that The Farm Security Administration did not find much farm life in downtown Manhattan? I have not made a statistical analysis of Shorpy’s selection among that collection. I do not intend to do so either. </p>

<p>According to past Photonet member A. T. Burke, “V” was used as an emulsion/date code for 1987. “G” was used as a 1989 emulsion/date code.</p>