danny_o

Takes me back to Laconia in the 60s !

I would have thought that Grac I would have thought that Graceb1010 was trying to produce an analogue capture, rather than a digitally manufactured interpretation.

Can you show an example? :rolleyes:

If the picture is worth saving, print it. If the picture isn't worth printing, then it isn't worth worrying about. Nobody will ever look at your pictures, if they are just meaningless snapshots of nothing in particular, especially if ( as likely, at a rate of 1000+ per diem) they are repetitive drivel. I have spoken.

I have pictures of my Mom age 16 or so, about 1925, with a house in the background, which is still there. Thanks to your inspired idea, I'd like to try to get my grand-daughters, about the same age as Mom was, in a picture at the same place, across the street from the property where I, my Mom, and her father were born. I also have a picture of the house that I was born in, with my Great-Grandmother as the subject ( maybe 1918?) , and another picture of the same house, with my 2-year old self as the subject ( 1952 ??). I've always thought that these pictures are very special.

".....on Shooting Hummingbirds.....", My Daddy always told me, don't shoot anything you don't intend to eat.

That's a really nice looking bag, but it looks like leather rather than cotton canvas.

Why even bother wth digital?

I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems that you're saying that, in your opinion, the FM series of Nikon camera are among the "cheaper ones", because of the bent part?

White. Flat, matte ceiling white.

We're currently undergoing a very controversial public dispute, in Ottawa, about a planned addition to the Chateau Laurier hotel. Originally designed in something called Gothic Revival Chateauesque, the building was intended to reflect and complement the Canadian Parliament buildings, on the same block. The building is now about 100 years old (actually older than the current 1927 Parliament buildings), and the new (2013) owners are planning to construct a massive addition, in beautiful 21st century style. The proposed design, described by much of the public as " a huge radiator" has been recently approved by city council, but a very intense public legal opposition has been mounted.

Good Heavens, what is it? She seems to have an attitude!

I fully agree with Sandy and JDM about the forum, but I have a frustration, definitely personal, but perhaps others share it. Every day there are spectacular pictures, often of local or foreign scenes, streets, buildings, etc., with a notation of, perhaps, a beautiful 12th century church as " Nikon D7100". Obviously, a rose is a rose.....(Stein) but a clear identification of a subject which is interesting would not abuse the "No Words" rule. Any opinion on that?

So did I, and now I wish that I had never seen a digital camera. The zero expense, and spontaneity of "the next frame" eliminated my previous habits of care, forethought, planning .... and care. I ended up with several hard-drives full of repetitious trivial crap, and a huge workload in editing ( and discarding) an exponentially larger proportion of pictures, and intentionally saving far fewer than my prior film average. I've since shifted back to a preference toward film, but I have yet to reclaim the fascination that my film days held for me. I've lost the patience, and the eye; I'm trying to recover.

Michael, Thanks for a complete explanation. I have very little experience with reserving venues ( it's been years since all of my kids have been married), and no experience at all as a consultant/contractor. I'll try to make sure that I remember this scenario the next time I make a reservation, and to see and sign off on all contract conditions before I plant the deposit. Would that have avoided this bad experience? D.

I've been following this thread from the first posting, and I'm very impressed with the answers, and certainly sympathize, and agree with, the OP's path of dealing with the problem...bar one. Having re-read the thread a couple of times, I simply cannot understand why the contractor/consultant ( the OP), and the clients did not simply shift their date to a more agreeable venue. I'm also a bit unsure that I might have missed something critical in the entire thread, because not one of the respondents have suggested that solution. Is there a reason? Please explain.

Andrew, yes that is the lens in question. Your suggestion, that " the distance encoder in the lens (might) be b0rked? " seems to make sense. My understanding of the electronics involved lies somewhere between Zero and None-at-all, which is why I put the question out to the forum. When I first bought the D200, that lens worked perfectly on it, but after a few years the performance became erratic, until it died completely. I was actually surprised to find that the lens works perfectly on the film cameras. That the D200 can fully use any of my other autofocus lenses only adds to the confusion. As for the focus screw in the lens, yes, actually, that was something that I tried early on, and I've just tried it again at your suggestion. No problem with that, it rotates very easily, almost without tension. Anyway, aside from being an intriguing curiosity, I've adapted to simply using the lens as a manual focus when using it on the digital cameras; strangely, and fortunately, the "Focus Indicator" in the viewfinder display works, and glows when the chosen focal point is in perfect focus. Thanks for the suggestions, and I think you might be right about the "distance encoder".

I bought this lens new. For years, it was an almost constant favourite, on my various cameras. Maybe 5 years ago, this lens became erratic, unwilling to autofocus on my D200. Naturally, I switched to manual focus, but I brought the lens in to L.L.Lozeau, in Montreal, and asked for recommendations: CLA, repair. or what. The techie tried the lens on several cameras at the counter. and the lens focussed perfectly. I didn't have my D200 with me at that time, though. I purchased another D200, used of course, and the lens will not autofocus on either of the Digital cameras. I have several buddies with more recent (D 7100) cameras, and the lens will not autofocus on any of them. Meanwhile, I have several other autofocus lenses for Nikon, and all perform perfectly on my D200 cameras. Also, and most importantly, I use several Nikon film cameras with autofocus: F90x (2 of them), F65 and F4; on all film cameras, this autofocus lens operates and focusses beautifully, as do any of my other Nikkor or other lenses. SO: I have a Nikkor autofocus lens that used to perform accurately on my digital camera ( and on various others), which no longer will focus automatically on any digital camera. NB, if I switch off the autofocus switch on the camera, the focus ring rotates freely, and focus is accurate. Meanwhile, this same lens connects perfectly on any autofocus film camera that I have. I've cleaned the contacts on all of my cameras ( film and digital), I've cleaned the contacts on the lens. All other autofocus lenses operate as expected on all cameras. At this point, I have been working around this silly problem, since I also use several manual lenses, but the ridiculous bugger still baffles me. Any ideas?

For the who has (wants) everything!:)

Henry VI, Part 2 - Act IV, Scene 2 DICK: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Yeah, I guess I was out of line there. Thanks for reminding me.

Good pictures, but the only one of the watches that I'd ever want to be see wearing is the Tissot 1853.

Agfa APX 100, the real 1995 version.

This is a very interesting thread, and an interesting technique. I've been reluctant to use colour film for some time now, due to the absence of local processing outlets. I wonder, though, whether the film, once developed in B&W process, can thereafter be reprocessed in colour? I seem to recall some such discussion, from years ago.