Robin Smith

I suggest you just try MPix, and see if you like it. I find that my black and white prints from my Canon Pro100 are neutral, so I don't think it will be a real problem to get the same from a commercial printer. Of course, there may be better options, some people want rag or matte for black and white as it looks more special (just don't put them behind glass). I can't remember whether MPix offer this.

Love the Qs. I'm waiting for the Q3, but doubt I'll be able or willing to buy it. I'm stupid, but for the price I'd like it to be 20MP at 75mm - which I suspect the Q3 will be.

As a follow-up to the Rodeo's point. I find f8 is optimum as it helps increase depth field which aids dealing with uneven film. I found that the difference between it and f5.6 is only just discernible and yet offers some sharpness benefits overall. I don't use glass holders for slides (too many problems with dust and also anti newton glass affects the flatness of illumination). I use the metal edged GePe slide mounts as they provide good flatness and a sharp edge. I have a Magnum Sickles ChromaPro copying kit, similar to the Illumitran, except that it uses halogen illumination rather than flash. It also has the advantage of built in color filers. It's like an inverted enlarger with a dichroic color head. The slide mount allows for rapid copying as each slide maintains its precise position each time. I use a Rodenstock Apo Repro lens which is optimized for 1:1 reproduction. I found a 6-element Nikkor-El enlarging lens was not so good at 1:1 since most enlarger lenses are not designed for 1:1 reproduction. I think that there might be slightly easier focusing with a typical macro lens as the helical focusing is more precise, rather than the bellows focusing required for a bellows mounted lens.

Assume it was taken in Asia somewhere. It doesn't do much for me I'm afraid. It is interesting only in so far as I wonder where it was taken. Get closer or have the man engaged in conversation or something more exciting. Of course way too late for that. I also think, given the non-action in the scene, color might have stimulated the eyeballs a bit more.

Right, it is failing because modern programs get more bloated every year with security updates and extra processing, memory requirements and often unwanted features. Then there are all useless programs that occupy read time during start up. There are diagnostic programs that can help clean these up (but they can become a problem themselves). Then there are unwanted anti-virus programs that are frequently downloaded often unintentionally when downloading other programs. Then, if you have lots of data the scratch disc on your hard drive gets too small which really cramps your style. My Dell was "failing", but installing a much bigger 3TB SSD as the startup disc solved that. It'll give it another 3 years of useful life, I'm hoping.

That was about 2 years ago. I hope he got them back from the lab by now...

What does "failing" mean in this context? And what were the "signs"? I have never had a computer fail, home or work, so I'm interested.

I suspect that Tamron did not get around to making the Adaptall mount in time for the R3 (and/or were judging demand), so it only came out when the R4 had been introduced, or was about to be introduced, so they just called it that to reduce confusion as to whether it would work with the Leicaflex, SL, and SL2 too (it won't). There was an R4s camera too though which makes it still a little confusing.

I used the Tamron 28 f2.5 for many years and always thought it excellent. Not as good as the 28mm Elmarit-Rs but much cheaper. I believe if the adapter works on the R4 to R9 it will also work on the R3, since the 3 was the first that used the 3rd cam.

Just have a notebook or a sheet of paper and write your login details in/on it. Simple.

Yes shoot digital and post process to look like film. Easy. Or you could shoot it on XP2 at 1600. But XP2 doesn’t really look like film to many people. You could also try Ilford 3200. I liked it back in the day. A bit chalk and cheese, but no one would not think it was film. Has a real look to it.

Presumably this represents 3 shots as if they were on a gallery wall, which you might see in passing, as you shoot by. Since it is a construct rather than an image of a "real" set of the 3 framed pics, it is quite intriguing, particularly as none of the images are well defined. Two have apparently bad reflections and one is mysteriously out of focus. In conclusion I think the image is rather clever. The 3 depicted images remain essentially unknown. I have the feeling that if only I could stop and move my position or get closer I could see what the images actually are, but of course I will never be able to do this. It is a photo that will never be resolved, but to me is rather thought provoking.

Never seen it before. Why is it "famous"?

Great face, but the processing makes him look like a lizard man (perhaps from the old TV series "V"?

To be so down on the Vivitars implying they were bad when they come out is silly, If you wanted to swivel the head, you took it off camera with the extension cord and pointed it where you liked. Most flashes then did not have swivel heads and certainly not at that price. Back then, and probably still today, most amateurs are not using multiple flashes in a studio-like setting. They still work usefully today in a settings when activated by a cheap optical sensor. However, I would agree there is nothing special about them today, and I would certainly advise getting a cheap Asian brand with more features. But I still got mine and they still work.

This photo needs a title. Without it I do not know really what is depicted. I can assume, like the others have above, but it would be good to know. It is a bit too subtle for a stand alone shot, but IMO would work in a series about homelessness, if that is the purpose of the shot.

It's no worse than an equivalent lens on any other camera and in fact due to superb IBIS and smaller size is probably better.

This is all about the stormy sky, which is indeed spectacular. Not so sure about the irrigation booms on the flat farmland, but that's the way it was, so I'll take it.

Maybe the singer is singing or thinking about high rise dwellings (as one does)? Otherwise I cannot see the connection myself on its own. I am clearly to way too literal to appreciate this one.

https://www.sulasula.com/en/home/

Heat turbulence is an issue, of course, but that is one of the first things you learn about longer lenses. You must pick your shooting distance and season. It's just something else to learn. Modern IS systems are also wonderful for eliminating camera shake allowing handheld shooting with 600mm equivalent lenses in m43 with 1/60th or 1/125. It's always nicer to have a tripod, but they are not essential, although having something to lean the lens on is best for help with aiming. Burst shooting helps. The 100-400mm Oly lens Karim mentions is $1500, so not terrible.

Metz and to a lesser extent Sunpak were the professional's choice when I was a teenager. I got my 283 in 1976 and a 285 in the 80's. I think the key to their success was that they were cheaper and smaller, but still powerful flashes that allowed off camera use. The auto thyristor circuits were also a big plus. Then there were all the doo-dads you could buy for them. I assumed they were Japanese at the time (like the lenses). I always found them good flashes, but I only resort to flash when I have to. Dedicated TTL flash basically reduced the appeal of these auto flashes (even though they still work very well).

And yet, great wildlife pictures with long lenses are being taken every day and even with the "unconvincing' m43 sensors...I guess I must be imagining it all.

Fuji is the only dedicated APS system. I was interested once, but went m43 instead because I was looking to save weight, and m43 is better in that regard. There were also more lenses and more choice. In general they were less expensive. The retro aspect of Fuji I found unhelpful, although they look cool. Olympus had converged in style and substance to Sony ( a case of convergent evolution), which I found much more appealing than the quirky style of Fuji (or Canon at the time). Nikon were mirrorless non-starters 5 years ago.