royall_berndt

The 37mm accessories that fit the Avus also fit the lens of the rare Vito 3.

Rick, please post some shots with living creatures. I would be interested in the results.

Mike, I hope you will reconsider the policy of people's being free to post all they wish. Too many dogs are posted.

I bought a model II from a dealer and everything seemed good. But, alas, I didn't look through the vf until a year later, and it was filthy. So much dirt that I couldnt see to frame or focus. How could this happen? Would this be an expensive repair? I once owned a II that gave great results but eventually jammed. BTW, I had that 1.7x attachment, but the results were poor. right now I use a Contaflex IV. Everything is lovely: it handles like a REAL.camera and the lens is excellent. The only negative is that the focusing is very stiff.

in my backyard...

the new Moynihan Train Hall, NYC

Hard studying

This ordinary house in Black Mountain, NC, recently sold for half a million dollars. It was built in the 1930s of cheap materials. Low ceilings.

Something close to home.

From test roll with 1990s Canon SLR. But not a Canon lens.

Centennial celebration of the Statue of Liberty.

Taken with Minox 35ML.

No, I am into chickens, not dogs.

I had a shot printed on Cibachrome fifty years ago. It hasn't faded, although the original slide certainly has.

I once bought an Elwood 5x7 enlarger. I used it for everything down to 6cm square. This gave me prints of long tonal scale. The light source for this huge machine was a large incandescent bulb coming through a glass plate that was shaded to compensate for hot spots. The enlarging lens was a 165mm Ektar.

Joe, just a word of warning. I once shot Tri-X at ASA 800 and developed in Rodinal. I overdeveloped, as I always had with over-indexed shots. The result was awful. I have never seen a worse grainstorm. The shots were useless. HC 110 was always great.

I agree with you on this. If anyone is upset enough to confront me, I delete the shot as they watch. If I decide later that I simply must have the shot, I can restore it using free software. I once shot a picture of a lady's dog. She came over and asked if I were shooting this for an advertisement!

I have noticed that, in a good number of my street shots involving people, there is a male person in the background giving me a nasty look. Usually he is a middle school or high school student. Anyone else seen this or able to explain this?

This is a portrait of Charlie Chaplin's second wife. She was 17 at the time. It was okay "back then," but would now make some people uncomfortable. Cute kid, but really... Moderator note: image removed. Photo.net terms and conditions of use - you may only post images that you have taken yourself.

Some people wouldn't like this shot because the girl is young. But the shot doesn't ridicule or sexualize her.

You must have a strong vehicle to carry that camera around.

The 3.5 F is a treasure. It takes all accessories, and you will never cease to marvel at the capacities of that Planar lens!