Tony Parsons

<p>Hello, Heidi,<br> Had a look at your images - although there is a certain red cast visible in some images, to me it is not objectionable, but of course it all lies in the eyes of the viewer. What I do seem to see is a certain amount of flare in some images, and I wonder if the front element of the lens needs careful cleaning ? You said you didn't use a lens shade or lens hood when discussing the vignetting issue, but using one when shooting at an acute angle to the light source can help reduce flare.<br> The vignetting does seem more apparent in the wider angle shots, and as has been said the aperture at which you shoot can affect this. It may be worth mounting the camera on a tripod and doing some test shots at varying apertures and focal lengths, making careful notes of these, to see under what conditions this occurs. Talking of wide angle shots, in one image the wire fencing through which you shot is visible - this can be avoided by using a longer focal length, getting the lens closer to the wire (if possible), or both. If you already know this, my apologies.<br> Finally, adjusting colours, contrast etc in post processing is part and parcel of the joys of scanning images. Is it possible your processor could provide you with a CD of your images, scanned professionally, for you to compare with your own results ?<br> Whatever, best of luck, and don't forget film is fun. I only shoot monochrome film myself these days, process it in the bathroom and scan the negs.<br> Tony</p>

<p>These shots also look as if they were taken well above sea level, and I think I read somewhere, many moons ago, that a warming filter should be used in these conditions. As with other responses, I feel it is most likely the original lighting which is the main contributor, and a few post processing tweaks should help.</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>Hi, Alisa,<br> Bit late on this one - sorry. Have you looked at close-up lenses, that screw into the lens filter thread ? They are relatively inexpensive, require no exposure correction and, provided you stop the lens down, are pretty good quality. Should be available from your local camera shop, maybe second hand, or else look on Ebay. No moving parts, so nothing to go wrong !<br> Tony</p>

<p>Hi, Danek,<br /> Just had a look at that listing - in the eleventh and twelfth images, you can see enough of the back of the lens to discern the lugs for a bayonet mount, so it is definitely not M42. Whether it is a Nikon fit I cannot tell, I'm afraid, but I have a dim recollection of some Russian cameras (or is that kameras !?) using a Nikon F mount. The listing appears to indicate that this lens is available in both Nikon F and M42 mounts, not one mount which fits both camera systems.<br /> You may be able to find more info on this site :<br /> http://www.destoutz.ch/nikon_f_lenses.html<br /> if not, there is some pretty tasty eye-candy there !<br /> Tony</p>

<p>I think my 'rationale' for photography can be summed up by this phrase :<br> 'Each a glimpse - and gone forever.'<br> I want to record what I have seen.</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>Again, early experience of dev 35mm film. No dark room, no changing bag, bathroom & kitchen shared and not light tight.<br> Wait for darkness, draw bedroom curtains, burrow under duvet with tank, reel, film in cassette and scissors in that order, having cut the leader to shape beforehand. Open cassette (Ilford FP4, push top off with thumbs). Gently feed film into plastic spiral, unrolling it from cassette hub about 6" at a time. When end reached, cut off close to hub with scissors, place spiral in tank, put lid on tank, emerge wriggling backwards from under duvet.<br> Put tank on dressing table, ferret around in bed for empty cassette, hub and scissors, then go into kitchen and develop film, enduring facetious comments from flatmates, until they saw the results printed by local camera shop, at which point they went strangely quiet.<br> No wonder I went digital.<br> Tony</p>

<p>Years ago, when I was able to do my own 35mm processing, occasionally I would notice these 'C' shaped marks, and eventually discovered they had been caused when feeding the film into the spiral, when it had bent slightly. I realise that commercial processors use a totally different system for loading and processing film, but is there a possibility that the film itself has been physically damaged in this way ?<br> Tony</p>

<p>I may be a wimp, but I leave sensor cleaning to the experts ! My Pentax has a sensor cleaning function that vibrates the sensor each time I turn it on, which helps considerably, but every so often (maybe once a year, or more if I notice a large amount of detritus showing up in light areas on the image) I take it to my local friendly camera store, pay my £20 and have the job done professionally.</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>David,<br> Thanks once again - I think we are agreeing on the same point but from different angles. One of my backup drives (containing ALL my images) is off site except when being updated, and is swapped with the other when I update them both. So - main data disk always on site. Two backups drives, both updated at the same time, alternately stored off-site. Two sets of DVD backups, one stored on-site, one stored off-site. Also original SD cards, when full, stored off site permanently. <br> If it gets any more complicated, I'll take up spoon-whittling instead !</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>Aren't they the <br> ATGNFI brigade ?<br> All The Gear - No Flipping Idea !<br> Tony</p>

<p>I may have missed the point here, but why does the gender / sexual orientation / education or any other arbitrary distinction have any bearing on photographic results ? Surely the image is all that matters ?<br> Don't forget :'There are two kinds of people in the world - those who divide people into two kinds, and those who do not'.<br> Tony</p>

<p>The concept of 'optical centring' is interesting - I have a very loose theory that hominins and other primates may be genetically programmed to look into the distance and ignore the foreground, as danger is more likely to come from a distance. The raising of the image in the frame would thus bring it more in line with the natural angle of vision.<br> Another of my interests is birding, frequently using a Leica spotting scope for viewing distant birds. I have noticed that, if I am showing someone else a bird, and I have positioned the scope so that the bird is in the centre of the field of view, they frequently overlook it, but if I change the angle very slightly, so that the bird is positioned above the horizontal centre, they can see it clearly. This indicates to me that they are again ignoring the foreground of the image.<br> Anyone any thoughts ?<br> Tony</p>

<p>David, <br> Please excuse the delay in replying to you - I have recently 'celebrated' a millstone birthday (sorry, that should read 'milestone' !) and what with well-meaning friends and relations (ask Rabbit !), I have had very little time to myself. However.<br> I take your point about using multiple drives for backups - I may not have made myself clear earlier. I do use multiple drives - the point I was making was that I would prefer (and indeed have) multiple backups on different devices, as any drive can fail without warning, and I also back up to DVD. As an amateur, I probably do not shoot as many images as a pro - the other side of that coin is that my images all have personal meaning for me, so I endeavour to keep them safe to the best of my ability.<br> Thanks for your input and suggestions - any advice is gratefully received. <br> Tony</p>

<p>My filing system is purely date based, under the SD card identifier (RAW 001, JPG 001 etc) - each sub-folder on hard drive is named by the Julian Date (i.e. year number, followed by days elapsed since Jan 1, so today would be 16103) followed by a brief description of bulk of images, such as Wildlife, Architecture, etc. I copy the folder from the SD card to this sub-folder in its entirety, creating a sub-sub folder, with the camera's own naming system.<br> The SD card identifier is further modified with the start and end date of usage, in standard format, as it is not used for sorting. So, images taken today would be in RAW 003 13122015 to ****, sub-folder 16103 Wildlife, camera folder.<br> As I started this system well before I started to use digital cameras it also includes images taken on 35mm, 645 and (I am ashamed to admit it) 126 film, each of which has as much detail as I can recall. As with this system I had created a spreadsheet to identify each image, I have continued with this, since I seldom shoot more than 100 images per session, so it is easily updated - the spreadsheet is also backed up, of course<br> Therefore, although maybe only a portion of the entire archive is on each backup drive, I can find images relatively easily. I am sure there are modern electronic ways of maintaining this far more easily, but at my age (first 'proper' camera Nikon F) I find it easier, with almost everything, to continue in a system I know backwards, instead of trying to learn something new and inherently more complicated.</p> <p>Thank you for your interest, David.</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>When I scan, whether it be a photograph or pages from a magazine, I always use an A4 black card behind the actual image that I am scanning. With magazine pages, it avoids text or image bleed-through, and for smaller photographs it seems to crisp scans up by not requiring the software to perform unnecessary tasks.<br> HTH</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>OK, call me a hoarder if you wish, but I use each SD card once only, keeping the full ones safely away from home. I copy all files to my primary data disc the day they are taken, then take two copies of all images during my weekly backup sessions (who needs Friday nights anyway ?), one to each backup drive. These drives too are kept at an alternate site.<br> When editing, I save each edited image in a sub-folder of the original folder, with an amended filename incorporating the original filename. These too get backed up weekly.<br> My backup discs NEVER get over-written - when full I get a new one (usually 1TB, but as prices have come down next time I'll go for 2TB). Some images from years ago may get saved over a hundred times - my executors can have hours of fun going through the lot ! <br> Having lost images when using film, I do not intend to repeat the process.<br> Tony</p>

<p>Fred / Mukul<br> Agreed babies and dogs don't complain - but oh, their parents (including owners who have dogs as substitute children, but let's not go there !). Tonight went pretty well - a well-behaved Alsatian with a calm owner, and a younger Airedale which was somewhat boisterous ! <br> Focal lengths varied between 50 and 80, so 75 to 120 35mm equivalent - basic portrait lengths, really. On-camera flash, with small softbox diffuser.<br> Tony</p>

<p>Bounce flash is a must - may I advise actually setting off the flash way before you start to take photos, as far away from the child as possible, progressively getting closer, so the child becomes acclimatised to the sudden light ? (Don't do thunder effects as well, that always spooks them !).<br> Secondly (and this may sound silly for such a young child) get to know them. Talk to them, play with them (parent present, of course) to help them relax - don't forget, you're at least four times their size, and a stranger. Put yourself in their position ! <br> To test the exposure, why not take some pix of the room and surroundings before the child is brought in, so you aren't fiddling with controls all the time ? It'll also look far more professional, and may act as an introduction to the portfolio or album I presume you are going to present to the proud parents.<br> Finally (and I'm sure I don't have to say this) if the child shows signs of distress STOP !!!!!.<br> Best of luck - this could be the start of a new career !<br> Tony<br> PS I'm photographing dogs tonight - at least babies don't bite !</p>

<p>Alice,<br> Apologies, not good news I'm afraid. Spoke to Phil today, and he confirmed that the dimensions of the MX are not the same as the ME, so they can neither take the same winder nor are the battery chambers interchangeable. If it's any consolation, he said the battery compartment was somewhat fragile on the MX winder.<br> He sometimes has spares in stock, but he had a good ferret around (he has a proper camera shop, he is not a purveyor of shiny jewellery !), and could find nothing. So it does look as if your best bet is Ebay, or, if it operates in your area, Gumtree or some similar site.</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>If I understand your query correctly, it's only the battery chamber that is damaged, and you want to know if a similar part from a Pentax ME winder will fit the MX winder attachment ? First question - do you know if they both take the same batteries (i.e. AA) ? If so, I would think there is a good possibility it would fit - is there a camera dealer near you that you could ask ? If not, leave it with me and next time I'm in Norwich I'll ask my own local dealer. If he says it will, you could try to source one via Ebay.</p>

<p>This may be a somewhat simplistic suggestion, but could it be that the negatives (or slides) are the wrong way round in the scanner - i.e. is the emulsion side uppermost or the other side ? It may be worth trying scans with both of these options (yes, I know - another variable ! Sorry !) to see if the results are the same.</p> <p>HTH</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>Despite cosmetic appearances, I don't think that minor scratches degrade the image quality appreciably, if at all. If as you say it is on the rear element, then it will almost certainly not be in focus at any point, so probably the worst that could happen is a small amount of lowering of contrast. Will you be shooting mono or colour ?<br> Tony</p>

<p>Thanks, just being curious - seems a pretty good price. Don't forget to post the images you take with it on here for us all to enjoy, please. I must say I like your current portfolio, you have a nice sense of humour.<br> Tony</p>

<p>I had a similar problem with some similar mounts, which I managed to solve by gently bending each half of the mount inwards (i.e. towards where the film will lie). The actual problem was caused by the mounts being slightly bowed 'outwards', so they tended to pull apart. HTH</p> <p>Tony</p>

<p>Looks a pretty good job to me, but if I were you I'd check the corrosion on the strap lugs - last thing you want is the strap parting company with the camera and it falling to the floor. If you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay ?</p> <p>Tony</p>