--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00016 Date: 04/12/98 From: "BOB HAYES" Time: 04:34pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: 15" lens (Dr.Bob) From: "Bob Hayes" Subject: Re: 15" lens (Dr.Bob) > From: Larry.Bolch@f53.n342.z1.wnybbs.net (Larry Bolch) > Date: 11 Apr 98 21:33:00 GMT > Subject: 15" lens (Dr.Bob) > To: photo@wnybbs.net (Multiple recipients of "FidoNet PHOTO Mailing List") > Reply-to: photo@wnybbs.net (Multiple recipients of "FidoNet PHOTO Mailing List") > Organization: Fidonet: Amiga Devil BBS, Edmonton AB, Canada, USR V.34 > > > In the epistle "Re: Mard Gras (Hap)" scribed 04-04-98 17:17, > "bob Hayes" did thus proclaim to All: > Before them-there fancy-pants heathen-Frenchmen came over > peddling their new-fangled metric system, decent folks > followed the logical system of inches, feet, yards, rods, > furlongs, miles, leagues, etc., the way God intended. Ah...It's the Frenchmen we have to blame? I've always wondered...I slept thru that history class. :) > Back then a shooter would buy an 8" x 10" camera with a 15" > normal lens. Now-a-days these fancy know-it-all's would call > it a 380mm lens - now that Kodak is out of the lens business > and you cain't get nuthin' that ain't made by furriners. So...now we blame Kodak? ------------------------------------------------------- FidoNet PHOTO Conference<->InterNet EMail List To subscribe to the list, send an EMail message to: listserv@wnybbs.net With the words: SUBSCRIBE PHOTO To Unsubscribe: UNSUBSCRIBE PHOTO To post a message to the list, send E-Mail to: photo@wnybbs.net ------------------------------------------------------- --- * Origin: WNYBBS FidoNet<->InterNet E-Mail Gateway (1:2613/10) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00017 Date: 04/10/98 From: STANLEY SYKES Time: 11:35am \/To: KAREN WATTIE (Read 0 times) Subj: Karen Wattie: Spring Painting Hi Karen, You wrote in a message to Bob Dial: KW> A fellow I chat with daily has a theory that there is a connection KW> between spring time and women wanting to paint (walls, etc, not KW> pictures). I would dearly love to run with that subject since I KW> have been checking out the paint for the fence and the entrance KW> way. I don't know what the connection is, must be something phsycological. There was a piece on the news this morning (UK Radio) about the increase in DIY related accidents, people falling off ladders, electric shock etc, relative to any other time of the year. And plans for a national campaign each spring to point out the safty aspects involved in DIY. I am not sure of what accidents are cause by painting, but it may make for an interesting article if you do find a connection. Regards, Stan --- * Origin: Link-Line - Huddersfield UK : +44-1484-681753 (2:250/350) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00018 Date: 04/10/98 From: STANLEY SYKES Time: 03:22pm \/To: ROBERT SMITH (Read 0 times) Subj: MONOTONE VIEWER Hi Robert, You wrote in a message to All: RS> I have a question about a specific item used in photography, though RS> I don't think its use is widely known. This is called a monotone RS> viewer; its basically a small glass filter (round) and its housed RS> in a metal protective carrier. That is to say it swings out when RS> you want to use it,much like a knife blade or magnifying glass. RS> This is used for black and white photography - basically when you RS> look thru it you can see the ranges in contrast throughout the RS> scene. I think it is designed to show relative brightness rather than placement of colour and I had considered buying one myself until a friend of suggested a cheap alternative is a sepia filter/brown filter which removes the effect of colour and leaves the relative brightnesses. If you still are thinking of purchasing one I will see if I can still find a reference in a magazine. The following info may be of use too, the numbers represent the proportional brightness for each colour so two colours will a close number will not show to be greatly different in mono, so if my logic is correct an orange filter would help to seperate blue and violet by darkening the blue (lightens same darkens opposite). Note: the colours below are based on pigments as objects reflect light, not the same as you would use for colour printing (which I know nothing about) which are based on RGB as they deal with light. Someone had better help me out now as I soon get confused with filters. Red(6) /\ Orange(8)\---/ \---/Violet(3) \/ \/ Yellow(9)/-\ /-\Blue(4) \/ Green(6) Regards, Stan --- * Origin: Link-Line - Huddersfield UK : +44-1484-681753 (2:250/350) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00019 Date: 04/08/98 From: HAP NEWSOM Time: 12:31am \/To: BOB DIAL (Read 0 times) Subj: Zip that thing up! Hi there Bob! BD>HN> Nuff said. BD> Not in my estimation, but photography IS much preferable! ;^) BD> Acknowledged, Hap, with apologies. Yup, let's concentrate on the things we can come together on, not the ones that divide us up. Thanks for the consideration. chat with you soon! hap * SLMR 2.1a * a crowded elevator smells different to a midget --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Outdoor Focus - University Place, WA (206)565-7730 (1:138/123) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00020 Date: 04/13/98 From: BOB DIAL Time: 09:40am \/To: "BOB HAYES" (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: B&W Art Copies BH> From: "Bob Hayes" BH> Subject: Re: B&W Art Copies BH> > The result was better than wonderful.. it took place [when].. BH> > .. the pills I daily gave [turned out to be] ..placibos.. BH> Is that even Legal? My oh My!! Wasn't a commercial sale so doubt if any laws were broken other than the detail man giving away samples.. At any rate, as they say, "All's well that ends well" and the "end" was mighty darn nice then--and since, in the results achieved--if you read me! ];> ... A wilderness would be silent if only the best bird sang. * Q-Blue 2.3 * --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: A.L.T. BBS Shreveport, LA (318) 631-9734 (1:380/64.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00021 Date: 04/13/98 From: BOB DIAL Time: 09:48am \/To: MATTHEW KIWALA (Read 0 times) Subj: Light Meter/Dr Bob MK> While wandering from room to room, muttering quietly to himself, MK> All on 04-10-98, to "BOB HAYES" expounded thusly: MK> > take the LunaPro into the studio and see.. MK> > MK> "BH==>And this is for incident as well as flash? MK> Of course! Why buy just a flash, or just an ambient meter? Now, if MK> they'd just make an ambient/flash/COLOR meter, I'd be really happy! Progress is two thirds of the way there! When I bought all of mine there weren't any "combos" to pick from. Didn't matter much as the situation usually called for just one or the other anyway. Would be nice to have them all rolled into one, though. Kinda like shooting and then deciding whether we want 35mm, medium format, or a big ole 8x10 negative--after the fact! Hehhehheh MK> .. How did my wild oats turn into shredded wheat? Compliments of Mother Nature (or Father Time?), no charge! (Dang it!) ... More duct tape! Donald has developed another quack!! * Q-Blue 2.3 * --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: A.L.T. BBS Shreveport, LA (318) 631-9734 (1:380/64.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 137 PHOTOGRAPHY Ref: F5G00022 Date: 04/13/98 From: BRUCE FEIST Time: 10:07am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Comparing Photos From: Bruce Feist Subject: Comparing Photos Hi, y'all; I just ran some semi-formal tests on a bunch of lenses that I have. Some are old Leica screw-mount or Visoflex bayonet lenses used with a Leica IIIc and Visoflex II; others are more modern Minolta MC and MD style lenses used with a Minolta X-700. I intend to run similar tests with other equipment I have in the future, including a Contax IIIa (if I ever get the thing fixed!), some other 35mm rangefinder systems, a Minox C, some medium-format TLRs I have, and so on. I post this for two reasons: first, to be informative. Who knows... someone else might find my experiences useful. Second, I'd like suggestions on how to improve my testing in the future. The basic approach I'm using is to take the equipment outside, mount the camera on a reasonably-stable Bogen tripod and attach a remote release cable. I have a whtieboard measuring 2' x 3'; a magazine advertisement is taped to the left side of it, and information on the camera, lens, exposure settings, focal length used (in the case of zoom lenses), and film is written on the right. The lens is stopped down 2-3 notches (if possible). I position the camera so that almost all of the field is occupied by the whiteboard (which is on an easel), and take a photo. With zoom lenses, I take three photos: at minimum, maximum, and approximately middle focal length. Photos are printed by a commercial lab at 4" by 6", and examined with an 8x loupe. Initially, I was just trying to read the small print on the ad as a measure f sharpness; my brother Jonathan suggested looking at distortion as well, which I have measured by putting a straight edge against the edges of the hiteboard's image. My major problem so far is the film I've used, which was 1) a poor choice and 2) inconsistent. The Leica was tested with Kodak Gold 400; the Minolta with Agfa HDC 200. Given that differences between the lenses are readily apparent under he loupe, this does not seem to have been a critical problem. Nonetheless, I intend to try again using a sharper, finer-grained film (probably Kodak Royal Gold 25, if I can find some), at least in the case of the Leica tests. All in all, the differences were significant. As Leicaphiles would like to believe, the Leica equipment was in almost all cases superior to the Minolta equipment. The differences between Minolta branded lenses and 'third-party' lenses fitting the Minolta were minor, except in the case of a somewhat broken Soligar I tested. And now, the specifics. Let's do the Leica stuff first. The five lenses that I tested were a screw-mount 50mm Elmar f/3.5, 135mm Hektor 135 f/4.5, and 50mm Elmar f/2.8, and two bayonet-mount lenses for a Visoflex II: a 65mm Elmar f/3.5 and a 90mm Summicron f/2. Before starting, I had subjectively felt that the 50mm f/2.8 Elmar was not as sharp as its f/3.5 cousin, which I consider excellent; I had no particular feelings about the others, which I have not used much. In practice, the two 50mm lenses were indistinguishable. All Leica lenses were extremely sharp (I could read the small print), with the exception of the Hektor. Even it was comparable to the best of the Minolta lenses; the print was readable with difficulty. I suspect that at least part of its problem is that I was relying on the Leica's rangefinder focusing, and (unlike with an SLR) the accuracy of focusing does not increase with focal length. In other words, he Hektor needed more focusing precision because it's a 135mm, and it didn't get it. Distortion was unnoticeable except in the case of the 65mm Elmar, which still wasn't bad. I have a broader selection of Minolta lenses, including both Minolta brand nd others. In some cases, I tried them in conjunction with a Vivitar 2x converter. 28mm f/2.8 Minolta MC Good sharpness (comparable to Hektor). Significant distortion. 50mm f/1.7 Minolta MD Excellent sharpness (somewhat better than the Hektor). Significant distortion, to my surprise. 35-70mm f/4.5 macro Minolta MD (a favorite of mine because of its small size, ease of use, and apparent sharpness) At 35mm: OK sharpness (text barely readable; somewhat worse than ektor). Extreme distortion. At 50mm: Sharpness unchanged. Distortion reduced; still significant. At 70mm: Sharpness unchanged. Distortion barely noticeable. 70-210mm f/4.5 macro Minolta MD (a much larger, less convenient lens; probably my second-most-used, though) At 70mm: Slightly less sharp than 35-70mm. Noticeable distortion. At 135mm: Sharpness unchanged. Convex distortion is barely noticeable. With converter: Sharpness is poor; small text is definitely unreadable. Image is slightly concave. At 210mm: Sharpness is down slightly from 135mm; text is marginally unreadable. Image is very slightly concave. With converter: Sharpness is comparable to 135mm with converter. Concavity is slightly worse. 500mm f/8 mirror Minolta (very hard to focus due to single small aperature) Sharpness is dreadful; medium-sized text is unreadable. Concave distortion is barely noticeable. With 2x converter: Sharpness unchanged. Distortion unchanged. 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 Albinar (very small, but a bit inconvenient to control; I've subjectively considered it to be not very sharp, and therefore replaced it with the 70-210 MD) At 80mm: Surprise! Sharpness comparable to 70-210 Minolta lens. No noticeable distortion. At 135mm: Sharpness is down. Small text is not quite readable. Image is slightly concave. With 2x converter: Sharpness is down further; small text is definitely unreadable. Distortion unchanged. At 200mm: Sharpness is unchanged from 135mm. Distortion is unchanged. With 2x converter: Sharpness drops; medium-sized text is now unreadable. Distortion is unchanged. 135mm f/2.8 Sigma (not used much; I tend to go with the zooms) Poor sharpness; small text is unreadable. Barely noticeable distortion. With 2x converter: sharpness is unchanged. Image is barely ncave. 75-205mm f/3.8 Soligar (not in good shape -- wobbly. Bought it used cheap. Shouldn't have.) At 75mm: Poor sharpness; small text is unreadable. Noticeable istortion. At 135mm: Sharpness unchanged. Noticeable distortion; now it's concave rather than convex. With 2x converter: No change in sharpness or distortion. At 205mm: Sharpness unchanged. Distortion unchanged. With 2x converter: Sharpness has dropped a bit; medium-sized text is now unreadable. Distortion unchanged. Bruce ------------------------------------------------------- FidoNet PHOTO Conference<->InterNet EMail List To subscribe to the list, send an EMail message to: listserv@wnybbs.net With the words: SUBSCRIBE PHOTO To Unsubscribe: UNSUBSCRIBE PHOTO To post a message to the list, send E-Mail to: photo@wnybbs.net