Joined on Jun 29, 2014


Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

dstate1: Dust is the downfall of many new film users. You can stop dust and scratches with some basic steps

1. Your final wash should end with a short soak in distilled water with a few drops of photoflo.
2. Never, ever, never squeegee or wipe your negatives.
3. If you are scanning, do so immediately after the negatives are dry. The longer you wait, the more dust you will collect.

I never used a squeegee on film - my work around was to draw the wet film through my first and second fingers keeping them together at a very modest but precise pressure. Never experienced one scratch, unlike the squeegee.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2021 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen: I had an uncle with an SRT101 which he passed on to me when he bought an SRT102. I used that through high school for my photography course specialising in macro photography and then used it all the way through highschool for general snaps until university when he gave me an OM30 system and asked for his 101 back. He was thrilled that it was damage and mould free after all those years so he chucked in a telephoto and and bright prime! LOL.

He taught me how to unpack a film in pitch darkness and then develop the photos in the darkroom and bunch of special photo techniques like multiple exposure, feathering, shadowing, zoooming, vignetting and so on. I can still remember the smell of chemicals and the thrill as each frame appeared like magic in the darkness.

I was so spoilt to have been introduced to SLR photography while still at elementary school: auto metering, macros, primes, zooms, telephotos, developing... I wish I had appreciated it more at the time. Such a huge life-linfluence!

I can relate. My first camera was an SRT101, then an SRT303b and finally an XGM with a 50mm f1.2 lens - the biggest glass rock I had ever seen. It produced a sharpness equal to the best that even today's top Nikon or Canon lens can achieve. And at $1,230 back in 1972, it was worth every cent. But it wasn't just sharpness - it excelled in every other metric without exception. So it's not surprising that back then Minolta made lenses for Leica. Unfortunately I can't use the system - it requires a mercury based button battery to drive the exposure meter, readouts etc. and of course there's no battery equivalent made today.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2021 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

looker: Nice try, but b&w film is an archaic debilitation for dinosaurs, who're stuck with obsessive habits. There aren't any beginners, or at least none worthy of mention. So why do I have to see this nonsense on DIGITAL Photography Review?

Why are you so angry about film? Taz Trooper has hit the nail on the head - digital promotes laziness, particularly amongst beginners. My "apprenticeship" was shooting weddings with a Hasselblad and one roll of 220 - for a 24 pic album. Absolutely no room for a casual approach to composition, lighting, exposure, etc. Knowledge of the craft, the film and the camera were a minimum prerequisite before even taking the first shot. But that aside, where does your anger come from?

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2021 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Gets better every day

Further evidence that Adobe is a backside (can't use the word a*se). Adobe should have warned every potential licensee of this alleged possibility. Every potential licensee would want to know. Adobe has acted in a misleading and deceptive manner by failing to disclose at least the potential of third party actions. Adobe failed to give the potential licensee the opportunity to withdraw from any proposed purchase, based in this critical piece of information. A competent lawyer could successfully argue Adobe's breach of contract and Adobe's breach of consumer protection laws (by having engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct). In fact a class action against Adobe would be most appropriate. Is anyone up to it? Adobe just trying to extract more money from consumers. I suspect before too long, the President / CEO / MD (whoever) will be looking for another job. Who in their right (business) mind would cause one of the great names in software go down the toilet.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2019 at 22:20 UTC

Only if you limit that claim to digital cameras. Almost half a century ago (c. 1969) Minolta produced the 58 mm MC Rokkor f1.2 lens that surpassed then, and still surpasses today, anything else on the market. A massive piece of glass finished to the worlds highest optical and mechanical standards, the lens sold for around $972.00 - that's 1969 BTW. Image quality? Only today's best digital cameras are as good - but at what price?

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 07:43 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (2004 comments in total)

A few really silly people like me do - er sorry, did. A friend is not buying the D810 but waiting for the D820. Another said "Nah, the D820Si will be better still". Perhaps, I'll give the game away, keep my money and laugh at the few really silly people who pant at every pixel or froth at every frame faster. Is it really worth it? NO. Once bitten, never again.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 04:32 UTC as 362nd comment
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6