|
Thanks for the compliment rio, he was a pretty cool dude. These are scans of 35mmm slides so I guess that may have something to do with the backwardness. Good catch! If you guys are into this stuff, I can start a thread. We have a friend of the family in UK scanning about 10K slides I shipped over there. I thought it might be a Kodak retina III, but it looked odd, probably the backwards stuff.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
some_admin posted:If you guys are into this stuff, I can start a thread. Yes, please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I don't know what it is but it looks backwards. Like a Leica III for lefties. Small knob and big knob are on the wrong sides and the lens and meter are bias to the right. Some cameras were like that. I have an Exakta from the 1960s and it winds right to left. Actually looking at the camera, and comparing it with mine, I'm going to say that it is an Exakta. Possibly a VX1000. The prism is modular and interchangable with waist-level finders and several after-market options. I think the one in the picture has the Travemat metered prism attached.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Where are darkroom goons sourcing reasonably priced chemical storage bottles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
The grocery store. Soft drink bottles are gas tight and come in a variety of convenient sizes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Sauer posted:The grocery store. Soft drink bottles are gas tight and come in a variety of convenient sizes. More concerned about the light blocking ability of the bottles and plastic that won't react with the chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
I leave my chemistry in a cupboard so the bottles don't get exposed to light. Soft drink bottles are made from HDPE which is pretty inert stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
I bought these when I assembled my home developing kit. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FDH5L6N/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_UEKkCbGWA2D64 I’ve seen opaque plastic jugs made for chemical storage, but I can’t remember what their specific name is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
I love shooting and editing, but culling is the worst
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Actually now thinking of high quality orange juice in gallon bottles. Many are opaque. Extra points if I can find a brand with removable labels. How to insure that they are rinsed out enough? I imagine citrus acid is not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Clean them out with soap and hot water. Rinse a few times. It will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I don't know what it is but it looks backwards. Like a Leica III for lefties. Small knob and big knob are on the wrong sides and the lens and meter are bias to the right. It's this. It's definitely a Leica II or III or some sort of clone with a Leicameter  I quoted the wrong post and now I can't un-quote it, but it's the reversed scan thing Dog Case fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Didn't know that Sears made a Leica knockoff. Neato.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Didn't know that Sears made a Leica knockoff. Neato. All the cool kids were doing it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Dog Case posted:It's this. It's definitely a Leica II or III or some sort of clone with a Leicameter Looks like it has the slow speed knob so I'd say III.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Didn't know that Sears made a Leica knockoff. Neato. I used to have a lens that said JC PENNY on it. Fuckin' everyone was slapping their brand name on anything glass out of Japan in the late 70's / early 80's. I can't be arsed to look for it, but I assume a) a complete archive of Sears catalogues exists on the internet somewhere and b) somebody could search it and find a complete line of Sears-brand SLRs, lenses, and accessories from around 40 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I used to have a lens that said JC PENNY on it. Fuckin' everyone was slapping their brand name on anything glass out of Japan in the late 70's / early 80's. A fun fact: JC Penny actually invented photography
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
I have a JC Penney stamped turntable, they did a bunch and most of them are Hitachis or Technics from memory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Anybody else have a problem looking through viewfinders because of their ridiculously long eyelashes? I'm having trouble getting my eye close enough to see the whole frame...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Anybody else have a problem looking through viewfinders because of their ridiculously long eyelashes? I'm having trouble getting my eye close enough to see the whole frame... You shouldn't need to literally stick your eyeball on the viewfinder. I generally rest my eyebrow on the area right above the viewfinder and there is at least a finger's worth of a gap between my eye and the glass.  Maybe your viewfinder sucks though, i dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
I miss the oversized eyecup I used to have on my Sony PD150. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Large-Eye-Cup-PMW-200-PMW200-Used-Genuine-Sony-/232918596617
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
You can buy those aftermarket if you really feel like you need one. Also keep in mind that lower end bodies typically have 95% coverage of the captured image. So depending on what one means by "see the whole frame" that could be part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Yeah, although I think it would just look kinda ridiculous hanging off my SLR body, the camcorder was big enough (despite being so compact) it could kind of get away with it. I didn't use it much anyway, as I mainly shot with the screen due to shooting gigs in small spaces where I needed enough wits about me so I didn't get kicked in the head by a crowdsurfer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Eyeglass wearing photographers everywhere chortle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Eyeglass wearing photographers everywhere chortle. No joke my eyelashes touch the lenses of sunglasses when I wear them... I was using a rangefinder camera today where the framelines were riiight at the edge of a huge viewfinder which meant I had to get my eye super close to see them which caused this whole problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:No joke my eyelashes touch the lenses of sunglasses when I wear them... I was using a rangefinder camera today where the framelines were riiight at the edge of a huge viewfinder which meant I had to get my eye super close to see them which caused this whole problem. Just take a wider shot and crop it after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Just take a wider shot and crop it after. But...but my megapickles! Full frame!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
rio posted:But...but my megapickles! Full frame!! Even worse, film :P grainy-rear end film in a grainy developer so I don't have many megapickels to play with
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Film shooters got it made. Nikons, Pentax M series, Olympus OM series, waist level finders... all glasses wearing heaven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
I wear glasses, and my complaint about not being able to put my eye up to the viewfinder is that I can't see the the exposure meter on the sides of the view. While it effects all of my cameras, it's mostly more of a problem on my old film cameras that don't have any other visible meter. Also, it makes it really difficult to frame a shot when something near the edges is important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
You just put your glasses in front of the lens when shooting. Holy hell, how do you people not know this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
I believe you can also buy prescription eyepieces so you can take your glasses off. Or use live view. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
I don't wear glasses but isn't that the whole point of diopter adjustment, so that you can match the viewfinder to your eyes and not have to wear your glasses to shoot?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Technically yes, but the range is a bit small and may not adjust far enough for people with really poo poo eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Also doesn’t work for astigmatism 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Hello Spaceman posted:Also doesn’t work for astigmatism I was about to post the same thing... I'm with ya buddy. I've never had a problem with glasses and the viewfinder on my x-t3 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:I was about to post the same thing... I'm with ya buddy. I've never had a problem with glasses and the viewfinder on my x-t3 though. I sorta get away with diopter adjustment and no glasses, so stuff is just blurry in a specific angle. Worst is walking around without glasses when I have my camera out. I end up squinting at a lot of stuff that I’m not taking photos of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
rio posted:But...but my megapickles! Full frame!! Yeah but all lenses are softer at the edges and corners of the frame. So you’re just picking out the sharpest part of the picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Does anyone use Capture One for RAW editing? I hear it is better for manipulating color but I usually stick to photoshop for that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Does anyone use Capture One for RAW editing? I hear it is better for manipulating color but I usually stick to photoshop for that anyway. I did for a short while. It was good and I liked it but they raised the price significantly within my trial period as after writing them didn’t want to support the company. Might be petty but being quoted one price during a trial and then having it jacked up mid trial seemed to be a good indication of how much they care about customers. Looking between the images I processed in capture one vs. Lightroom I don’t see a noticeable difference, despite liking Capture One. The color was probably marginally better but in real world comparisons I’d be surprised if anyone could see it. I liked the way they handled sharpening as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:50
|
|