|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 14, 2014 3:05:18 GMT -5
With strong filtering ( adblock & flashblock + NoScript), ads are not problematic, but netstorage is.
I do not mind if hackers or netsite operators would analyze or make some or all of my photos visible to the entire world, but do mind if they are stolen or worst, disappear.
* Given the vagaries of internet services changing ownership & terms of use as well as uncertainty as regards hacking of passwords and data, I prefer a belts and braces approach. Keeping photos and documents on double disks in my internal net+ regular completely "offline and offsite" storage of one complete copy (different make harddisks rotated in and out of the NAS device for each periodic backup copy so as to avoid simultaneous end of life failures).th
Still, for archival purposes, I expect current formats and devices to be unreadable a few decades hence, so, like Kodaks DCRformat they will need to be migrated. Hardware also disappears.Remember really floppy floppy-disks and the one inch wide tape reels for ancient big computers? Today, reading un-migrated data is a major project. ...Yes, I have learned lessons through losing data. One complete old research project we had stored: unreaable through machine obsolescense, private floppy disks and documents, the same, harddisk failure? fading Anscochromes and some colour prints? Yes. However, family portraits in B&W from the 1800ds and 100year old negatives; no problems yet.
Black and white prints, Kodachrome slides and Cibachrome prints have a better chance of remaining effortlessly visible.
* For occasional transport, attachments to Emails serves for long distance transfer and larger files or bunches of photos can be shared via usb sticks.
So,for temporary use the dropbox etc. will fit the bill, but for posting small illustrations, I would prefer being able to upload directly. If this is appreciated by others and requires some additional contributions to running the site, one could have a quick whipround.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 14, 2014 2:23:18 GMT -5
I will have to try ICE.
I use Photoshop CS4 and it seems to just make a number of layers that fit like a jigsaw puzzle, but not much attempt to fish out separate better bits of each layer. Slightly varying exposure is handled, but this does not for instance salvage well exposed clouds in parts of a landscape if the program thinks that an overlapping lighter exposure is better.
Chester certainly lends itself well to panos. I would expect that the city wall with a spectacular gate would be well suited.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 12, 2014 14:01:21 GMT -5
I am still trying to upload two snaps and the system still claims that the limit of uploads for this forum has been reached, so it does not work.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 12, 2014 13:56:42 GMT -5
I use a number of adapters but prefer purely mechanical ones.
I did try one with contacts (both on on a wide-angle zoom where focus was not easy to pinpoint, and on a macro). Occasionally Canon electronics froze up due to it. It unfroze afterwards, but the chip was not all that useful.
The M42 to Canon can be left on the camera body so as to avoid buying several. The same goes for Canon and LM to MFT. This is not the case with the Contax G to MFT I use which is very fiddly to fit, the C\Y to Canon fit easily enough, but is difficult to remove from the lens and the Leica R to Canon cannot be removed while the lens is on the camera. Hence one will need one adapter per lens or spend lots of time fiddling with adapters instead of taking pictures.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 11, 2014 12:26:30 GMT -5
Hmm I get an error message stating that the forum has exceeded its upload quota even though the files I tried to link are less than 400K each and hence well within the 1Mb limit.
Werra I and the string wound Dralowid Reporter will have to wait then.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 10, 2014 14:58:55 GMT -5
Thanks, despite just having announced that I will snap a picture of my Werra 1 on the SLR thread, I will actually post it here.
The finer points of aesthetics can be raised if one compares the Ultron and the C-S versions of the Vitessa. Larger diameter glass might have a wider following. As for the speed of use, it challenges Leicavit and Canon VI, but Robot wins.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 10, 2014 14:50:04 GMT -5
lesdmess: I will take a snap of the Zeiss Tessar equipped Werra 1 - tomorrow and possibly also challenge this SLR thread with a snap of the cleanest designed 2x8 film camera. Hint: Minox lens.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 10, 2014 14:43:30 GMT -5
I do not really collect. I use cameras and lenses, inevitably they are knocked about, so purists will be shocked.
I just happened to buy some cameras to use -second hand-, and a few I did not part with, even if another one came to be used. Different optics had different qualities, so some duplication of focal lengths was inevitable, but I weeded out the less sharp ones. My credibility as user over collector should be clear by the fact that I found the 15mm Zeiss Hologon for Leica (bought new) to be less sharp than wanted, so I got rid of it (luckily after its price had soared). These days laborious Photoshop stitching will give better results.
In the search for perfection in miniaturization, Minox was the answer. It and its progenitors are now stored in a secure place.
Chasing perfectly sharp blowups, Linhof seemed suiable, but their rollfilm backs were unreliable, so that is gone.
In the digital age, older manual optics are eminently usable, so the stuff that is not stored gets used.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 9, 2014 13:27:00 GMT -5
To avoid discrimionation of mere 35mm cams with no mirror, no rf, a plain "most beautiful 35mm camera" might be called for (35mm, so as to exclude attractive 8mm, submin,magogany folders etc.)
My vote goes to Werra I. Clean lines, no dials or knobs (until you examine it more closely). leica Ig and MD are runners up, but they demand ancillarie that ruin their clean lines.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Aug 9, 2014 13:15:48 GMT -5
In my student days, when i supplemented my budget by trading in seond hand cameras, I briefly used a Canonet f 1,9 with the selenium cell surround. Faster cocking than my Leica, and OK exposure, but terrible flare.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jul 26, 2014 16:45:43 GMT -5
I believe that the Swiss patriotic instinct surfaced by having Telefonbau und Normalzeit installing Swiss Alpa cameras in their phone exchanges.
When Alos followed up with Canon F1 they may have had other customers. Also, the TN supplied phone-company Alpas often had Japanese Asahi optics, so the switch made by Alos to the Japanese mechanical rear end may not have been too traumatic for them.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jul 19, 2014 1:25:07 GMT -5
the first larger diameter mount "Alnea" was Alpa 4 with a strange looking top-view bulge finder. Not that many made, which means quite rare for a series production even in Alpa terms.
Even the most common Alpa was produced in fewer copies than the low production run Leica IIIG. The least common ones were meterless varieties of meter bodies, half- frame versions and special purpose varieties, but some late microfiche and other type fakes were assembled from old parts.
The phone counter ones were bodies modified by Alos , often equipped with Asahi 35mm 3,5 lenses. Complete copies should come withe the Alos flash unit. After Alpa stopped supplying them, or when they became too expensive, Alos fitted some Canon F1s with Asahi35 3,5 optics.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jul 17, 2014 1:29:35 GMT -5
As to strange Alpa thread mounts, their extension tubes had them.
This mounting ring could not be for the early type I & II Alpas. Before the "current" Alnea mount, the mount had a much smaller diameter.
The small, apochromatic Kern Switars did come in the alnea mount, as did the Schneider Xenons. Small barrels because the aperture was set manually. The two later slightly fatter an even fatter barrels were needed to house the mechanics linking the shutter release and the aperture. The latter type would also allow the long extending macro helix.
Unfortunately, rather like ancient RollsRoyces, genuine accessories are not that abundant. The Angenieux, Kerns, Kinoptics, Spectros etc. that were idnividually tested and delivered from Pignons are hard to find.
If you would like to have an "almost original" lens, the factory did offer modified Takumars alongside the Swiss, French and German optics. These were M42mount fitted with a mount adapter and the special Alpa "snap-on" filter ring. Hence you could get any Takumars from the same years and get away with just buing the original Al-M42 adapter. The adapter itself will cost as much as a lens, but can be left on the camera body.
There are also short procuction run Japanese "made for Alpa" lenses, from the last years when Pignons were desperate to stay in business and collaborated with Chinon. These are M42 but much rarer than standard Asahi Takumars.
p.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jun 20, 2014 7:25:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jun 19, 2014 14:27:13 GMT -5
I could not resist aquiring one of the most compact 135s I have ever seen. Sigma (greek letter before the serial no 7103). Completely strange basic thread mount, but an original adapter for M42 was fastened on it. T1 adapter? OK pictures.
Sigmas netsite is useless, as is google search which just wish to flog more recent stuff. Anyone here with info on this?
p.
|
|