|
Post by pompiere on Nov 9, 2009 7:12:47 GMT -5
Urban renewal isn't a new concept. My daughter recently did a report for her photography class on a French photographer who was hired to document the streets and buildings of Paris before they were torn down to make the avenues and boulevards that we know today. This was in the 1860s. I never knew how much of Paris had been completely changed until I read through the books and articles that she had for her research.
Edit: Charles Marville was the name of the photographer.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Nov 5, 2009 9:25:30 GMT -5
I will be sure to show those photos to my kids who think I have too many cameras. I might have one example from each shelf (except the stereo cameras), but I don't have any where close to your collection, maybe 40 cameras total. I am more of a user than a collector, so I try to stay with 35mm cameras so I can buy film easily. I only buy other cameras if I find them very interesting and inexpensive. Many of the odd cameras were given to me by people cleaning out their closets or tossed in when I bought something else. That is an amazing collection and it is beautifully displayed.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Nov 4, 2009 9:52:38 GMT -5
Gtreat sign. I also would grab it and worry about what to do with it later. Is that sign made to be mounted horizontally, extended from a wall or store front over the sidewalk?
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Nov 2, 2009 13:23:07 GMT -5
I have seen cameras like that, and even bigger. When I was a kid, my dad worked for a company that sold the equipment for making the negatives into rubber and nylon printing plates. Sometimes he would take me with him on service calls. On one call, the photographer showed me how he made the negatives. In addition to the camera like the one in the ad, they had one that you actually walked inside to load the film and set up the shot. It must have been 10 feet from the lens to the focal plane. It could make a negative big enough to print a refrigerator box.
The same company had another camera that had a lens for enlarging the image in only one direction. Instead of being spherical, it was cylindrical, like a slice off one side of a glass cylinder. If you wanted the image taller, you loaded it one way, if you wanted it wider, you rotated the negative carrier 90 degrees.
I worked for the same company as an adult for a couple years. It was really interesting to see all the manufactuing plants and learn how things are made, especially the machines that are so automated.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Nov 2, 2009 12:57:31 GMT -5
It may have built to comply with FAA ultralight rules in order to bypass the need for a pilot license. There are limits on overall weight, maximum speed, maximum stall speed, etc. My friend's dad built a plane like that about 20 years ago. It was a replica of a Piper Cub. To keep the weight down, it was only about half the size of the real airplane. The plane would fit in a 2 car garage without taking the wings off. His engine was a VW Beetle engine sawed in half to make it 2 cylinders. The fabric covering is cloth, like cotton or muslin sheeting. After the airplane is covered, the cloth is painted to make the fabric more durable and air tight. Back in the early days, all airplanes were built that way.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 28, 2009 8:29:37 GMT -5
MIK,
Using the two letters at the beginning of the lens serial number and the following code, your camera was made in 1948. Since it was used by another manufacturer as a piece of their equipment, it could have been purchased from Kodak in 1948 and resold with the ocillograph at a later date. C A M E R O S I T Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
An ocillograph is similar to an ocilloscope, but creates the waveform by reflecting a light source off a mirror that is moved by the voltage source onto a light sensitive paper chart. By varying the chart speed, you can stretch out a sine wave for greater accuracy. Even single events can be recorded, such as an intermitant fault, that would be missed on an ocilloscope. I use a multichannel ocillograph at my job to mesasure the times between various relay triggers. We also have used one to troubleshoot intermitant faults to see what other events may have coincided. My guess is that your camera was used on an ocillograph that didn't have a paper recorder, and took a picture of the wave traced by the light reflecting off the moving mirror.
Ron
I have a Kodak 35rf from 1949. The pictures that come from it are a lot prettier than the camera.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 25, 2009 22:04:49 GMT -5
PeterW, In the US, the western settlers were granted plots of land that were pretty large by European standards, so the houses were spread apart. Each homestead section was 1 mile square, 36 square miles made a township. The government only charged a small homestead fee for the land. After five years, the land would be owned free and clear by the settler. Some could not make a profit after five years, and turned the land back over to the government. One section in each township was designated for the support of a public school. Since the school didn't take up the whole section, the remaining land could be rented or sold to pay for the building and hiring a teacher. Frequently, the school building also served as the church until a seperate building could be built. Over the years as villages grew, neighboring country schools were consolidated into one district. Farms had the same thing happen as small farms were absorbed into larger ones. The old farm houses would be torn down to make more farm land. You are correct about using local building materials. I live in an area that was known as the Great Black Swamp. After the imigrants from the German Lowlands drained the swamp, the remaining soil is solid clay, so most of the larger buildings are brick. There were a lot of trees in the swamp so lumber was used as well, but mostly for homes and barns. If you ever travel to this area, there is an excellent museum that is devoted to early life in the Great Black Swamp. It is called Sauder Village in Archbold, Ohio. www.saudervillage.org/home/default.aspRon I forgot to say something about the picture. I like how the white church stands out against the snow. Good detail in that you can still see the individual siding boards. I would have left a bit more sky showing above the steeple. There is actually a very similar church a couple miles from me. It is still very active though.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 24, 2009 9:00:03 GMT -5
When I have something that I am not able to get working, I set it aside for a while (sometimes months), and come back to it. Sometimes just having a fresh perspective is all it takes to have a successful outcome. Sometimes I have to repeat this procedure a few times.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 23, 2009 6:30:14 GMT -5
It used to be taboo to show a brand name on screen, so names were taped over or obscured. Since the ET movies, where M&Ms turned down the offer to be the candy used to lure ET out of hiding, the studios have people assigned to go after potential advertisers. Now it seems that some movie scripts are like one long commercial, with the products being more prominant than the plot.
The Viet Nam story about black cameras seems plausable. I don't remember all black cameras before that time. I don't have a preference, but I don't own any black SLRs at the moment. Around here, the size of your camera is how most people judge your photography skill.
Ron
I have to update this post. I found an all black Spotmatic II at the Goodwill with 50 and 135 mm lenses, 2x extender, filters and flash, all for $36 with my Veteran's Day discount. Everything is clean and works, even the battery. I may be changing my opinion about black cameras now that I have one.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 14, 2009 12:33:18 GMT -5
"I do not know anything about this, but for $2, I had to get it. It is in poor shape, but salvageable I think."
I have several cameras that fit that description at the time of purchase. A few turned out to be real gems. I love seeing the look on a person's face when I show them pictures that came from a $2 junk sale camera.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 12, 2009 16:15:51 GMT -5
A co-worker's son used to load/unload these cars. They would line them up five in a row with ramps between the cars. Then the crew would drive the vehicles out as quickly as they could. Sometimes the guy in front of you would dislodge the ramp as he went across. You can guess the rest.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 12, 2009 16:00:10 GMT -5
I am not sure where the OP found his data, but for most locations in the United States, the average annual background radiation from naturally occuring sources is around 2.4 millisieverts. The annual limit for radiation workers in the United States is 50 millisieverts, a numbers chosen to be low enough that no new cancer cases occur outside of the statistical norm. Most companies have administrative limits that are much lower than that, in order to make sure that no workers exceed the federal limit. The OP seemed to be focused on the fact that anything that was measurably higher than "normal", was really bad. The bottom line is that if his measurements were accurate, then they are so low that they should not pose any threat to your health. Assuming that he meant 12 microsieverts per hour for the "hottest" lens in his list, you would have to carry the lens in your pocket for 11 hours a day, 365 days a year to approach the 50 mSv federal limit. Time, distance and shielding are the buzzwords for dealing with radiation. Less time, more distance and more shielding will reduce the exposure. I wouldn't sleep with a radioactive lens, but I wouldn't be afraid to use it. I don't own any of the lenses in question, so I can't verify the measurements, but I work at a nuclear power plant, so I do know a bit about radiation.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 5, 2009 8:35:47 GMT -5
My fire department has one of those. They recently got a Vivitar waterproof camera, so maybe they will be disposing of the Sony. Before memory cards were the norm, recording right to a floppy was considered state of the art. But you can only do so much with 1.44 mb.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 1, 2009 9:40:16 GMT -5
I just found this site while looking for info on one of the many old cameras that I have accumulated. I seem to find a lot of odd cameras that few have heard of. My camera collection resembles the mutts at the dog pound more than an AKC registry. I like to rescue old, unwanted cameras that have been tossed aside because they stopped working or don't fit the owner's lifestyle anymore. I try to stay with 35mm, but I don't turn down a TLR or folder if it looks interesting and the price is right. My latest find was a Yashica TL Electro X for $3. It looked like it had been in a barn for years. I opened it up and repaired the broken wires and now the shutter works properly. I also fixed the dented filter ring. I may tackle the meter some other time, after I run a roll of film through it.
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Oct 1, 2009 8:19:33 GMT -5
My neighbor gave me a V6 that was her mother's. I've seen pictures of the meter, and it is big and UGLY! It engages the pin on the speed setting knob, so when you set the aperture and match the needles, the speed is set. I only have the 55 mm f2 and an off brand 135 mm f3.2 lenses. I also have a clip-on cold shoe. I have only taken one roll with it and the pictures were good, but there was some flare. That may have been from the stadium lighting, though.
|
|