PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 15, 2011 19:29:51 GMT -5
Col, When you said the top curtain roller was jammed I knew it rang a bell from a long time ago but couldn't place it. However, I've since found a couple pictures I took of what was causing the problem - a corroded bush. It took a long time to get it free, but eventually it came out. Here's what I found: And this is where it lives I'm not saying this is your problem, but it might be worth investigating. One more tip: If you have to dismantle the train of gears from the wind-on knob to the shutter, set the shutter on a speed you'll remember and mark the engaging teeth. If you don't, the bottom curtain roller stops part of the way up. You can spend a few happy hours trial and error getting them right. Regards PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 15, 2011 18:36:18 GMT -5
Hi,
Just sheer bloody-minded vandalism, possibly heightened by alcohol, for the sake of it.
We had a similar state of pushing things over in our area some years back, but it was garden walls not gravestones.
The police "looked into it" but, needless to say, no-one was ever charged, probably because of lack of evidence that would stand up in court.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 15, 2011 18:28:45 GMT -5
Hi, Nice find, and no postage to pay! If you want a run-down on how the various f-number series developed I cover it in my website www.peterwallage.comGo to Camera chit-chat and click on f-stop series. Schneider based its f-stop series on the Royal Photographic Society's Universal System of 1881 which started at f/4, but why f/2.9 instead of the more usual f/2.8 I don't know. Possibly the result of rounding up, not down, on the square roots? When I used to use this sort of camera, but with no rangefinder, I often, like Doug, used the hyperfocal distance. But if you want to take something fairly close-up, an 80mm lens at a large aperture, gives you bugger-all depth of field to play with. An accurate rangefinder, either on the camera or hand-held, comes in very handy. PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 14, 2011 13:51:33 GMT -5
Michael, Thanks for posting those pictures taken on 5x4 Kodachrome. I’m glad you called them examples of the photographer’s craft because that is what they show, superb examples of photographic craftsmanship.
But, as Dave says, they are essentially studio type pictures set up on location. To me, they aren’t “wartime” pictures, not all of which are grainy – at least not those taken by British press photographers of wartime in the UK before D-Day, the Battle of Britain, setting up anti-aircraft guns, the Balloon Barrage, women taking over in factories and so on
A few were using 35mm in pre-war Leicas and Contaxes, and some were still using 9x12 cm FNs, but many pictures taken at this time, during the Blitz of 1941-1942, the night-time shots of the docks and east end of London ablaze, the firefighters, rescue workers and ambulances were taken on 120 roll film using pre-war Rolleiflexes loaded with Ilford HP3 rated at 800 ASA and push-processed in deep tanks. This naturally increased the grain and the contrast but gave an air of action to the pictures. Quite a different atmosphere from the “morning after” daylight pictures of streets of rubble which had once been houses and the rescue workers still digging.
Some of the photographers who landed with British troops on D-Day were serving soldiers with their regiments, but a large number were employed by the Ministry of Information – essentially civilians in uniform who would probably have been in the army had it not been for their photographic skills. The favoured cameras were pre-war Leicas and Contaxes. Thre wasn’t a British made or American made camera to compare with them for action photography. At the start of the war the Government put out an appeal for anyone who had a Leica or Contax to donate it to the war effort. It brought in hundreds of cameras.
I have the greatest admiration for these photographers, armed with nothing but a camera, who often put themselves in positions of extreme danger to get the picture they wanted. I talked with some of them after the war, and one said that when he looked into the viewfinder it was as if he were invisible and detached from reality.
The exposed films were sent back to the UK for processing and the prints were distributed by the Ministry of Information. Very few, if any, of the photographers ever got a by-line if, indeed, the MoI ever knew which film came from which photographer.
I know almost nothing about the set-up with combat photographers with the US forces, nor those with the German forces. It would be interesting to find out.
Yes, the pictures were often grainy from over-enlargement, there was sometimes camera shake and the main subject was not always in sharp focus. But could you or I have done better with a 12 megapixel digital SLR? I doubt it.
I agree when you say they make the experience of war distant and otherworldly. But it is now distant, and even though there have been other wars since, they have not been the total war of WW2 in Europe. Europe in the 1940s was another world from the Europe we know today.
Going back to the picture of the planes, I don’t think they are P40 Curtis Hawks. My guess is early P51s with Allison engines. When the Packard-built Merlin was put in the P51 the air intake for the carburettors had to be moved under the engine to suit the updraught supercharged carbs on the back of the Merlin.
Just one thing spoils it slightly for me and shouts “posed!”. The men “working” on the wheels are all in casual civilian clothes. Had this been a true wartime picture the servicing would have been carried out by groundcrew in overalls.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 8, 2011 4:48:36 GMT -5
Col,
Sorry to hear about the Kiev shutter. As you say, there's always a but with ebay.
I don't know how adept you are at camera tinkering but if you decide to strip it down and find the shutter beyond repair I've got a complete shutter assembly from a bent Kiev I stripped some time ago.
I've no idea if it works, but the curtains seem in good condition.
My arthritis won't let me do any tinkering these days, so if you need it drop me a PM with your home address and I'll wrap it up and post it to you ... gratis.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 7, 2011 7:13:16 GMT -5
Hey, wait, wait a minute Mr. Postman oh-oh-oh-oh Mr. Postman. Hey Mr. Postman look and see If there's a packet in your bag for me I've been waiting such a long, long time ...
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 4, 2011 9:56:15 GMT -5
Happy July 4 all you guys over the pond.
We don't celebrate July 4 here, but maybe we should ... for getting rid of some troublesome colonials. LOL ;D.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 2, 2011 16:09:12 GMT -5
Hi Dave,
In the Duesenberg thread you wrote:
James Leasor, or Thomas James Leasor to give him his full name, did indeed write the historical book Green Beach about the Dieppe raid, but I don't think he was on the raid.
Leasor was one of Britain's most prolific authors of the 1960s and early 1970s and wrote something like 70 books including spy thrillers and non-fiction historical books about various aspects of war from the Indian Mutiny onwards.
During the war he was commissioned in the Lincolnshire Regiment, fighting in Burma where he was badly injured in the leg and declared unfit for further active service.
For the rest of the war he wrote for the British forces newspaper in the far east, and after the war joined the Daily Express where he became foreign correspondent and eventually Beaverbrook's private secretary.
He rarely did very deep research for his non-fiction books. "I leave that to academics," he once said to me. "They spend years on research and then turn out a book with footnotes on almost every page citing sources. Quite often they're so badly written it's like stirring cold porridge. They write for students and for other academics. I write for the general public and haven't got time for that sort of research. I would hate to read in a review that any of my books were boring to read."
He was always very careful to get the outline of his historical books correct but was sometimes accused (along with film script writers) of writing "faction" - fact with a bit of fiction thrown in to make it more interesting. That's where you may have got the impression that he was a radar technician on the raid.
In about 15 years he wrote something like 70 books including ghosting several biographies.
I'm fortunate in that writing for newspapers and magazines comes easily to me, and have been moderately successful including being awarded two gold pens as Business Press Writer of the Year. I have also written, or in a few cases co-authored, about a dozen technical books, but an output like Leasor's leaves me speechless for sheer industry.
I feel honoured to have known him.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 24, 2011 9:36:28 GMT -5
Mickey,
I'm ready to accept that this process does exactly what it set out to achieve. I don't think it's a cure for digital shutter lag because as far as I can see it doesn't say anywhere that's it's a cure for camera shake.
What it does, and what is amazing about it, is that after taking the picture you can choose what part is going to be in focus and what parts aren't. A ready-made choice of differential focus without having to worry about focus settings and depth of field.
From the examples I've seen on the internet the actual depth of the picture in sharp focus seems quite shallow. I suppose the next step will let us choose the depth of field so we can get as much or as little of the picture as we want in sharp focus.
It seems to be a big step forward which will let us forget, or newcomers never have to learn, yet another basic principle of older photographic technique and let us just concentrate on "seeing" the possibilities in a picture and composing the shot.
A good thing? Yes, I suppose it is because it seems another step towards enabling someone who is more artistically minded than technically minded to get the picture they want. In a way I suppose it's another step in the direction pioneered by Photoshop - and I long ago ceased to be amazed by what the latest versions of that can do.
If this can be combined with Photoshop it will be another weapon in the armoury of post-exposure lightroom technique, and easier to use than some others.
Those of us who long ago learned the basics of our photographic technique the "hard way" may not welcome it at first, and possibly even feel a touch of envy, until we remember that the sole object of all the technique and technology of photography over the years has had just one ultimate aim, to produce a pleasing picture.
A case of the end justifying the means?
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 24, 2011 8:47:01 GMT -5
Hi boblum, and welcome.
Nice to see another Canon fancier here.
I used Canons for years, from the FX and FP up to the T70. My main working cameras were an A1 and an F1. Canons are the only make I collect outside of European cameras which are my specialist area.
I very seldom use film now that I no longer have a darkroom, it's just too expensive plus the processing costs. Most of the time I use a Pentax ist DL2 digital which actually belongs to my son, but he's now more into video than still photography. I'd like the latest Canon digital but it's way out of my price range.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 20, 2011 15:04:03 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks for the link to the Wiltshire Steam and Vintage Rally. Some wonderful action pictures as well as static and arena displays.
Thanks also for letting us know what happened to Sno-Cat C. I'm so glad it was on its way to storage and refurbishment and not to the scrap yard. Do you happen to know what happened to Sno-Cat B, or how many were made?
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 20, 2011 7:46:14 GMT -5
Michael, The picture you posted of one of Fuchs' Snow-Cats started the cogs whirring bcause I knew I had a picture of one somewhere. It's on a trailer in London being towed by a Scammell heavy haulage unit. The picture's dated 1959 in pencil on the back, so perhaps it was taken after the expedition came home. PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 19, 2011 16:07:29 GMT -5
Bob, Some amazing looking tractors, at least to UK eyes. We never got anything as big, or as weird, as the Canadian 14-28 over here. Maybe our fields just aren't big enough to use tractors this size.
We got a few rather odd-looking small US tractors over here during the war, mainly for use on market-garden smallholdings up to about 4 acres, but the standard farm tractor from the 1930s to after the war was the Fordson, the one with the big flattened-oval fuel tank over the top of the engine. You started it on gasoline and then, when it was warm, switched over to kerosene.
Restoring farm tractors and other farm machinery is a relatively recent hobby over here but very fast-growing. Most of the Steam Fairs such as Sellindge and Netley Marsh have a section for tractors which is always well-attended.
After the war we got the smaller and very popular Ferguson tractor. Is that one lurking behind the OilPull in your first picture?
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 19, 2011 15:31:06 GMT -5
Bob and Mickey,
I think the Duesenberg is a lovely looking car, almost a throw-back in styling to to the big English sports cars I posted some time ago.
With regard to Cords, these were the favourite cars of the very successful English journalist and author James Leasor. He owned a beautiful 1937 open model very similar to the red one in the posting, and it featured in several of his Dr. Jason Love adventure novels.
We got to know each other at a classic car meeting in the late 1960s when he had just published the first novel to feature the car, They don't make them like that anymore. When he published Never had a spanner on her in 1970 he sent me a copy with a dedication on the flyleaf and offered to let me take the Cord out for a run if I found myself down his way.
I was always meaning to go and see him, but was always busy and kept putting it off until it was too late although we kept in touch. Sadly he died in 1977 aged 84.
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 15, 2011 17:55:20 GMT -5
Hi George.
I wouldn't set myself up as an expert on all cameras designed by Dr. August Nagel, but he is one of my favourite designers.
You probably know if you've browsed round the net that in 1926 Nagel's company Contessa Nettel in Stuttgart was absorbed into the huge Zeiss Ikon grouping with headquarters in Dresden, a long way north-east from Stuttgart, and controlled by the Zeiss Stiftung, or Zeiss Foundation.
For various reasons Nagel found he just didn't fit in on the board of directors at Dresden. He stuck it for two years before resigning to set up his own factory again by buying, gutting and refurbishing a run-down disused factory in Wangen, a suburb of Stuttgart.
He had some brilliant new designs in his mind, or notebook, but needed to get into production quickly with a number of well-made and soundly designed roll film folders. The Triumph, launched in 1929, was one of these, though it has been somewhat over-shadowed in Nagel history by other cameras including the very similar looking and more popular Vollenda.
With regard to the lens, some Nagel cameras had lenses labelled Nagel Anastigmat, but the Nagel factory never produced any lenses. The majority were bought from Schneider, including the "own-brand" Nagel Anastigmats. For some of his higher-precision designs he also bought lenses from Leitz which modified the back-focus of the Elmar to be suitable. It says quite a lot for Nagel's reputation as a designer that Leitz did this, and still kept the name Elmar on it.
By 1931 Nagel was in desperate need of capital to put some of his new designs into production. At this time Kodak was looking for a manufacturing base on the mainland of Europe. Nagel was approached, with the result that Kodak bought his factory and company in 1931 and provided the capital for expansion and new designs while leaving Nagel in almost sole control.
At first, some existing Nagel cameras were carried on as German Kodaks, including the Vollenda with a restyled body, the familiar "flattened octagon" which Nagel had first introduced on the Ikonta 6x9 folders at Contessa Nettel.
Other designs were dropped, including the similar but cheaper Triumph, to make way for Nagel's masterpiece, the Retina, which introduced another of his brilliant ideas, the disposable cartridge, or cassette, for 35mm film. This was the camera that really put Kodak AG on the European map.
I haven't yet been able to find any production records for the Nagel company from 1928 to 1931, so I don't know how many Triumphs were made but they were not very numerous. A good example is well worth its place in any collection of European cameras.
This has, of necessity, been a very cut-down and somewhat simplified run through the history of Nagel's factory in Wangen. I am working on a history/biography of August Nagel which I hope to put on my website one day, but digging out detailed information isn't easy.
Hope this is of some help in putting your Triumph into some kind of framework.
PeterW
|
|