On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:47:42 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Richard fired this volley in
om:

He was fabulous at dodging too.

Dodging, vignetting, solarization, toning... it was a richly-complex
hobby. Just the sort of thing to keep a nerdy kid engrossed for years.
I was also our high school photographer, so I had 'smoking privileges'
(not really, but when they knocked to check up, I always had "some film
out!".)

The dean of boys had never heard of a modern film tank, so didn't know
you could develop in full shop light. G

LLoyd


VBG

And dodging Poly Contrast papers with PC filters to emphasize parts of
the print.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:25:25 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 8:14 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:10:35 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:32 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)



Yeahbut...

The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...

Thinking about it since, I'm sure that's what Gunner meant.


Correct. Historically...the bigger the number meant the smaller the
hole. 1 is on the top....64 is on the bottom...when you "stopped
down"...you were going farther down the list..and making the hole
smaller...letting in less light...

Im just an old fart.

Gunner



You would have not enjoyed the lecture from my Dad...

Words have meaning - jargon doesn't!

But it took him a LOT longer (and many more words) to say it.


Indeed. But in my world...it wasnt jargon..it was technical. Maybe it
was regional..but..it was in all the magazines/ads

When you stopped down..you made the iris smaller.

Shrug

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:02:13 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Recorder! Add this to the list of Gummers Windies.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
On 4/22/2013 7:18 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

As a retired photography instructor..I stand by my statement

G.



http://www.taftcollege.edu/

Shrug. It didnt pay but it was fun to teach.

Did the ROP thingy 2 for 2 semesters

Then they closed down the darkroom. I understand its open again.

Thats where my 4x5 enlargers came from. They sold off everything in
the labs at an auction. Got 5 Yashica 124-Gs for $10 as well.

Maybe someday Ill pull out the cameras and do a listing of those toys
on Picasa as well, as I did some of the other stuff.


Gunner

"Richard" wrote in message
m...
On 4/22/2013 11:49 PM, anorton wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 8:52 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN.



Ran into that one head on when I was trying to take pictures of the
lunar eclipse with my Fuji. I got a couple - ok decent. Nowhere near
as nice as those from a 200" telescope (wonder why) but I burned a lot
of ones and zeros getting anything usable.




A common technique for digital astrophotography is to average many
frames instead of or in addition to using long exposures. There are
several software packages that automatically register the images and
combine them.

The same technique can be used for multiple positions of the flash. Take
several images and overlay them in photoshop. I believe the Nikon D-SLRs
allow you to take multiple exposures and combine them in the camera.


WAY beyond my pay grade.
I wouldn't have a clue how to flash the moon.
(Well....)


My worst problem that night was vibration.

It's really touchy at 36X - even on a tripod.


Vibration is one of the big issues that can be helped with this technique.
You use short exposures, but average many frames that are automatically
registered. A lot of folks just use a video camera and average hundreds or
even thousands of frames. Here is some free software that does this
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/

I have to say, though, that I do not do this stuff myself even though I have
a nice telescope and I design optics. I realized long ago I much prefer
the impact of looking at an amazing thing first hand rather than a photo of
an amazing thing. There is always someone else taking a much better photo
than you, and they have spent so much effort capturing a great photo that
they have not really seen the thing.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:34:47 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:45 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:17:05 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 7:58 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Just get a can of air..or a good film brush. As enlarging/scanning
will show dust, fingerprints etc etc

I've tried scanning with my printer/scanner.
It takes more than a can of air.
I've had to wash the negatives - soap and water!

Then I started experimenting.
Black and white might work ok - on a better scanner.
I've gone to 4800 DPI, but still get a lot of artifact.
And huge files!

As for color, it's problematic doing it this way.
Of course the color has to be inverted, but getting any
control of saturation, hue, or balance depends purely on the
tools used. They work best if reduced to BW.


I have thousands of negatives. 35 MM and Instamatic.
And I've given away most of the really good prints.

That 7200 DPI dedicated scanner looks interesting...

You can save them in any file size you like.

I assume you have heard of..or are using Irfanview

www.irfanview.com

HIGHLY recommended..and it will indeed sort out and save in any
format/file size etc etc you want as well as doing all the editing
functions you might need.

Be sure to get the add on pack as well

And of course...its free.

Gunner

Highly recommended - and way over rated...\

IMHO

Your opinion is noted. What do you use?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:36:52 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:25:25 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 8:14 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:10:35 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:32 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)



Yeahbut...

The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...

Thinking about it since, I'm sure that's what Gunner meant.


Correct. Historically...the bigger the number meant the smaller the
hole. 1 is on the top....64 is on the bottom...when you "stopped
down"...you were going farther down the list..and making the hole
smaller...letting in less light...

Im just an old fart.

Gunner



You would have not enjoyed the lecture from my Dad...

Words have meaning - jargon doesn't!

But it took him a LOT longer (and many more words) to say it.


Indeed. But in my world...it wasnt jargon..it was technical. Maybe it
was regional..but..it was in all the magazines/ads

When you stopped down..you made the iris smaller.

Shrug

Gunner



But...

You stop down _TO F(?)_

whatever smaller apature diameter/higher number you needed

Like I said, Dad was always fussy about that.

So am I.

Shrug

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Plus-x at ASA 200?

tri-x at 1200 ... I could live with the grain problems in 2-1/4 and up.

I, too, had the Mamiya TLR, the Press Grafix 4x5 with pak-bak, and
several Pentax SLRs, which were my go-to snap-shot camera. (yeah, I
know... but when you get comfortable with a brand and its features...)

LLoyd

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:40:46 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:49 PM, anorton wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 8:52 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN.



Ran into that one head on when I was trying to take pictures of the
lunar eclipse with my Fuji. I got a couple - ok decent. Nowhere near
as nice as those from a 200" telescope (wonder why) but I burned a lot
of ones and zeros getting anything usable.




A common technique for digital astrophotography is to average many
frames instead of or in addition to using long exposures. There are
several software packages that automatically register the images and
combine them.

The same technique can be used for multiple positions of the flash. Take
several images and overlay them in photoshop. I believe the Nikon D-SLRs
allow you to take multiple exposures and combine them in the camera.


WAY beyond my pay grade.
I wouldn't have a clue how to flash the moon.
(Well....)


My worst problem that night was vibration.

It's really touchy at 36X - even on a tripod.


Some of that software, like Registax, is free. There's also software
that will let you control your dslr from a laptop.

Pete Keillor

Dad taught photography for several years. As his only son, he practiced his
lessons on me. Before he took his lessons to work. That was memorable.

I've been shooting black and white since about first grade. With the usual
learning curve, and pictures that didn't come out, and all that.

I usually read attributions OK. So, you used to be a tank commander, and
your Dad has never driven a tank? And your Dad was also a photographer? I'm
glad to hear that.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message

Chris, you don't read attributions very well, do you?


As for being the son of a photog, that doesn't qualify you. Did you do
it for years as a serious all-engrossing hobby or for pay -- or both?
I'm the son of an Army Lt. Colonel tank commander. I've never driven an
Abrahms, and probably never will.

"Low F-Stop" has ALWAYS meant a 'low f-number', meaning a LARGE aperture.
Depth of field has always decreased with F-number (or changed inversely
to aperture size). Pinhole cameras have the deepest depth-of-field.

Richard had all the relationships correct... he just mistook what the
term "low F-stop" meant.

I know, and Richard knows, what's right concerning apertures and depth-
of-field.

I never brought up exposure, except to disagree with the comment that
"exposure isn't related to aperture". Would you also agree that it's
not?

You, on the other hand, didn't read very carefully. You attributed to me
something I never said.

LLoyd

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:13:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Plus-x at ASA 200?

tri-x at 1200 ... I could live with the grain problems in 2-1/4 and up.

Ayup. Same with 4x5...oddly enough G


I, too, had the Mamiya TLR, the Press Grafix 4x5 with pak-bak, and
several Pentax SLRs, which were my go-to snap-shot camera. (yeah, I
know... but when you get comfortable with a brand and its features...)

LLoyd

Ill have to drag out my cameras next weekend and shoot photos of them.
Ive got some interesting stuff..some odd stuff..and some wierd stuff.

Nikon S2....mint+++..that I bought at a yard sale for $10...with the
telephoto and the wide angle as well as the normal.

Got some interesting stuff..time to dig em out, blow the dust off em,
run the shutters through the speeds and whatnot..

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Ill have to drag out my cameras next weekend and shoot photos of them.
Ive got some interesting stuff..some odd stuff..and some wierd stuff.


I've got a 1940s Mercury II rotary focal-plane shutter camera that does
half-frame 35mm for filmstrips!

It still works 100%, too!

Lloyd

On Apr 21, 3:20*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Id like to build a lightbox..but it needs to be big enough/rugged
enough.. to put in a dirty, oily part or piece.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Ive seen how some Ebay companies like Reliable Tools do it..but I dont
have that kind of floor space (theirs is 50'x50' with huge movable
fill lights in towers on wheels.

So Im going to need something useable with at least 3 strobes and
operational via slave flash.

Anyone have any links etc etc for simple designs suitable for what we
do?

Gunner

Sheets on a frame would work, washable, too. That's if you need big.
I've got something called "Studio In A Box" that I got cheap at a
closeout sale when Compuseless went out of business. This is a
collapsable lightbox about 2'x2'x2' and includes lights. Was about
$20. Works for reflective stuff like glassware, the purpose for
buying it. I know the company makes a slightly large version as well.

If all you need is a neutral background, sheets on a frame works for
that as well. Pro portrait photographers had rolls of patterned paper
they used on frames for backgrounds. If you need portable, 2x2s and
some casters should make up into something either able to be knocked
down or readily rolled around.

Stan

On 4/23/2013 8:34 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Gunner fired this volley in
:

Flash lighting historically has been used ..after it became cheap and
powerful....to reduce the heat in a studio and make working conditions
somewhat more pleasent.

It had little to do with "movement"

But, Gunner, you're missing a point.

With flash illumination, you cannot see and compose your work unless you
have expensive combination flood/flash/diffuser lamps.

The original reason for using flash over flood has been rendered moot by
LED illumination.

Try lights, man. You'll really like the freedom they give you to compose
in 'real time'.

LLoyd


Or, as Someone once said,

Let there be light.

On 4/23/2013 10:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

"Or equivalent" should inclued "the GIMP" -- especially for your
linux boxen. I believe that gimp is also available compiled for
Windows, and is certainly a *lot* more affordable than PhotoShop is.


Yes, GIMP is available for Windows. I've used it with XP& Win 7.


Gimp?

Gag!

On 4/23/2013 10:16 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Why not just put a curtain rod on rollaround stands, and light with
halogen lamps? Put the camera on a tripod, and use the
self-timer to keep your hands from causing blur.

Flash lighting is for subjects that are moving, 'product photography'
doesn't usually benefit from freezing the action.


I need to replace the memory battery in my Fujifilm S5200, and I am
going to see if there is enough spare space to add a tiny 433 MHz
receiver to give me a remote shutter function.

Let me know how that works out, Michael?
I have a 5300 also.
It was my first digital and is a fine backup.

On 4/23/2013 10:16 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Why not just put a curtain rod on rollaround stands, and light with
halogen lamps? Put the camera on a tripod, and use the
self-timer to keep your hands from causing blur.

Flash lighting is for subjects that are moving, 'product photography'
doesn't usually benefit from freezing the action.


I need to replace the memory battery in my Fujifilm S5200, and I am
going to see if there is enough spare space to add a tiny 433 MHz
receiver to give me a remote shutter function.

sorry - 5200.

I just washed my hands and can't do a thing with them...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:08:31 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Ill have to drag out my cameras next weekend and shoot photos of them.
Ive got some interesting stuff..some odd stuff..and some wierd stuff.


I've got a 1940s Mercury II rotary focal-plane shutter camera that does
half-frame 35mm for filmstrips!

It still works 100%, too!

Lloyd

Cool!!!

Got a link showing them?

Gunner

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Cool!!!

Got a link showing them?

Gunner

http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Mercury2.html
Lloyd

On 4/23/2013 11:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:27:43 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/23/2013 10:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

"Or equivalent" should inclued "the GIMP" -- especially for your
linux boxen. I believe that gimp is also available compiled for
Windows, and is certainly a *lot* more affordable than PhotoShop is.


Yes, GIMP is available for Windows. I've used it with XP& Win 7.


Gimp?

Gag!

Dood, I lived with Photoshop for 20 years. I'm not paying for it
anymore. And I find that Gimp is about equal to Photoshop 5. If you
only use manual controls -- and that's all I use -- it works great.

I can show you a heavy background-editing job I did with Gimp, if you
want to see the before-and-after.



I wrote a text editor with VI.

Once.

Ain't doing that **** again.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:51:33 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Cool!!!

Got a link showing them?

Gunner

http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Mercury2.html
Lloyd


That is neat! Thanks for showing me that!!

Gunner

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

That is neat! Thanks for showing me that!!

You're welcome.

Mine has two small holes drilled on a diameter on the shutter cocking
knob, and also on the film winding knob. I modified the camera for an
underwater case, so I could take pictures when I was diving.

That camera also (with a solenoid trigger) ended up being the only one of
five cameras on site to catch a picture of my first big rocket, back in
'67. All the others just caught a smoke trail. The Mercury was on a
cut-wire trigger, and got the rocket about 25' above the launch tower.

LLoyd

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Why not just put a curtain rod on rollaround stands, and light with
halogen lamps? Put the camera on a tripod, and use the
self-timer to keep your hands from causing blur.

Flash lighting is for subjects that are moving, 'product photography'
doesn't usually benefit from freezing the action.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 5:20:00 AM UTC-7, Richard wrote:

Now that you mention it, I'm kinda wondering how to get reprints made
from negatives.

Is there a way to scan 35 mm negatives to photo quality? Inexpensively?

If you have a scanner that does 10Mpixels/sq. in and has backlight, sure.
Mine's an Epson Perfection Photo model 2480...

The pros have glassless filmholder variants (so no dust-on-the-glass worries)

and the negative/positive conversion is easy to do in software.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:41:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Why not just put a curtain rod on rollaround stands, and light with
halogen lamps? Put the camera on a tripod, and use the
self-timer to keep your hands from causing blur.

Flash lighting is for subjects that are moving, 'product photography'
doesn't usually benefit from freezing the action.

Flash lighting historically has been used ..after it became cheap and
powerful....to reduce the heat in a studio and make working conditions
somewhat more pleasent.

It had little to do with "movement"

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Flash lighting historically has been used ..after it became cheap and
powerful....to reduce the heat in a studio and make working conditions
somewhat more pleasent.

It had little to do with "movement"

But, Gunner, you're missing a point.

With flash illumination, you cannot see and compose your work unless you
have expensive combination flood/flash/diffuser lamps.

The original reason for using flash over flood has been rendered moot by
LED illumination.

Try lights, man. You'll really like the freedom they give you to compose
in 'real time'.

LLoyd

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:34:22 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Flash lighting historically has been used ..after it became cheap and
powerful....to reduce the heat in a studio and make working conditions
somewhat more pleasent.

It had little to do with "movement"

But, Gunner, you're missing a point.

With flash illumination, you cannot see and compose your work unless you
have expensive combination flood/flash/diffuser lamps.

Every studio flash lamp I have used had an incandescent "modeling
light" attached to it.


The original reason for using flash over flood has been rendered moot by
LED illumination.

So LEDs will give me 40' range on a basketball court?

Try lights, man. You'll really like the freedom they give you to compose
in 'real time'.

LLoyd

Ill have to do just that.

Gunner

On 2013-04-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:20:00 -0500, Richard
wrote:

[ ... ]

Now that you mention it, I'm kinda wondering how to get reprints made
from negatives.

Is there a way to scan 35 mm negatives to photo quality? Inexpensively?


They will scan slides, negatives, positives b&W and color negatives
etc


http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trks... =0&_from=R40

They cost $15-150

Depends on what you want from your scanner. Note that while
this claims a resolution of 7200 dpi, it also states that it is an
"interpolated" resolution, so I have no way to know what the actual
physical resolution is.

I've been using one of the Nikon Super CoolScan 5000ED units,
which gives a raw physical resolution of 4000 DPI.

It is good enough so zooming into images, I find the grain on
Plus-X and Ektrachrome-X 64 to become objectionable before the pixel
size does.

Note that I scan to TIFF format, not JPEG, which is a lossy
format, and when the image is uncompressed, there is a loss of fine
detail. Once I have what I want from the negative or slide, I re-save
it as high quality setting JPEG for convenience of others, but I save
the TIFF image for future needs.

It is still quite expensive, based on the ones on eBay at the
present. Pretty close to what I paid new for mine.

It normally comes with two holders -- one for a single slide at
a time, and one for strips of six negatives. There were other options
for serious extra bucks -- a stack loader for slides (Which I skipped,
because a lot of my early slides are in glass mounts which don't go
through the stack loader smoothly -- if at all. Another I would have
gotten earlier which handles 40 exposure strips of film without cutting,
but all of mine were already cut to six-exposure strips and stored in
glassine envelopes.

One extra which I did get was a six-exposure holder which was
useful with seriously curled film, or film with torn ends so I could
recover what I wanted from the negatives still left. That was a fairly
inexpensive thing.

Warning -- Nikon no longer supports this. You can download the
scanning software for either Windows or the Mac, however, you cannot run
the software on anything newer than OS-X 10.4 -- which Apple no longer
supports, and newer programs won't load onto that -- including current
income tax software.

I don't know what versions of Windows run the latest software,
but is is rather old, so maybe the latest ones will not work there
either.

However, there are other programs for a lot of different OS's
for not too much money -- including for Linux. I'm still using the Mac
software at present.

I've so far scanned something like 170 rolls of B&W negatives, a
few of color negatives, and 82 rolls of color slides --- most 36-exposure
rolls.

The camera store where I got it offered to lease one to me, for
something like $100.00/day -- but I thought of all which I needed to
scan and decided that I would be ahead in the long run to buy it. Boy
was I ever right. Figure at best three rolls per day. (And some going
back to early rolls after I learned some things about it. :-)

The one I use:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Veho-Uk-Vfs-...-/390565130137

(picked up a a yard sale for $10)

I do have an Olympus..but its got a scuzi interface and I no longer
use it very often

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Olym...item232a3aea00


Hmm ... if I did not have the Nikon, I would be interested,
since I still have lots of computers with SCSI interfaces.


Just get a can of air..or a good film brush. As enlarging/scanning
will show dust, fingerprints etc etc

Amen!

These were scanned negatives (B&W)..and the color ones were slides

[ ... ]

I need to redo the above as they are quite dark..but the negatives
were very thin...and I was just learning to use the scanner.

With the software with the Nikon, I was able to make usable
images from terribly exposed negatives -- once I learned how to use all
the features.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2013-04-23, Gunner Asch wrote:

[ ... ]

Correct. Historically...the bigger the number meant the smaller the
hole. 1 is on the top....64 is on the bottom...when you "stopped
down"...you were going farther down the list..and making the hole
smaller...letting in less light...

Well ... 1 is not always the top I've got a f:0.95 lens, and
Nikon had an even faster lens (f:0.85 I think it was) way back when. I
never had one of those.

And the Cannon-7 rangefinder had a 50mm f:0.95 lens too --
rather soft wide open. :-)

Im just an old fart.

Ditto.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2013-04-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:20:51 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

[ ... ]

yup... all kinds of 'trade expressions' in photography.

How about 'push'? G

LLoyd

50%? 100%? 200%?

Plus-x at ASA 200?

Souped in Diafine?

Still have a freezer full of 120 Plus-x I ought to shoot up...one of
these days.

Hmm ... Ever try "Royal-X Pan"? I think that it was ASA 800
un-pushed. Too grainy for 35mm, but I shot a roll of it in a Zeiss
Ikonta 520 (used eitehr 620 or 120 film rolls, and got sixteen shots per
roll -- sorf of pushing the size thing for that film. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2013-04-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:27:02 -0500, Richard
wrote:

[ ... ]

You can't create content that is not in the original file
Well, I take that back, you can with Photoshop.

:-)

But post processing digitally has an amazing about of flexibility.

But green really is still green!

Ayup. But it can be processed in digital...sometimes more..sometimes
less. With color negative...it could be "tweaked" a bit. With
slides..you were well and truely ****ed. Got lots of green slides
..sigh.

You could slip the slides into the enlarger and print to a
direct positive print paper (I remember that Ansco had one which was on
white plastic instead of paper) and tweak the colors with filtration,
just as you do with color negatives. You can also get some weird
looking prints using polycontrast filtes on the color paper. :-)

I ought to dig out a couple and see if I can process them to something
less green with the scanner...

You should be able to. Ideally -- save as something other than
jpeg, correct and do everything else you want, and then save to jpeg if
you want it in that format. Each time you go into or out of jpeg, you
lose a little more detail.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2013-04-23, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 23 Apr 2013 01:52:57 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2013-04-22, Ed Huntress wrote:

[ ... ]

Or one flash head, moved around and popped three or four times.

This works fine with film -- but keeping the shutter open on
digital keeps the sensor active, and thermal noise builds up with long
exposures. Some have a noise reduction system which matches the
exposure time with shutter open with an equivalent exposure time with
shutter closed, and subtracts the latter from the former. This cancels
some of the thermal effects of long exposures, but also slows down the
shot rate. I turn that feature off when doing things like capturing
town fireworks on the 4th, so I can go to the next shot more quickly.

Well, I don't own a good digital camera. When I'm in Chicago, where I
do most of my photography, I borrow my nephew's Nikons. g

O.K.

I thought that some of them will take multiple exposures? Again, I
don't own a good one, so I don't know.

Some will. I think that my D300s will do it, but I have not
needed that feature so far, so I tend to forget. Time to re-read the
manual, I guess. Always good to do after using the camera for a while
to pick up on things you missed earlier.

With film, I try to do it with one of my two cameras (Calumet 4 x 5,
and a Yashicamat 6 x 6) that allow it without moving the film. My F2
won't allow it; they started that with the F3.

Or -- put a lens with between=the-lens shutter on the camera on
a bellows, and you can do it with the F2. :-)

However, I did a series of nightime architectural shots, for a
portfolio, with my F2 and a 28mm shift lens.

Ah -- the PC-Nikkor.

I left the shutter open
in the dark and just had my assistant cover the whole camera with the
dark cloth (from my Calumet) between flashes. One of those involved 13
different flash shots on one frame of film.

O.K That will do it.

It really is a good technique where you can use it. With a good
flashmeter, you can plan the shot very precisely.

Tedious -- but assured of good results.

BTW, I used to work with a guy who specialized in making still photos
of theater sets, without the cast present. He "painted" with a single
photoflood. One light, but it looked like a dozen when he was done.
Very impressive.

I'll bet.

[ ... ]

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

[ ... ]

Actually, for that Amada brochure, I wound up using the digital shot
from a Nikon D5000.

O.K. A bit out of my price range. :-) That and the single-digit
D series. :-)

Not having used the camera before, I didn't trust
it for a one-day shoot that cost me $1,000 in travel costs. You don't
want to go home from one of those without good photos. g I previewed
it on my laptop, but I wanted to see how it stacked up against film.

So I used three cameras; one each for the slide and the negative film,
and the digital. They were all useable but the negative shot was quite
a bit grainier than either the digital or the transparency. I shot the
negative film in case the daylight fluorescents required some color
correction. They did not.

Was this a single shot, or a multi-flash one like the above?
For single shot, I would expect the D5000 to be very good.

Of course, with the Nikon gear, and a shooting budget, I would
go with the Nikon and a cluster of SB-800 flash units. The camera can
be set up to run all of those as a slave, and when you take the shot, it
first fires a lower intensity pre-flash from each (triggered by the
flash on the camera and metering it in the sensor), and then sends to
each how long a flash duration is required from that one, so when the
shutter finally opens for real, you get a properly balanced
illumination. I've got *one* SB-800, but not a whole herd of them. :-)

[ ... ]

I'll buy a good digital some time, but I haven't had enough need to
justify it. I don't shoot for fun like I used to, and I haven't shot a
magazine cover for around a decade now. I rent when I need to.

While I'm back into shooting for fun. For quite a while, I
worked where classified stuff was common, and a camera was a no-no, so I
did not take many shots during that period. Now I'm retired, and having
fun with the digital SLRs from Nikon.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Gunner Asch wrote:

Assuming you had "color adjusted" eyeballs.

When I was teaching..it never ceased to amaze me the color perceptions
that were so widely varied among people.

Something would come out of the developer with a distinct red/orange
cast..and the student would be tickled ****less. They couldnt see the
color being "off"

Its like having someone in the house adjust the TV for color. Cringe!

Some folks have a wide range..others..swung to one side or
another..and in a few..badly. Those folks tended to be somewhat
colorblind and simply couldnt see too much red etc etc.

We would all be gagging at the off colors in the photo..and the
student would be so proud of it. I tried to steer those folks into
B&W.


40 years ago when I did TV repair, most people had a definite green
tint to their TV sets. They would complain about a bad picture when you
replaced the CRT and did a complete setup to factory standards.

Richard wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Small, color corrected halogen lamps& diffusers do a nice job.
My background is in TV studio lighting and live TV camera work.
You can buy 150W lamps in rectangular housings, but I want to see
how the 10W LED versions will work. Mount them from the ceiling
of the shop, and paint part of the wall a light color.

One of these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111057953751

Not necessary anymore for digital work.

But if we wanted to be really anal about light color,
three circuits of LEDS (RGB) with PWM control for each
would give darned good color control.


That same fixture is available with RGB LEDs and a remote to select
the color.

I prefer the broad spectrum of the white phosphor, to three narrow
color bands. I'm not going to try to sway anyone's opinion. I just
like a spot that I can set something for a few quick shots without
spending an hour setting up the lighting. I bought some pieces of
fabric for backdrops. (60"*36") in black, gray & white. They have a
matte finish, so they don't reflect a lot of light towards the camera.

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

"Or equivalent" should inclued "the GIMP" -- especially for your
linux boxen. I believe that gimp is also available compiled for
Windows, and is certainly a *lot* more affordable than PhotoShop is.


Yes, GIMP is available for Windows. I've used it with XP & Win 7.

Stanley Schaefer wrote:

Sheets on a frame would work, washable, too. That's if you need big.
I've got something called "Studio In A Box" that I got cheap at a
closeout sale when Compuseless went out of business. This is a
collapsable lightbox about 2'x2'x2' and includes lights. Was about
$20. Works for reflective stuff like glassware, the purpose for
buying it. I know the company makes a slightly large version as well.

If all you need is a neutral background, sheets on a frame works for
that as well. Pro portrait photographers had rolls of patterned paper
they used on frames for backgrounds. If you need portable, 2x2s and
some casters should make up into something either able to be knocked
down or readily rolled around.


I have the several of the five caster bases from bad office chairs I
plan on using to hold backdrops & lights. The backdrops will be rolled
up on pieces of PVC pipe so you can change them in under a minute.

whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, Gunner Asch wrote:
Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

I do NOT have a hip slick and cool digital SLR, and even the external
strobe connections are a *******.

Something for shooting photos for Ebay for example.

Why not just put a curtain rod on rollaround stands, and light with
halogen lamps? Put the camera on a tripod, and use the
self-timer to keep your hands from causing blur.

Flash lighting is for subjects that are moving, 'product photography'
doesn't usually benefit from freezing the action.


I need to replace the memory battery in my Fujifilm S5200, and I am
going to see if there is enough spare space to add a tiny 433 MHz
receiver to give me a remote shutter function.

On 24 Apr 2013 02:25:49 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2013-04-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:20:51 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

[ ... ]

yup... all kinds of 'trade expressions' in photography.

How about 'push'? G

LLoyd

50%? 100%? 200%?

Plus-x at ASA 200?

Souped in Diafine?

Still have a freezer full of 120 Plus-x I ought to shoot up...one of
these days.

Hmm ... Ever try "Royal-X Pan"? I think that it was ASA 800
un-pushed. Too grainy for 35mm, but I shot a roll of it in a Zeiss
Ikonta 520 (used eitehr 620 or 120 film rolls, and got sixteen shots per
roll -- sorf of pushing the size thing for that film. :-)

That was made for photojournalists with sheet-film press cameras. I've
shot it, and I also used it for contrapositive silver masking (which I
did for McGraw-Hill Book Company, and which made me more money than
shooting photos for them). Today, you can do the same job with Unsharp
Masking in Photoshop, in a few seconds. Then, it would take me a whole
evening to silver-mask a sheet of 35mm Kodachromes. Sheesh.

It was a very versatile film. Grain like golf balls, but versatile.

--
Ed Huntress


Enjoy,
DoN.

On 24 Apr 2013 02:51:10 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2013-04-23, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 23 Apr 2013 01:52:57 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2013-04-22, Ed Huntress wrote:

[ ... ]

Or one flash head, moved around and popped three or four times.

This works fine with film -- but keeping the shutter open on
digital keeps the sensor active, and thermal noise builds up with long
exposures. Some have a noise reduction system which matches the
exposure time with shutter open with an equivalent exposure time with
shutter closed, and subtracts the latter from the former. This cancels
some of the thermal effects of long exposures, but also slows down the
shot rate. I turn that feature off when doing things like capturing
town fireworks on the 4th, so I can go to the next shot more quickly.

Well, I don't own a good digital camera. When I'm in Chicago, where I
do most of my photography, I borrow my nephew's Nikons. g

O.K.

I thought that some of them will take multiple exposures? Again, I
don't own a good one, so I don't know.

Some will. I think that my D300s will do it, but I have not
needed that feature so far, so I tend to forget. Time to re-read the
manual, I guess. Always good to do after using the camera for a while
to pick up on things you missed earlier.

With film, I try to do it with one of my two cameras (Calumet 4 x 5,
and a Yashicamat 6 x 6) that allow it without moving the film. My F2
won't allow it; they started that with the F3.

Or -- put a lens with between=the-lens shutter on the camera on
a bellows, and you can do it with the F2. :-)

Yes, but jeez....

You'll get a kick out of this. I have a behind-the-lens air-bulb
shutter I used with process lenses on my view camera, which I used for
making Tri-Mask in-camera separations for the Trenton Times. I have
put that sucker in *front* of a lens on my Nikon F2 for shooting
multiple exposures. It's a big interleaved shutter.

But I don't get into those gymnastics anymore.


However, I did a series of nightime architectural shots, for a
portfolio, with my F2 and a 28mm shift lens.

Ah -- the PC-Nikkor.

Yeah, one of them. It belonged to my partner at Windsor Advertising.
He had a gazillion lenses -- and an 8 x 10 Calumet that we used to
shoot giant trade-show Translites for Canon calculators and Prince
tennis rackets. They were around 20 feet wide.

Those were fun times.


I left the shutter open
in the dark and just had my assistant cover the whole camera with the
dark cloth (from my Calumet) between flashes. One of those involved 13
different flash shots on one frame of film.

O.K That will do it.

It really is a good technique where you can use it. With a good
flashmeter, you can plan the shot very precisely.

Tedious -- but assured of good results.

BTW, I used to work with a guy who specialized in making still photos
of theater sets, without the cast present. He "painted" with a single
photoflood. One light, but it looked like a dozen when he was done.
Very impressive.

I'll bet.

[ ... ]

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

[ ... ]

Actually, for that Amada brochure, I wound up using the digital shot
from a Nikon D5000.

O.K. A bit out of my price range. :-) That and the single-digit
D series. :-)

Not having used the camera before, I didn't trust
it for a one-day shoot that cost me $1,000 in travel costs. You don't
want to go home from one of those without good photos. g I previewed
it on my laptop, but I wanted to see how it stacked up against film.

So I used three cameras; one each for the slide and the negative film,
and the digital. They were all useable but the negative shot was quite
a bit grainier than either the digital or the transparency. I shot the
negative film in case the daylight fluorescents required some color
correction. They did not.

Was this a single shot, or a multi-flash one like the above?
For single shot, I would expect the D5000 to be very good.

A single shot with my (then) new Smith Victor daylight fluourescent
scoops. I was using too many new things at once not to have backups.

I have the digital shot on my hard drive if you want to see it --
before and after I worked it over with Gimp.


Of course, with the Nikon gear, and a shooting budget, I would
go with the Nikon and a cluster of SB-800 flash units. The camera can
be set up to run all of those as a slave, and when you take the shot, it
first fires a lower intensity pre-flash from each (triggered by the
flash on the camera and metering it in the sensor), and then sends to
each how long a flash duration is required from that one, so when the
shutter finally opens for real, you get a properly balanced
illumination. I've got *one* SB-800, but not a whole herd of them. :-)

Again, I spent too many years lugging 100 pounds or more of flash
heads and power packs, and even my big Bowens Monolights into the
field. No way, Hose-A. From now on, I'm going with the daylight
fluorescents. Lots of field photographers are using them now. I'm
convinced, after seeing the densitometer readings on digital images
from my gray card and Macbeth Color Checker. I shot the latter in
daylight and then in daylight fluorescent with the same camera. You
can hardly tell the difference.


[ ... ]

I'll buy a good digital some time, but I haven't had enough need to
justify it. I don't shoot for fun like I used to, and I haven't shot a
magazine cover for around a decade now. I rent when I need to.

While I'm back into shooting for fun. For quite a while, I
worked where classified stuff was common, and a camera was a no-no, so I
did not take many shots during that period. Now I'm retired, and having
fun with the digital SLRs from Nikon.

It's a great hobby. Maybe if I retire I'll take it up again.

--
Ed Huntress


Enjoy,
DoN.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:27:43 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/23/2013 10:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

"Or equivalent" should inclued "the GIMP" -- especially for your
linux boxen. I believe that gimp is also available compiled for
Windows, and is certainly a *lot* more affordable than PhotoShop is.


Yes, GIMP is available for Windows. I've used it with XP& Win 7.


Gimp?

Gag!

Dood, I lived with Photoshop for 20 years. I'm not paying for it
anymore. And I find that Gimp is about equal to Photoshop 5. If you
only use manual controls -- and that's all I use -- it works great.

I can show you a heavy background-editing job I did with Gimp, if you
want to see the before-and-after.

--
Ed Huntress

On 24 Apr 2013 02:21:37 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2013-04-23, Gunner Asch wrote:

[ ... ]

Correct. Historically...the bigger the number meant the smaller the
hole. 1 is on the top....64 is on the bottom...when you "stopped
down"...you were going farther down the list..and making the hole
smaller...letting in less light...

Well ... 1 is not always the top I've got a f:0.95 lens, and
Nikon had an even faster lens (f:0.85 I think it was) way back when. I
never had one of those.

And the Cannon-7 rangefinder had a 50mm f:0.95 lens too --
rather soft wide open. :-)


Ooooh! Im Impressed! My brightest lens is a Canon 1.2.

And yeah...Im sure its a bit soft...lol



Im just an old fart.

Ditto.

Enjoy,
DoN.