I Wanted To Say Hello

[Peckris 579]

I shot 20 rolls of film that year in two weeks.

I too sneek my Nikon D40 out.(I have 3....why ? is Mrs Peters quote)

_{I still have my Pracktica B200 and still love it.It will bounce and still be perfect.}

Ah, the great days of Communist cameras! I began with a Russian made Zorki 4 (virtual exact reproduction of a prewar Leica IIIb) for which I got 3 lenses - I still have the camera and standard lens and I bet it works if I got a film for it. I also briefly used a Lubitel (TLR) but it was a hassle getting 120 roll film processed; I did my own D&P of black and white 35mm film back then. And a Leningrad light meter (the Zorki and Lubitel had nothing electronic anywhere in them, not even a light meter) which was pretty good.

Now I slum it with a Lumix superzoom FZ camera. Ok, it has a tiny tiny sensor (makes 110 film look like medium format ) but as long as I am aware of its limitations it takes some good pictures...

[geoffhobson 0]

I always had Mirandas. I always remember the ads with the naked female surrounded by all the lenses and cameras.

The cameras were gorgeous.

I then had a couple of Olympus cameras which were good. I had a Lubitel too. It was a good basic 6x6, I did all my own processing for a long time, and rolled my own film too. I have scanned a lot of my slides, the big problem with digital it is too easy.

I have to make myself think about what I am taking rather than just shooting any and all and hoping I get some good ones.

[geoffhobson 0]

and the other side

[geoffhobson 0]

and the other side

[Accumulator 52]

I shot 20 rolls of film that year in two weeks.

I too sneek my Nikon D40 out.(I have 3....why ? is Mrs Peters quote)

_{I still have my Pracktica B200 and still love it.It will bounce and still be perfect.}

Ah, the great days of Communist cameras! I began with a Russian made Zorki 4 (virtual exact reproduction of a prewar Leica IIIb) for which I got 3 lenses - I still have the camera and standard lens and I bet it works if I got a film for it. I also briefly used a Lubitel (TLR) but it was a hassle getting 120 roll film processed; I did my own D&P of black and white 35mm film back then. And a Leningrad light meter (the Zorki and Lubitel had nothing electronic anywhere in them, not even a light meter) which was pretty good.

Now I slum it with a Lumix superzoom FZ camera. Ok, it has a tiny tiny sensor (makes 110 film look like medium format ) but as long as I am aware of its limitations it takes some good pictures...

P1000086.jpg

I'm far from expert but that's a really well composed photo!

Edited January 1, 2014 by Accumulator

[Peckris 579]

I shot 20 rolls of film that year in two weeks.

I too sneek my Nikon D40 out.(I have 3....why ? is Mrs Peters quote)

_{I still have my Pracktica B200 and still love it.It will bounce and still be perfect.}

Ah, the great days of Communist cameras! I began with a Russian made Zorki 4 (virtual exact reproduction of a prewar Leica IIIb) for which I got 3 lenses - I still have the camera and standard lens and I bet it works if I got a film for it. I also briefly used a Lubitel (TLR) but it was a hassle getting 120 roll film processed; I did my own D&P of black and white 35mm film back then. And a Leningrad light meter (the Zorki and Lubitel had nothing electronic anywhere in them, not even a light meter) which was pretty good.

Now I slum it with a Lumix superzoom FZ camera. Ok, it has a tiny tiny sensor (makes 110 film look like medium format ) but as long as I am aware of its limitations it takes some good pictures...

P1000086.jpg

I'm far from expert but that's a really well composed photo!

Why, thank you! It was quite well received in the photography forum I'm a member of

[Peckris 579]

I always had Mirandas. I always remember the ads with the naked female surrounded by all the lenses and cameras.

The cameras were gorgeous.

I then had a couple of Olympus cameras which were good. I had a Lubitel too. It was a good basic 6x6, I did all my own processing for a long time, and rolled my own film too. I have scanned a lot of my slides, the big problem with digital it is too easy.

I have to make myself think about what I am taking rather than just shooting any and all and hoping I get some good ones.

What are you using? I've had some of mine done by an external shop, but they come back at 2400 dpi resolution - they're ok, but you couldn't say any better than that. I'd like to do my own, and get perfect high-res copies.

[geoffhobson 0]

I used an Epson scanner, I have had it for some time. It's ok, but not as good as I would like it.

[Peckris 579]

I used an Epson scanner, I have had it for some time. It's ok, but not as good as I would like it.

Oh, which one? There's a range that begins with V followed by a number - is it one of those? And what don't you like about it?

[geoffhobson 0]

It's over 7 years old now. Works fine the resolution is not as high as I would like. I would not want to project them.

I am not home at the moment so I can't look at the model.

[Fubar 71]

I use an Epson as well.

A Perfection 4870 Photo that's getting a bit long in the tooth now.

The bed's scratched from scanning things I shouldn't but still does a good job.

I'm told by various phtographic programs that I have nearly 28,000 photographs on this PC but that probably includes the internet cache. Most of those are scanned pictures of ships and slides from my time at sea.

The current camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 which I use a lot. Even though it's only 10MP it does a good job. Digital is definitely too easy but being old film school type I'm always loathe to delete the failures.

My Yashica 35mm with a bag full of lenses has been inheritied by my son who still likes 35mm.

I used all manner of cameras while at sea from Brownie Box, through Canon to Praktica and settled on the latter until the Yashica came along.

I have an Olympus OM-10 and various other veteran, vintage and antique cameras knocking around as decorator's pieces. Plus a selection of Bolex, Braun. Pethescope, etc., 8mm cine cameras. I managed to get hold of a Bell & Howell 16mm projector last year at auction for a tenner because no-one wanted it and have just got hold of a 16mm film to show on it (cost 5 times as much as the projector). So now yet another winter project on hand overhauling the projector that hasn't been serviced in too many years. Same model as we used at sea to show Saturday movies so I know how to work it.

I never fancied the amateur route to radio even in training and the last thing I wanted to do on leave was listen to more morse. I must admit to being impressed by an amateur rig in New Guinea that contacted someone just down the street from my parents in Hull whereas I couldn't raise Oz from there. If I could get hold of an Oceanspan and get licenced to do some work on 500kHz or thereabouts I might give it a go. If I get really nostalgic after a few beers I can listen to the amateurs banging away on my marine receiver.

[geoffhobson 0]

I think that is the one I have. I also have and Olympus OM 20. I bought the Pentax *ds because I also have a Pentax slr and the lenses are compatible. OK on the radio I had a friend who worked in radio and he did not want to go amateur either, He did use CB though, just at the time when it was possible to listen to New York taxis and not be able to hear your mate down the road.

Things became so bad though, that I stopped using CB for about 10 years. Then I started again after the bubble had burst, but it was nearly as bad, so I decided to take the RAE.

The sunspot cycle has been at the low point for a long time and is only just getting back up. I just have a long wire to work HF and a di pole for the VHF and UHF bands.

There are a couple of programmes that I use which allows me to talk PC to PC or Radio to PC to Radio, quite complicated and "nt radio" some say.

I try to take pictures that are not rushed and I necer look to see what I have taken until I get back, it's like haveing a film which you can't see so if I think I have not got the shot I can take it again.

Most of the time I use a tripot too.

[Peckris 579]

It's over 7 years old now. Works fine the resolution is not as high as I would like. I would not want to project them.

I am not home at the moment so I can't look at the model.

Ok. If you do find out, let me know? And also, what the resolution is. I find a great limitation with the 2400 dpi of the external shop - they look fine, but just try and bring any shadow detail out and all you get is gaudy luminescent streaks of nothing

Having said that, I've seen an Epson photo scanner online for just under £200 that's 6400 dpi resolution which is getting on for three times as much res.

[Fubar 71]

My scanner goes up to 4800 dpi true optical resolution and can be forced up to 12,800 dpi using computer generated interpolation. That's something to be careful about because the highest scanned resolution given is not necessarily truly optical.

If you have slides or negatives to scan then I've found the Epson ideal. It has overhead lighting to backlight slides etc.

The attached was scanned from a 1950s glass 4x4 slide and came out originally at 13419x11447 pixels and 15.4MB. It shows that big resolution is not everything because the film grain starts to show up and does nothing for the final quality.

Regards

Kris

[Peckris 579]

My scanner goes up to 4800 dpi true optical resolution and can be forced up to 12,800 dpi using computer generated interpolation. That's something to be careful about because the highest scanned resolution given is not necessarily truly optical.

If you have slides or negatives to scan then I've found the Epson ideal. It has overhead lighting to backlight slides etc.

The attached was scanned from a 1950s glass 4x4 slide and came out originally at 13419x11447 pixels and 15.4MB. It shows that big resolution is not everything because the film grain starts to show up and does nothing for the final quality.

Regards

Kris

That's a good reproduction Kris - is that on the Epson V500, or V600?

[Fubar 71]

My scanner goes up to 4800 dpi true optical resolution and can be forced up to 12,800 dpi using computer generated interpolation. That's something to be careful about because the highest scanned resolution given is not necessarily truly optical.

If you have slides or negatives to scan then I've found the Epson ideal. It has overhead lighting to backlight slides etc.

The attached was scanned from a 1950s glass 4x4 slide and came out originally at 13419x11447 pixels and 15.4MB. It shows that big resolution is not everything because the film grain starts to show up and does nothing for the final quality.

Regards

Kris

That's a good reproduction Kris - is that on the Epson V500, or V600?

That's scanned on the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo that must be getting on for 6 or 7 years old. Probably the equivalent of the V500 or V600 today. The latest ones use LED lamps and mine's plasma so there's no longer a direct equivalent.

[Peckris 579]

My scanner goes up to 4800 dpi true optical resolution and can be forced up to 12,800 dpi using computer generated interpolation. That's something to be careful about because the highest scanned resolution given is not necessarily truly optical.

If you have slides or negatives to scan then I've found the Epson ideal. It has overhead lighting to backlight slides etc.

The attached was scanned from a 1950s glass 4x4 slide and came out originally at 13419x11447 pixels and 15.4MB. It shows that big resolution is not everything because the film grain starts to show up and does nothing for the final quality.

Regards

Kris

That's a good reproduction Kris - is that on the Epson V500, or V600?

That's scanned on the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo that must be getting on for 6 or 7 years old. Probably the equivalent of the V500 or V600 today. The latest ones use LED lamps and mine's plasma so there's no longer a direct equivalent.

Ah right - thanks. I'll get further advice from the photographic forum I'm a member of, but you've both been helpful. Thanks again.

(By the way, I actually like film grain. It's much better than the 'noise' you get on digital sensors. Others must agree as Photoshop has an 'add film grain' filter!)