Barreling?
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that should
be straight.
They curve slightly away from the centre line.
(Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
Any comments appreciated,
george
who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
  |
  |
"George" <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that should
> be straight.
> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
Here is a good start, George:
http://tinyurl.com/y8lnegn
Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
terribly expensive.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>terribly expensive.
"For the most part" ???
Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
equivalent].
>Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>terribly expensive.
"For the most part" ???
Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
equivalent].
| |
|
In article <qgecj5lk8ep970pl8u6tu2il3q4a4buqss@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
> >Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
> >lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
> >terribly expensive.
>
> "For the most part" ???
Yup. I'm still dreaming of an inexpensive very-wide lens of excellent
quality.
> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
Probably not.
> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
> equivalent].
Some lens designs produce less distortion than others of the same focal
length. Look to the later Biogon design for some remarkable correction
of distortion. In particular, look at the Biogon 38mm as used in the
Hasselblad SWC, 903, 905 (58mm x 58mm format)
Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
performance at the same aperture.
And each are terribly expensive.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
> >Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
> >lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
> >terribly expensive.
>
> "For the most part" ???
Yup. I'm still dreaming of an inexpensive very-wide lens of excellent
quality.
> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
Probably not.
> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
> equivalent].
Some lens designs produce less distortion than others of the same focal
length. Look to the later Biogon design for some remarkable correction
of distortion. In particular, look at the Biogon 38mm as used in the
Hasselblad SWC, 903, 905 (58mm x 58mm format)
Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
performance at the same aperture.
And each are terribly expensive.
| |
|
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> John Stafford<nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
>> Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>> lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>> terribly expensive.
>
> "For the most part" ???
>
> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
>
> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
> equivalent].
>
When I used film and shot interiors and exteriors, I had a Nikon 20mm
lens that had no distortion. ff you put the film plane parallel to the
building or interior, everything on the very edge of the shot was
square, straight up and down, top and bottom. It was a very nice lens!
They still make it:
AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D
"Close Range Correction for distortion-free pictures as close as 0.85 feet."
$564.95 at Amazon.
I've retired and now shoot what my photo colleagues call a "pro-sumer"
35mm DSLR camera. It's got a little distortion on the wide angle shots.
The body and two lenses cost less than the above lens. ;-)
And to get the full 20mm lens coverage, you'd need a full frame digital
sensor which means you need a Nikon D3, for about $5,000, a D3S or D3X,
for about$7,500.
--
JD..
> John Stafford<nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
>> Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>> lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>> terribly expensive.
>
> "For the most part" ???
>
> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
>
> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
> equivalent].
>
When I used film and shot interiors and exteriors, I had a Nikon 20mm
lens that had no distortion. ff you put the film plane parallel to the
building or interior, everything on the very edge of the shot was
square, straight up and down, top and bottom. It was a very nice lens!
They still make it:
AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D
"Close Range Correction for distortion-free pictures as close as 0.85 feet."
$564.95 at Amazon.
I've retired and now shoot what my photo colleagues call a "pro-sumer"
35mm DSLR camera. It's got a little distortion on the wide angle shots.
The body and two lenses cost less than the above lens. ;-)
And to get the full 20mm lens coverage, you'd need a full frame digital
sensor which means you need a Nikon D3, for about $5,000, a D3S or D3X,
for about$7,500.
--
JD..
| |
|
George wrote:
> Hi!
> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
> should be straight.
> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>
> Any comments appreciated,
> george
> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>
CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves out,
I think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle lens), if
it curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused by a long
telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
When in doubt, Ask.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
--
JD..
> Hi!
> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
> should be straight.
> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>
> Any comments appreciated,
> george
> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>
CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves out,
I think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle lens), if
it curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused by a long
telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
When in doubt, Ask.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
--
JD..
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>In article <qgecj5lk8ep970pl8u6tu2il3q4a4buqss@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>>
>> >Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>> >lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>> >terribly expensive.
>>
>> "For the most part" ???
>
>Yup. I'm still dreaming of an inexpensive very-wide lens of excellent
>quality.
>
>> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
>
>Probably not.
>
>> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
>> equivalent].
>
>Some lens designs produce less distortion than others of the same focal
>length. Look to the later Biogon design for some remarkable correction
>of distortion. In particular, look at the Biogon 38mm as used in the
>Hasselblad SWC, 903, 905 (58mm x 58mm format)
>
>Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
>for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
>OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
>fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
>remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
>performance at the same aperture.
>
>And each are terribly expensive.
True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
<G>].
Even so, shootng a grid card shows distortion.
Thankfully, digitally post we can 'adjust' for it.
>In article <qgecj5lk8ep970pl8u6tu2il3q4a4buqss@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>>
>> >Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>> >lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>> >terribly expensive.
>>
>> "For the most part" ???
>
>Yup. I'm still dreaming of an inexpensive very-wide lens of excellent
>quality.
>
>> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
>
>Probably not.
>
>> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
>> equivalent].
>
>Some lens designs produce less distortion than others of the same focal
>length. Look to the later Biogon design for some remarkable correction
>of distortion. In particular, look at the Biogon 38mm as used in the
>Hasselblad SWC, 903, 905 (58mm x 58mm format)
>
>Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
>for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
>OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
>fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
>remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
>performance at the same aperture.
>
>And each are terribly expensive.
True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
<G>].
Even so, shootng a grid card shows distortion.
Thankfully, digitally post we can 'adjust' for it.
| |
|
In article <k73fj51mas6oshaqk9kacns7nvcvss7ofq@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
> >Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
> >for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
> >OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
> >fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
> >remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
> >performance at the same aperture.
> >
> >And each are terribly expensive.
>
> True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
> <G>].
If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
> Even so, shootng a grid card shows distortion.
The closer the grid is focused upon, the more significant the distortion
- and the longer the focal length, which defeats its design objective.
Regardless, .5% is very good for a wide lens.
> Thankfully, digitally post we can 'adjust' for it.
Usually don't have to.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
> >Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
> >for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
> >OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
> >fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
> >remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
> >performance at the same aperture.
> >
> >And each are terribly expensive.
>
> True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
> <G>].
If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
> Even so, shootng a grid card shows distortion.
The closer the grid is focused upon, the more significant the distortion
- and the longer the focal length, which defeats its design objective.
Regardless, .5% is very good for a wide lens.
> Thankfully, digitally post we can 'adjust' for it.
Usually don't have to.
| |
|
JD <JD@example.invalid> found these unused words:
>Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>> John Stafford<nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>>
>>> Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>>> lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>>> terribly expensive.
>>
>> "For the most part" ???
>>
>> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
>>
>> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
>> equivalent].
>>
>
>When I used film and shot interiors and exteriors, I had a Nikon 20mm
>lens that had no distortion. ff you put the film plane parallel to the
>building or interior, everything on the very edge of the shot was
>square, straight up and down, top and bottom. It was a very nice lens!
I think you're confucing perspective with barrel distortion. One is a
function of angle/distance relative to parts of the subject, the other that
of optics.
Even a 100mm lens will produce perspective distortion unless the two planes
[subject & film] are parallel.
>They still make it:
>AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D
>"Close Range Correction for distortion-free pictures as close as 0.85 feet."
>$564.95 at Amazon.
Darn cheap for a great Nikkor ... but wait ...
<http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/20-2.8> 'fragile' ???
< http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/nikon-slr-lenses-40/wide-an gle-slr-lenses-64/95-nikon-af-nikkor-20mm-f28d-lens-review.h tml>
"The build quality of the lens is pretty decent but not spectacular - barrel
is made of hardened plastic. The aperture ring is also plastic, while the
narrow focus ring is rubberized."
"The lens fell prone to pretty nasty flare and aperture ghosting, both of
which can be seen in the image below."
"Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D showed mixed performance in the lab when used
on a native F mount full frame Nikon D3. Center performance was quite good
in general, with already solid image quality at f/2.8 and even slightly
improving with stopped down aperture. Unfortunately, border qualitysuffered
quite noticeably, especially with wider apertures. At f/2.8 and f/4 border
quality was mediocre at best. Even f/5.6 did not bring much improvement -
borders here were kind of average. Quality finally reaches good levels
around f/8, but this is a little bit too little and a little bit too late.
Conclusion? Not what I'd normally call a good performing lens - based on the
MTF results, AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 would fall somewhere in the second tier
group"
"When compared to all other ultra to moderately wide angle lenses (18mm to
28mm) based on the overall performance, Nikon's AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 does
not quite stack up. The lens shows weak border performance at wide apertures
on both full frame as well as APS-C type cameras and falls prone to pretty
much all possible artifacts - vignetting, distortion, flare, aperture
ghosting, you name it."
>I've retired and now shoot what my photo colleagues call a "pro-sumer"
>35mm DSLR camera. It's got a little distortion on the wide angle shots.
>The body and two lenses cost less than the above lens. ;-)
>
>And to get the full 20mm lens coverage, you'd need a full frame digital
>sensor which means you need a Nikon D3, for about $5,000, a D3S or D3X,
>for about$7,500.
>Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>> John Stafford<nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>>
>>> Such distortion is quite common to zoom lenses and cheap wide-angle
>>> lenses. Wide lenses without such distortion are, for the most part,
>>> terribly expensive.
>>
>> "For the most part" ???
>>
>> Are there -=any=- wide angle lenses that are 'flat field'?
>>
>> AFAIK, it's a function of optics until you reach about 60 mm [35mm
>> equivalent].
>>
>
>When I used film and shot interiors and exteriors, I had a Nikon 20mm
>lens that had no distortion. ff you put the film plane parallel to the
>building or interior, everything on the very edge of the shot was
>square, straight up and down, top and bottom. It was a very nice lens!
I think you're confucing perspective with barrel distortion. One is a
function of angle/distance relative to parts of the subject, the other that
of optics.
Even a 100mm lens will produce perspective distortion unless the two planes
[subject & film] are parallel.
>They still make it:
>AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D
>"Close Range Correction for distortion-free pictures as close as 0.85 feet."
>$564.95 at Amazon.
Darn cheap for a great Nikkor ... but wait ...
<http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/20-2.8> 'fragile' ???
< http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/nikon-slr-lenses-40/wide-an gle-slr-lenses-64/95-nikon-af-nikkor-20mm-f28d-lens-review.h tml>
"The build quality of the lens is pretty decent but not spectacular - barrel
is made of hardened plastic. The aperture ring is also plastic, while the
narrow focus ring is rubberized."
"The lens fell prone to pretty nasty flare and aperture ghosting, both of
which can be seen in the image below."
"Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D showed mixed performance in the lab when used
on a native F mount full frame Nikon D3. Center performance was quite good
in general, with already solid image quality at f/2.8 and even slightly
improving with stopped down aperture. Unfortunately, border qualitysuffered
quite noticeably, especially with wider apertures. At f/2.8 and f/4 border
quality was mediocre at best. Even f/5.6 did not bring much improvement -
borders here were kind of average. Quality finally reaches good levels
around f/8, but this is a little bit too little and a little bit too late.
Conclusion? Not what I'd normally call a good performing lens - based on the
MTF results, AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 would fall somewhere in the second tier
group"
"When compared to all other ultra to moderately wide angle lenses (18mm to
28mm) based on the overall performance, Nikon's AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 does
not quite stack up. The lens shows weak border performance at wide apertures
on both full frame as well as APS-C type cameras and falls prone to pretty
much all possible artifacts - vignetting, distortion, flare, aperture
ghosting, you name it."
>I've retired and now shoot what my photo colleagues call a "pro-sumer"
>35mm DSLR camera. It's got a little distortion on the wide angle shots.
>The body and two lenses cost less than the above lens. ;-)
>
>And to get the full 20mm lens coverage, you'd need a full frame digital
>sensor which means you need a Nikon D3, for about $5,000, a D3S or D3X,
>for about$7,500.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>In article <k73fj51mas6oshaqk9kacns7nvcvss7ofq@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
>> >Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
>> >for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
>> >OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
>> >fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
>> >remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
>> >performance at the same aperture.
>> >
>> >And each are terribly expensive.
>>
>> True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
>> <G>].
>
>If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
>of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
Didn't make that statement! It's used at normal distances, but where ther's
insufficient space for him to cover the field needed.
>> Even so, shootng a grid card shows distortion.
>
>The closer the grid is focused upon, the more significant the distortion
Even at .normal of 4-5 feet if you're shooting a large test grid it will
show.
>- and the longer the focal length, which defeats its design objective.
This is a prime, the focal length does NOT change.
>Regardless, .5% is very good for a wide lens.
Yep, much better than most - but then the OP was about barreling seen with
'the usual wide angle lenses.
>> Thankfully, digitally post we can 'adjust' for it.
>
>Usually don't have to.
Each to their own.
>In article <k73fj51mas6oshaqk9kacns7nvcvss7ofq@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
>> >Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
>> >for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
>> >OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
>> >fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
>> >remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
>> >performance at the same aperture.
>> >
>> >And each are terribly expensive.
>>
>> True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
>> <G>].
>
>If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
>of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
Didn't make that statement! It's used at normal distances, but where ther's
insufficient space for him to cover the field needed.
>> Even so, shootng a grid card shows distortion.
>
>The closer the grid is focused upon, the more significant the distortion
Even at .normal of 4-5 feet if you're shooting a large test grid it will
show.
>- and the longer the focal length, which defeats its design objective.
This is a prime, the focal length does NOT change.
>Regardless, .5% is very good for a wide lens.
Yep, much better than most - but then the OP was about barreling seen with
'the usual wide angle lenses.
>> Thankfully, digitally post we can 'adjust' for it.
>
>Usually don't have to.
Each to their own.
| |
|
In article <qvtfj5tbaftnchhu8jdd0lgjsjn05nvfqk@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <k73fj51mas6oshaqk9kacns7nvcvss7ofq@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
> >
> >> >Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
> >> >for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
> >> >OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
> >> >fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
> >> >remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
> >> >performance at the same aperture.
> >> >
> >> >And each are terribly expensive.
> >>
> >> True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
> >> <G>].
> >
> >If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
> >of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
>
> Didn't make that statement! It's used at normal distances, but where ther's
> insufficient space for him to cover the field needed.
OK! We are good there. It is good to exchange information with a person
like you who knows the field.
Thanks.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <k73fj51mas6oshaqk9kacns7nvcvss7ofq@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
> >
> >> >Design is all about trade-offs. The Biogon does not have great coverage
> >> >for its FL, and it's coverage does not increase with stopping down.
> >> >OTOH, the 35mm Grandagon has great coverage, but with great light
> >> >fall-off to the edges which is improved by stapping down. The Biogon has
> >> >remarkable sharpness wide-open while the Grandagon has terrible
> >> >performance at the same aperture.
> >> >
> >> >And each are terribly expensive.
> >>
> >> True, a friend has the Biogon [deals with medical imagery - so aptly named
> >> <G>].
> >
> >If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
> >of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
>
> Didn't make that statement! It's used at normal distances, but where ther's
> insufficient space for him to cover the field needed.
OK! We are good there. It is good to exchange information with a person
like you who knows the field.
Thanks.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>In article <qvtfj5tbaftnchhu8jdd0lgjsjn05nvfqk@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
>> >of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
>>
>> Didn't make that statement! It's used at normal distances, but where ther's
>> insufficient space for him to cover the field needed.
>
>OK! We are good there. It is good to exchange information with a person
>like you who knows the field.
I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with a
reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
depth of field that way too <G>!
Happy New Year.
>In article <qvtfj5tbaftnchhu8jdd0lgjsjn05nvfqk@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >If it is used for close-up photography, then it is being applied outside
>> >of its design goals, and I would expect significant issues.
>>
>> Didn't make that statement! It's used at normal distances, but where ther's
>> insufficient space for him to cover the field needed.
>
>OK! We are good there. It is good to exchange information with a person
>like you who knows the field.
I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with a
reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
depth of field that way too <G>!
Happy New Year.
| |
|
In article <69nhj5hpvo8hpk9eqj9cjbpam2276mf1bg@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with a
> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
> depth of field that way too <G>!
>
> Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you, and all.
I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with a
> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
> depth of field that way too <G>!
>
> Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you, and all.
I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>In article <69nhj5hpvo8hpk9eqj9cjbpam2276mf1bg@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with a
>> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
>> depth of field that way too <G>!
>>
>> Happy New Year.
>
>Happy New Year to you, and all.
>
>I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
>In article <69nhj5hpvo8hpk9eqj9cjbpam2276mf1bg@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with a
>> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
>> depth of field that way too <G>!
>>
>> Happy New Year.
>
>Happy New Year to you, and all.
>
>I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
| |
|
In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <69nhj5hpvo8hpk9eqj9cjbpam2276mf1bg@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with
> >> a
> >> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
> >> depth of field that way too <G>!
> >>
> >> Happy New Year.
> >
> >Happy New Year to you, and all.
> >
> >I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
>
> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <69nhj5hpvo8hpk9eqj9cjbpam2276mf1bg@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with
> >> a
> >> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
> >> depth of field that way too <G>!
> >>
> >> Happy New Year.
> >
> >Happy New Year to you, and all.
> >
> >I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
>
> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>>
>> >In article <69nhj5hpvo8hpk9eqj9cjbpam2276mf1bg@4ax.com>,
>> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with
>> >> a
>> >> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
>> >> depth of field that way too <G>!
>> >>
>> >> Happy New Year.
>> >
>> >Happy New Year to you, and all.
>> >
>> >I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
>>
>> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
>> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
>
>It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
>
>Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
circuits. However it can be used for any camra system, with additional
battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
a dry circuit remote, that connection.
By breaking the timing input, it can also be used as a single shot trigger
for animal images or ???
I like digital even though I grew up with film. I can add much more to the
shot than can be done with film. One main help with digital imagery is the
ability to etend the gamut captured through two or three exposures.
One shot was of a broken off, back lit telegraph pole on an abandioned
railway some 20 miles from 'civilization. One exposure for the desert bright
sky, one for the ground background and one for the pole. Used the moveable
spot to select the 'zone'. Naturall PS did the layering.
Left the 'day job' in '06, now I shoot what I want <G> !
>In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>>
>> >In article <69nhj5hpvo8hpk9eqj9cjbpam2276mf1bg@4ax.com>,
>> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've always used either a bellows of tubes for my close work, usually with
>> >> a
>> >> reversing ring on my 58 1.4 Nikkor on the original "F". Lovely control of
>> >> depth of field that way too <G>!
>> >>
>> >> Happy New Year.
>> >
>> >Happy New Year to you, and all.
>> >
>> >I'll have to put up some pictures of the Nikon F hack I made. Maybe.
>>
>> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
>> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
>
>It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
>
>Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
circuits. However it can be used for any camra system, with additional
battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
a dry circuit remote, that connection.
By breaking the timing input, it can also be used as a single shot trigger
for animal images or ???
I like digital even though I grew up with film. I can add much more to the
shot than can be done with film. One main help with digital imagery is the
ability to etend the gamut captured through two or three exposures.
One shot was of a broken off, back lit telegraph pole on an abandioned
railway some 20 miles from 'civilization. One exposure for the desert bright
sky, one for the ground background and one for the pole. Used the moveable
spot to select the 'zone'. Naturall PS did the layering.
Left the 'day job' in '06, now I shoot what I want <G> !
| |
|
In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
> >
> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
> >
> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
>
> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
> circuits. However it can be used for any camra system, with additional
> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
> >
> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
> >
> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
>
> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
> circuits. However it can be used for any camra system, with additional
> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>>
>> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
>> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
>> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
>> >
>> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
>> >
>> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
>>
>> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
>> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
>> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
>> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
>
>How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
Speed Graphic ?
Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one at
1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
ALLOWED!
Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
My use is with a 2 GB flash card in the Minolta. Makes lovely High-Def
cloudscapes and sunsets.
>In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>>
>> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
>> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
>> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
>> >
>> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
>> >
>> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
>>
>> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
>> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
>> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
>> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
>
>How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
Speed Graphic ?
Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one at
1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
ALLOWED!
Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
My use is with a 2 GB flash card in the Minolta. Makes lovely High-Def
cloudscapes and sunsets.
| |
|
In article <g4qkj5dhi4om1242dnukoctss3rp6d577o@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >>
> >> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> >> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
> >> >
> >> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
> >> >
> >> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
> >>
> >> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
> >> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
> >> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
> >> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
> >
> >How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>
> Speed Graphic ?
Deardorff 8x10
> Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
> bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
>
> What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one at
> 1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
> ALLOWED!
Slowest hand-held? I can't hand hold this monster. Besides, I got a
tremor.
I have a lot of infrared flash bulbs. Would have to go down to 4x5",
tho. They wouldn't know I was there. 'cept if someone in front of me's
hair burst into flames. Ever since I shot a Michael Jackson rehearsal...
> Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
> There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
I have used 9" rollfilm, but that was a big-ass military aerial thang.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >>
> >> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> >> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
> >> >
> >> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
> >> >
> >> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
> >>
> >> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
> >> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
> >> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
> >> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
> >
> >How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>
> Speed Graphic ?
Deardorff 8x10
> Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
> bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
>
> What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one at
> 1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
> ALLOWED!
Slowest hand-held? I can't hand hold this monster. Besides, I got a
tremor.
I have a lot of infrared flash bulbs. Would have to go down to 4x5",
tho. They wouldn't know I was there. 'cept if someone in front of me's
hair burst into flames. Ever since I shot a Michael Jackson rehearsal...
> Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
> There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
I have used 9" rollfilm, but that was a big-ass military aerial thang.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>In article <g4qkj5dhi4om1242dnukoctss3rp6d577o@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>>
>> >In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
>> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
>> >> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
>> >> >
>> >> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
>> >> >
>> >> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
>> >>
>> >> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
>> >> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
>> >> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
>> >> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
>> >
>> >How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>> >over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>>
>> Speed Graphic ?
>
>Deardorff 8x10
Lovely, only got to use one once! Personal property of the Sergeant-Major.
>> Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
>> bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
>>
>> What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one at
>> 1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
>> ALLOWED!
>
>Slowest hand-held? I can't hand hold this monster. Besides, I got a
>tremor.
Ahhh, but that was 'back when' for me [47 years ago!].
>I have a lot of infrared flash bulbs. Would have to go down to 4x5",
>tho. They wouldn't know I was there. 'cept if someone in front of me's
>hair burst into flames. Ever since I shot a Michael Jackson rehearsal...
Not going there ...
>> Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
>> There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
>
>I have used 9" rollfilm, but that was a big-ass military aerial thang.
Would do a nice job on shooting for the Pani Projectors ...
http://www.pani.com/produkte/projektion/e_projektion.html?en glish
Used them to 'light-up' Vegas casino towers. Caesar's for Cinquo de Mayo -
Bally's [Old MGM] for Chevy Introduction of the Geo - as examples.
Now it's all PS and Video ... the -=fun=- is gone.
>In article <g4qkj5dhi4om1242dnukoctss3rp6d577o@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>>
>> >In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
>> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
>> >> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
>> >> >
>> >> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an intervalometer!
>> >> >
>> >> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
>> >>
>> >> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
>> >> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
>> >> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera has
>> >> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
>> >
>> >How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>> >over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>>
>> Speed Graphic ?
>
>Deardorff 8x10
Lovely, only got to use one once! Personal property of the Sergeant-Major.
>> Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
>> bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
>>
>> What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one at
>> 1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
>> ALLOWED!
>
>Slowest hand-held? I can't hand hold this monster. Besides, I got a
>tremor.
Ahhh, but that was 'back when' for me [47 years ago!].
>I have a lot of infrared flash bulbs. Would have to go down to 4x5",
>tho. They wouldn't know I was there. 'cept if someone in front of me's
>hair burst into flames. Ever since I shot a Michael Jackson rehearsal...
Not going there ...
>> Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
>> There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
>
>I have used 9" rollfilm, but that was a big-ass military aerial thang.
Would do a nice job on shooting for the Pani Projectors ...
http://www.pani.com/produkte/projektion/e_projektion.html?en glish
Used them to 'light-up' Vegas casino towers. Caesar's for Cinquo de Mayo -
Bally's [Old MGM] for Chevy Introduction of the Geo - as examples.
Now it's all PS and Video ... the -=fun=- is gone.
| |
|
In article <sf4lj5p2b9m3bmsfm73fln2t2op48idnom@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <g4qkj5dhi4om1242dnukoctss3rp6d577o@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >>
> >> >In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> >> >> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an
> >> >> >intervalometer!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
> >> >> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
> >> >> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera
> >> >> has
> >> >> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
> >> >
> >> >How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >> >over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
> >>
> >> Speed Graphic ?
> >
> >Deardorff 8x10
>
> Lovely, only got to use one once! Personal property of the Sergeant-Major.
>
> >> Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
> >> bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
> >>
> >> What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one
> >> at
> >> 1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
> >> ALLOWED!
> >
> >Slowest hand-held? I can't hand hold this monster. Besides, I got a
> >tremor.
>
> Ahhh, but that was 'back when' for me [47 years ago!].
>
> >I have a lot of infrared flash bulbs. Would have to go down to 4x5",
> >tho. They wouldn't know I was there. 'cept if someone in front of me's
> >hair burst into flames. Ever since I shot a Michael Jackson rehearsal...
>
> Not going there ...
>
> >> Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
> >> There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
> >
> >I have used 9" rollfilm, but that was a big-ass military aerial thang.
>
> Would do a nice job on shooting for the Pani Projectors ...
> http://www.pani.com/produkte/projektion/e_projektion.html?en glish
>
> Used them to 'light-up' Vegas casino towers. Caesar's for Cinquo de Mayo -
> Bally's [Old MGM] for Chevy Introduction of the Geo - as examples.
>
> Now it's all PS and Video ... the -=fun=- is gone.
47 years for you. Wow! You are a contemporary. I'm 63 years-old now, and
a tiny bit of my aerial experience was Vietnam 64-70. OMG, this is kind
of depressing.
Best to you, Sir.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <g4qkj5dhi4om1242dnukoctss3rp6d577o@4ax.com>,
> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >>
> >> >In article <oamkj5tgj8e1ag1ovo1lhplncjn45dsj5t@4ax.com>,
> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <dj9kj5lb3q5ac80ab3vpv6qqsr5ih02oev@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Speaking of hacks, something you might find amusing:
> >> >> >> lephoto.ttrr.org/interval/interval.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It certainly beats leaving a laptop outside to use as an
> >> >> >intervalometer!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Digital is boring me, but I gotta do it for the day job.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's 'digital' in the sense that the main components are integrated
> >> >> circuits. However it can be used for any camera system, with additional
> >> >> battery it would drive a solenoid for a cable release, or if the camera
> >> >> has
> >> >> a dry circuit remote, that connection.
> >> >
> >> >How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >> >over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
> >>
> >> Speed Graphic ?
> >
> >Deardorff 8x10
>
> Lovely, only got to use one once! Personal property of the Sergeant-Major.
>
> >> Rotary solenoid to use with the 6 pack, but the cocking would be ??? Too
> >> bulky anyway, but interesting concept.
> >>
> >> What's the slowest exposure you've made successfully with it? Managed one
> >> at
> >> 1/8th, though it took 3 tries. Eglise Saint-Sulpice concert, NO FLASH
> >> ALLOWED!
> >
> >Slowest hand-held? I can't hand hold this monster. Besides, I got a
> >tremor.
>
> Ahhh, but that was 'back when' for me [47 years ago!].
>
> >I have a lot of infrared flash bulbs. Would have to go down to 4x5",
> >tho. They wouldn't know I was there. 'cept if someone in front of me's
> >hair burst into flames. Ever since I shot a Michael Jackson rehearsal...
>
> Not going there ...
>
> >> Many other cameras have motorized backs. Expose, wind, expose, wind.
> >> There'll always be something you -=can't=- use it with <G>!
> >
> >I have used 9" rollfilm, but that was a big-ass military aerial thang.
>
> Would do a nice job on shooting for the Pani Projectors ...
> http://www.pani.com/produkte/projektion/e_projektion.html?en glish
>
> Used them to 'light-up' Vegas casino towers. Caesar's for Cinquo de Mayo -
> Bally's [Old MGM] for Chevy Introduction of the Geo - as examples.
>
> Now it's all PS and Video ... the -=fun=- is gone.
47 years for you. Wow! You are a contemporary. I'm 63 years-old now, and
a tiny bit of my aerial experience was Vietnam 64-70. OMG, this is kind
of depressing.
Best to you, Sir.
| |
|
Hi!
We have wandered a bit!
Sorry for the extended messages.
It's CS here, not CS3.
But, the pinch and spherics things may help a bit.
Thanks for the info.
will try it now.
George
"JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3pGdndFcqKm796vWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@posted.grandecom...
> George wrote:
>> Hi!
>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>> should be straight.
>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>
>> Any comments appreciated,
>> george
>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>
>
> CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
>
> I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves out, I
> think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle lens), if it
> curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused by a long
> telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
>
> When in doubt, Ask.com:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
>
> --
> JD..
We have wandered a bit!
Sorry for the extended messages.
It's CS here, not CS3.
But, the pinch and spherics things may help a bit.
Thanks for the info.
will try it now.
George
"JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3pGdndFcqKm796vWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@posted.grandecom...
> George wrote:
>> Hi!
>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>> should be straight.
>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>
>> Any comments appreciated,
>> george
>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>
>
> CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
>
> I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves out, I
> think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle lens), if it
> curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused by a long
> telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
>
> When in doubt, Ask.com:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
>
> --
> JD..
| |
|
John Stafford wrote:
>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>> Speed Graphic ?
Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
bottom to receive the exposed film.
I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
toward fashion shooters.
Dave Smith
>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>> Speed Graphic ?
Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
bottom to receive the exposed film.
I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
toward fashion shooters.
Dave Smith
| |
|
In article <hhgej0$sis$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Stafford wrote:
>
> >>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
> >> Speed Graphic ?
>
> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
>
> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
> bottom to receive the exposed film.
>
> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
> toward fashion shooters.
>
> Dave Smith
The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
Wish I had seen it.
David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Stafford wrote:
>
> >>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
> >> Speed Graphic ?
>
> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
>
> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
> bottom to receive the exposed film.
>
> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
> toward fashion shooters.
>
> Dave Smith
The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
Wish I had seen it.
| |
|
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:26:19 -0600, John Stafford wrote:
> In article <hhgej0$sis$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford wrote:
>>
>>>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>>>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>>>> Speed Graphic ?
>>
>> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
>> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
>>
>> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
>> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
>> bottom to receive the exposed film.
>>
>> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
>> toward fashion shooters.
>>
>> Dave Smith
>
> The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
> rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
>
> Wish I had seen it.
Or at least *heard* it - anyone have an mp3? :)
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.om
> In article <hhgej0$sis$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford wrote:
>>
>>>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>>>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>>>> Speed Graphic ?
>>
>> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
>> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
>>
>> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
>> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
>> bottom to receive the exposed film.
>>
>> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
>> toward fashion shooters.
>>
>> Dave Smith
>
> The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
> rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
>
> Wish I had seen it.
Or at least *heard* it - anyone have an mp3? :)
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.om
| |
|
In article <1ps7awqg47ke0.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com>,
Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:26:19 -0600, John Stafford wrote:
>
> > In article <hhgej0$sis$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >>>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
> >>>> Speed Graphic ?
> >>
> >> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
> >> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
> >>
> >> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
> >> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
> >> bottom to receive the exposed film.
> >>
> >> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
> >> toward fashion shooters.
> >>
> >> Dave Smith
> >
> > The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
> > rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
> >
> > Wish I had seen it.
>
> Or at least *heard* it - anyone have an mp3? :)
If you had X-Rays on the before they went digital, you might have heard
the clunk of the film changer. Rather bulky, but I'll bet it is similar
to the device shown at Photo Expo.
Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:26:19 -0600, John Stafford wrote:
>
> > In article <hhgej0$sis$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Stafford wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
> >>>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
> >>>> Speed Graphic ?
> >>
> >> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
> >> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
> >>
> >> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
> >> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
> >> bottom to receive the exposed film.
> >>
> >> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
> >> toward fashion shooters.
> >>
> >> Dave Smith
> >
> > The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
> > rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
> >
> > Wish I had seen it.
>
> Or at least *heard* it - anyone have an mp3? :)
If you had X-Rays on the before they went digital, you might have heard
the clunk of the film changer. Rather bulky, but I'll bet it is similar
to the device shown at Photo Expo.
| |
|
John Stafford wrote:
> In article <1ps7awqg47ke0.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com>,
> Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:26:19 -0600, John Stafford wrote:
>>
>>> In article <hhgej0$sis$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>> David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Stafford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>>>>>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>>>>>> Speed Graphic ?
>>>> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
>>>> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
>>>> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
>>>> bottom to receive the exposed film.
>>>>
>>>> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
>>>> toward fashion shooters.
>>>>
>>>> Dave Smith
>>> The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
>>> rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
>>>
>>> Wish I had seen it.
>> Or at least *heard* it - anyone have an mp3? :)
>
> If you had X-Rays on the before they went digital, you might have heard
> the clunk of the film changer. Rather bulky, but I'll bet it is similar
> to the device shown at Photo Expo.
Actually it sounded like a deck of cards being shuffled as I recall.
I was there with a friend who was a big still life shooter at the time
and we were quizzing the guy doing the demo.
One of the things we brought up was static electricity and the the
answer was "We recommend keeping the humidity in the studio rather high".
Dave Smith
> In article <1ps7awqg47ke0.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com>,
> Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:26:19 -0600, John Stafford wrote:
>>
>>> In article <hhgej0$sis$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>> David Smith <dcsimagesnospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Stafford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How would it replace the dark slide, remove the film holder, flip it
>>>>>>> over, pull the slide and cock the shutter for the next shot?
>>>>>> Speed Graphic ?
>>>> Someone, in the late 80's - early 90's was actually marketing a "motor
>>>> drive" fr 4x5 sheet film.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall, it had a chamber on the top which held 50 sheets of film, a
>>>> roller transport to move the sheets into position and a chamber on the
>>>> bottom to receive the exposed film.
>>>>
>>>> I remember seeing it demoed at Photo Expo in NY. It was being geared
>>>> toward fashion shooters.
>>>>
>>>> Dave Smith
>>> The justification probably being that nobody made the desirable color
>>> rollfilm in 5"x180' format.
>>>
>>> Wish I had seen it.
>> Or at least *heard* it - anyone have an mp3? :)
>
> If you had X-Rays on the before they went digital, you might have heard
> the clunk of the film changer. Rather bulky, but I'll bet it is similar
> to the device shown at Photo Expo.
Actually it sounded like a deck of cards being shuffled as I recall.
I was there with a friend who was a big still life shooter at the time
and we were quizzing the guy doing the demo.
One of the things we brought up was static electricity and the the
answer was "We recommend keeping the humidity in the studio rather high".
Dave Smith
| |
|
On 26/12/2009 09:26, George wrote:
> Hi!
> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
> should be straight.
> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>
> Any comments appreciated,
> george
> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>
Found it in Elements.
Filter>correct camera distortion
So, why buy an expensive lens!
george
> Hi!
> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
> should be straight.
> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>
> Any comments appreciated,
> george
> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>
Found it in Elements.
Filter>correct camera distortion
So, why buy an expensive lens!
george
| |
|
In article <a7WdnTAqbfl4m9vWnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d@bt.com>,
george <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Found it in Elements.
> Filter>correct camera distortion
>
> So, why buy an expensive lens!
Uh, to avoid the reliance upon the software? To get it right the first
time? To avoid degradation of the image through manipulation?
george <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Found it in Elements.
> Filter>correct camera distortion
>
> So, why buy an expensive lens!
Uh, to avoid the reliance upon the software? To get it right the first
time? To avoid degradation of the image through manipulation?
| |
|
george wrote:
> On 26/12/2009 09:26, George wrote:
>> Hi!
>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>> should be straight.
>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>
>> Any comments appreciated,
>> george
>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>
>
> Found it in Elements.
> Filter>correct camera distortion
>
> So, why buy an expensive lens!
>
> george
If you shoot interiors and exteriors for a living, you have the lens. If
you shoot for yourself, software is a less expensive alternative.
--
JD..
> On 26/12/2009 09:26, George wrote:
>> Hi!
>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>> should be straight.
>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>
>> Any comments appreciated,
>> george
>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>
>
> Found it in Elements.
> Filter>correct camera distortion
>
> So, why buy an expensive lens!
>
> george
If you shoot interiors and exteriors for a living, you have the lens. If
you shoot for yourself, software is a less expensive alternative.
--
JD..
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>In article <a7WdnTAqbfl4m9vWnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d@bt.com>,
> george <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Found it in Elements.
>> Filter>correct camera distortion
>>
>> So, why buy an expensive lens!
>
>Uh, to avoid the reliance upon the software? To get it right the first
>time? To avoid degradation of the image through manipulation?
To avoid fall off of both light and focus at the corners.
>In article <a7WdnTAqbfl4m9vWnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d@bt.com>,
> george <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Found it in Elements.
>> Filter>correct camera distortion
>>
>> So, why buy an expensive lens!
>
>Uh, to avoid the reliance upon the software? To get it right the first
>time? To avoid degradation of the image through manipulation?
To avoid fall off of both light and focus at the corners.
| |
|
In article <k6rck5tarbrsq1u2qk8lfmpb7cn8me86mm@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <a7WdnTAqbfl4m9vWnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d@bt.com>,
> > george <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Found it in Elements.
> >> Filter>correct camera distortion
> >>
> >> So, why buy an expensive lens!
> >
> >Uh, to avoid the reliance upon the software? To get it right the first
> >time? To avoid degradation of the image through manipulation?
>
> To avoid fall off of both light and focus at the corners.
Light fall-off to the edges is hard to defeat, although the later Biogon
design does a pretty good job. Focus - yes, for sure, quality lenses are
a must for that.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
> >In article <a7WdnTAqbfl4m9vWnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d@bt.com>,
> > george <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Found it in Elements.
> >> Filter>correct camera distortion
> >>
> >> So, why buy an expensive lens!
> >
> >Uh, to avoid the reliance upon the software? To get it right the first
> >time? To avoid degradation of the image through manipulation?
>
> To avoid fall off of both light and focus at the corners.
Light fall-off to the edges is hard to defeat, although the later Biogon
design does a pretty good job. Focus - yes, for sure, quality lenses are
a must for that.
| |
|
JD <JD@example.invalid> was inspired to say
>George wrote:
>> Hi!
>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>> should be straight.
>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>
>> Any comments appreciated,
>> george
>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>
>
>CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
>
>I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves out,
>I think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle lens), if
>it curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused by a long
>telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
>
>When in doubt, Ask.com:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
simple pincushion!!
Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
.... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<Photographing the public for over fifty years>
>George wrote:
>> Hi!
>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>> should be straight.
>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>
>> Any comments appreciated,
>> george
>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>
>
>CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
>
>I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves out,
>I think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle lens), if
>it curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused by a long
>telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
>
>When in doubt, Ask.com:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
simple pincushion!!
Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
.... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<Photographing the public for over fifty years>
| |
|
Michael J Davis wrote:
> JD <JD@example.invalid> was inspired to say
>> George wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>>> should be straight.
>>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>>
>>> Any comments appreciated,
>>> george
>>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>>
>>
>> CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
>>
>> I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves
>> out, I think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle
>> lens), if it curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused
>> by a long telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
>>
>> When in doubt, Ask.com:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
>
> The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
> simple pincushion!!
>
> Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
> filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
>
> After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
>
> ... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
>
> Mike
I don't know about "youngsters today" but you replied to my post so I'll
have to admit that I do know what a pincushion is. 8-)
--
JD..
> JD <JD@example.invalid> was inspired to say
>> George wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> A close-up (-ish, say 1 to 2metres) has curved horizontal lines that
>>> should be straight.
>>> They curve slightly away from the centre line.
>>> (Is this barrelling, or pin-cushion?)
>>> In CS, is there anything I can do to straighten things?
>>>
>>> Any comments appreciated,
>>> george
>>> who remembers "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE #1"
>>>
>>
>> CS3 has something that may help. Filter, Distort, Lens Correction.
>>
>> I don't know what it's called, just how to lessen it! If it curves
>> out, I think it's called barrel distortion(caused by a wide angle
>> lens), if it curves in I think it's call pin-cushion distortion(caused
>> by a long telephoto lens) but don't get me to lying.
>>
>> When in doubt, Ask.com:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
>
> The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
> simple pincushion!!
>
> Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
> filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
>
> After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
>
> ... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
>
> Mike
I don't know about "youngsters today" but you replied to my post so I'll
have to admit that I do know what a pincushion is. 8-)
--
JD..
| |
|
In article <fKGdnRn_157WKM3WnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@posted.grandecom>,
JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
> Michael J Davis wrote:
> > The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
> > simple pincushion!!
> >
> > Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
> > filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
> >
> > After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
> >
> > ... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
> >
> > Mike
>
> I don't know about "youngsters today" but you replied to my post so I'll
> have to admit that I do know what a pincushion is. 8-)
I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
still do that.
JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
> Michael J Davis wrote:
> > The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
> > simple pincushion!!
> >
> > Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
> > filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
> >
> > After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
> >
> > ... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
> >
> > Mike
>
> I don't know about "youngsters today" but you replied to my post so I'll
> have to admit that I do know what a pincushion is. 8-)
I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
still do that.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>In article <fKGdnRn_157WKM3WnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@posted.grandecom>,
> JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> > The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
>> > simple pincushion!!
>> >
>> > Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
>> > filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
>> >
>> > After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
>> >
>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
>> >
>> > ... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> I don't know about "youngsters today" but you replied to my post so I'll
>> have to admit that I do know what a pincushion is. 8-)
>
>I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
>still do that.
Other than flash powder and a match, AFAIK, the bulb type 'flash' holders
had either a D or a C cell. Something had to supply a small electric 'zap'
for the bulb to ignite. Just shorting the bulb contacts did not do it!
>In article <fKGdnRn_157WKM3WnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@posted.grandecom>,
> JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> > The trouble with the youngsters today is that they've never seen a
>> > simple pincushion!!
>> >
>> > Think of two squares of fabric sewn together at the edges and tightly
>> > filled with stuffing. The edges curve in but the corners stick out!
>> >
>> > After searching the web for a picture the best I can do is.
>> >
>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/someartfabricphoto/4047538406/
>> >
>> > ... which isn't stuffed quite tightly enough. ;-)
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> I don't know about "youngsters today" but you replied to my post so I'll
>> have to admit that I do know what a pincushion is. 8-)
>
>I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
>still do that.
Other than flash powder and a match, AFAIK, the bulb type 'flash' holders
had either a D or a C cell. Something had to supply a small electric 'zap'
for the bulb to ignite. Just shorting the bulb contacts did not do it!
| |
|
In article <l602l5tcg7tsp18pedf2gbrt0q3qfma1mh@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
> >still do that.
>
> Other than flash powder and a match, AFAIK, the bulb type 'flash' holders
> had either a D or a C cell. Something had to supply a small electric 'zap'
> for the bulb to ignite. Just shorting the bulb contacts did not do it!
Ah hah! My friend, Sir Rien! Permit me to contribute.
After WWII, at least two companies came out with flash units for
existing flash bulbs so that the flash unit required no batteries.
The English company did the same, but not do well.
In the USA, a company made the FlashTronic models (interesting in that
they got into this mixed captial-one-word thing in the fifties).
I have one of each model of the FlashTronic and two of one model.
How did they flash a bulb without batteries? (No, they did not wait for
lightning). The flash as a small magneto in the base. Like most big bulb
flashes of the time, one would press a button on the flash that started
the bulb and 20 milliseconds later triggered the leaf flash.
Want pictures of the things?
* Much later in the Sixties Kodak came out with Flash Cubes that
required no battery for their little Instamatic. But those were toys
compared to real flash bulbs which are a million or more times brighter.
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
> >I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
> >still do that.
>
> Other than flash powder and a match, AFAIK, the bulb type 'flash' holders
> had either a D or a C cell. Something had to supply a small electric 'zap'
> for the bulb to ignite. Just shorting the bulb contacts did not do it!
Ah hah! My friend, Sir Rien! Permit me to contribute.
After WWII, at least two companies came out with flash units for
existing flash bulbs so that the flash unit required no batteries.
The English company did the same, but not do well.
In the USA, a company made the FlashTronic models (interesting in that
they got into this mixed captial-one-word thing in the fifties).
I have one of each model of the FlashTronic and two of one model.
How did they flash a bulb without batteries? (No, they did not wait for
lightning). The flash as a small magneto in the base. Like most big bulb
flashes of the time, one would press a button on the flash that started
the bulb and 20 milliseconds later triggered the leaf flash.
Want pictures of the things?
* Much later in the Sixties Kodak came out with Flash Cubes that
required no battery for their little Instamatic. But those were toys
compared to real flash bulbs which are a million or more times brighter.
| |
|
John Stafford wrote:
> In article<l602l5tcg7tsp18pedf2gbrt0q3qfma1mh@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien<jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford<nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
>>> I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
>>> still do that.
>>
>> Other than flash powder and a match, AFAIK, the bulb type 'flash' holders
>> had either a D or a C cell. Something had to supply a small electric 'zap'
>> for the bulb to ignite. Just shorting the bulb contacts did not do it!
>
> Ah hah! My friend, Sir Rien! Permit me to contribute.
>
> After WWII, at least two companies came out with flash units for
> existing flash bulbs so that the flash unit required no batteries.
>
> The English company did the same, but not do well.
>
> In the USA, a company made the FlashTronic models (interesting in that
> they got into this mixed captial-one-word thing in the fifties).
>
> I have one of each model of the FlashTronic and two of one model.
>
> How did they flash a bulb without batteries? (No, they did not wait for
> lightning). The flash as a small magneto in the base. Like most big bulb
> flashes of the time, one would press a button on the flash that started
> the bulb and 20 milliseconds later triggered the leaf flash.
>
> Want pictures of the things?
>
> * Much later in the Sixties Kodak came out with Flash Cubes that
> required no battery for their little Instamatic. But those were toys
> compared to real flash bulbs which are a million or more times brighter.
I have some questions for you:
Didn't the Kodak flash cubes use the batteries in the camera to fire?
I took a class in college, East Texas State University, class of 1975,
that was taught by Joe Costa who was one of the early pioneers of flash
photography. He took a picture of an aircraft carrier with a plane
taking off at night illuminated by flash bulbs. I've never been able to
find a copy of that photograph online. Are you familiar with that shot?
How old are you? I'm 57, in case you're curious.
--
JD..
> In article<l602l5tcg7tsp18pedf2gbrt0q3qfma1mh@4ax.com>,
> Sir F. A. Rien<jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> John Stafford<nhoj@droffats.net> found these unused words:
>
>>> I remember when we did not use batteries to fire flash bulbs. In fact, I
>>> still do that.
>>
>> Other than flash powder and a match, AFAIK, the bulb type 'flash' holders
>> had either a D or a C cell. Something had to supply a small electric 'zap'
>> for the bulb to ignite. Just shorting the bulb contacts did not do it!
>
> Ah hah! My friend, Sir Rien! Permit me to contribute.
>
> After WWII, at least two companies came out with flash units for
> existing flash bulbs so that the flash unit required no batteries.
>
> The English company did the same, but not do well.
>
> In the USA, a company made the FlashTronic models (interesting in that
> they got into this mixed captial-one-word thing in the fifties).
>
> I have one of each model of the FlashTronic and two of one model.
>
> How did they flash a bulb without batteries? (No, they did not wait for
> lightning). The flash as a small magneto in the base. Like most big bulb
> flashes of the time, one would press a button on the flash that started
> the bulb and 20 milliseconds later triggered the leaf flash.
>
> Want pictures of the things?
>
> * Much later in the Sixties Kodak came out with Flash Cubes that
> required no battery for their little Instamatic. But those were toys
> compared to real flash bulbs which are a million or more times brighter.
I have some questions for you:
Didn't the Kodak flash cubes use the batteries in the camera to fire?
I took a class in college, East Texas State University, class of 1975,
that was taught by Joe Costa who was one of the early pioneers of flash
photography. He took a picture of an aircraft carrier with a plane
taking off at night illuminated by flash bulbs. I've never been able to
find a copy of that photograph online. Are you familiar with that shot?
How old are you? I'm 57, in case you're curious.
--
JD..
| |
|
In article <caednccCGo-4q8zWnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@posted.grandecom>,
JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
> Didn't the Kodak flash cubes use the batteries in the camera to fire?
Perhaps. There was also the Magicube (spelling) (too lazy to look it
up). One or the other used a bit of pyrotechnics to ignite by percussion.
> I took a class in college, East Texas State University, class of 1975,
> that was taught by Joe Costa who was one of the early pioneers of flash
> photography. He took a picture of an aircraft carrier with a plane
> taking off at night illuminated by flash bulbs. I've never been able to
> find a copy of that photograph online. Are you familiar with that shot?
I might recognize the photo. Joe was famous to me when I was younger,
and a member of the NPPPA.
> How old are you? I'm 57, in case you're curious.
I am sixty-four years-old.
JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
> Didn't the Kodak flash cubes use the batteries in the camera to fire?
Perhaps. There was also the Magicube (spelling) (too lazy to look it
up). One or the other used a bit of pyrotechnics to ignite by percussion.
> I took a class in college, East Texas State University, class of 1975,
> that was taught by Joe Costa who was one of the early pioneers of flash
> photography. He took a picture of an aircraft carrier with a plane
> taking off at night illuminated by flash bulbs. I've never been able to
> find a copy of that photograph online. Are you familiar with that shot?
I might recognize the photo. Joe was famous to me when I was younger,
and a member of the NPPPA.
> How old are you? I'm 57, in case you're curious.
I am sixty-four years-old.
| |
|
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>In article <caednccCGo-4q8zWnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@posted.grandecom>,
> JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Didn't the Kodak flash cubes use the batteries in the camera to fire?
>
>Perhaps. There was also the Magicube (spelling) (too lazy to look it
>up). One or the other used a bit of pyrotechnics to ignite by percussion.
in the Magicube each bulb was set off by a plastic pin in the cube mount
that released a cocked spring wire within the cube. This wire, in turn,
struck a primer tube, at the base of the bulb, which contained a fulminate.
The fulminate ignited shredded zirconium foil in the flash and, thus, a
battery was not required.
Kodak's did use the battery in the Instamatic - I was working at Jordan
Marsh [between military and school] when they were introduced and remember
selling over $800 worth in a single day !
>> I took a class in college, East Texas State University, class of 1975,
>> that was taught by Joe Costa who was one of the early pioneers of flash
>> photography. He took a picture of an aircraft carrier with a plane
>> taking off at night illuminated by flash bulbs. I've never been able to
>> find a copy of that photograph online. Are you familiar with that shot?
>
>I might recognize the photo. Joe was famous to me when I was younger,
>and a member of the NPPPA.
You all might then enjoy the images of the Norfolk & Western shot by O.
Winston Link - can we do that digitally?
<http://www.soulcatcherstudio.com/artists/link.html>
Hot Shot Eastbound at the Iaeger Drive In, Iaeger, West Virginia, 1956
Gelatin Silver Print Photograph
Negative Date: August 2, 1956
a total of 43 flash bulbs.
Not the 'hundreds' of Costa, but then ...
>> How old are you? I'm 57, in case you're curious.
>
>I am sixty-four years-old.
Children ... ! <G>
>In article <caednccCGo-4q8zWnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@posted.grandecom>,
> JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Didn't the Kodak flash cubes use the batteries in the camera to fire?
>
>Perhaps. There was also the Magicube (spelling) (too lazy to look it
>up). One or the other used a bit of pyrotechnics to ignite by percussion.
in the Magicube each bulb was set off by a plastic pin in the cube mount
that released a cocked spring wire within the cube. This wire, in turn,
struck a primer tube, at the base of the bulb, which contained a fulminate.
The fulminate ignited shredded zirconium foil in the flash and, thus, a
battery was not required.
Kodak's did use the battery in the Instamatic - I was working at Jordan
Marsh [between military and school] when they were introduced and remember
selling over $800 worth in a single day !
>> I took a class in college, East Texas State University, class of 1975,
>> that was taught by Joe Costa who was one of the early pioneers of flash
>> photography. He took a picture of an aircraft carrier with a plane
>> taking off at night illuminated by flash bulbs. I've never been able to
>> find a copy of that photograph online. Are you familiar with that shot?
>
>I might recognize the photo. Joe was famous to me when I was younger,
>and a member of the NPPPA.
You all might then enjoy the images of the Norfolk & Western shot by O.
Winston Link - can we do that digitally?
<http://www.soulcatcherstudio.com/artists/link.html>
Hot Shot Eastbound at the Iaeger Drive In, Iaeger, West Virginia, 1956
Gelatin Silver Print Photograph
Negative Date: August 2, 1956
a total of 43 flash bulbs.
Not the 'hundreds' of Costa, but then ...
>> How old are you? I'm 57, in case you're curious.
>
>I am sixty-four years-old.
Children ... ! <G>
| Pages (2): [1 2 › »] | |
| Previous Topic: | Help with old instruction sheet |
| Next Topic: | Graphics Car |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions