Titanium does not make a camera indestructible
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
Titanium does not make a camera indestructible
by Ian Nichols
::
Rate this Message:
Ebay item 120282474807. Made me shudder looking at the pictures. I wonder if John H could get it working again. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: Titanium does not make a camera indestructible
by Ian Nichols
::
Rate this Message:
2008/7/13 Ian Nichols <ian.a.nichols@...>: > Ebay item 120282474807. Made me shudder looking at the pictures. I > wonder if John H could get it working again. Whoops, it's too late at night, I should go to bed. No titanium in that one at all. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: Titanium does not make a camera indestructible
by Bob Docherty
::
Rate this Message:
The focus screen (if intact) might be very desireable.... Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Nichols" <ian.a.nichols@...> To: <olympus@...> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 8:07 PM Subject: [OM] Titanium does not make a camera indestructible > > Ebay item 120282474807. Made me shudder looking at the pictures. I > wonder if John H could get it working again. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
which one ?
by Fernando Gonzalez Gentile
::
Rate this Message:
Hi list, Need your advice again. Today I found two Ektachrome 100 SW which I supposed lost since before year 2000. They have an special value to me, which would make the story too long. They are the same landscape, less than five minutes between one another, with some compositional variances. Colors are carefully matched - that was Ektachrome SW. As always, comments are welcome. But my question is which do you like most - it is not an amazing landscape, but for some personal reason it is valuable for me. 'the absent pine tree 1': http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/2662175333/sizes/o/ 'the absent pine tree 2': http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/2663001832/sizes/o/ tripod mounted Olympus OM 2 on Auto mode, Zuiko 200mm 1:4 @ 16, HMC Skylight 1A, Eyecup 1. although I knew about the bean bag trick, didn't know about its importance on that time - anyway, shutter speed must have been 'round 1/125 - 1/250. TIA, Fernando. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: which one ?
by Rob Harrison-3
::
Rate this Message:
I like #1! Rob in Seattle On Jul 12, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote: > 'the absent pine tree 1': > http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/2662175333/sizes/o/ ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: which one ?
by iwert bernakiewicz
::
Rate this Message:
> > I like #1! > > Rob in Seattle > > me too, > iwert ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: which one ?
by Wayne Harridge
::
Rate this Message:
I like the composition of #2, but #1 seems to have a bit more detail (e.g. in the water). ...Wayne > > Need your advice again. Today I found two Ektachrome 100 SW which I > supposed lost since before year 2000. > They have an special value to me, which would make the story too long. > > They are the same landscape, less than five minutes between > one another, > with some compositional variances. > Colors are carefully matched - that was Ektachrome SW. > As always, comments are welcome. > > But my question is which do you like most - it is not an amazing > landscape, but for some personal reason it is valuable for me. > > 'the absent pine tree 1': > http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/2662175 'the absent pine tree 2': http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/2663001832/sizes/o/ tripod mounted Olympus OM 2 on Auto mode, Zuiko 200mm 1:4 @ 16, HMC Skylight 1A, Eyecup 1. although I knew about the bean bag trick, didn't know about its importance on that time - anyway, shutter speed must have been 'round 1/125 - 1/250. TIA, Fernando. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: which one ?
by Michael Collins-2
::
Rate this Message:
Definitely #1 appeals more. I think it's that the tree is "cleaner" - the
mat of needles at the top of #2 is distracting - and that the sun has more character with the cloud bars through the middle of it than truncating top and bottom. Michael On 7/12/08 11:49 PM, "Fernando Gonzalez Gentile" <fgnzalez@...> wrote: > But my question is which do you like most - it is not an amazing > landscape, but for some personal reason it is valuable for me. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: which one ?
by Chuck Norcutt-2
::
Rate this Message:
I have what I think is a better solution... combine them with pano
software to make a larger image. Here's one done with PTGui <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/temp/Fernando/fernando_pano32&33.jpg> But you will have to either crop out or fill the box at lower left where there is no image data. Chuck Norcutt Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote: > Hi list, > > Need your advice again. Today I found two Ektachrome 100 SW which I > supposed lost since before year 2000. > They have an special value to me, which would make the story too long. > > They are the same landscape, less than five minutes between one another, > with some compositional variances. > Colors are carefully matched - that was Ektachrome SW. > As always, comments are welcome. > > But my question is which do you like most - it is not an amazing > landscape, but for some personal reason it is valuable for me. > > 'the absent pine tree 1': > http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/2662175333/sizes/o/ > > 'the absent pine tree 2': > http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/2663001832/sizes/o/ > > tripod mounted Olympus OM 2 on Auto mode, Zuiko 200mm 1:4 @ 16, > HMC Skylight 1A, Eyecup 1. > > although I knew about the bean bag trick, didn't know about its > importance on that time - anyway, shutter speed must have been 'round > 1/125 - 1/250. > > TIA, > > Fernando. > > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1549 - Release Date: 7/12/2008 4:31 PM > > > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: which one ?
by Fernando Gonzalez Gentile
::
Rate this Message:
Good afternoon people, Agree with most of you, and will follow Chuck's challenging work. Main problem with #1 is that the chrome is badly scratched. Something happened with my usually careful archiving of slides, perhaps due to the fact that I had (for reasons I somehow seem to have forgotten) to unload and reload that only E100SW roll I shot in my life. Half of it remained unexposed, and didn't frame the slides, putting the entire roll in its own plastic can - why did such a thing happen, I don't remember. Also, cannot realize how did the first exposure in the roll (#1 pine tree) suffered so much, but loading and unloading has its consequences. I had obviously planned this shot, then forgot I had indeed done it, and a semiconscious idea to make such a shot persisted. I pursued it without luck since that tree and the neighboring ones were removed to broaden route 10, the one I cross to go to the beach since I was a child. A poor version was done when had the Stylus 720SW, uploaded to Picassa and posted the link to it some two years ago. Same place, perhaps six years later. I am waiting for the chromes to get flat too. The roll is firmly curved; already cut the exposed frames in stripes of four but they are very stubborn and keep wanting to curl. This makes very difficult to put them into the film adapter of the 4000ED. Finally managed to do it but it remains difficult for the scanner to keep the same figure of focus every time I ask Nikon Scan 4.0.2 to perform autofocus. It is not that bad, as it finally remains in the same figure. Worse is that scratches and small cracks don't disappear with ICE on 'normal', smaller ones do with ICE on 'fine' but contrast decreases a little. Restoration using the healing brush promises to be long work, and #2 pine tree is much less damaged: ICE on 'normal' is enough. Agree on that the sun looks more interesting in #1, and the contrast and detail on the water surface shows up more distinct due to the higher position of the sun, making a stronger reflection. Agree with Michael Collins, in part, that the tree is "cleaner" in #1, and the mat of needles at the top of #2 could be distracting. This is a question which I'm not always certain about, to the point that not long ago uploaded an uncropped frame of a hummingbird silhouette searching for opinions about distracting elements in a composition. I always stress composition when shooting, I do take my time and think and doubt quickly, and try not to spare too much film [ I became more generous on film spending after joining this list :) - and Provia became more accessible, but forget about finding anything else on reversal film, aside of Sensia ]. In the case of these photographs on the disappeared pine trees, I obviously doubted about how much tree top to include, and had not only little time but also a narrow angle to frame it. Always prefer to crop before pressing the shutter, *if possible*. Do these chromes have any chance to become flat ? - how could I accelerate the process ?. Sorry for the long post, and thanks for looking. Fernando. Chuck Norcutt wrote: > I have what I think is a better solution... combine them with pano > software to make a larger image. Here's one done with PTGui > <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/temp/Fernando/fernando_pano32&33.jpg> > But you will have to either crop out or fill the box at lower left where > there is no image data. > > Chuck Norcutt > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: which one ?
by Chuck Norcutt-2
::
Rate this Message:
To deal with the film curl I think I would try storing it in a reverse
curl position for some time. Try wrapping the film longitudinally around a cylinder, cover with a piece of thin cardboard for protection and then fasten in place with rubber bands and let it sit for a day or two or three. As to dealing with multitudes of scratches I would suggest reading Ctein in his "Digital Restoration From Start to Finish". Chapter 8 of the book has almost 25 pages of detailed methods of efficiently dealing with scratches. I haven't had any real need for the techniques there since I bought the book but I wish I'd had it for the last serious piece of restoration work I did. It was an 8x10 glossy photo from the late 40's or early 50's which had been rolled into a tight curl. That introduced what I think must have been thousands of tiny cracks in the emulsion... plus some not so tiny ones where chunks of the emulsion were falling off. I finally finished the work to my own satisfaction but it took me about three months of off and on again part time work using the clone tool... the only method I knew at the time. Using Ctein's methods I'm sure I could have dramatically reduced the effort. <http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Restoration-Start-Finish-photographs/dp/0240808142/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215999722&sr=1-1> Chuck Norcutt Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote: > Good afternoon people, > > Agree with most of you, and will follow Chuck's challenging work. > > Main problem with #1 is that the chrome is badly scratched. Something > happened with my usually careful archiving of slides, perhaps due to the > fact that I had (for reasons I somehow seem to have forgotten) to unload > and reload that only E100SW roll I shot in my life. Half of it remained > unexposed, and didn't frame the slides, putting the entire roll in its > own plastic can - why did such a thing happen, I don't remember. Also, > cannot realize how did the first exposure in the roll (#1 pine tree) > suffered so much, but loading and unloading has its consequences. > I had obviously planned this shot, then forgot I had indeed done it, and > a semiconscious idea to make such a shot persisted. I pursued it without > luck since that tree and the neighboring ones were removed to broaden > route 10, the one I cross to go to the beach since I was a child. A poor > version was done when had the Stylus 720SW, uploaded to Picassa and > posted the link to it some two years ago. Same place, perhaps six years > later. > > I am waiting for the chromes to get flat too. The roll is firmly curved; > already cut the exposed frames in stripes of four but they are very > stubborn and keep wanting to curl. This makes very difficult to put them > into the film adapter of the 4000ED. Finally managed to do it but it > remains difficult for the scanner to keep the same figure of focus > every time I ask Nikon Scan 4.0.2 to perform autofocus. It is not that > bad, as it finally remains in the same figure. > Worse is that scratches and small cracks don't disappear with ICE on > 'normal', smaller ones do with ICE on 'fine' but contrast decreases a > little. Restoration using the healing brush promises to be long work, > and #2 pine tree is much less damaged: ICE on 'normal' is enough. > > Agree on that the sun looks more interesting in #1, and the contrast and > detail on the water surface shows up more distinct due to the higher > position of the sun, making a stronger reflection. Agree with Michael > Collins, in part, that the tree is "cleaner" in #1, and the mat of > needles at the top of #2 could be distracting. This is a question which > I'm not always certain about, to the point that not long ago uploaded an > uncropped frame of a hummingbird silhouette searching for opinions about > distracting elements in a composition. I always stress composition when > shooting, I do take my time and think and doubt quickly, and try not to > spare too much film [ I became more generous on film spending after > joining this list :) - and Provia became more accessible, but forget > about finding anything else on reversal film, aside of Sensia ]. > In the case of these photographs on the disappeared pine trees, I > obviously doubted about how much tree top to include, and had not only > little time but also a narrow angle to frame it. Always prefer to crop > before pressing the shutter, *if possible*. > > Do these chromes have any chance to become flat ? - how could I > accelerate the process ?. > > Sorry for the long post, and thanks for looking. > > Fernando. > > Chuck Norcutt wrote: >> I have what I think is a better solution... combine them with pano >> software to make a larger image. Here's one done with PTGui >> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/temp/Fernando/fernando_pano32&33.jpg> >> But you will have to either crop out or fill the box at lower left where >> there is no image data. >> >> Chuck Norcutt >> > > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1549 - Release Date: 7/12/2008 4:31 PM > > > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: which one ?
by Moose-2
::
Rate this Message:
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> To deal with the film curl I think I would try storing it in a reverse curl position for some time. Try wrapping the film longitudinally around a cylinder, cover with a piece of thin cardboard for protection > and then fasten in place with rubber bands and let it sit for a day or two or three. > I don't know that I'd go so far immediately. I don't know how old the film is, but I'd be more gentle. It is almost certainly rolled emulsion side in. If the surroundings have been dry, the emulsion may be relatively dry too. Suddenly flexing the film far in reverse requires the emulsion to stretch. If it isn't elastic enough, it will break, causing cracks in the emulsion, worse trouble that it already has. I would first be sure it has been in a humid place for several hours. Next, I would hang it up with a weight at the bottom to hold it uncurled. Only if a few days of that hasn't reduce the curl sufficiently - and - there is no damage, would I try reverse curling. If the scratches on the first frames are on the film base side, Edwal Scratch Remover, or simply the turpentine used by oil painters, which is, I think, its main ingredient, may make them invisible. That's what it has been used for forever. Moose ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Old cameras, photos and restoration [was which one ?]
by Moose-2
::
Rate this Message:
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> ... > As to dealing with multitudes of scratches I would suggest reading Ctein in his "Digital Restoration From Start to Finish". Chapter 8 of the book has almost 25 pages of detailed methods of efficiently dealing with > scratches. I haven't had any real need for the techniques there since I bought the book but I wish I'd had it for the last serious piece of restoration work I did. I've got some old photos that I mean to restore one of these days, so it's good to have a strong recommendation for a reference source for technique. > It was an 8x10 glossy photo from the late 40's or early 50's which had been rolled into a tight curl. That introduced what I think must have been thousands of tiny cracks in the emulsion... plus some not so tiny ones where chunks of the emulsion were falling off. I recently dealt with a similar situation, but not as bad. Carol Anne's Aunt Annie is a wonderful old lady whom we visit whenever in NY. She has this really amazing photo from her wedding dinner. It's technically amazing for the DOF and sharpness right out to the corners. It's an amazing image because of the great wealth of characters captured having a great time in Brooklyn shortly after the war. I can stare at the details for a long time. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=_MG_3214-17bii.jpg> Although I had seen it before, and wanted to copy/restore it, there was no way it was leaving the house, let alone traveling to Calif. So last year I went prepared. I ended up with tripod on Annie's kitchen table after lunch, books on the corners of the print, with 5D and 90mm macro lens. I took several shots, and ended up combining two covering the full height and part of the width each. A full pixel detail is here. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=_MG_3214-17bfp1ii.jpg> I had wondered what kind of camera was used. I think my question has been answered by a link Andrew posted. Andrew Fildes wrote: > ... Does the Folmer and Schwing swing, I wondered - doesn't look like it. So I found this - http://www.clickondavid.com/folmerschwing2.html > ... I didn't know about these "banquet" cameras. Wiiide format HD isn't new at all. Looks to me like one was still in use in 1947. > I finally finished the work to my own satisfaction but it took me about three months of off and on again part time work using the clone tool... the only method I knew at the time. My project wasn't nearly so bad. The print had been rolled up tight in a tube, but the cracking wasn't all that bad. Perhaps the semi-matte finish was tougher, or storage had been more felicitous. Moose ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: Titanium does not make a camera indestructible
by Piers Hemy
::
Rate this Message:
As you have yourself noted, Ian, no titanium was harmed in that experiment, just brass. I am sure John H. could replace the prism and optics, and get the meter back in order. But I am doubtful that even he could find another top plate, judging from my own search a couple of years ago. Robert Kan (of this list) in Oz had one with a scratch, if I remember correctly, but that was the only one I found until... But it took a very long time. Fortunately, in my case, there was ni internal damage - but brass is very soft! -- Piers -----Original Message----- From: olympus-owner@... [mailto:olympus-owner@...] On Behalf Of Ian Nichols Sent: 13 July 2008 01:07 To: olympus@... Subject: [OM] Titanium does not make a camera indestructible Ebay item 120282474807. Made me shudder looking at the pictures. I wonder if John H could get it working again. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: Old cameras, photos and restoration [was which one ?]
by Chuck Norcutt-2
::
Rate this Message:
This is the photo that had all the cracks. The inset shows what the
original looked like. <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/restoration.php> Aunt Annie's wedding dinner photo really is amazing on many levels. There is no way the DOF could be so great on a large format camera unless the camera was capable of tilt or swing. Also, given the small apertures of a large camera, the slow speed of film of the day and no apparent subject motion I would have to assume that flash was used. However, I can't find much indication of that in the shadows although there certainly is some (see, especially, the lower left corner). Another amazing point is that I can't find anyone blinking. I can find a few women not looking at the camera who may have their eyes closed but no one looking at the camera whose eyes are not open. Makes me wish I could talk to that photographer. Chuck Norcutt Moose wrote: > Chuck Norcutt wrote: >> ... >> As to dealing with multitudes of scratches I would suggest reading Ctein in his "Digital Restoration From Start to Finish". Chapter 8 of the book has almost 25 pages of detailed methods of efficiently dealing with >> scratches. I haven't had any real need for the techniques there since I bought the book but I wish I'd had it for the last serious piece of restoration work I did. > I've got some old photos that I mean to restore one of these days, so > it's good to have a strong recommendation for a reference source for > technique. >> It was an 8x10 glossy photo from the late 40's or early 50's which had been rolled into a tight curl. That introduced what I think must have been thousands of tiny cracks in the emulsion... plus some not so tiny ones where chunks of the emulsion were falling off. > I recently dealt with a similar situation, but not as bad. Carol Anne's > Aunt Annie is a wonderful old lady whom we visit whenever in NY. She has > this really amazing photo from her wedding dinner. It's technically > amazing for the DOF and sharpness right out to the corners. It's an > amazing image because of the great wealth of characters captured having > a great time in Brooklyn shortly after the war. I can stare at the > details for a long time. > <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=_MG_3214-17bii.jpg> > > Although I had seen it before, and wanted to copy/restore it, there was > no way it was leaving the house, let alone traveling to Calif. So last > year I went prepared. I ended up with tripod on Annie's kitchen table > after lunch, books on the corners of the print, with 5D and 90mm macro > lens. I took several shots, and ended up combining two covering the full > height and part of the width each. A full pixel detail is here. > <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=_MG_3214-17bfp1ii.jpg> > > I had wondered what kind of camera was used. I think my question has > been answered by a link Andrew posted. > > Andrew Fildes wrote: >> ... Does the Folmer and Schwing swing, I wondered - doesn't look like it. So I found this - http://www.clickondavid.com/folmerschwing2.html >> ... > I didn't know about these "banquet" cameras. Wiiide format HD isn't new > at all. Looks to me like one was still in use in 1947. >> I finally finished the work to my own satisfaction but it took me about three months of off and on again part time work using the clone tool... the only method I knew at the time. > My project wasn't nearly so bad. The print had been rolled up tight in a > tube, but the cracking wasn't all that bad. Perhaps the semi-matte > finish was tougher, or storage had been more felicitous. > > Moose > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusad |
