Search results

Breaking my rule about not posting online:

The Leica M series are some of the greatest cameras and nothing feel, handles or sound like them. However they are rangefinder cameras and no matter how great an offer is made to me, I prefer to use slrs whenever possible.

I agree completely. And getting them to do anything other than there pattern just causes problems. So I request "Do Not Cut".

Ditto. I never used the yellow easel surface to focus. I do not even like using that surface to adjust the easel position and the easel arms. I work with paper in place in the easel. For those that find fault with my methods can just need to get over themselves.

I bought a 62mm to 67mm step-up ring for my 35mm cameras and a B60 to 67mm step-up ring for my Hasselblads so that I could have R29 and 720 [R72] filters to take infrared photographs. I could not get those filters in B60. These are the only step up adapters I have.

Storing negatives is different from receiving them from the photo finishers. I use pages with strips of 6 for 35mm and they can only count to 4. I use pages with strips of four 6x6 negative and they can only count to three. Asking them to cut to a specified length is a waste of time, so for...

The saying is all bunk. There are many things than cannot properly be fixed without the proper tools.

When I to trade the Mamiya C330 and all the lenses at Samys I was looking for a Hasselblad or Rollei SLR and they only had a selection of Hasselblads.

No thank you.

The bottom line is that the Rolleiflex is not my choice of weapon camera.

I have 4"x5" Graflex Model D. Hasselblad 503 CC with a PME prism. A number of Nikon AF cameras. The Rolleiflex f/2.8 is too large, cumbersome, and has the left right reversal. You may well fiddle with dark slides and magazines, but I do not. You might want to learn to use equipment before...

Correct. I write exactly what I mean. That is why I will trounce weasel worders.

The better mechanic

Yes

Yes it was funnier.

I have never done any close up IR work.

I am aware of that. It has gotten harder to find fine optical only providers, even in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles.

Printing film digitally can look good. Printing film optically can look good. Printing film digitally can look bad. Printing film optically can look bad. Regardless of the equipment, it comes down to the ability of the maker.

Yes, I have not found that is difference of focus has mattered. If you were doing focus critical work like close up, it would matter, but In general it will not matter.

The Hasselblad for many reasons stated before, however I also use Nikons and other cameras too. Usually the favorite camera is the one in my hands.

You guys should get a room.

The people with the best gear that know how to properly use it know that all the bad photographs and mistakes are entirely their own.

Actually both Craftsman and Snap-On are good tools. Snap-On are higher quality. The quality of tools can affect the ability of a mechanic to do the best repair job.

Do not include me in your assessment as I only do optical enlargements and only use photo finishers who only use optical printing methods to produce the enlargement that I cannot handle. I suspect that I am not alone here.

All film that I send out is ordered as "Do Not Cut" and comes back each in its own continuous sleeve and boxes. I recommend always asking before handing over film how the negatives [or slides] will be packaged on return.

Edited

I had a TLR as a teenager before I had an SLR, I never missed the extra bulk, nor the left-right reversal. I learned to use the depth of field markings for focusing the range finder, but I always felt that the SLR's what you see is what you get greatly superior.

As far as I know my putting photographic paper under the grain focuser does not endanger any person's or animal's life.

That is what I do.