[LRflex] Re: Clapton, grain elevator (??) and digital
- From: Jonathan Lee <jlee@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:57:49 -0400
Keith,
It is likely that the purple mess on your tissue comes from blackening
agent insides the lens body/retaining ring or from the edges of the
lens elements themselves. You can reblacken (if that is really a word)
the element edges with a Sharpie marker (or whatever they call them in
the UK). Sharpie ink is alcohol soluble and does leave a purplish
stain on tissue.
Jonathan Lee
On 2-Aug-07, at 2:10 PM, KEITH LONGMORE wrote:
Hi Steve
You said:
btw do you have a link to the photos of Eric Clapton with his M8...?
IF my new printer/scanner combo (Hewlett-Packard, no less) hadn't just
a few minutes ago lost its marbles, I could have scanned a pic in and
e-mailed it to you! It was just a photo in the newspaper - but I bet
it's on the net somewhere - I'll have a look and e-mail the link to
the forum if I find it.
I was very impressed by your images of the grain elevator, esp the
one shooting vertical toward the clouds...
Er, I'm afraid that one wasn't mine! O:-)
Hi Ted: Your comments are much in line with my thoughts. I have a
digital bridge camera (as you probably know), and I find it great.
But I still use it like film in many ways; the main difference is that
I can experiment more, and it doesn't cost anything (except perhaps a
bit of carbon footprint charging the batteries.) As you say, you
can't make cr*p anything more than cr*p, can you? Programmes like
Photoshop are excellent tools, but they are only tools, in my view,
not something with which to 'create' photographs - especially 'arty'
ones, and you shouldn't be able to win a competition based on major
manipulation of a poor image with Photoshop.
I expect there'll be some more comments soon! ;-)
All: I have been waiting a week now for the bits from Leica UK to
convert my 250/4 to 3-cam (we have a series of random postal strikes).
Last Monday, I rang the guy again, and asked about getting the same
bits for my Vario-Elmar 80-200. I was told in no uncertain terms
that:
a) it was a very complex modification, involving a new diaphragm unit,
all the rear end of the lens, and would need much use of a computer to
calculate how to do it. And of course it would be crushingly
expensive.
b) I couldn't possibly do it myself.
What a load of BS!!! Last night, I took off the mount, and guess
what? Looked remarkably like the 250, structurally! The 1st and 2nd
cams were screwed down the same way, via shims, onto the aperture
ring. However, these cams had wider bases to fit to a greater
diameter aperture ring than the 250, so I decided to make a partial
3rd cam, and attach it to the wall of the 2nd cam. (Which practice is
used by CRR in Luton, too) I very carefully measured the 3rd cam on my
100/4 Macro-Elmarit) and made one from .035 brass; then, carefully
aligning it as per the fitment on the 100/4, and temporarily attached
it using superglue. When the glue set, I drilled two .95 mm holes on
my milling machine, and threaded them 1 mm diameter. Then
counterbored both holes, so that the screwheads would be flush. Put
it together, and it works fine! I'm going to get the metering tested
tomorrow, and if it's within plus or minus 1/4 stop, I shall be very
satisfied. And it didn't cost me anything!
So, folks, don't believe everything they tell you! ;-) One strange
thing was that I cleaned the rear element using isopropyl alcohol, and
it left a purple mess on the tissue. Looked as if it removed the
coating. (Although the lens still appears coated) I am intrigued to
know why! Anyone else experienced this phenomenon?
Anyway, cheers for now, and watch this space.
Keith Longmore
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
