[LRflex] Clapton, grain elevator (??) and digital
- From: KEITH LONGMORE <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:10:23 +0100
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/
Other related posts:
