The Novoflex info says it rotates for vertical or horizontal, and only for 80-150mm. Easier way to do it: Take your 28mm or 35mm shift lens, rack it all the way to one side, take the first picture, then rack it all the way to the other side and take the second shot. the stitch. I'll have to try it when I have a stationary subject to shoot. Tom Schofield --- On Tue, 6/23/09, FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: leicareflex Digest V6 #183 To: "leicareflex digest users" <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 10:06 PM Leica Reflex Forum Digest +------------------------+------------------------------------ leicareflex Digest Tue, 23 Jun 2009 Volume: 06 Issue: 183 In This Issue: [LRflex] Kodachrome, Dr. Ted, Bluebirds and the CBC. [LRflex] Vertical panos - reasoning for it [LRflex] Re: Vertical panos - reasoning for it [LRflex] Re: Kodachrome, Dr. Ted, Bluebirds and the CBC. [LRflex] Kodachrome and Dr. Ted. [LRflex] Bee and Daisy Pender Island [LRflex] Re: Vertical panos - reasoning for it ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:21:32 -0700 From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Kodachrome, Dr. Ted, Bluebirds and the CBC. Fellow Flexers: Since last Saturday morning I been spending my days out at Gottan Lake, helping Rose look after 22 horse riders. She's the cook. Today (ok, yesterday, it's now just after midnight) I managed to slip away, for an hour or so, and headed first for a known Osprey nest, where I had some success.(I'll post those pix, later.) I then headed for a location where I'd spotted some Mountain Blue Birds, when I was heading out to the lake. As I got closer to town, I turned on the car radio, hoping I could pick up our local CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) station and catch some news. By the time I got within range, I'd missed the news, but heard the announcer mention that on the last newscast, they'd carried Kodak's announcement that all the remaining forms of Kodachrome were now discontinued. And, to my surprise, I then heard the dulcet tones of our own Dr. Ted, being interviewed about the loss of Kodachrome to photographers! Naturally, I had to pull over and listen to the rest of the interview. Ted: I have only one argument with your comments. You said it was "impossible" for anyone to home develop Kodachrome. Not true. I have been in the darkroom of a chap who was probably the only guy in North America, to do it, but I've seen it done. (And yes, I have a witness!) Back in the early 1970's, I interviewd him for Modern Photography, an article which was never published. He lived in Nanaimo and, some day, I'll tell you the whole story. Eventually, I did get to my destination and got this... http://www.furnfeather.net/Temps/NB-Bird.htm First, I struggle for a decent Mountain Blue Bird shot, for years, and then get two in just a few days. Never rains, but it pours... C&C welcomed, as always. Cheers! --- David Young Logan Lake, BC Wildlife Photos: www.furnfeather.net Rodeo Photos: www.galleries.furnfeather.net Personal Website: www.main.furnfeather.net ------------------------------ From: Edward Caliguri <ejcaliguri@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Vertical panos - reasoning for it Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:21:41 -0400 Hi( I don't know if it has been mentioned,,but I recall reading somewhere - that if possible shoot your Panoramas vertical if you can in order to increase the pixel count I'n that direction. It may take more 'panels' to tile for a given area, but in the end the file is much larger and detailed. Is this correct? Thanks, Ed ------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:13:20 +0200 From: Douglas Sharp <douglas.sharp@xxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Vertical panos - reasoning for it Hi Ed, Novoflex make something along those lines: http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/universal-bellows-pro/proshift-adapter/ Cheers Douglas Edward Caliguri wrote: > Hi( > > I don't know if it has been mentioned,,but I recall reading somewhere > - that if possible shoot your Panoramas vertical if you can in order > to increase the pixel count I'n that direction. It may take more > 'panels' to tile for a given area, but in the end the file is much > larger and detailed. > > Is this correct? > > Thanks, > Ed > > ------------------------ > > > > > ------ > Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: > http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ > Archives are at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ > ------------------------------ From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@xxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Kodachrome, Dr. Ted, Bluebirds and the CBC. Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:05:23 -0700 David offered: >>> And, to my surprise, I then heard the dulcet tones of our own Dr. Ted, being interviewed about the loss of Kodachrome to photographers! Naturally, I had to pull over and listen to the rest of the interview. >>> Ted: I have only one argument with your comments. You said it was "impossible" for anyone to home develop Kodachrome. Not true. I have been in the darkroom of a chap who was probably the only guy in North America, to do it, but I've seen it done. (And yes, I have a witness!) Back in the early 1970's, I interviewd him for Modern Photography, an article which was never published. He lived in Nanaimo and, some day, I'll tell you the whole story.<<<<<<<<< Good day David, My comment saying it was "impossible" to home process Kodachrome still stands! Certainly on the bases of "it wasn't something one could drop by their favourite photo store" pick-up chemicals and soup the KR in their basement darkroom on a regular basis. Your experience was quite unique indeed. As my understanding is, "kodachrome processing chemicals" are quite toxic and not really what any amateur or pro would want to be fiddling with on a daily basis. In point, when the Commonwealth Games were held in Victoria in '94 the local city environment people near freaked out that used chemistry was going to be flushed out the regular sewer system. So it created a major problem for Kodak and the Games organizing committee, not to forget all the photogs who would be shooting KR. So an arrangement was made that all used chemicals of any nature would be tanker trucked away to an environmental safe dump site. You may have had the opportunity and good fortune to see it done in a personal darkroom. But I bet the local sewer system people didn't know the chemicals were being poured down the drain. So my dear friend my comment still stands as "it isn't a film and chemistry that was regularly used by photogs as we did B&W films." And yes I'll stick with "it's impossible" for home processing on the bases of mass processing by regular everyday amateurs and pros. I'd be interested in hearing how the chap got the chemicals from KODAK in the first place? On another note! :-) The Blue Bird is without question beautiful! An excellent photo. Good on you. That has to become a "Weekend Fair" best seller for bird folks. Dr. ted. :-) _____ --- David Young Logan Lake, BC Wildlife Photos: <http://www.furnfeather.net/> www.furnfeather.net Rodeo Photos: <http://www.galleries.furnfeather.net/> www.galleries.furnfeather.net Personal Website: <http://www.main.furnfeather.net/> www.main.furnfeather.net No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.88/2196 - Release Date: 06/22/09 18:11:00 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:06:17 -0700 From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Kodachrome and Dr. Ted. At 6/23/2009, you wrote: >David offered: > >>> And, to my surprise, I then heard the dulcet tones of our own > Dr. Ted, being interviewed about the loss of Kodachrome to > photographers! Naturally, I had to pull over and listen to the rest > of the interview. > > >>> Ted: I have only one argument with your comments. You said it > was "impossible" for anyone to home develop Kodachrome. Not > true. I have been in the darkroom of a chap who was probably the > only guy in North America, to do it, but I've seen it done. (And > yes, I have a witness!) Back in the early 1970's, I interviewd him > for Modern Photography, an article which was never published. He > lived in Nanaimo and, some day, I'll tell you the whole story.<<<<<<<<< > >Good day David, >My comment saying it was "impossible" to home process Kodachrome >still stands! Certainly on the bases of "it wasn't something one >could drop by their favourite photo store" pick-up chemicals and >soup the KR in their basement darkroom on a regular basis. > >Your experience was quite unique indeed. As my understanding is, >"kodachrome processing chemicals" are quite toxic and not really >what any amateur or pro would want to be fiddling with on a daily basis. > >In point, when the Commonwealth Games were held in Victoria in '94 >the local city environment people near freaked out that used >chemistry was going to be flushed out the regular sewer system. So >it created a major problem for Kodak and the Games organizing >committee, not to forget all the photogs who would be shooting KR. > So an arrangement was made that all used chemicals of any nature > would be tanker trucked away to an environmental safe dump site. > >You may have had the opportunity and good fortune to see it done in >a personal darkroom. But I bet the local sewer system people didn't >know the chemicals were being poured down the drain. So my dear >friend my comment still stands as "it isn't a film and chemistry >that was regularly used by photogs as we did B&W films." And yes >I'll stick with "it's impossible" for home processing on the bases >of mass processing by regular everyday amateurs and pros. > >I'd be interested in hearing how the chap got the chemicals from >KODAK in the first place? Good Mornin' Ted! How did the chap get his chemicals from Kodak? Well, for the most part, he didn't. The chemistry to develop Kodachrome was, apparently, well known. No "trade secrets" there. However, Kodak sold very few of the chemicals in "consumer" quantities. He told me the problem was not in obtaining the chemicals, but in obtaining them in other than 50 gallon (190 liter) drums! For many of them, a small jam jar's worth would be a lifetime supply - for him. Many were purchased from Fisher Scientific, while others came from School Chem-Lab supply firms in the US. He said that it took him nearly 6 years to trace down all the required chemicals in small quantities. Whilst these chemicals are certainly bad for the environment, he didn't believe any of them were "toxic"... at least not to the degree that he felt the need to wear rubber gloves when working with them. (Remember, your Commonwealth Games experience was in 1994. This story dates back to between 1969 and 1972, when the environment was not thought about,as it is today.) He didn't shot 35mm, but 16mm Kodachrome movies. He'd built all the necessary machinery out of wood and, I must say, it was beautifully made. He told me that when his wife invited people over for an evening, who he didn't really care for, he'd shoot home movies of them arriving, and then disappear into the darkroom, emerging some hours later to show them the footage of their arrival, just before they left! The sad part is that over 40 years, many moves and one divorce, his name, my photos of him and his darkroom; as well as the draft of my still unpublished article have all been lost. Now, only the memories remain. So, "impossible"? No. Exceedingly difficult, environmentally risky and just plain stupid? Yes. But, after Dwayne's Photo (the Kansas lab is the world's only remaining Kodachrome processor) gives up processing it, sometime after the end of 2010, it will still be possible, if not practical, for the few remaining Kodachrome fans to use up their freezers full of film! They'd just better be sure their town fathers don't know their doing it! >On another note! J >The Blue Bird is without question beautiful! An excellent photo. >Good on you. That has to become a "Weekend Fair" best seller for bird folks. >Dr. ted. J Thanks, Ted. I don't feel it's as good as my offering from last week ... and now that I look at yesterday's "take", in the light of day and after a good night's sleep, I think I may have better ones to show. Watch this space! Cheers! --- David Young Logan Lake, BC Wildlife Photos: www.furnfeather.net Rodeo Photos: www.galleries.furnfeather.net Personal Website: www.main.furnfeather.net ------------------------------ From: H&ECummer <cummer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Bee and Daisy Pender Island Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:06:42 +0800 Hello Flexers, Some of my cabin chores being done I headed out to the Daisy Patch with my Leica 100 APO Macro on the D700 and a bee obligingly flew by as I was focusing on a Daisy. Please have a look: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Howard+Cummer/Summer+2009+Canada/Bee-and-Daisy-100-APO-D700.jpg.html http://tinyurl.com/lzpvat C&C always welcome Cheers Howard ------------------------------ From: "Aram Langhans" <leica_r8@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Vertical panos - reasoning for it Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:10:12 -0700 You do use more files, so more pixels. I have tried a few and one thing I notice is that since the narrow side is on top/bottom, there seems to be less curvature that shows up in the final merger. Before, at times, I would get so much curvature that I needed to crop the top and bottom so much I would loose some of what I was after. That does not appear to happen when shooting vertical. Of course, I am not using any fancy devices. Sometimes even hand holding and overlapping by eye. seems to work for me, though. Aram -------------------------------------------------- From: "Edward Caliguri" <ejcaliguri@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:21 AM To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Vertical panos - reasoning for it > Hi( > > I don't know if it has been mentioned,,but I recall reading somewhere - > that if possible shoot your Panoramas vertical if you can in order to > increase the pixel count I'n that direction. It may take more 'panels' to > tile for a given area, but in the end the file is much larger and > detailed. > > Is this correct? > > Thanks, > Ed > > ------------------------ > > > > > ------ > Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: > http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ > Archives are at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ > ------------------------------ End of leicareflex Digest V6 #183 ********************************* ********************* Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/