George writes:
> Wow! That's quite a task list you got there. I count 6 rolls of film to
> do the listed tests. A great service to the list. THANKS! I'm assuming
> your mention of the 350/2.8 tests to come are the tests I volonteered
> for. I've got the film, all I need is a test target.
This is kind of an open letter. Comments welcome.
It is actually 4 1/2 rolls, but that is bad enough. My first two rounds of
tests were with a bargain lot of film and mailers. Yes, the real expenses are
upon me now. But the list is incomplete and by virtue of the frequent "how
does X compare to Y" postings here, there is a need to complete it.
I appreciate your volunteering to test some of the lenses there are presently
gaps for! I just researched out the availability of the same map. While
available for $4.00 from the USGS, it is now laminated. That would confound
the tests since it would likely make the slides look higher contrast that they
would photographing my unlaminated copy.
I found a substitute Canyonland National Park map, but hesitate to have more
than one map used.
I'll probably just lend my map out in the future. Anyone with two photofloods
or two quartz studio lights can duplicate this test.
Finally, the Fujichrome 64T film that I use is about to be replaced with a
newer emulsion. If anyone is shopping for film and finds 64T (not the newer
stuff) on sale as either obsolete stock or expired, please let me know. I
could also use a tip on a good source for Fujichrome mailers. Please, not
B&H. I don't care to pay their inflated UPS shipping charge.
Thanks
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|