Hi,
I have lost my details on how to unsubscribe.
Please help.
Regards,
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Listar" <listar@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "olympus digest users" <listar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: olympus Digest V2 #288
> ------------------------------------
> olympus Digest Sat, 15 Oct 2005 Volume: 02 Issue: 288
>
> In This Issue:
> [OM] [OT]
> [OM] Re: OM to EOS adapter, $71
> [OM] Re: Words and pictures : Winwick Northamptonshire
> [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> [OM] Before I Break It
> [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> [OM] Re: Before I Break It
> [OM] Re: Before I Break It
> [OM] Re: Before I Break It
> [OM] Re: Words and pictures : Winwick Northamptonshire
> [OM] OT: Re: Re: Made in China?
> [OM] Re: Before I Break It
> [OM] Re: Made in China?
> [OM] Re: Words and pictures : Winwick Northamptonshire
> [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> [OM] Re: FL-50 problems
> [OM] Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
> [OM] Re: Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
> [OM] Re: Best Flash for the E-series
> [OM] Re: Best Flash for the E-series
> [OM] Re: Best Flash for the E-series
> [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
> [OM] Re: Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
> [OM] Re: 10/12 fragment of my day
> [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> [OM] Re: More Dynamic Range
> [OM] Re: Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
> [OM] e300 with tamron 400/4
> [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
> [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
> [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Willie Wonka <alienspecimen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] [OT]
>
> http://www.agweekly.com/
>
> I did enjoyed the "Beef Times" feature and the "Milk Bomb Would Make the
> Beach Boys Proud" headline....wander what he means by it...always had the
> feeling that he had a dark secret, now I know why...
> Boris
> P.S. Yep, you guessed it: full armor...
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:17:04 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OM to EOS adapter, $71
>
> M.M. Sparks wrote:
>
>>Piers,
>>
>>I can stop down any OM lens with my finger, using the DOF tab on the
>>side of the lens.
>>
>>
> While that is true, it isn't much practical use. Holding the DOF button
> down dureing every shot is simply impractical.
>
>>Is there any such thing as an OM>EOS adpater that retains an
>>auto-diaphragm linkage?
>>
> No, but I think it's about time someone designed one. Since there is no
> mechanical stop down mechanism in the EOS mount, the adapter would need
> to read the appropraite signal from the lens/body contacts (and possibly
> pass an appropriate response back) and activate an electro-mechanical
> mechanism to operate the diaphram. Trivial, no?
>
> More seriously, it would be nice to have a liver on the side of an
> adapter to actuate the stop down, but there isn't much room to work with.
>
> The task would actually be physically easier for an OM to 4/3 mount
> adapter, as there is much more space to work in with the much greater
> difference in register distances.
>
> Moose
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "James N. McBride" <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Words and pictures : Winwick Northamptonshire
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:21:57 -0600
>
>
> A friend of mine has run with the bulls in Pamplona two different times.
> Not
> for me. /jmac
>
>>> snip
>
> It's funny but I quite often dream of being chased by a bull - It never
> catches me - I am sure it means something but keep forgetting to look up
> what.
>
> Ian
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: robburn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:49:04 +0000
>
> http://www.temple.edu/biomed/tt3.html
>
> A few years ago I read an article by someone who claimed to have destroyed
> fungus on a lens element by opening the lens to the widest aperture and
> placing it in a position where sunlight could shine through the lens. The
> UV
> rays kill the fungus. He claimed that it worked well if the fungus was not
> too
> advanced. I tried it on a lens with a slight fungal bloom and it killed
> the
> fungus. I have had the lens for several years now and have had no further
> fungal growth. It would be advisable not to allow the lens to get too hot.
> Wouldn't want to risk messing up the cement binding lens elements. The
> site
> above makes a brief reference to this method, but doesn't think it
> effective
> on a badly fungused lens element.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>>
>> swisspace wrote:
>>
>> > How do I tell the difference, i just looked at the front element in
>> > bright light and you dont see anything yet when i looked before it has
>> > light spots that looked as if they could be fungal blooms, but having
>> > not seen an infected lens before I don't know how to tell.
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Look through the lens from both ends using a flashlight pointing toward
>> your eye from the opposite end. This is a very severe test so look
>> through some of your other lenses that you *think* are OK as well.
>> You'll probably spot all sorts of dust and debris some of which may be
>> small black paint flecks. The dust and debris may be unsightly but does
>> no optical harm of any consequence.
>>
>> Fungus will show itself as a spidery web or as an irregularly shaped and
>> possibly irregularly colored grayish blotch. Remember if you need
>> glasses for reading that the distance from your eye of the defects
>> you're looking for may not be withing the focusing ability of your eye.
>> Also, the apparent distance will be different from the actual distance
>> since you're looking through one or more lens elements.
>>
>> A small amount of fungus will not do any optical harm of conseqence
>> either except that it may very well grow in the future. It also eats
>> coatings under the glass and may etch the glass itself since it produces
>> acid byproducts. The biggest harm is to your wallet. Even if there's a
>> tiny spot of fungus which is of no optical consequence the lens becomes
>> next to worthless.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Lawrence Plummer" <plummerl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Before I Break It
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:50:38 -0700
>
>
> I am going to transfer a self-timer activation switch (the plastic part)
> from an OM-1n parts body to my beloved (bought in 1974) OM-1. Is it as
> simple as prying it straight off of the metal switch? The switch (under
> the
> plastic) is "L shaped" (metal, upside down), and I want to be sure that I
> will not break the plastic during removal. It must come off easily,
> because
> I never noticed it coming off my OM-1 in the first place. I just want to
> be
> sure.
>
>
>
> larry
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:17:08 +1000
>
>
> It's a technique worth trying on any lens, especially if bought from
> such places as Florida or Queensland. Doesn't take long and kills
> spores that you won't see and stabilises any damage that you can see.
> Some special purpose lenses like the 8mm under discussion don't get
> out and about too much and are often stored for very long periods in
> the dark in cloth or vinyl pouches or leatherette cases and with very
> old ones, gawdelpus, in leather! This is a major encouragement to the
> spread of mushrooms.
> All treasures should be taken out for exercise and a little
> sunbathing regularly. They can get hot so if a real UV source is
> available, it is preferable as it will not generate much heat except
> in exposed skin. I have friends with an oyster lease and they use a
> UV source to kill any pathogens on or around the wee beasties - they
> may be sleeping in the shell for over a month in a damps sack
> somewhere before meeting their doom.
> I have toyed with the idea of taking my lenses down to the local
> beauty parlour and laying them out in the solarium for 15 minutes or
> so but that might frighten the 'nail technicians', especially if I
> were to get in there with them (the lenses that is).
> AndrewF
>
>
> On 15/10/2005, at 12:49 PM, robburn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> A few years ago I read an article by someone who claimed to have
>> destroyed
>> fungus on a lens element by opening the lens to the widest aperture
>> and
>> placing it in a position where sunlight could shine through the
>> lens. The UV
>> rays kill the fungus. He claimed that it worked well if the fungus
>> was not too
>> advanced. I tried it on a lens with a slight fungal bloom and it
>> killed the
>> fungus. I have had the lens for several years now and have had no
>> further
>> fungal growth. It would be advisable not to allow the lens to get
>> too hot.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:32:29 -0700
> From: "ClintPhotosphere" <olyfix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Before I Break It
>
> Are you speaking of the small plastic tab with the white line that you
> push to start the self-timer? If so, on all but the very earliest
> types, it's just glued in place. The part comes new with a small
> round plastic post sticking out the back that used to fit in a hole on
> the arm it's attached to -- the post is melted wide to keep the tab in
> place on the older type arms. Later arms don't have a hole, so the
> post is just sheared off and the tab is glued onto the arm. We
> usually used a tiny dot of superglue.
>
>>
>> I am going to transfer a self-timer activation switch (the plastic
> part)
>> from an OM-1n parts body to my beloved (bought in 1974) OM-1. Is it
> as
>> simple as prying it straight off of the metal switch? The switch
> (under the
>> plastic) is "L shaped" (metal, upside down), and I want to be sure
> that I
>> will not break the plastic during removal. It must come off easily,
> because
>> I never noticed it coming off my OM-1 in the first place. I just
> want to be
>> sure.
>>
>>
>>
>> larry
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:32:59 -0700
> From: "ClintPhotosphere" <olyfix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Before I Break It
>
> Are you speaking of the small plastic tab with the white line that you
> push to start the self-timer? If so, on all but the very earliest
> types, it's just glued in place. The part comes new with a small
> round plastic post sticking out the back that used to fit in a hole on
> the arm it's attached to -- the post is melted wide to keep the tab in
> place on the older type arms. Later arms don't have a hole, so the
> post is just sheared off and the tab is glued onto the arm. We
> usually used a tiny dot of superglue.
>
>>
>> I am going to transfer a self-timer activation switch (the plastic
> part)
>> from an OM-1n parts body to my beloved (bought in 1974) OM-1. Is it
> as
>> simple as prying it straight off of the metal switch? The switch
> (under the
>> plastic) is "L shaped" (metal, upside down), and I want to be sure
> that I
>> will not break the plastic during removal. It must come off easily,
> because
>> I never noticed it coming off my OM-1 in the first place. I just
> want to be
>> sure.
>>
>>
>>
>> larry
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:33:44 -0700
> From: "ClintPhotosphere" <olyfix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Before I Break It
>
> Are you speaking of the small plastic tab with the white line that you
> push to start the self-timer? If so, on all but the very earliest
> types, it's just glued in place. The part comes new with a small
> round plastic post sticking out the back that used to fit in a hole on
> the arm it's attached to -- the post is melted wide to keep the tab in
> place on the older type arms. Later arms don't have a hole, so the
> post is just sheared off and the tab is glued onto the arm. We
> usually used a tiny dot of superglue.
>
>>
>> I am going to transfer a self-timer activation switch (the plastic
> part)
>> from an OM-1n parts body to my beloved (bought in 1974) OM-1. Is it
> as
>> simple as prying it straight off of the metal switch? The switch
> (under the
>> plastic) is "L shaped" (metal, upside down), and I want to be sure
> that I
>> will not break the plastic during removal. It must come off easily,
> because
>> I never noticed it coming off my OM-1 in the first place. I just
> want to be
>> sure.
>>
>>
>>
>> larry
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:37:44 -0700
> From: iddi <iddibhai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Words and pictures : Winwick Northamptonshire
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:44:25 -0700, Chuck Norcutt
> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> swisspace wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's funny but I quite often dream of being chased by a bull - It never
>>> catches me - I am sure it means something but keep forgetting to look up
>>> what.
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> That's silly. It just means you are faster than the bull.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Bull!
>
> --
> new email address: iddibhai at verizon dot net
> photoblog: http://iddibhai.blogspot.com
> aim:iddibhai | icq:104079359
> dum spiro, spero
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] OT: Re: Re: Made in China?
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:47:21 +0100
>
>
> I am not sure that Detroit was ever the last word in quality, if you
> are talking about car production John ;-).
>
> Chris
> ~~ >-)-
> C M I Barker
> Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
> +44 (0)7092 251126
> www.threeshoes.co.uk
> homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:00, John Hudson wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the PRC will producing the world's high end mechandise in a
>> generation? Watch out Detroit!
>>
>> jh
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Lawrence Plummer" <plummerl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Before I Break It
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:19:21 -0700
>
>
> Yes, the small, plastic tab with the white line (part CA9077). Looking at
> the OM-1 Repair Manual (The Olympus Hardware Resource Page), it appears
> that
> it is cemented on. The arm that I have does not have a hole.
>
>> Are you speaking of the small plastic tab with the white line that you
>> push to start the self-timer? If so, on all but the very earliest
>> types, it's just glued in place. The part comes new with a small
>> round plastic post sticking out the back that used to fit in a hole on
>> the arm it's attached to -- the post is melted wide to keep the tab in
>> place on the older type arms. Later arms don't have a hole, so the
>> post is just sheared off and the tab is glued onto the arm. We
>> usually used a tiny dot of superglue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:37:09 -0300
> From: John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Made in China?
>
>
> What was Leitz making in Thailand?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Harridge" <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 October, 2005 11:23 PM
> Subject: [OM] Re: Made in China?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Ali <oly-zooko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > "The EVOLT E-500 is manufactured by Olympus at our High Tech plant in
>> > China."
>> >
>> > Do you think this will compromise quality?
>> >
>>
>> Don't think so, I believe Oly recruited most of the workers from the
>> Leica
> plant in Thailand.
>>
>> ...Wayne
>>
>> Wayne Harridge
>>
>> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Words and pictures : Winwick Northamptonshire
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:02:10 +0100
>
>
> Delightful Graham!
>
> Chris
> ~~ >-)-
> C M I Barker
> Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
> +44 (0)7092 251126
> www.threeshoes.co.uk
> homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
> On 14 Oct 2005, at 17:12, GeeBee wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.geebeephoto.com/Walks/Winwick/index.htm
>>
>>
>> Graham
>> http://geebeephoto.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:13:44 -0400
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
>
> If you have ever lived in Florida you will understand that there are
> millions of fungi that flourish in full sunlight.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> robburn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> http://www.temple.edu/biomed/tt3.html
>>
>> A few years ago I read an article by someone who claimed to have
>> destroyed
>> fungus on a lens element by opening the lens to the widest aperture and
>> placing it in a position where sunlight could shine through the lens. The
>> UV
>> rays kill the fungus. He claimed that it worked well if the fungus was
>> not too
>> advanced. I tried it on a lens with a slight fungal bloom and it killed
>> the
>> fungus. I have had the lens for several years now and have had no further
>> fungal growth. It would be advisable not to allow the lens to get too
>> hot.
>> Wouldn't want to risk messing up the cement binding lens elements. The
>> site
>> above makes a brief reference to this method, but doesn't think it
>> effective
>> on a badly fungused lens element.
>>
>> Robert
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:31:44 +1000
>
>
> That's why I mentioned it. Queenland is the Oz equivalent - about
> half the lenses i've ever bought from Q'land have had the dreaded
> blight. Sub-tropical with a humid season - fatal. I'm still annoyed
> about the Kiron 24/2 as the seller wouldn't pay for cleaning - he
> refunded but I really wanted that lens!
> AndrewF
>
>
> On 15/10/2005, at 9:13 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> If you have ever lived in Florida you will understand that there are
>> millions of fungi that flourish in full sunlight.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "William Sommerwerck" <williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:34:44 -0700
>
>
> Last year, when I was near bankruptcy, I sold my Olympus outfit, including
> an 8mm fisheye. (I still have some stuff left, and will shortly post the
> items for a third and final time before they go on e-bay.)
>
> I got a good price for the fisheye from a guy in Brooklyn, but when it
> arrived he complained about fungus on the rear element, which I'd never
> heard of. He returned it to me, and sure enough, there was a gray,
> feathery
> "something" inside the rear lens element. Fungus or not, it shouldn't have
> been there, and there was no easy way to remove it.
>
> I gave him a reduced price, and he bought most of the rest of my remaining
> lenses. He said Olympus lenses were prone to fungal infection, though I
> can't confirm or deny this.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: [OM] Re: E-1 and FL36 together with OM zuikos?
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:57:37 +0200
> From: "Hans van Veluwen" <hans.van.veluwen@xxxxxx>
>
>
> : I wrote an email to Olympus support asking this same question and the
> : answer was:
> : TTL works only manually (M) with OM-adapter in E-1.
>
> Very supportive.... NOT!
>
> TTL auto exposure works fine with OM lenses and the adapter, both with
> available light or with the FL-50 / FL-36 flash in TTL mode (or TTL FP
> mode). The camera must be in Aperture preferred mode (A). When the lens
> is wide open, negative exposure compensation may be necessary.
>
> Hans
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: [OM] Re: FL-50 problems
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:58:32 +0200
> From: "Hans van Veluwen" <hans.van.veluwen@xxxxxx>
>
>
> : Are all of you sure not to see the preflash in Auto TTL mode?
>
> I can't see it on my FL-36.
>
> Hans
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: FL-50 problems
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:05:49 +0100
>
>
> Is this the AF pre-flash? If so, remember that it is selectable
> through the camera.
>
> If not, what pre-flash?
>
> Chris
> ~~ >-)-
> C M I Barker
> Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
> +44 (0)7092 251126
> www.threeshoes.co.uk
> homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2005, at 15:58, Hans van Veluwen wrote:
>
>> : Are all of you sure not to see the preflash in Auto TTL mode?
>>
>> I can't see it on my FL-36.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
> Subject: [OM] Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:59:48 +0000
>
> In spite of the fact some of you disregarded my instructions, thanks
> anyway for the condolences. The burial was accomplished Thursday, and a
> good time was had by all. More about that another time.
>
> I believe I have previously mentioned that almost all of my photographs
> taken prior to 1968 were lost in a house fire. While my son and I were
> looking last week for necessary documents in an old roll top desk, which
> originally belonged to my grandfather and was one of the few things to
> make it out of the house from the fire, we discovered a half dozen
> six-frame strips of Panatomic-X negatives in glassine sleeves that had
> somehow fallen behind one of the drawers. (I'm still pissed at Kodak for
> discontinuing this film, which was one of my favorites.)
>
> A half dozen or so of the shots were taken on my father's 42nd birthday.
> (He died in 1998, just over a month short of his and mother's 60th
> anniversary.) I was 18 at the time, and just starting to get serious
> about photography, so this is one of my earliest efforts, a grab shot
> taken with an Asahi Pentax K and 55/1.8 Takumar (which, by the way, gear
> hoarder that I am, I still have). I'm guessing I was using a Honeywell
> strobe, too. I no longer have it, or if I do, I haven't seen it in quite
> a while.
>
> This photograph is an excellent representation of our family. We laughed
> a lot, more than some folks thought was dignified and proper, and those of
> us left still do -- including my mother's only sister, who'll be 97 this
> Halloween. (Folks born on Halloween have to have a sense of humor.)
> Hell, we laughed at mother's funeral. She would've joined in, except she,
> of course, was three days dead by then.
>
> Anyhow, here's the picture:
>
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1065.jpg
>
> Now a question. These negatives are covered with what looks like the
> craze you'll find in antique china and porcelain or the maze of cracks you
> see in old oil paintings. I'm just not sure if it's cracks in the
> emulsion or if it's maybe some sort of fungus. I've been lucky over the
> years to have had almost no problems with fungus, in either gear or on
> film, probably as a result of refusing to live without air conditioning
> turned down to 68F, so I'm not sure I'll know it if I see it.
>
> I've scanned the negatives at 5400 dpi with the Minolta 5400, so I've got
> nothing to lose, I suppose, by trying some film cleaner to see what
> happens. Anybody have any ideas? Here's what it looks like close up.
>
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1066.jpg
>
> Could it be that the Minolta 5400 is just too darn good and I should just
> scan the film with the old 2400 dpi HP PhotoSmart and fuggedaboudit? Or
> maybe I can borrow somebody's Nikon. ;-)
>
> Please note the winkey. And here's a smiley for good measure: :-)
>
> Walt
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:45:59 -0500
>
>
> I'm guessing fungus. Sometimes, PEC-10 will get it off.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
> I'm just not sure if it's cracks in the emulsion or if it's maybe some
> sort of fungus.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
> Subject: [OM] Re: Best Flash for the E-series
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:54:54 +0000
>
> I've been distracted for a few days and may have skipped too quickly
> through the plethora of unread posts, but unless I missed it, I saw
> nothing in response to my observation that there's a little hole in the
> hot shoe of the E-1 that perfectly accommodates the little claw thing that
> retracts the contacts on the T flashes until the foot of the flash is all
> the way into the hot shoe, which seems, at least to me, to indicate that
> Olympus intended that the old flashes, like the old lenses, would at least
> be usable, although not recommended and without the hand-holding many of
> today's wimpy photographers might need.
>
> Could the presence of this perfectly-positioned indentation be explained
> in the same way that some might claim our noses are perfectly situated on
> our faces so that we can wear glasses? I think not.
>
> One of these, either noses or hot shoe holes, may actually be the result
> of intelligent design.
>
> Anyone? Anyone?
>
> Those in Kansas are excused.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:05:02 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Mark Dapoz <md@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Best Flash for the E-series
>
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Walt Wayman wrote:
>
>> I saw nothing in response to my observation that there's a little hole in
>> the hot shoe of the E-1 that perfectly accommodates the little claw thing
>> that retracts the contacts on the T flashes until the foot of the flash
>> is
>> all the way into the hot shoe, which seems, at least to me, to indicate
>> that Olympus intended that the old flashes, like the old lenses, would at
>> least be usable, although not recommended and without the hand-holding
>> many
>> of today's wimpy photographers might need.
>
> If you're referring to the little round hole which is near the front edge
> of
> the shoe, then no, that's not for the old T-series flashes. It's used by
> the
> new FL-series flashes to lock the flash into the shoe. The FL flashes
> have
> a pin which protrudes into that hole when the locking ring is turned. If
> you look very closely the pin is positioned closer to the edge of the shoe
> than the retraction claw of the T flashes. I don't think the claw will
> fit
> into the hole, which is a good thing since it keeps the extra pins
> retracted.
> -mark
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
> Subject: [OM] Re: Best Flash for the E-series
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:15:21 +0000
>
> Okay, I'll yield, 'cause I know you know way more than I do 'bout this
> stuff. And I wasn't really sure the two things actually lined up anyway.
>
> If I weren't so poor and had a better FL flash, I might've known what the
> hole was for, but my pitiful little FL-20 ain't got no pin what fits in no
> hole!
>
> Should I send it back and complain? Do I need a more better FL flash?
> No, I'm getting by okay with the T's.
>
> Walt, still dumb after all these years
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Mark Dapoz <md@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Walt Wayman wrote:
>>
>> > I saw nothing in response to my observation that there's a little hole
>> > in
>> > the hot shoe of the E-1 that perfectly accommodates the little claw
>> > thing
>> > that retracts the contacts on the T flashes until the foot of the flash
>> > is
>> > all the way into the hot shoe, which seems, at least to me, to indicate
>> > that Olympus intended that the old flashes, like the old lenses, would
>> > at
>> > least be usable, although not recommended and without the hand-holding
>> > many
>> > of today's wimpy photographers might need.
>>
>> If you're referring to the little round hole which is near the front edge
>> of
>> the shoe, then no, that's not for the old T-series flashes. It's used by
>> the
>> new FL-series flashes to lock the flash into the shoe. The FL flashes
>> have
>> a pin which protrudes into that hole when the locking ring is turned. If
>> you look very closely the pin is positioned closer to the edge of the
>> shoe
>> than the retraction claw of the T flashes. I don't think the claw will
>> fit
>> into the hole, which is a good thing since it keeps the extra pins
>> retracted.
>> -mark
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Martinez, Paul" <Paul.Martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:10:03 -0700
>
>
> I sold my Zuiko 21/3.5 to buy a Zuiko 21/2 off ebay. I should have known
> better. Not feeling like gambling again, I'd thought I'd see if anyone on
> the list has one available. I'm willing to pay $800-1100 depending on
> condition and extras (case, hood,..). Please email me at
> pdmartine@xxxxxxxxx
> if you have, or know of one, available.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:23:40 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
>
> Walt Wayman wrote:
>
>>In spite of the fact some of you disregarded my instructions, thanks
>>anyway for the condolences. The burial was accomplished Thursday, and a
>>good time was had by all. More about that another time.
>>
>>
> Well, I followed instructions before.... I still do wish you well with
> the inevitable emotional aftermath. My mother is about to turn 85 and
> has slipped into that difficult stage where she needs lots of
> assistance, but is still living in the house her family moved into when
> she started high school. She says she doesn't want to live as long as
> her friend who just turned 100, but isn't ready to go yet. So next week
> the visits to assisted living places begin. I am so not looking forward
> to that.
>
> Then she is starting to talk again about driving again. She hasn't
> driven for over a year since she went in for knee replacement surgery. I
> think it may be time to purloin her car keys and hide them. It would be
> safer for her and those out on the road.
>
>><snip>
>>This photograph is an excellent representation of our family. We laughed
>>a lot, more than some folks thought was dignified and proper, and those of
>>us left still do -- including my mother's only sister, who'll be 97 this
>>Halloween. (Folks born on Halloween have to have a sense of humor.)
>>Hell, we laughed at mother's funeral. She would've joined in, except she,
>>of course, was three days dead by then.
>>
>>
> What a wonderful gift to encounter!
>
>>http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1065.jpg
>>
>>
> Great shot!
>
>>http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1066.jpg
>>
>>Could it be that the Minolta 5400 is just too darn good and I should just
>>scan the film with the old 2400 dpi HP PhotoSmart and fuggedaboudit?
>>
> Have you tried ICE on them? I see what look like dust spots on the
> sample you posted, so I guess maybe not. If the fungus is opaque to
> infrared, ICE should clean up all those filaments. Just look at what it
> did for the fungusy old Kodachrome shot Piers recently reposted. I'd try
> that before treating the negs with anything. ICE has to be applied when
> scanning unless you use Vuescan and save a RAW image in 64 bit RGBI.
> Then it can be applied later. That way it is quick and easy to
> experiment with different settings.
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:28:36 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: 10/12 fragment of my day
>
> Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
>>http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/day/day50.html
>>
> That's a beauty!
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:58:34 +1300
> From: David Carter <spotz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Fisheye 8mm and fungal blooms - how easy to remove
>
> It has been my observation, that all lenses are prone to fungus or other
> maladies sooner or later. Regardless of whom made them. Although some do
> have tendencies to show manufacturing defects, before others of the same
> age. As indicated in other replies, it seems more dependent on where
> they're stored.
>
> Last I heard fungi were unable to read ;-)
>
> David
>
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>Last year, when I was near bankruptcy, I sold my Olympus outfit, including
>>an 8mm fisheye. (I still have some stuff left, and will shortly post the
>>items for a third and final time before they go on e-bay.)
>>
>>I got a good price for the fisheye from a guy in Brooklyn, but when it
>>arrived he complained about fungus on the rear element, which I'd never
>>heard of. He returned it to me, and sure enough, there was a gray,
>>feathery
>>"something" inside the rear lens element. Fungus or not, it shouldn't have
>>been there, and there was no easy way to remove it.
>>
>>I gave him a reduced price, and he bought most of the rest of my remaining
>>lenses. He said Olympus lenses were prone to fungal infection, though I
>>can't confirm or deny this.
>>
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:33:57 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: More Dynamic Range
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>So, are you gonna tell us how you blended these most excellent
>>composites
>>
> Belatedly, yes. I also have added a couple more composites to the
> gallery <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Combos/>.
>
>>or just leave us in the dark?
>>
>>In looking at #1 it may be that an intermediate exposure was required
>>but I'm not yet convinced. The fundamental problem with the composite
>>is that the walls in the window passage are brighter than the sky
>>outside which makes it look "funny".
>>
>>
> I agree. On the other hand, lightening the sky much takes away the sense
> of how it looked to me when I took the shots. The was the first one I
> took and tackled and I tried a bit of many things on it. I think I'll go
> back and start from scratch on of these days.
>
>>In thinking about this three-shot problem it occurred to me that that
>>the answer lies in the shooting data for the successful shots. How many
>>stops are there between the light and dark shots of the successful
>>composites? This value can then serve as a guide for future shots. If
>>the difference between light and dark is more than "x" then take one in
>>the middle.
>>
>>
> The problem is that I set myself a very difficult test. Shots were all
> taken hand held and generally with other people around and other things
> to do. Also, it's a very automatic camera, so there is no way to just
> dial in x.x stops of exposure adjustment. Another consequence of this
> approach is that the images aren't always exactly the same
> size/magnification. Even without changing the zoom setting, it appears
> that the AF may make subtle changes in the effective focal length.
>
> Still, I'm pleased overall. Some of the results I like rather a lot and
> I've learned a lot from the others. It adds to what I can do in casual
> shooting situations, which is the point. If I were going to use a tripod
> to get exact registration, etc., I might as well use the DSLR in RAW,
> and don't need the multiple exposures to get the Dynamic range I want.
>
>>Anyhow, nice stuff. Tell us more.
>>
>>
> Thanks. As I said, I don't even remember all I did for the window.
>
> The medieval chapel and sky was pretty simple. With the sharp
> differentiation of building and sky in contrast and color, I selected
> the sky on the darker one, made it a layer and dragged it over onto the
> other image. I did a good job of keeping the same angle and size in
> shooting these. The dark one should have been maybe a half stop darker.
> Then I could have held a little more detail in the clouds with the same
> overall brightness.
>
> The Olympia Diner was tougher. I think the original exposures were just
> right. I ended up lightening the sky/clouds, but had all the DR to do it
> just as I liked. One difficulty was in the fact that the two images were
> noticeably different sizes. Not otherwise significant, but the sky
> didn't match up with the building at the edge and it would be very
> obvious. Another hard part was all the fine detail where the sky shows
> through under the sign and around the lights and poles. I could have
> just cloned out the lights, but decided to hone my skills on them. I
> selected and made layers of the sky and clouds portion of both shots,
> cloned in extra sky/clouds along the bottom of the darker one, then set
> it under the bottom portion of the lighter shot. That took care of the
> overall misregistration rather nicely. Around the lights, I did some
> cloud cloning where they were on the darker shot, now the bottom layer,
> and some erasing on the top layer.
>
> The schooners in Camden Harbor were pretty easy. The darker shot was
> pretty much what I wanted for everything but the foliage. I selected by
> color for the foliage in the lighter shot, deselected with the lasso for
> the parts of the water, boats, etc. that had the same colors, and
> overlaid the lighter foliage on the darker overall image. A perfect
> reproduction of the actual light would probably have had the boats and
> harbor a bit lighter, but I like the reflections in the water and the
> tonal differentiation in the white parts of the boats the way I set it.
>
> The door way was too much work for a not so interesting image, but again
> I was learning what I could do and how to do it. As you can see, the two
> images are at noticeable different magnifications and tilted relative to
> each other. That's the problem with working in a hurry as ones'
> companion walks on. :-) I selected the lighter door, slightly enlarged
> and rotated it, then put it under the darker house image with the door
> deleted.
>
> The sunset was quite easy. I put the lighter image under the darker one,
> selected most of the upper area with a mass selection tool and deleted
> it, then cleaned up around the edged with a big, soft eraser. The soft
> nature of the overall subject and lack of a hard boundary made it easy.
> I actually like both of the originals just as they are, but liked being
> able to combine the better, less blown out detail of the bright parts of
> one with the greater upper cloud detail of the other.
>
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "James N. McBride" <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Dead Mother (Now with pictures!)
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:54:23 -0600
>
>
> Someone published some research the other day that concluded it's cheaper
> for the elderly to live on a luxury cruise ship for the rest of their life
> than go into assisted living. Not possible for lots of folks but
> interesting
> anyway. /jmac
>
> << snip
>
> Well, I followed instructions before.... I still do wish you well with
> the inevitable emotional aftermath. My mother is about to turn 85 and
> has slipped into that difficult stage where she needs lots of
> assistance, but is still living in the house her family moved into when
> she started high school. She says she doesn't want to live as long as
> her friend who just turned 100, but isn't ready to go yet. So next week
> the visits to assisted living places begin. I am so not looking forward
> to that.
>
> << snip
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "W. Xato" <xato0@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] e300 with tamron 400/4
>
> I finally bought one of these digital things,
> intending to use it as a point and shoot. But I
> hooked it up to the Tamron 400/4 (equivalent 800mm)
> and took some shots of pelicans in La Jolla. This one
> is sharp but lots of them are an inch or two out of
> focus. Does anyone have any good ideas of how to
> focus this beast? I may be just getting old.
>
> The following is straight of the camera ISO 400, with
> sharpening and saturation at +2.
>
> Big 5.5 mb
> http://www.120scan.us/i/P9081600.JPG
>
> This was crunched down to 197 kb and it does look
> crunchy but still shows the sharpness of the tamron.
> http://www.120scan.us/i/P9081600a.jpg
>
>
> Warren
>
> Warren Xato
>
> For where to go when you know when
> -PhotoDates-and-Places@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:01:35 -0500
> From: Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
>
>
> On 10/15/05, Martinez, Paul <Paul.Martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I sold my Zuiko 21/3.5 to buy a Zuiko 21/2 off ebay. I should have known
>> better. Not feeling like gambling again, I'd thought I'd see if anyone on
>> the list has one available. I'm willing to pay $800-1100 depending on
>> condition and extras (case, hood,..). Please email me at
>> pdmartine@xxxxxxxxx
>> if you have, or know of one, available.
>>
>> Paul
>
> It's not exactly clear to me what you want to buy, a 21/3.5 or a 21/2.
>
> Joel W.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:25:35 +0800
>
>
> Most likely a 21/2, who will pay $800-1100 for a 21/3.5?
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Wilcox" <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>>
>> On 10/15/05, Martinez, Paul <Paul.Martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I sold my Zuiko 21/3.5 to buy a Zuiko 21/2 off ebay. I should have known
>>> better. Not feeling like gambling again, I'd thought I'd see if anyone
>>> on
>>> the list has one available. I'm willing to pay $800-1100 depending on
>>> condition and extras (case, hood,..). Please email me at
>>> pdmartine@xxxxxxxxx
>>> if you have, or know of one, available.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> It's not exactly clear to me what you want to buy, a 21/3.5 or a 21/2.
>>
>> Joel W.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:28:18 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 for sale?
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>>Most likely a 21/2, who will pay $800-1100 for a 21/3.5?
>>
>>
> Several Can*n FF sensor users, so far.
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of olympus Digest V2 #288
> *****************************
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
