Where's 'give?' I'm fairly sure 'give' is feeling quite neglected by now.
alberio wrote:
Has anyone attended one of Shen Yuns performances? If so, what is your opinion?
They do put on quite a show!! Lots of performers. I saw the show a few yrs ago, here in Richmond KY. There seems to be at least 4 'troupes' of performers because there are shows in 3 additional cities on the weekend of the shows in Richmond this year. If the tickets are in your price range, I doubt you'll be disappointed. I'm not planning to see the show this year, probably wouldn't even go IF someone gave me tickets, either. Here's the web address for their scheduled shows. https://www.shenyun.com/tickets Quite a hectic schedule!!!
Mac wrote:
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/why-arent-more-of-the-big-name-camera-brands-making-modern-film-cameras
TLDR the linked article. But, to answer the question - IF it actually is a question, rather than a statement - technology marches on & the market dictates when the 'new' replaces the 'old.' Why are so few people using the 'old' photo technologies, wet plate, albumen, tin type & so forth? Why do we use electronic flash devices, rather than flash bulbs, rather than flash powder? Why aren't there more varieties of large format cameras available & more manufacturers? Why did 35mm film reign for so long at the top of the mountain for film & cameras? I could go on & on and post my opinion of the answers to my questions. . . but, you get the idea - I hope.
robertjerl wrote:
From being rolled film has a curve (sheet film excepted) and the negative holder has to hold it flat, in fact the only ones that get it completely flat are the double layer glass types and the glass itself can degrade the quality of the print. Been there, done that.
Not even close to the ballpark. Like mentioned in the original post - "(think H&D curve) - it's a graph with a curved shape. This has to do with the exposure vs density curve, not the 'flatness' of rolled film. Unexposed & developed film has a certain density, that can be measured. It takes a relatively large amount of exposure to produce any measurable density in the film. This is the 'toe' of the curve. Additional exposure, beyond this minimum, is a straight line line in the curve - each additional 'unit' of exposure produces 1 unit of density, until the maximum density of the film is reached. I forget what that's called, perhaps 'shoulder' of the curve. Beyond that point, additional exposure doesn't produce additional density in the film. The curve is kinda S-shaped. Mr Google will give a graph & even MORE factoids about the curve. I haven't a clue of how all of this applies to any of the various digital sensors.
bikinkawboy wrote:
I have five Carousels, one I bought new in the 80’s and the others from Goodwill. Bulbs used to be very expensive so I figured $8-$12 wouldn’t break the bank.
One of my friends in Chicago has went to shooting B&W film. He and his associates have opened an art gallery for viewing and sales. Not sure how they are doing.
What might be cool would be a camera that shoots both film and digital. Make your test shots with digital and when you’re happy with the result, then shoot the film.
I have five Carousels, one I bought new in the 80’... (
show quote)
How would one shoe horn a sensor into a film camera, or where would one place a film path into a digital camera?
Day.Old.Pizza wrote:
Thanks! I found the problem, made a correction, tried it out and it now works fine. I need to read manual to find out what the other 2 settings are for. That’s for later today. I still don’t know how I changed that setting.
What was the problem? Or did you just discover the 'fix' to the problem?
bsprague wrote:
Will there be a Kodak Carousel slide projector and screen for that?
Have you tried displaying HDR digital images on a HDR capable display?
Yes I still have my Kodak Carousel projector, not sure about the screen, though. No, haven't dipped my toe into the HDR world yet.
Day.Old.Pizza wrote:
I have a Nikon D850 and a SB700 flash. I have used them in combination before, not often, with no issue. This evening I mounted the flash on the camera in preparation for a group shot and tried a few practice shots. The flash was set to ttl. The camera to 1/60 at 200 ISO. When I push the shutter button the flash gave 3 what I will call lower power pre-flashes before firing the flash at full power- like the camera is trying to figure out the power requirement to expose the shot. It takes about 1-1/2 seconds for the 3 light pulses after I’ve pushed the shutter button. I must have inadvertently changed a setting. Would someone tell me what I’ve done and how to correct it. I’ve been looking around, but with no success so far.
Just figured it out. I had somehow changed the Flash Mode. As soon as I made the correction the issue went away, so never mind.
I have a Nikon D850 and a SB700 flash. I have used... (
show quote)
Sounds to me like red eye reduction is activated.
I'll switch from digital when Kodachrome returns.
Sound track to The Exorcist as I recall.
rcarol wrote:
Your response has left me speechless.
I can help you reduce your taxes, too. Tell me what tax you're paying that's too much & I'll give you at least 1 way to reduce that tax.
rcarol wrote:
I normally pay less than $50 per month for my house natural gas bill. This of course depends on the season of the year. Through a service provided by the USPS, I get a daily notification of the mail that I will receive later in the day. Today, I got a notification that SoCalGas is going to send me a notification informing me on ways that I can save money on my gas usage. I find this ironic in that several months ago I received a bill from them that was in excess of $500 for the month because they had failed to anticipate their future gas needs and had failed to purchase gas to cover their reserves. And they want to help me? So, they ended up paying a huge premium from an inflated marketplace to cover their customer's needs. This premium was passed onto the consumer with little or no fanfare. What happened to the "approved" rates? How were they able to get away with this? I'm still looking for answers. Their response, "Sorry." If any of you Hoggers have any insight into what happened, I would appreciate hearing from you.
I normally pay less than $50 per month for my hous... (
show quote)
STOP using that expen$ive gas!!
Wear more & warmer clothes
Pile more blankets on the bed at night
Rip out all those expensive gas sucking appliances & replace them with modern efficient electric appliances. This alone will teach those a-holes at SoCalGas to NOT overcharge you.
Install solar heating - yet another lesson for SoCalGas
Just don't pay it at all - soon, you'll not have a recurring bill from them at all.
usnret wrote:
Why would a grocery store ask customers for thier phone number at checkout? That was the case at Natural Grocers in Davenport Iowa today. I asked the checkout clerk why she wanted that info. She said she didn't know and that she was just "supposed to ask for it".
Since you seem to be bound & determined to NOT give YOUR phone number, just give A phone number. Give the local PD's non-emergency number, city hall's number, the mayor's office number, make one up. . . you get the idea by now.
rehess wrote:
I’m not sure when “Auto flash” became available, but it was available for all cameras and didn’t require a special flash or a special link between flash and camera. When our first grand-daughter was born about a year ago, I {admittedly as a stunt} took a photo of her using the same “auto” flash I had used to routinely photograph her Mother. Next weekend we’ll be going for her first birthday; this time I may photograph with the same flash and camera I had used with her Mother.
The first flash I bought, ca 1968, was a Honeywell auto strobonar 770 and it was automatic. I used it for about a year & traded it in for a Honeywell 880 that used a 510v external battery, also automatic.