I would appreciate advice from members regarding the value of upgrading the firmware that comes with the Nikon D 80. I bought the D 80 approx 10 years ago and the firmware has never been upgraded. I suspect that most of you are highly computer competent and that this is a storm in a teacup and why not "just do it". Well I would like to do that but as an 86-year-old man I cannot always follow that long sequence of steps required. So I'm left with the alternatives of either doing nothing or paying somebody to do it. Therefore the question is what is the cost benefit ratio and which is the better decision.
The camera is only used for casual family photographs, outdoor shots and documentation of a structure. I would be curious to know if they did correct the defect in the exposure calibration which was in this model Nikon. You will remember that many people used to leave the exposure compensation button set at ? to offset this problem.

If you would just let me know whether you think it is worth the cost of having somebody install it and what the advantages are.
I appreciate the considered advice of the members

It is obvious from the long discussions that this is a source of interest.

A lot of problems would be avoided if the hyperfocal distance was engraved on the lens barrel. Just set this next to the aperture used and read off the depth of field next to the selected aperture. Unfortunately this is only applicable to fixed focal length lenses- not enough room there for various focal lengths of a zoom.

For close up photography the magnification or ratio of reproduction (RR) and the aperture are all you need to know.

The RR is sometimes marked on the lens barrel of macro lenses.

Alternative put a ruler vertically in the frame and focus and as the vertical dimension of a 35 mm frame is 24mm-close enough to 1 inch, the reading on the ruler in inches is the approx RR. Really works quite well for closeup subjects.Some viewfinder reduce the magnification but because both the height of the frame and the ruler are reduced by the same percentage no compensation factor is required.

I remember when I was in elementary school in Queensland eons ago that the historical lesson said Endeavour was a converted Whitby collier. This meant she had a shallow draft that allowed her to get close to the coast and reconnoiter in inlets.

I have always wondered if Endeavour (spelled with a U) on the space shuttle, was named after Cook's ship.

Thanks for the photographs- much appreciated.

It used to be considered undesirable to pull the film thru the light trap again and risk longitudinal scratches . The trap may have picked up some abrasive dust or even originally it had some rough spots.

Loading a tank-I always used Paterson tanks, can be a pain and on occasions the film would just not go in. Think of Leica M3 and earlier and where the film was wound in the opposite direction. If the film had been in the camera for some time, this would mean that there was a permanent bias for the film to want to bend in a opposite direction to that in the tank. It was recommended that film such as this should be left in the cassette for a day or so to get the kink out. Do the new Leica cameras still wind against the natural curvature of the film?

On those occasions when I just could not get the film into the tank, and the the cap of the film cassette had been distorted by removal with the can opener, and could not be replaced, I always kept a film can in either the darkroom or in the changing bag and then put the coiled film in there. Be careful not to cinch the film as this can scratch it.

If loading the film in a changing bag was attempted in a room without air conditioning, the humidity in the changing bag could build out and would also impede the passage of the film into the film reel.

It is essential to trim the leader between sprocket holes and leave enough on the sides so it is possible to round the corners by snipping off a little bit on the corner without going through the sprocket hole. Then the film should be able to be pushed into the slot on the reel

In the medical literature there is a paper on clinical photography of black skinned subjects by Salthouse TN in Med Biol Illus 8:150-159 (1958). The basic finding was that texture lighting was essential and to bring out any changes in surface topography as increased exposure will generally not reveal any more detail. A lot of the variation in tone and color in light colored skin is from light which has penetrated the outer layers of the skin (dermis and epidermis which includes the pigmented "layer" and is then reflected back, off the vessels and other tissues in subcutis).In black cats the only things to show are the major anatomic features of the body e.g. shape of head and as so nicely pointed out in the above posting, hair.

Always wanted to see Whitby.

HMS Endeavour of Captain James Cook fame was an ex-Whitby collier.

Ant Memorials there?

You make a good point about the B model.
It did not have the bubble canopy and is a less attractive aircraft than the later models.
However all depiction of the Tuskegee Squadron aircraft in movies and even in table top models are of the G model.

Wasn't there a bullet proof plate behind the pilot's head and back in the original?

At least for close-up photography and macrophotography I find the concept that DoF depends on F stop and Magnification (also called RR-Ratio of Reproduction) very helpful. This approach takes care of considering the focal length and distance. Not so useful in determining DoF for routine photography, but even for that, good to understand the theory.

This is a real gem of information and I would like to copy and paste into a separate file I have for UH.

A right click brings up a drop down menu with COPY but when I go to paste and Right click again there is no COPY.

I have laboriously PRINTED SCREEN and SCANNED and FILED the page.

Advice appreciated.

A incredibly beautiful and convincing example of the effect of diffraction on resolution.

Would I be able to use it for teaching ?

If so please email me at mmcgavin@utk.edu

I hope I am not contravening any policy of this excellent forum.

Thank you for posting these wonderful references.

I had been looking for something like this to apply to macrophotography.

When I used Kodachrome Type A, I calculated that its resolution (? 200lines/inch) just matched the lens resolution at F-16 at RR=1:4, and so for most macro shots, this combination was getting all the resolution available.

So for a digital camera, would F-16 be an optimal aperture where maximum DoF and resolution are required? ( at RR=1:6 down to RR=1:2)

Could you tell me if the digital image would equal or exceed the Kodachrome one? The loss of resolution at RR=1:1 from F-16 to F-32 with an anatomic specimen- a pale gray organ (mouse male reproductive system) is very obvious with color transparency film.

Comment?

Very interesting, particularly to those of us who have to take the occasional forensic photograph.
Can you give the rationale and cite one or more references?
Much appreciated.

I noticed now that there was a typo in the original message.
The range was 2-9 zones.

My apologies.

About F-32 and macrophotography. With 35mm camera lenses,closing down beyond F-16, causes significant diffraction and loss of resolution but this is preferable to having some of the subject of focus .

Can somebody about small apertures, diffraction and resolution on DIGITAL cameras.

We used F-16 for subjects with field sizes smaller than 8x12 inches (RR=1:8) because at F-16, the resolution from the lens matched the resolution of Kodachrome Type A which was about 200 lines per i mm ( or was it inches). I do not know how that 200 lines translates into modern terminology