A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon 50mm f4.0 vs. 50mm f2.8



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 5th 04, 06:30 AM
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nikon 50mm f4.0 vs. 50mm f2.8

On 3/4/2004 9:21 PM HypoBob spake thus:

When enlarging, the negative is the subject and the focus limits around it
are in the depth of field. The print acts like the film and is in the
focal plane of the lens, so the terminology down there is the depth of
focus. It sounded a little strange to me too, but I saw that nomenclature
in a few references, one of which is on page 292 of Ralph Lambrecht's book
"Way Beyond Monochrome".


Thanks for pointing that out and setting me straight.

I am in complete agreement with the sentiments in your signature block, but
I fear that The Little Moron has a huge supply of money and dirty tricks
that will carry the day. I hope you live in a swing state where your vote
will count for something. I live in California where our votes don't
count, but TLM's energy buddies love our $2.25 a gallon gasoline.


Nope, California too: hell, I can vote for Ralph (again) for all the
difference it will make here.


--
The Bush administration should restrain itself from its imperial arrogance
that has so alienated countries around the world. Their contempt for the
United Nations in the dash to war with Iraq; their support of the coup in
Venezuela in April 2002, and the continuing hostility toward President
Chavez; the pressure on nations of the world to exempt the US from the
International Criminal Court, now joined by their contemptuous attitude
toward President Aristide must be halted. It is time for the people of the
USA to make this point clear even if the administration continues to walk
around with wax in its collective ears, with eyes closed, and ranting about
its version of the world as defined by Bush.

- Excerpt from TransAfrica statement on the situation in Haiti, 2/17/04
(http://www.transafricaforum.org/)

  #32  
Old March 6th 04, 05:27 AM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nikon 50mm f4.0 vs. 50mm f2.8

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 05:21:22 GMT, HypoBob
wrote:


I am in complete agreement with the sentiments in your signature block, but I fear that The
Little Moron has a huge supply of money and dirty tricks that will carry the day.


Letsee, he spends $180,000,000,000 on a war with a country
that supposedly has one of the largest oil reserves available and our
gas prices are projected to hit a national average of $3.00/gallon
over the next 3 months. I'm sure that's just a coincidence !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com

  #33  
Old March 6th 04, 07:49 PM
Craig Schroeder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aligning enlargers

I once had an Omega 66 (way back when they coal-fired) and when
aligning it up, I noticed that its alignment would change slightly
with the head height. I haven't noticed that behavior with my current
equipment, but it was enough to make me now check at various head
elevations when bothering to check alignment. Have you ever noticed
this behavior? I now have my column end stabilized to the wall as
well and this likely is helping to prevent that, too.

On 28 Feb 2004 14:29:07 -0800, (Dan Quinn) wrote:

"Shawn H"

The shape of the projected image must be the same as the negative
being projected AND the image must be in focus at all points.
The only equipment needed is a ruler and a square and an easel will
do for the square.
The proof of a good alignment is the projected image. Am I making
myself clear? Dan


  #34  
Old March 7th 04, 01:25 AM
Dan Quinn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aligning enlargers

Craig Schroeder wrote

I once had an Omega 66 (way back when they coal-fired) and when
aligning it up, I noticed that its alignment would change slightly
with the head height. I haven't noticed that behavior with my current
equipment, but it was enough to make me now check at various head
elevations when bothering to check alignment. Have you ever noticed
this behavior? I now have my column end stabilized to the wall as
well and this likely is helping to prevent that, too.


Slightly out of alignment with changes in head height. I've
never checked for that. Your column is stabilized top and bottom.
One thing and another, I'd say a three of four position check would
be good insurance.
The increased torque on the baseboard from raising the head will
increase distortion in the baseboard. That distortion may be most
or all of the problem. Overall I think enlarger column strengths
are up to the load.
I like Beseler's four point column support. The torque though is
still there. Of course with today's thin sheet metal, condenser-less
enlarging heads, the load is little. So for some time we've been
seeing shallow broad support at the base. I don't like them.
Meopta though has not changed. They are still turning out CAST
aluminum heads; nearly all metal construction. Dan


Dan Quinn wrote:

The shape of the projected image must be the same as the negative
being projected AND the image must be in focus at all points.
The only equipment needed is a ruler and a square and an easel will
do for the square.
The proof of a good alignment is the projected image. Am I making
myself clear? Dan

  #36  
Old March 7th 04, 04:01 AM
Mr. Bluto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nikon 50mm f4.0 vs. 50mm f2.8

Paleeeeze! Let's leave the the politics out of this newsgroup!

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:27:40 -0600, John
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 05:21:22 GMT, HypoBob
wrote:


I am in complete agreement with the sentiments in your signature block, but I fear that The
Little Moron has a huge supply of money and dirty tricks that will carry the day.


Letsee, he spends $180,000,000,000 on a war with a country
that supposedly has one of the largest oil reserves available and our
gas prices are projected to hit a national average of $3.00/gallon
over the next 3 months. I'm sure that's just a coincidence !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.