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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Aligning enlargers
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|