[Curious]

yup, they’re just not visible to you until you upgrade. All my links to “invisible” pictures still work, and Ive never had a pro account.

one of the reasons i stick to my paid hosting is concern over broken links. nice to know that flickr doesn’t break your links.

there are few things sadder (excuse the hyperbole) than looking at an old contest full of broken links. this happens a lot with old photoshop threads.

[Curious]

I don’t get many opportunities to get nsfw type pictures around this little town unless I find a gory dead critter and take pictures of it like the dead sperm whale that washed up on the beach last year.

having been to tonapah both whale and beach took me aback. then i remembered you moved there a while back and it all made more sense.

[Curious]

Here is a thread on photo.net where Littman defends his camera
http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/006RNX

the man needs a better space bar — STAT. his responses are hard to read. and IMO full of shit. i’d like to hold one of his and the crown graphic just to see how much easier it is to tote and use. my guess based on his photos of it, his description of the rangefinder and my experience with the crown graphic is that it may be a bit lighter but no easier to use.

if you are shooting a series of shots with the same exposure values cocking the shutter, framing and focusing the picture really don’t take that much time. add to that for sheet film holder changing but if you are using a bulk film back the add to tear out the paper/advance to the next unexposed film is minor. no you won’t get 5fps and changing light can mess you up but still the crown graphic was used extensively for years by photo journalists.

my guess is this guy thinks he has a racket and is pissed others don’t agree. well they do agree it’s a racket. it’s the exotic car vs chevy debate. both will get you to the kwiki mart but the exotic has more style. and if you are willing to pay for that go ahead. but he tries to defend his gadget on it’s technical merits and they aren’t there. at least not to the extent he claims.

[Curious]

now that your link works and i can see the camera i’m terribly confused. the 4×5 crown graphic i had would do everything this will. and i don’t remember parallelism really being a big problem. plus my 4×5 has a light source that allowed for focusing in very low light.

re polaroid backs when i worked for galstron boat co in the early 70s we used a 4×5 crown graphic for our catalog shots. we had a polaroid back for it and like many at the time used that to verify if our studio setups were what we wanted. in fact we even saved and printed occasionally from the negatives. they are really thin and easily damaged but you can use them.

also while i’m ranting whats the deal with all the talk you see about hand holding 4x5s? those cameras were hand held to great effect by a wide array of both professional and amateur photographers. hell we used to shot from a moving boat.

glad the link works even if i’m now WTF about most of it. 🙂

[Curious]

the fark scratchpad will throw away unfetchable urls but tells you so when it does.

here — no idea.

[Curious]

ennuipoet i see no text in your post. but i quoted it, got a field of text with url/links, made a comment and posted that.

nada. hence the testing text post. we will see what this one does.

[Curious]

testing text

[Curious]

So, I’m doing a “I’ve nothing else to do, let’s see what’s on ebay camera” search today and come across a listing for a Littman 4×5 camera

http://cgi.ebay.com/4X5-LITTMAN-Camera-4×5-camera-w-127m-Rodenstock-Lens-/120676358934?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item1c18df1b16 and I was seriously shocked to see the price tag of $2,300 for an old Polaroid body. So I researched and found out that not only was that a good price, they routinely go for 5 grand plus.

(http://www.littman45single.com/ )

The camera is a Polaroid pathfinder, original bellows and lens, with a 4×5 back on it. No obviously I am not going to start parting my way through old cameras to build one because anything like that i did would burn down, fall over and sink into the swamp. I am wondering, realistically, how much is actual value and how much is “Ooooh, this camera cost $5,000 dollars and cool people them” (to wit:http://www.bwphotopro.com/Site/Brad_Pitts_New_Camera.html)?

So I ask, imagine that you had the money, would you really spend it on something you could realistically make in your workshop (orionid)?

how odd. i see no text in your post but when i quote it –presto, text.

[Curious]

thanks, wish i was going to be in the area. behind the scenes stuff is always fun.

[Curious]

looks great. so burgers first then happy hour of vice versa?

actually i only know about the baltimore happy hour because a friend of mine lived there for years. and her sons still do. the bacon love at denny’s triggered a memory.

[Curious]

i like the second one — so going by my vote totals recently you should probably use the first one. 🙂

[Curious]

interesting adaptation and shots.

[Curious]

damn. thanks for the update. like many of my favorite farkers who seem to drift away i hope them the best and am saddened to learn they have passed.

[Curious]

Also, to be clear in my post above, I meant someone posting to the Fark thread without reading the description, not the thread here.

never seen that happen.

🙂

[Curious]

lokisbong please don’t be offended by this question but are you sure it isn’t dust on the sensor?

not that i’m in sleeping‘s knowledge group but dust on the external lens elements is one thing. dust inside is pretty rare.

[Author]

Posts