[ravnostic]

I might. Probably. Maybe. I want better telephoto though.

/must ponder.

Don’t know if you have a Canon SLR lying around, but I saw a Celestron 500mm telephoto compatable w/canon on ebay; maybe it’s still available. It should be a quality lens.

[ravnostic]

and ravnostic: People have won Farktography contests with everything from shitty camera phones to shitty Holgas to top of the line Canon and Nikon full frame cameras. It’s not the camera so much as the person behind it 😉

So, I need mirrors? 😛

[ravnostic]

Hey! I like my brownies!

I typically respool 120 onto the 620 reels to use the brownies.

Have you ever won a farktography contest with a shot taken from within a brownie? Say the word, I’ll be a converted man. I’ll even pay full price of feev-teen dolla to tap at dat brownie’s shutter.

And I’m not familiar with the slang of the second part, but it just sounds dirty (so I like the way you think. Except it’s really just the way I think projected upon the way you think. Hrm…projected…a photographic term, yet provacative….I like it even better still!)

P.S. I work nights, so this is my 10pm, which means I have had a 30% chance of having a few beers after work, and today’s forecast is 100%. So take everything I say with the grain of a salty seaman. I mean no harm. Unless you beg for it and provide the leather.

[ravnostic]

I went back today; camera still there. It’s a Brownie Hawkeye (see http://www.brownie-camera.com/27.shtml which says it’s worth $10 15)) It’s uses ‘620’ film, it says. Seems to me from reading the instructions that unlike 35mm, there’s no way to wind the film back into the housing, though. How to you keep it from being exposed in removing it and getting it to the developer? I liked that you could take time exposure photos (there’s an extra grey plastic botton opposite the shutter one to allow this; instruction manual showed ‘sample’ 5 minute exposure night shot of what looked to be NYC.) Given the photos, I’d say 1960ish, but there’s no date anywhere on it. The flash thingie came with it, too. something square was missing, though. If it’s there next Friday when they open up again with more stuff, I’ll see if I can bargain them down to $5 or $8, then I’ll figure out what I have to do to play photographer with it.

There were two other cameras, one was an early canon digital 35mm (38-80mm lens); still had a roll of 400 asa inside. The other was I think a panasonic.

Side note; today I bought a lamp they put out; no shade, but pat’d 1910 from Greist Lamps, model L.F.B. off to see if it’s worth the $12 I paid (it’s a night looking lamp; cord is not original, though. Articulating stem, though.

Maybe next week I’ll find a camera a little better than a brownie.

[ravnostic]

The instructions indicated 2.5×2.5 inch negatives, 12 to a roll. I have no idea how that translates to 120 or whatnot. Seems that that size negative would blow up pretty nicely, though. Apparently this lady was such a hoarder that they are doing the estate sale in parts, and more stuff will be out tomorrow, so I’ll go back. If the camera is there, I’ll take a closer look. Or maybe there will be another that looks more promising. Thanks for you’re help! (And nice pics, orionid–that’s pretty cool!)

[ravnostic]

“Find something you’d be willing to do for free, then find a way to get people to pay you for it.”

Found out about the drain babies, didn’t they? There’s always porn…

Gay porn pays better for guys than straight porn. Just sayin’.

😉

But seriously, I’d send some of your (other, less provocative pictures) to some liberal college professor types who think they know something about this stuff. Send a profile picture of yourself, too, along with some of those scrolling-letters-across-your-chest ones. They’re all gay, anyway, and as such, they’ll be entwixed to help you out (in hopes of returns, of course, of a different ‘exposure’ type), and maybe that will get you to some other gay guy at the New Yorker, who’ll insist to his editor that “you’re the next BIG thang”, and in no time at all, you’ll be the toast of SoHo.

But seriously (I wonder how long I can play this out…) take the cash, go to school, take photography, film some hot co-ed chicks who’s bodies don’t need airbrushing, take pictures, blackmail their parents, and live happily ever after on the proceeds, snagging one cute co-ed hottie for yourself, of course.

But seriously (played). I got nothing. You already know how to shoot well, and often (did I just write that out loud, again?). If you went to school for it, you would surely do well and that would pan out somewhere, though it might take a little time. Or ask caradoc. He’s freelancing, and published as well.

[ravnostic]

I tried using the ‘macro’ lens that came with my camera taped up to a reversed ‘telescope’ lens of the same; I got much closer (up to 6 inched from 16″ with just the ‘macro’), but could not focus on my subjects easily; got focused around them, but in 80 or so pictures, never on them.

This is the kind of case where a “macro rail,” or “focus rack,” like this one comes in very handy.

I don’t have one. I’m planning on getting one.

Holy crap, batman!! If I had that to spend, I’d have a decent macro lens!! In truth, I’m more interested in fine-focusing afar than up close. But good to know they make such a product.

[ravnostic]

Well, now I’m impressed! Thanks for the info. It’s ironic, too. Today I went to an estate sale; actually looking for an old camera. I found a Kodak Brownie, in it’s original box, with instructions, flash, everything, for $15. When I looked through the manual I saw it had no focus or any adjustments; it read it was good for 5ft to infinity, took exposures on 2.5″x2.5″ film, for prints 3.5×3.5 inch, etc. Though the manual didn’t say, it looked very 1950ish by the illustrations, etc. I didn’t buy it. I figured I’d come here and ask first. Hope I didn’t miss out on a deal; but from Els’s post, I gather not.

I did get some neat things, though. The best find was a 1801 bible, complete with someone’s family history to 1755. And an end table for my recliner. And two solid-wood chests (they look like a kid’s project in woodworking from long ago; treasure-chest style solid doweled construction, but none-to-fancy). And a semi-vintage 1960’s large jewelry box that will nicely hold all my telescopic lenses, filters, etc.. All for $43 bucks. If the Brownie is worth it, please let me know; it’s a huge estate sale in a little house that was crammed wall to wall and floor to roof with boxes (I love hoarders; you never know what you’ll find!!), new stuff tomorrow morning at 7am, I’ll stop by tomorrow and see if it (or anything else) is there and maybe grab it.

[ravnostic]

your dragon fly is better than mine and mine was shot using a 26mm extension tube.

and while i liked my fly having dinner it wasn’t as sharp as it should have been. hand holding with manual focus and using extension tubes can be really iffy.

and my jumping spider is a classic example of shallow DOF.

the big plus to the not really macro macro lenses is better DOF and more usable shots.

I tried using the ‘macro’ lens that came with my camera taped up to a reversed ‘telescope’ lens of the same; I got much closer (up to 6 inched from 16″ with just the ‘macro’), but could not focus on my subjects easily; got focused around them, but in 80 or so pictures, never on them.

[ravnostic]

Congrads on your find! Now please tell me more about your precious so I can understand and envy appropriately. There were a couple old cameras in my family that were lost in a fire 5 or so years ago, one had the dual lens thing like this one.

[ravnostic]

Oh sure, I do this sort of thing all the time!

*snort*.

But really, if it’s anything like optics in telescope lenses (and really optics across the spectrum are the same in essence), then the #2 idea might lead to chromatic abberation, or focal diffusing (center focused, less so the further from center you go), or other aberations, which in themselves might actually be kinda cool, if unpredictable. The # three seems most viable to me, but stuff like this is well beyond stuff I’ve contemplated.

But I’ll be following the thread to learn about it, and would be interested in what you decide to do and how it turns out.

Thought: Buy the same lens on ebay for $25ish, and use that for your experiments, keeping sentiments regarding your dad’s lens safe and sound.

[ravnostic]

1-1/4″ on the adapter? If so, we’re in business. I have located my battery power supply, but so long as we have a car with a cigarette lighter, we can do that as well (the batteries are nice as you don’t have to deal with cord wrap issues. Either will last a whole night, though having the computer GPS system, it doesn’t take that long to see most of what’s up there; only a little longer to photograph it.)

It would need to be either before the monsoon starts, or after; I don’t risk my one and only super nice toy to the desert wind-blown elements. Though I think from a safe urban environment, with the LPR filter, some up-close shots of some super-distant lightning could be very kewl.

As is, telescope setup is f/10, but the reducer can bring it to f/6.3. I’ll test things out next Tues. night (conjunction of Jupiter/Uranus Wed. Morning) and see how everything works. I’ll let you know, maybe we can do something. Any other Az. farktographers? Seems I remember one who posted some excellent lightning shots, but as that’s your forte, that might have been you.

[ravnostic]

We’ll have to get together sometime for some shooting. I could probably learn a lot from you. You, from me, probably not so much. Perhaps I could entice you with my telescope one night; I’ve got the light pollution reducer filter now; can’t wait to see what I can do with it (supposed to darken the background noise, improve contrast of nebulae and such). Besides looking ‘up’, I’d be interested in seeing what a cityscape looks like at night with a filter designed to block 98% of those same city lights. Need a higher viewpoint than my parent’s AJ back yard, however. If you happen to have a EF lens model Canon camera, then we could even use your body as it would be compatible to my telescope adapter.

All this reminds me I need to dig up my car lighter power adapter for remote scoping…

[ravnostic]

I generally don’t limit my voting either, but with as many good pics as there are this week, I’da been all day voting for them all.

[ravnostic]

Done, Elsinore!

Reality check: people ARE noticing my first picture has a spider in it, yes? The dragonfly is about 2″ big, for scale. There’s three shots with spidey in view; one he’s looking away, the other he’s walking away. I thought he stole the shot, making him my first pic. I’ll post b-sides when I get home (I have one of the caterpillar that for the world looks like an uncircumsized penis; I should have gone with that one! I’ll attempt to post from facebook page, don’t know that it will work.)

[Author]

Posts