On 2/19/2016 6:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 19/02/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>>
>>
>> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
>> one of those. My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
>> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>
> Just FYI, *my* first camera said Fisher Price on it...
>
> It also had an "interesting" arrangement where the "flash" was a clear
> plastic box with 6 strips of magnesium ribbon in it. Once you've taken
> six shots, you cannot use the flash again. Ever. And it wasn't exactly a
> "cheap" flash either.


Tee hee. I remember when they were hi tech. :)

Before that flashes were single bulbs you put into a metal reflector.

Dr John, I believe. Remembers the flash power era.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19-2-2016 20:20, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/19/2016 6:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 19/02/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>>>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>>>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
>>> one of those. My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
>>> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>>
>> Just FYI, *my* first camera said Fisher Price on it...
>>
>> It also had an "interesting" arrangement where the "flash" was a clear
>> plastic box with 6 strips of magnesium ribbon in it. Once you've taken
>> six shots, you cannot use the flash again. Ever. And it wasn't exactly a
>> "cheap" flash either.
>
>
> Tee hee. I remember when they were hi tech. :)
>
> Before that flashes were single bulbs you put into a metal reflector.
>
> Dr John, I believe. Remembers the flash power era.
>
>

I do too :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 19/02/2016 06:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Just FYI, *my* first camera said Fisher Price on it...

Actually, something bothers me about this...

The camera was obviously a film camera. You had to manually twist a knob 
to wind the film to the next exposure after every shot. I'm pretty 
damned sure it only had one shutter speed, and yet I don't remember ever 
taking over-exposed or under-exposed pictures with it. (Bearing in mind 
we're talking about a 7 year old child here.)

Similarly, I can't *imagine* that digital auto-focus technology existed 
at that time (or if it did, that they would actually put it in a child's 
toy), and yet I don't recall ever taking a photo that was out of focus.

Why is that?

How is it that 30+ years ago they could make a camera that's always in 
focus and correctly exposed, but today with the latest computer 
technology and 30 years of R&D into lens design, they can't replicate 
this feat?

Post a reply to this message

On 2/20/2016 8:11 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> How is it that 30+ years ago they could make a camera that's always in
> focus and correctly exposed, but today with the latest computer
> technology and 30 years of R&D into lens design, they can't replicate
> this feat?

Congratulations Andrew.
You have reached that age when the past was a “golden age”.
I had a box camera that only had a “sunny” or “cloudy” setting. And 
true, in my mind. They were always in focus.
Strangely, I only kept it as part of my hoard. I only ever used it once.
And I had a bellows type that had “mountains” for distance and “head and 
shoulders” icons.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2/19/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>
>
> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
> one of those.

It was a good first camera. The default lens was adequate.



> My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>

I ruined a camera thinking poly bags would be waterproof. I recognise 
yours or the type. My school camera club had a few.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JKRUK_20090116_FOTOAPARAT_VOIGTLANDER_IMG_7557.jpg

A Voigtländer. Drool! :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2016 10:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/19/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>>
>>
>> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
>> one of those.
>
> It was a good first camera. The default lens was adequate.
>
>
>
>> My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
>> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>>
>
> I ruined a camera thinking poly bags would be waterproof. I recognise
> yours or the type. My school camera club had a few.
>
>
>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JKRUK_20090116_FOTOAPARAT_VOIGTLANDER_IMG_7557.jpg
>
>
> A Voigtländer. Drool! :-)
>

Yes sir! :-)

I forgot my ancient box camera...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2016/02/17 11:46 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 17/02/2016 09:26 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On Sunday morning, there was some actual sunshine!
>>
>> Excitedly I ran outside and started shooting everything... and then the
>> Sun went away. :-(
>


I like DSC0078
And the water scenes


-- 
________________________________________

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 19/02/2016 08:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 18-2-2016 20:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Next up: either a macro lens, or just a more powerful zoom. Or maybe a
>> fast prime. AAARGH!! >_<
>
> You're hooked. No doubt about it.

It's true. :-(

Post a reply to this message

On 21/02/2016 07:04 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I like DSC0078

Ah, one of the ones I accidentally over-exposed. Yeah, most of them were 
just ruined, but a few of them just look really sunny, which is kind of 
appealing.

> And the water scenes

Yeah, even on this grey day, they came out quite well.

Post a reply to this message

>>> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
>>> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
>>> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
>>> real world). But you cannot have both.
>>
>> Take multiple exposures, merge them into a single HDR image, then do
>> suitable tonemapping to see both the brightly lit scenery and bright
>> sparkles together.
>
> To my untrained eyes, it appears that the only way to make the light
> spots look light is to make everything else dark.

I think one of the tricks with HDR type tonemapping is that you can keep 
the local contrast correct all over the image (which makes bright things 
look bright) but the "exposure" can vary across the image. This photo is 
a bit extreme, but you get the idea that the sun still looks bright and 
the "shade" areas don't look black:

http://11718-presscdn-0-16.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hdr-76.jpg

>> Or you can get one of those "sparkly light" filters that make even weak
>> lights sparkle.
>
> Yeah, I wonder if they still make those...

I got one a couple of years back for my camera, and it seems they also 
use them on pretty much any TV show recorded in a studio.

Post a reply to this message