Photography Forum

[RJ Emery]

CompuServe many years ago had an excellent Photography Forum, to my knowledge long since defunct. I was wondering where today I might find a similar forum.

My interest is in both old (prior to 1980) film cameras (35mm and larger) and the latest digital cameras. When I speak of cameras, I mean still photo, as in Leica, Roloflex, Nikon, etc., not motion picture.

[ktinkel]

CompuServe many years ago had an excellent Photography Forum, to my knowledge long since defunct. The CIS Photography Forum (http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-photography) is still running. Click the link …

[RJ Emery]

Kathleen,

The continued existence of the CS Photograph Forum was a surprise, but the forum appears now to be an all digital site. That will answer about half of my questions.

Is film now totally obsolete? Maybe those cameras have all gone the way of the manual typewriter, I don't know.

In any event, I am still interested in knowing about alternate photography forums.

[terrie]

>>rj: but the forum appears now to be an all digital site

No...I think you'll find at least one section (if not more) for film and people open to questions about film...

Terrie

[curveto]

CompuServe many years ago had an excellent Photography Forum, to my knowledge long since defunct. I was wondering where today I might find a similar forum.

My interest is in both old (prior to 1980) film cameras (35mm and larger) and the latest digital cameras. When I speak of cameras, I mean still photo, as in Leica, Roloflex, Nikon, etc., not motion picture.
Have you tried...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

or

rec.photo*

http://groups.google.com/... (or a newsreader)

Just thinking out loud,
JR

PS - Where's JC when you need him???

[ElyseC]

PS - Where's JC when you need him???Right here and was talking about his SLRs back in Feb. in this thread. (http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/showthread.php?postid=3440#poststop)

[LoisWakeman]

As Kathleen says, Mike Wilmer's forum is still going strong on CIS - I was sysop there till recently. But the old HMI interface is long gone, and I have to say that the web view is pretty awful for ordinary users who can only see 3 messages at a time.

The forums at PhotoSIG (http://www.photosig.com/)and Outdoor Eyes (http://www.outdooreyes.com/phpBB2/index.php) both have some keen film enthusiasts, as well as the ubiquitous digital fans. (The first is busier and rougher, the second, quiet but very polite. Take your pick!)

[ElyseC]

But the old HMI interface is long gone, and I have to say that the web view is pretty awful for ordinary users who can only see 3 messages at a time.That it is. There I'm now just an ordinary user, my sysop account of 12+ years having been shut off by CIS last month. I have just one forum I visit there and when the 3-message limit gets to me I click the option to print whatever thread I'm viewing and read all messages in one go from that screen.

[terrie]

>>elysec: when the 3-message limit

For some reason, I still have my 20 message view...shhhhh...don't tell anybody...'-}}

Terrie

[ElyseC]

For some reason, I still have my 20 message view...shhhhh...don't tell anybody...'-}}Yeah, yeah, yeah...rub it in, why don't ya? ;-)

[terrie]

LOL!!! I *think* it has to do with that backdoor that was open for a short time until some bozo let the powersthatbe know about it...at any rate, I'd set my number of viewed posts to 20 and it seems to have stuck--even though in the options list only a max of 3 is listed...

Terrie

[ElyseC]

LOL!!! I *think* it has to do with that backdoor that was open for a short time until some bozo let the powersthatbe know about it...at any rate, I'd set my number of viewed posts to 20 and it seems to have stuck--even though in the options list only a max of 3 is listed...Yes, I remember that back door deal. As soon as I heard about it, I ran over and tried to set it up for my personal screen name, but by the time I got there it was too late. <sigh>

[terrie]

Bummer...

Terrie

[annc]

LOL!!! I *think* it has to do with that backdoor that was open for a short time until some bozo let the powersthatbe know about it...at any rate, I'd set my number of viewed posts to 20 and it seems to have stuck--even though in the options list only a max of 3 is listed...Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that you were a staff member using a personal CIS account, and they have no way of identifying you and turning off the staff perks.

My sponsored account is still working, but I fully expect it to die soon; for the past couple of years they've been renewable at six-monthly intervals, and it's almost six months since DTP closed, so I expect to find myself locked out any day now.

[Andrew B.]

As far as I can see, I'm no longer staff. The beta forum disappeared form My Stuff. But I can see more than three messages, if I log in. Not logged in, I only see three.

I'm also a paying member. I don't know if that makes a difference.

[terrie]

>>annc: Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that you were a staff member using a personal CIS account, and they have no way of identifying you and turning off the staff perks.

Could be...

Terrie

[Daudio]

Lois,

I have to say that the web view is pretty awful for ordinary users who can only see 3 messages at a time.

Absolutely ! And enraging at first !

About a year ago, Martjolein and I were very active in the Practice Forum arguing for an increase to the 3 message limit (among other things). After much explaining, cajoling, begging, and stopping just short of showing how really pissed off I was, nothing changed...
No explanations, no problem tracking, no NOTHING. So I copped an attitude on Compuserve, but continued to visit the INETPUB and Mac forums till they went away. but my thoughts on all this are now a bit on the conspititorial side (where I don't like to be !). Basicly AOL is killing Compuserve slowly (without a song). It could have been saved and grown, but...

</ RANT>

Dave

Finially got around to making a new avatar for here...

[JohnC]

Sheesh! Can't take a sabbatical without being missed! I was out taking pictures.

As noted, the Photo Forum still exists. But I lost my ability to see more than three messages at a time a couple of months ago and I've pretty much dropped out of there.

Current favorite spot is photocamel.com (but like other photo sites it is mostly about digital). Still, the basics of exposure, composition, etc. are the same.

Used to like dpreview, but all it is now is arguments about why the Canon 5D doesn't have a built-in flash or why the flash synch speed is 1/200 sec.

Fredmiranda.com is also good, but I'd like to see more granularity in the forums (they have ALL Canon cameras covered in one forum).

Adobe Forums also have a photography forum (http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bb41392) that has a mix of film and digital users (and the battles between them).

John


Just thinking out loud,
JR

PS - Where's JC when you need him???

[RJ Emery]

John,

Thanks for the site referrals. My sabbatical away from photography has been more than Rip Van Winkle slept.

1) I've got old time Leicas, Nikons and Rolleis for which I could use technical advice on upgrading and minor repair.

2) I wish to get into digital photography, but I don't know what hardware would serve my needs!

---

Most of my trips are multiweek trips into wilderness areas -- no electricity and no computers for a month. I use to take up to 40 rolls of 36 exposure 35 mm film with me. If I were to purchase a digital camera, how do I go about keeping a 1,000 shots for downloading and processing when I return to civilization?

I use to bracket my exposures to be certain I captured the right lighting. Would digital cameras permit me to preview a picture just taken so I could reshoot and avoid bracketing?

Would any of the current digital cameras take my old lenses?

[gary]

1,000 shots - easy: you just take along enough digital "film" (CF, SD, whatever). My Canon came with a (laughable) 8MB CF; I now have a 512MB CF (~800 frames, depending) and 256MB CF (~400 frames).

Preview is what digital is about - if you don't like the result you can delete it on the spot. Or you can take all the bracketing exposures you wish.

For long trips, the KEY item would be extra rechargeable batteries.

Some of the more expensive digital cams take changeable lenses; but there is limited variation in lens mounts. I have been looking at a Nikon digital since I have an 35mm black FM and several lenses (800mm Nikkor, 180mm flat Vivatar, ...). Of course the old lenses don't support AF and other features that come with most for-digital lenses.

It's been a long time since I bought film in bulk to assure consistent exposure response...

[JohnC]

I did one of those sabbaticals, too. I took about 15 years off from photography, but am really back into it full-steam-ahead. I probably have more/better equipment now than when I had a studio back in the early 80s.

Your requirements are not too tough. I currently use a Canon 1DmkII. Its battery is good for 600 to 1000 shots (depends on a few factors). I carry an extra battery when on the road.

As for memory, I usually have 4 or 5 1-gig CF cards, a 2-gig CF card, and a couple of 1-gig SD cards (this camera takes both types of cards). So even shooting RAW files, I usually have enough memory for a trip.

Digital cameras do let you preview all your images. But that uses up batteries. And a few times I've thought about discarding an image from the camera only to get it open on a computer and realize that it was a good shot.

The Nikon dSLRs will probably take some of your lenses, but won't offer auto focus.

John

[RJ Emery]

John,

Know of anyone who could retool digital cameras to accept old lenses?

If digital cameras provide an auto-focus feature for which mounting old lenses would negate, how good is that auto-focus feature anyway? Back in the 70's, there were auto-focus cameras, but nothing ever came close to my manual focus Leica rangefinder M3, M4 and M5. Most of my shots are at infinity anyway. (My favorite camera was and still is my trusty M3.)

Also, in the old days, above 10,000 feet, I had to use a UV filter over the lens so the film wouldn't show a color washout. The UV filter also protected the lens when at sea-level (or below). Would such a UV filter still be required for higher altitude work?

[JohnC]

Hi RJ.

I'm not sure I follow. The lens is as important as the body when it comes to autofocus. Autofocus lenses have a computer chip and a motor in them. There have been some adapters to attach old lenses to modern cameras. But you lose autofocus and often have to use stop down metering (no auto aperture controls).

Some of today's cameras do all control from the body (shutter speed and aperture). No mechanical link between the camera and lens, just electrical contacts.

And you have to worry about maintaining the correct distance between the nodal point of the lens and the film/sensor plane. If an adapter pushes the lens out just a tiny bit you will lose infinity focus (same as adding an extension tube). If the new camera bodies are deeper than the old the lens would have to be recessed somehow and then they would intefere with the mirror mechanism.

Bottom line for me is that I don't think it is worth it in 98% of the situations to try to put old lenses on a new camera. But there is a group of enthusiasts who have found ways to use some Leitz and Zeiss lenses on modern bodies (manual focus, etc.) and swear by them.

The filter discussion continues to this day. Many people use a UV filter for lens protection. I never have. Yes, at high altitudes it works well for removing the blue haze. But it also adds at least two air-to-glass surfaces that greatly magnifies the chance of flare. I rather take off the filter for general photography and use a lens hoods instead. But it is a personal decision. I've only lived on the coasts, though (NY/NJ and Seattle), and rarely get above 5400 feet with my cameras. Probably still a good idea at 10,000 feet.

I went to see Ed Viesturs talk about his 8,000 meter climbs last night. I should have asked him (he made some comments about how other climbers were better photographers than he was). His lectures are probably as close as I'll get to those altitudes without an airplane.

John

[JohnC]

Just noticed a "little" discussion about UV filters over on dpreview.com...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=14909071

John

[gary]

The UV filter is necessary with film because the film is sensitive to UV rays; they will uniformly increase exposure without contributing image.

It's basically a question of the light sensitivity curve of the CCDs in a digital camera. I don't know that I've seen that information published.

[RJ Emery]

John,

On the autofocus matter, I may be the one confused. I don't recall AF lenses as being special, but after expending a significant amount of cerebral energy, I have surmised the lenses must have been. Regardless, I wasn't impressed with their capabilities then.

As for my old lenses, I will swear by my Leica lenses. Using the same film and same Kodak processing lab, I took many identical test shots with the M3 RF and the Nikon F SLR, usually mountain landscapes -- some on the glacier below, some on the way up and some at the top. The M3 pics all look stunning, but compared side-by-side, the Nikon F pics bore a yellow cast, a characteristic of Japanese-made lenses (at least then). When Leitz changed manufacturing to Japan for some of their products, their lenses lost their uniqueness.

I would hate to lose the functionality of the Leica lenses by not being able to use them on a new digital camera.

Having been in Rip Van Winkle's quarters, I understand that the Leitz company may be no more. If they still exist as the hallmark of quality, might they offer a digital camera that could accept their older lenses with adaptation?

I have never climbed an 8,000 meter peak. I don't know who Ed Viesturs is; I suppose he is one of today's great climbers. I have been high, though, climbing the barely active 17,800 foot Popocatépetl volcano outside Mexico City. At the time, it still had snow on it, but today because of pollution and global warming, it is one big cinder cone. It burped a few years ago, causing great concern that it may be awakening from its 500 year slumber, a la Mount St. Helens.

Even though I have an M4 and a M5, I have two M3s, still my favorites because of their compactness and light weight.

[Franca]

If I'm not mistaken, Ed Viesturs led the group that climbed Mt. Everest with the IMAX film crew in 1996, just behind the ill-fated group climb that was the subject of Jon Krakauer's gripping book, Into Thin Air. I highly recommend both Krakauer's book and the IMAX film, Everest. I believe Viesturs has climbed Everest multiple times, but I'm sure John can enlighten us further.

[JohnC]

I think Ed has climbed Everest 6 or 8 times. He has climbed all 14 (or is it 13) 8,000+ meter mountains without supplemental oxygen. Yes, he was on the Imax crew and lost two of his best friends on that trip.

Back to lenses, I'm either not so picky any more, or quality is way up from when I got started with this stuff in the early 70s.

There are digital rangefinder cameras, but I have not paid any attention to them and don't konw if they'll take classic Leica lenses. Probably worth looking into. I think that Epson RD-1 would be a good one to research. http://www.epson.co.uk/products/digital_cameras/RD1.htm

John

[JohnC]

Here is a review of the Epson that talks about using Leica M lenses...

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml

John

[RJ Emery]

John,

Are you sure you aren't a camera salesman in disguise?! With accepting Leica lenses, I am strongly interested in the Epson RD1.

I haven't much followed 8K meter peak climbers, as they, both the climbers and the mountains, are way out of my league. At my best, I might have been capable of an attempt on the North Face of the Eiger, but only in the company of a much stronger climber. I was seriously thinking of doing that climb at one time.

One lesson I learned early on -- and multiple times at that -- is when conditions don't warrant going further, one stops and retreats. I have many stories to tell about the peaks I did not bag, and if I did bag them, maybe I wouldn't be around to tell the story. I have also lost several friends who choose to "go for it." That and age are perhaps the reasons I don't do adventursome climbing any more. I have one first ascent, one second ascent (the most beautiful climb I ever made) and several new routes to my credit in the Canadian Rockies and the Interior Ranges of B.C. I will leave that to my legacy.

[RJ Emery]

John,

$3,000 for the Epson RD1???!!! Remove one of those zeros and I might be interested, otherwise I'm going back to van Winkle's corner of the Catskills!

[JohnC]

No, not a salesman at all. Want me to point out the things I don't like (price, cropped sensor, price, price)?

Viesturs has good stories about turning back. His first attempts at two of the mountains (I don't remember which ones) had him within 100-300 yards of the summit when they decided it wasn't worth going on. For that fateful trip in the book, there were three groups. Ed's decided to wait a few days because of the weather while the others decided to go on.

I'm not a climber at all. My top is the visitor center at Mt Ranier that I can drive to. But my girlfriend has done some climbing in the past and took me to the lecture (which I enjoyed).

John

[lurkalot]

CompuServe many years ago had an excellent Photography Forum, to my knowledge long since defunct. I was wondering where today I might find a similar forum.

My interest is in both old (prior to 1980) film cameras (35mm and larger) and the latest digital cameras. When I speak of cameras, I mean still photo, as in Leica, Roloflex, Nikon, etc., not motion picture.

If there was enough demand, I wouldn't mind adding some dedicated film forums to my site. At the moment it's mainly digital related, but it doesn't have to be. ;)

[Mike]

CompuServe many years ago had an excellent Photography Forum, to my knowledge long since defunct. I was wondering where today I might find a similar forum.


Snarkish (http://snarkish.com) has a photography section - like the rest of the world, it's mostly digital mostly but I notice there's a thread started today about Polaroid film.

I think you'll find some of the old CIS crowd over there.

[Hugh Wyn Griffith]

If there was enough demand, I wouldn't mind adding some dedicated film forums to my site. At the moment it's mainly digital related, but it doesn't have to be. ;)

The Photography Forum on Compuserve (http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-photography) is still alive and kicking. There are still a few people who use film! In fact there's a thread running at the moment about Kodachrome 25.

There's a lot of in depth knowledge of digital photography and image processing there and you no longer have to be a paid up Compuserve member for access -- just sign up when you log on the first time.

[RJ Emery]

The Photography Forum on Compuserve (http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-photography) is still alive and kicking.
Noted with thanks.

[cdanddvdpublisher]

There is also a good one for outdoor photos called outdooreyes (http://www.outdooreyes.com). Some of the photographers on there are amazing and they are always willing to give tips and hints.

[LoisWakeman]

I will second that. I used to be a moderator of a couple of forum sub-sections until I ran out of fingers to put into pies!

[DaVinchi]

Have you tried also forums at http://www.testfreaks.com/ ? There is a wealth of un-biased information regarding digital photography and components on this forums, and anyone wishing to research a particular item, or looking to find whats hot and whats not should look here for sound advice from a massive community of electronics enthusiasts.