So nobody uses Amstrad stuff then?

This is a fascinating read about D&P History starting with Gratispool who were the first to give a free film with every order even though it was a paper film. I remember my uncle using it in 35mm. They later started SupaSnaps who were sold to 3M and then Dixons. You don't realize what goes on behind the scenes.

Also the history of large UK portrait photographers Jerome Studios who also used paper film so it could be easily retouched.

I remember the one in Liverpool in the 60's and someone telling me that when she went to collect some passport photos they handed her a big box with about 500 photos in it and said "Take Your Pick!!"

I must have been thinking of another tank. I once thought of buying it but, it took about 1500ml which would have been expensive.

This site has some really old developing tanks

Ilford used to sell a gizmo to wind the leader out of the cassette again without using a darkroom. Basically a wide feeler gauge that you pushed into the cassette. OK for occasional use.

Doesn't the Rondinax use a lot of developer? I only ever used stainless steel tanks for consistency and better temperature control plus consistant agitation.

For about the last 6 months that I used film I did try a motorised continuous agitation system seemed OK.

Excellent shots I also like the reflection in the sunglasses. The watch and sunglasses really work well together.

The second shot shows clearly how watches used to be made. They didn't use paper drawings for all those brass parts it was actually scribed out on a master piece of copper and another piece then copied off that. The Russians might have used paper drawings in recent times.

For anyone who hasn't seen it and is passing by the Prescot Watch Museum is well worth a vist link
The brass parts were just piled into boxes awaiting assembly.

Prescot used to be the centre of uk watchmaking in the 1800's this was the toolroom.

and this was the factory

See above for one that doesn't

Direct link to photo

See above for an APS-C (Canon 350D) shot where it isn't noticeable

It's what we call an example of how a very sharp photograph can be taken at f/22 without being ruined by defraction. Have you never heard of the f/64 group?

I've used the 55-300mm at f/32 without any problems.

Do you always ask the questions after the answers have already been given

I've still got a Thorens TD150 with Linn Basic arm and a Shure N97EJ cartridge Rotel RA-01 amp and old Audiomaster MSL1 speakers from the 70's which at the time were rated by Hi-Fi Choice as better than the BBC monitor thingies........ also quite a bit of Sony DAT stuff but all that died when MP3's came out...... The most pleasing sound I've ever heard is from the Creative Nomad Jukebox 3 with a proper audio out (not a headphone socket) and don't laugh JBL Creature II speakers Also bought a Creative Zen but the sound isn't as good as the Jukebox 3

My computer has Fostex PMG-4 Monitors for speakers and an M-Audio Audiophile card.

Can't stand the hiss on vinyl nowdays although I still have a lot of it. Probably due to the hours I used to spend removing it from vinyl I copied to the computer. I've got a SH Dunlop Systemdek upstairs which I bought to replace the Thorens, but it was tripe by comparison.

After seeing Tobio's nice close up shots of the grebes this ones as close as I could get with a 300mm lens and converter.

I've posted it just to show how the lens and converter work together. The shot itself is quite drab, the young grebe was soaking wet because it was practicing diving and I had about 3 secs between dives.

No PP apart from some slight sharpening. 280ISO f/11 at 1/250th supported with a small shoulder/chest tripod (Minolta) K20D SR On

I normally prefer the 55-300mm but on this occasion I knew I wouldn't be using the zoom.

Full frame




100% Crop




Young coot swimming in same area

That's OK or a 1 litre milk container.

The exact wording on the label for the Homebase bowls is:

"SET OF 2 WHITE LIDDED BOWLS"

Superb diffusers.