I wonder whether reflected v. transmitted light may be an issue too :

If they are conventional photographic prints (i.e., light transmitted onto paper and developed the old fashioned way), maybe the printing process has an impact as well? It is difficult to say really without trying various things and making a formal comparison.

I agree with Ken that we may spend too much time pixel peeping. I shot slides for years and projected them onto a big screen and never stood there wondering about the corner sharpness of my M28/2.8... If an image was soft it was more likely I was trying to handhold something in very low light (not usual with 64ASA slide film) or I had just mucked up the focusing.

K.

Rent something from SRS? K.

Hi Steve,

only just noticed this post. Having ended up with one AF35-70 as an ornament I'd rather not have a second. Shame it isn't nearer, I could turn up with my ME-F and some batteries and try it out!

Many thanks anyway, Kris.

I got bored this afternoon and it started raining again so I decided to photograph my M series lenses.

[IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8167/7610545258_2874135d64_o.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/7610546298_e534585b6c_o.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7140/7610545944_f5242cf521_o.jpg[/IMG]

The lenses are 20/4, 28/3.5, 40/2.8, 50/1.7, 50/2, 85/2, 100/2.8 and 200/4.

Cheers, Kris.

I'm still dreaming of owning that lens but my bank account is in no better state now than when Richard sold it to you. If I hadn't bought all that other old manual glass I could probably afford it... Are you selling the matched teleconvertors at the same time?

I couldn't imagine selling it if I ever managed to get one.

Cheers, Kris.

I've used Alan a few times for lens repairs although on older manual glass. He did a nice job of getting rid of the fungus on my S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5 lens. His charges are reasonable and the turn-around pretty quick.

K.

The fact that 55% of us never use continuous shooting is also rather interesting. Perhaps I spent too much of my life using Kodachrome where every frame cost me 35p or thereabouts. Makes the thought of firing off seven frames a second seem like too much of an extravagance.

Variable frame rates up to the maximum ought to be simply a matter of programming, I would have thought?

K.

I have some fun images taken with that set up when I used slide film. Since the demise of Kodachrome it hasn't seen any use which is a shame.

The stereo lens attachment would work with digital but you would need a stereo print viewer (like the ones used for looking at aerial images) to see the effect properly.

Best wishes, Kris.

I've only recently got my S-M-C Tak 50/1.4 but have only used it on film so far where I have no complaints at all. I must try it out on my K20D although I suspect it isn't a happy camera (see other thread...).

K.

Ansel Adams split photography into "craft" and "art". "Craft" was having the skill to use the equipment and know what the impacts were of any decision. Art was the vision to know what would make a good image.

With digital cameras the craft of exposure is simply getting the histogram of luminance values not to touch either end of the graph. If you manage that, you can screw around with the image in PP as much as you please and have your blown highlights or blacked out shadows.

For the original question: set the camera to show you the histogram when you take the image. If it is overlapping the right hand edge, dial in some negative compensation, if it is overlapping the left edge dial in some positive. Now that is both simples, and good 'craft'. The histogram is the biggest benefit of digital photography from the viewpoint of craft.

If you get your exposure right 'in camera' there is nothing wrong with this. Shooting RAW allows you to mess-up a bit more!

Best wishes, Kris.