Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- Zicg
- Messages
Search
|
Re: Serial Numbers
Sam McCracken
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc James Small [mailto:msmall@...] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:28 PM To: ZICG@... Subject: Re: [ZICG] Serial Numbers MarcAll done with mirrors! And every last mirror laid own on echt-Schott glass! |
|
Re: test message
Gary Peterson
got it
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Mullen" <gator6@...> To: <ZICG@...> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:38 AM Subject: [ZICG] test message test |
|
Re: test message
William B. Lurie
Pat Mullen wrote:
testPat's message got to me. -- William B. Lurie filtrman@... |
|
Re: Testing the waters...
William B. Lurie
zeisser1@... wrote:
From:Hear, hear! You can say that again, Greg! Bill Lurie
-- William B. Lurie |
|
ZICG through eGroups is now running
Hi there,
If you get this message then you have successfully been signed up to the new ZICG list. Don't reply to any invitation messages etc, you're on the list now. There are 180 listed members. Somewhere along the line we've lost 22 people. I'm not sure why this happened. It may be because they were invalid email addresses and eGroups deleted them automatically. Whatever the case, I can't post to Coollist to alert the possible stragglers because Coollist has been doing a "6 hour" upgrade for the last 18 hours. Guess they'll never change. Anyhow, check out the handy new features with eGroups, including an archive function. I think the address is www.egroups.com/group/ZICG Better luck this time I hope. Finally, please, no more test messages, if you get this message then you're definately a member and you're not missing anything! Bye for now, Michael Moffatt. (ZICG admin) |
|
Posting to group via reply
Reg Ronaldson
I have noticed one difference using egroups rather than coolist.
With coolist if you replied to a group message the email went to the group but if you reply to egroups the email goes to the original sender and not the group. That's the way my emailer is working. -- Reg Ronaldson <reg.ronaldson@...> Norwich UK |
|
Re: Posting to group via reply
Michael
At 20:28 18/05/2000 , Reg wrote:
I have noticed one difference using egroups rather than coolist.Yes, I deliberately set it this way. I could choose to have the reply-to the ZICG list address. However, I've always felt this method is effective in avoiding accidents, such as personal comments going public! Cheers, Michael. |
|
SHARPO
Neil Goldstein
Better late than never.....
When I had my first apprenticeship, they sent me across town to a hardware store to buy newton rings. The store was owned by the photographer's brother in law. He gave me a canvas sack filled with unsellable metal parts to lug back to the studio. Do you want to start selling shares in SHARPO? You can probably sell anything on the net. best wishes from Stockholm, neil |
|
Re: zeiss lenses, mainly contax
William B. Lurie
John Keesing wrote:
Hello all,I'm going to enjoy reading the answer(s) to THIS one! Bill Lurie |
|
Re: zeiss lenses, mainly contax
Marc James Small
At 07:59 PM 5/18/2000 -0400, William B. Lurie wrote:
I'm going to enjoy reading the answer(s) to THIS one!Well, there really aren't any answers. Charlie Barringer is Father Zeiss to us all, and maintains THE Zeiss Lens List. John's list is a comfortable subset of this, and Charlie and John are constantly trading data back and forth. Me? The numbers I get go to Charlie. I maintain a small list of Contaflex I and II numbers, in an effort to ascertain the precise point at which the mavens of Stuttgart switched from male to female accessories. And, of course, I also maintain a list of the "1.5/5.8cm Leica-Sonnars". But Charlie really is Father Zeiss, a patron to us all. Marc msmall@... FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! |
|
Re: Posting to group via reply
Michael
If I reply to a ZICG post, is that response directedIf you hit "reply" on your email programme, the message will go directly to the original sender, NOT the list. To send a message to the list, you must always specify the list in the "To" field. Hope this clears up this point. For more info, please check . To get the full benefit of ZICG through eGroups, register yourself with eGroups and you gain access to ZICG archives. Cheers, Michael. |
|
basic 35mm
Gene Johnson
Hi everyone,
My first message to the new list. I just gave one of my favorite cameras away to my teenage daughter. It was an Agfa memar. Absolutely nothing fancy; no rangefinder, no meter, no flopping mirror, no interchangeable lenses. Just a rock solid small 35mm. I need a replacement. Since this is the Zicg (capital Z), my question is,did Zeiss Ikon make such a camera? Gene Johnson |
|
Re: opton tessar
John A. Lind
Gene,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The first clue is "not one of the finer camera shops." From your description it sounds like you shot negatives and are basing your judgement on prints from them. The only _real_ test is transparency (slides) and to project them with a known excellent projector on a good screen . . . or to examine them backlit at high magnification. With prints you are at the mercy of the enlarger and whatever decisions about focus, exposure and color balancing the printer makes (usually a computer controlled machine), and how well it is serviced and maintained. Whatever experiments you conduct using prints from negative (or transparency) for comparison are confounded by the enlarger and print developing. A print is a photograph of the film and an enlarger is just a huge fancy camera. Examining transparencies looks at the film that was in the camera itself. Trasparency developing (E-6 or K-14) is defined and tightly controlled. If the developer blows the job (very rare), they usually blow it big and you have little doubt about what happened. -- John At 03:16 5/24/00 , Gene Johnson wrote:
Hi everyone, |
|
opton tessar
Gene Johnson
Hi everyone,
I just got a roll of film back from the camera shop. Not one of the finer camera shops as it turns out. Just the same, I am somewhat disappointed with the pictures. Not too bad at first glance, but just not as sharp as they should be. As a check I got out some pictures I took recently with an Anaston lensed Kodak Tourist. The anaston is a coated 3 element Cooke style triplet, I think, but no question, the kodak images were cleaner and sharper. The Opton Tessar in question is on an Ikoflex IIa, and has a small area of seperation on the edge of the taking lens. Now the question. Would a general lack of definition be a symptom of the separation? And about that Kodak, or rather triplets in general, I was really pleasantly surprised at how nice those images looked. Very nice sharpness all the way out to the edges. Very nice color balance. I shoot almost all of my pictures at f16, maybe that is a factor, but I confess to being a bit bugged that this very cheap camera could shoot so well. Would value your opinions as always. Gene Johnson |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss