Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 - Romford wheel nuts! A particularly rabid bunch of rivet counters from Essex? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted January 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2015 A particularly rabid bunch of rivet counters from Essex? Oi Dr G-F It weren't any of us Essex boys who commented on the Romford wheel nuts. I believe Neil is a Geordie, who has grown a third leg therefore been exiled to the Isle of Mann. Side note: since the days of the London County Council, Romford has been in the London Borough Of Havering despite the GPO and its successors leaving Romford with an Essex postsal address. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 If someone used to looking at RTR hates the appearance of Romform axle ends, does that make him a wheel nut...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium New Haven Neil Posted January 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yup, that's me! I find it odd when folk complain about wheels not looking right, bosses, rim shapes etc, but there staring them in the fizog, is an Essex Wheel Nut. It's just me, probably!! Of course I am uncovered as a hippocrite, had a look in a dark box in the loft and found an old loco from my OO days - an industrial saddletank - with exposed wheel nuts! D'oh! In my defence it was built 30 years ago or so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Like everything in hobbies, it is down to personal choice. When etched wheel nut covers came in I remember almost every loco that came in for painting had then thereafter. They made my life easier as they were a doddle to line out on LNER green and pre-group liveries. Personally I could live without them, but then again I live most comfortably with Bachmann couplings! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted January 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2015 I feel a little cheap raising this, as my personal modelling standards are a long, long way short of what we see on here and on many other threads, and is mostly weathered (USA outline) RTR.....but there is one thing about many of Tony's (and others) locos that really jumps out at me every time I see a photo - Romford wheel nuts! They clash and glare to me more than 16.5 gauge, rivets, cab side thicknesses or many other things that bother other folk! I hate the damn things. But that's the only way we can tell that Tony's superb locos are models and not the real thing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted January 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yup, that's me! I find it odd when folk complain about wheels not looking right, bosses, rim shapes etc, but there staring them in the fizog, is an Essex Wheel Nut. It's just me, probably!! Of course I am uncovered as a hippocrite, had a look in a dark box in the loft and found an old loco from my OO days - an industrial saddletank - with exposed wheel nuts! D'oh! In my defence it was built 30 years ago or so. Like everything in hobbies, it is down to personal choice. When etched wheel nut covers came in I remember almost every loco that came in for painting had then thereafter. They made my life easier as they were a doddle to line out on LNER green and pre-group liveries. Personally I could live without them, but then again I live most comfortably with Bachmann couplings! Hi Neil and Larry We all have "what is acceptable" or "don't notice" things about models. Until the issue of Romford wheel nuts was aired I had not really noticed or cared about them. Things like the Bachmann coupling, well any tension lock coupling I can live with as they help make my/our models work. My pet hate at the moment is the lights on models of 1960s diesels. They all look like the girls from 93 Searchlight Regiment have got the Lister generator kicking out double its normal power. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium New Haven Neil Posted January 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2015 Very true, Clive. Watch that Lister though....had enough of them at sea! Tension lock couplings have improved since my OO days, but are still a little glaring after 20 years of Kadees. My impending return to OO circles will likely still use tension lacks due to middle aged eyesight not liking 3 links, plus I like high boards so it would be an issue reaching the back of the layout. I do like Tony's coach couplings though, my fixed rakes will probably copy that I think. Not sure if I have the funds to convert all my OO NPCS and freight stock to Kadees. Plus I'm a locoholic, so there's a lot of them too! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Famed US "prototype" weathering and modeller, Jim Six, proudly showed his first RTR steam "upgrade", with the enormous RTR wheel fixing nuts left not only as is, but in their full gleaming nickel plating. What goes on as moving parts below the loco or car body is rarely tackled by US outline model "experts". Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGC Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm inclined to agree; not your being cheap, I mean. Markits sell etched axle end covers, which improve the appearance a lot. But, the design means they have to be fixed by the crankpins. Since I put wheels on and take them off quite frequently during a loco build, this is a disadvantage. Not only that, if the end covers are firmly attached (and if they're not, the crankpins unscrew), getting the wheels off, say, years later to replace a gearbox is a real headache. The best solution is to fill the slots in the Romford nut with a couple of dabs of Plasticene, then paint them matt black. The Romford screwdriver removes it very easily if necessary. Tony (and all others who use Romford wheels) - an alternative to to etched covers is to us a whole punch on a thin sheet of paper and a dab of glue to stick one of the cuttings over the axle end, then paint. It's easy to get the wheel off if needs be, yet the axle end is hidden. Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL 'O THE WYND Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Hi Neil and Larry We all have "what is acceptable" or "don't notice" things about models. Until the issue of Romford wheel nuts was aired I had not really noticed or cared about them. Things like the Bachmann coupling, well any tension lock coupling I can live with as they help make my/our models work. My pet hate at the moment is the lights on models of 1960s diesels. They all look like the girls from 93 Searchlight Regiment have got the Lister generator kicking out double its normal power. Guilty £200.00 Nikon Coolpix 520 bridge camera. On automatic and hand held. Peco code 100 with Gaugemaster foam (can be filled and painted as will be demonstrated on my thread) Totally wrong flat-sided Pullmans (well, the brakes would do) Depth of field = 1mm The loco was a Christmas present from my dear wife. Discs still to be fitted. Sorry Tony - everyone - a pic like that shouldn't even be on this thread. We all have to start somewhere Joking aside, I consider myself an average modeller with much to learn, and the camera I'm very fond of is fine for forum posts. I do enjoy this thread and learn a huge amount every day, for which I'm grateful. Hal EDIT: For the record, just why I chose fantasy over prototype, will be covered - in depth - in my thread. I think it's viable and may be of use to other beginners. Edited January 10, 2015 by HAL 'O THE WYND 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Hi Tony Sorry that is me. I am more interested in the modelling than the photography. I will admit sometimes there are photos on here that I know are not the result of my poor eyesight. All the talk of how to and what to do to get a good photo has just gone wizzzz over my head. The recent discussion on LNER bogies under Thompson BGs was right up my street. But with my dodgy eyes I don't think I could tell if a model had bogies of 32 mm wheelbase or 34mm as long as they look the right type. I'm more inclined to the opposite view, there being very few photographs of models taken on a Mamiya Press! This was a rollfilm rangefinder camera that was produced in several configurations over many years. The earliest models (camera that is) had a tilting back and a ground-glass attachment for focussing when the back was extended (and had a 90mm standard lens). Aside from offering closer focussing, the tilting back allowed the depth of focus to be extended when subjects were being photographed in a "three-quarter front" aspect. However, I expect that the photos of the Gauge 1 models were taken on one of the later model cameras that had a fixed back (and 100mm standard lens). Back in the day, studio photographers used a special 500W bulb called a No. 2 Photoflood as an alternative to flash, shooting on colour film that was tungsten-balanced (3200 Kelvin). (The No. 1 Photoflood was a 275W bulb with the same colour temperature). Such modelling lights made it easier to envisage the results (before the advent of "instant" digital feedback, studio cameras had polaroid film backs to achieve similar ends) but were cumbersome, drew a heavy current and ran very, very hot. As Andy's superb pictures prove, they can still yield excellent results, but the bulbs need to be some way away from the subject for fear of meling it! This is no geat disadvantage, as for any light source the inverse square law means that the further away it is from a foregound subject, the less severe the light fall off behind the subject (aside from additionally lighting the background), which can lead to more realistic lighting effects. I suspect however that the 500W lamps Andy used were not colour balanced photo lights and therefore made it harder to correct the colours to "natural". (The problem would be worse with fluorescent lamps, where the colour temperature fluctuates and chunks of the spectrum are missing). Edited January 12, 2015 by EddieB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2015 HAL 'O THE WYND, on 09 Jan 2015 - 19:18, said: Guilty Maybe, but not of very much. I think the little white lights on the front of the loco look reasonable, but train drivers, like car drivers, prefer by and large to drive without too much light in the cab, enabling them to make the most of external vision in the dark. Thus the cheery yellow glow in the cab looks a bit too bright. But don't think the rest of us are going to become Tony Wright overnight, because he wouldn't be running this thread if it were that easy. Be self-critical, but don't be despondent at this stage! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted January 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm more inclined to the opposite view, there being very few photographs of models taken on a Mamiya Press! This was a rollfilm rangefinder camera that was produced in several configurations over many years. The earliest models (camera that is) had a tilting back and a ground-glass attachment for focussing when the back was extended (and had a 90mm standard lens). Aside from offering closer focussing, the tilting back allowed the depth of focus to be extended when subjects were being photographed in a "three-quarter front" aspect. However, I expect that the photos of the Gauge 1 models were taken on one of the later model cameras that had a fixed back (and 100mm standard lens). Back in the day, studio photographers used a special 500W bulb called a No. 2 Photoflood as an alternative to flash, shooting on colour film that was tungsten-balanced (3200 Kelvin). (The No. 1 Photoflood was a 275W bulb with the same colour temperature). Such modelling lights made it easier to envisage the results (before the advent of "instant" digital feedback, studio cameras had polaroid film backs to achieve similar ends) but were cumbersome, drew a heavy current and ran very, very hot. As Andy's superb pictures prove, they can still yield excellent results, but the bulbs need to be some way away from the subject for fear of meling it! This is no geat disadvantage, as for any light source the inverse square law means that the further away it is from a foregound subject, the less severe the light fall off behind the subject (aside from additionally lighting the background), which can lead to more realistic lighting effects. I suspect however that the 500W lamps Andy used were not colour balanced photo lights and therefore made it harder to correct the colours to "natural". (The problem would be worse with fluorescent lamps, where the colour temperature fluctuates and chunks of the spectrum are missing). Hi Eddie As I said in my earlier post, all this camera talk just goes wizzzzzzz over my head. If someone has taken the time to build a model for their model railway then on this forum surely the subject is more important than the photo. Useless photo but how many scratchbuilt Baby Deltics have you come across? Another nine to go with it? This is a model railway forum, whilst understanding many people enjoy photography (and model railway photography) the subject matter comes first not the skills of the photographer. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glo41f Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Hi everyone, Can someone please elucidate why model diesel locos run now with lights in the driving cab? Surely to work like this would totally destroy the drivers night vision. Do you drive your car in the night with the interior lights on? On my diesels I disengage the lighting circuit totally as I do not recall green diesels running about with the bright headlights/tailights that today's models have. Regards Martin Long Stationmaster Happisburgh BR(E) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeOxon Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) ....................... This is a model railway forum, whilst understanding many people enjoy photography (and model railway photography) the subject matter comes first not the skills of the photographer. Yes but ........... it's also a visual forum where we can only see the models through the photos! If the photos are poor then we viewers cannot appreciate superb modelling, which is a great pity! I think it's worth learning a little about taking decent photos before posting on here for just that reason. Your own photos seem to me to be perfectly adequate for illustrating your points, but I've seen some that really let down the modelling. ....................................... In a way, I'm not sure what Wright Writes is all about, anyway. I just post my musings in an entirely unstructured way and folk respond accordingly. But, it should, at heart, be about modelling - personal modelling. Tony has clarified that the thread is about modelling - it's nice when it can be seen in a good light. Since there is a thread specifically about photography then, perhaps, more detailed discussion should take place there. Edited January 12, 2015 by MikeOxon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted January 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Yes but ........... it's also a visual forum where we can only see the models through the photos! If the photos are poor then we viewers cannot appreciate superb modelling, which is a great pity! I think it's worth learning a little about taking decent photos before posting on here for just that reason. Your own photos seem to me to be perfectly adequate for illustrating your points, but I've seen some that really let down the modelling. Tony has clarified that the thread is about modelling - it's nice when it can be seen in a good light. Since there is a thread specifically about photography then, perhaps, more detailed discussion should take place there. Hi Mike With most modern digital cameras and good household lighting most of us should be able to take a reasonable photo of a model train. I have progressed to using a tripod and since then my pictures have improved since my wobbly hand has been taken out of the equation. Edit, I did say in an earlier post that my poor eyesight cannot be blamed for some of the images I try to view on here. Edited January 12, 2015 by Clive Mortimore 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atso Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 ...As I said in my earlier post, all this camera talk just goes wizzzzzzz over my head... ...If someone has taken the time to build a model for their model railway then on this forum surely the subject is more important than the photo... Useless photo but how many scratchbuilt Baby Deltics have you come across?... ...This is a model railway forum, whilst understanding many people enjoy photography (and model railway photography) the subject matter comes first not the skills of the photographer... Clive, I'm in the same boat as you regarding all this camera talk and couldn't agree more that the modelled subject is more important that trying to create a 100% life like picture - let the quality of the model do the talking (sorry, I know this isn't a view shared by everyone). While, completely outside of my own knowledge and interests, those scratchbuilt Baby Deltics really look these business! I really do admire anyone who can take raw materials and turn them into a high quality model - I tried for years but was never satisfied with my own efforts, hence my conversion to CAD and 3D printing eight or nine years ago. I agree with your last comment but I do very much appreciate the quality of the photographs that some people here can achieve. A model railway is ultimately a bit of fantasy (regardless if it is based on an actual location or not), personally I'd like to see models and layouts in their natural environments, warts and all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted January 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2015 I agree that it is the modelling that I enjoy on this thread. But I am now going to break the rule I think should be in place about photography being discussed on a photography thread. The reason is that it is specifically some of Tony's photography, that which he does of new models for the manufacturers. I am afraid that when I see a photograph of a model against a plain white background with the kind of lighting and ultra-sharp focus Tony uses, I just don't trust it. It looks to me too much as though it has been touched up and therefore may not be an accurate representation of the model. I would trust less "spectacular' photos much more. Am I alone in this? Not that I ever buy any RTR anyway! Jonathan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I'm more inclined to the opposite view, there being very few photographs of models taken on a Mamiya Press! This was a rollfilm rangefinder camera that was produced in several configurations over many years. The earliest models (camera that is) had a tilting back and a ground-glass attachment for focussing when the back was extended (and had a 90mm standard lens). Aside from offering closer focussing, the tilting back allowed the depth of focus to be extended when subjects were being photographed in a "three-quarter front" aspect. However, I expect that the photos of the Gauge 1 models were taken on one of the later model cameras that had a fixed back (and 100mm standard lens). Back in the day, studio photographers used a special 500W bulb called a No. 2 Photoflood as an alternative to flash, shooting on colour film that was tungsten-balanced (3200 Kelvin). (The No. 1 Photoflood was a 275W bulb with the same colour temperature). Such modelling lights made it easier to envisage the results (before the advent of "instant" digital feedback, studio cameras had polaroid film backs to achieve similar ends) but were cumbersome, drew a heavy current and ran very, very hot. As Andy's superb pictures prove, they can still yield excellent results, but the bulbs need to be some way away from the subject for fear of meling it! This is no geat disadvantage, as for any light source the inverse square law means that the further away it is from a foregound subject, the less severe the light fall off behind the subject (aside from additionally lighting the background), which can lead to more realistic lighting effects. I suspect however that the 500W lamps Andy used were not colour balanced photo lights and therefore made it harder to correct the colours to "natural". (The problem would be worse with fluorescent lamps, where the colour temperature fluctuates and chunks of the spectrum are missing). Thanks Eddie, The Gauge 1 models were taken with a Mamiya Press (Super 23) with a tilting back (up, down, sideways, the lot, via four adjusters) - that was the way I achieved complete depth of field. I probably used a 100mm lens, but it could have been the 90mm (or even the wide-angle 65mm). All these had a minimum aperture of at least F32. Some of the other lenses stopped down to F45, F64 or even smaller. As a studio camera, I found it brilliant, though as a 'press' camera I doubt if it caught on. I used it for almost every model railway picture I took from 1988 to about 2004, when digital cameras were becoming more powerful. That and the fact that processing became too difficult (my local COLAB disappeared and with it my transparency-processing facility) and I gave away all my darkroom equipment. Edited January 12, 2015 by Tony Wright Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL 'O THE WYND Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Maybe, but not of very much. I think the little white lights on the front of the loco look reasonable, but train drivers, like car drivers, prefer by and large to drive without too much light in the cab, enabling them to make the most of external vision in the dark. Thus the cheery yellow glow in the cab looks a bit too bright. But don't think the rest of us are going to become Tony Wright overnight, because he wouldn't be running this thread if it were that easy. Be self-critical, but don't be despondent at this stage! Thank you for your kind response. It was stopped, waiting for a replacement driver. It's funny how different people react to things. Someone on my thread came to the correct conclusion at once. I should have captioned it but I was too nervous about making the post in the first place. I'm very, very grateful for the support I did receive. I know the photograph was crap, but the composition was good. I'm obviously no photographer but have been a successful artist with work in a national museum. You can learn photography but you need to be blessed with a good eye, which many photographers are not. Personally, I prefer compositions with contrast and shadow. I loath flat images no matter how crystal clear, unless they are made to communicate detail, but then you don't need scenery. Hal. Edited January 12, 2015 by HAL 'O THE WYND 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL 'O THE WYND Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Hi everyone, Can someone please elucidate why model diesel locos run now with lights in the driving cab? Surely to work like this would totally destroy the drivers night vision. Do you drive your car in the night with the interior lights on? On my diesels I disengage the lighting circuit totally as I do not recall green diesels running about with the bright headlights/tailights that today's models have. Regards Martin Long Stationmaster Happisburgh BR(E) Please read my response to old dudders. A still photograph does not assume movement. Hal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 Apologies for my last post, but I hadn't read all the other recent correspondence about photography. I have to say, though I agree 'my' thread should be more concerned with modelling, some of the comments about the quality of pictures leave me completely baffled. Might I please ask, do some correspondents want me to take out-of-focus, badly-lit, badly-cropped, badly-composed, blurred, over-exposed, under-exposed, dim and hopeless pictures? Having done my research, would I build a model that is wildly inaccurate, and runs like a lame dog? Would Editors have paid me to take pictures the like of which I've just described (and the passing of that wonderful gentleman, John Brewer, is such a sad loss) or paid me to build/feature review models that were so grotty that the only way they could be disguised was because the photography was even more grotty? As for 'doctoring' review model pictures (or something like that) and their being somehow 'suspicious', I puzzle what to make of comments like that. I place a model on my studio stand, brush off any fluff/dust specks, light it, compose my picture, stop the iris right down and expose the frame. For maximum clarity I might put a clipping path around the outside edge of the model and fill in the background (nothing else) with pure white. Designers like it like that. I DO NOT straighten edges, lining, numbers, buffers or what you will. The only thing I will 'clone-out' is the odd dust particle that the brush failed to remove (otherwise they look like small pebbles). What you see is the model as it is (so much so that if you look closely at the centre tender wheels on the main picture of the Hornby K1 in the current BRM, they're off the road!). And, if the model is more important than the photograph, how can you see what the model's really like if the photograph is 'mud'? Perhaps I should have taken less razor-sharp pictures of my K1 build in the current issue - that way, some of my blobby soldering wouldn't be highlighted in such clarity. I rather give in! Over the weekend, my wife and I had the immense privilege of attending the CMRA Exhibition at St Albans. A wonderful event, brilliantly-organised, extremely friendly and definitely not to be missed. One of my duties was to act as part of a panel of judges to choose the winner of the Denis Moore Cup, presented to the layout which had the most outstanding scenic work. This year, the vote was unanimous and Bob Jones took it (with his team) for his staggering Fence Houses, in 2mm FS. It featured last year in BRM. The picture shows Bob (right) receiving the award from Malcolm Oliver of the De Havilland MRS (of which Denis was a member, and President). Might I ask the critics, is this picture all right? Should I have not used flash? If so, the picture would have been a bit grim because the ambient light was poor. I'd have had to crank the ISO up to about 3200 (apologies for the technicalities), resulting in a picture made up of gravel or a bit dark! As it was, the ISO was 200, the exposure 60th of a second and the aperture F16, all acceptably-lit by my Metz CT60, offset flash gun (no red-eye that way). I joked about this with the splendid Adrian Colenutt afterwards as he waved his compact about. Flash? Why? Please, and I hope Adrian will forgive me for this, do look at the show guide and see the picture of last year's winners to see why. Might I please thank all those wonderful folk I spoke to over the weekend at St Albans? It really is good to be back, and the support I received was truly outstanding, and humbling. Should these pictures be badly-lit, blurred and difficult to discern what's in them? This is the base-work for more scenery at the M&GNR end. Nowhere near in the same class as the late Denis Moore's creations, but it's part of Ian Wilson's work (of which I'm assisting) in forming the base topography in as realistic a way as possible, even though severe foreshortening is necessary. Styrofoam is ideal as a base and, once the PVA has set, it'll be further formed into an embankment and sloping field. It's part of a series of pictures illustrating scenic progress to be featured later this year in BRM. Anyway, perhaps any more comments on photography should cease, or go onto a more appropriate thread. I promise to mention the subject no more. In fact, I'll have a good think about whether I'll mention much else either. Today, I've had a splendid time in the company of two very good friends and we ran trains - lots of them. The layout performed faultlessly in the two and more hours of continuous running, the only fault being me (as always!). Isn't this a better way, along with actually making things, of spending precious moments than succumbing to that 'thief of time', the computer, either by processing grotty pictures (sorry, mentioned them again) for others to puzzle over or typing out responses? I've got an 0-8-4T to finish, six more Trice/Hornby Gresleys to complete (one for Dart Castings' display stand, five for me) and some other projects to prepare for Doncaster next month (where I'll be manning a demonstration stand). Time for posting? Precious little, I'm afraid! 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Thanks Eddie, The Gauge 1 models were taken with a Mamiya Press (Super 23) with a tilting back (up, down, sideways, the lot, via four adjusters) - that was the way I achieved complete depth of field. I probably used a 100mm lens, but it could have been the 90mm (or even the wide-angle 65mm). All these had a minimum aperture of at least F32. Some of the other lenses stopped down to F45, F64 or even smaller. As a studio camera, I found it brilliant, though as a 'press' camera I doubt if it caught on. I used it for almost every model railway picture I took from 1988 to about 2004, when digital cameras were becoming more powerful. That and the fact that processing became too difficult (my local COLAB disappeared and with it my transparency-processing facility) and I gave away all my darkroom equipment. Thanks, Tony! That sounds like the one I bought secondhand in 1976 - a great clumsy beast that could give good results, but limited by having eight exposures per roll when used full-frame (and not compatible with 220 film). In the end it got too awkward and heavy and I opted for a Mamiya 645 as a counterbalance to 35mm. It was only when I acquired a 6x9 enlarger that I could really appreciate the images it took. You must have also bought secondhand if you started using yours in 1988, as it was the early ones that had the tilting back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL 'O THE WYND Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I am incandescent. This was never about photography or art, it was about good manners. There is a point to good manners. It is to stop fighting. Shaking hands was part of a process for keeping the hands off the other's throat. I had posted before, hence, the whole point of my post was to elicit a response from Mr Wright. My post was made at 6.20 last friday. I waited. To purposely ignore was obviously a calculated decision. I only have nineteen followers on my thread, but I'm deeply honoured by that, particularly in such a short time. It is time consuming, but I greet every new poster irregardless of their place in the hierarchical pecking order of a model train forum. I know this would be much more difficult if one achieved one-hundred-and-twenty-six. I hope and pray, however, that I never achieve a pedestal so high that I cannot register those I, by then, perceive as below me. A while ago a gentleman was very ill-mannered, talking of those who didn't agree with him, "staying in their sandpits". I think Mr Wright was annoyed by this. And I agreed. Now I do not. As far as I'm concerned, you occupy two opposing pedestals of the same height. - And if this gets me kicked of RM web, I'll be happy to go. I certainly will NOT be posting on this page again, irregardless! Otherwise, goodnight, gentlemen, and ladies. HAL EDIT: If anything follows that refers to this I will not be reading it, as I'll have deleted my following, naturally. Edited January 12, 2015 by HAL 'O THE WYND Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now