WWI Digest 2224 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Photographs by Otisgood@aol.com 2) Re: Photographs by "Matthew Bittner" 3) Re: Photographs by "Paul Schwartzkopf" 4) Photography (was Dumb Question) by "Nigel Rayner" 5) Re: Photographs by "Michael Kendix" 6) Re: Photographs by "Matthew Bittner" 7) Re: Photographs by Otisgood@aol.com 8) Re: Photographs by Lee Mensinger 9) Re: What's (OT) on the work bench? by Steve Cox 10) Re: USAAS mounts by Steve Cox 11) Re: was Photographs - now Get a Scanner by Albatrosdv@aol.com 12) Re: KC pics by Sixmilfigs@cs.com 13) RE: What's (OT) on the work bench? by Shane Weier 14) RE: Photographs by Shane Weier 15) Re: Help!! by bucky@ptdprolog.net 16) Re: Photographs by "Leonard Endy" 17) Re: Hawker's DH2 by "Bob Pearson" 18) Re: Photography (was Dumb Question) by Ernest Thomas 19) Re: Hawker's DH2 by smperry@mindspring.com 20) RE: Photographs by Shane Weier 21) RE: Photography (was Dumb Question) by Shane Weier 22) Hawker's DH-2 by smperry@mindspring.com 23) Re: Photography (was Dumb Question) by Albatrosdv@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:48:00 EST From: Otisgood@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: <18.1eae166.26125860@aol.com> Perhaps I would be better off spending my $ on a scanner instead of digital camera. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:56:35 -0600 From: "Matthew Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: <200003281857.MAA25058@mail2.neonramp.com> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:54:12 -0500 (EST), Otisgood@aol.com wrote: > Perhaps I would be better off spending my $ on a scanner instead of digital camera. I think Tom is the only one against the digital camera's. If you want to see good quality photo's of model taken digitally, go to my club's site (ipms fort crook) and look through any of the images there. They're all digitally taken, and look better than most other images I have seen on any other web site - Modeling Madness and Hyperscale included. Also keep in mind it depends a lot on your graphics card as well. If you have a crappy graphics card, no image on the web - digitally taken or not - will look good. Matt Bittner http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/misc/ww1fr.htm http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:00:31 -0600 From: "Paul Schwartzkopf" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: You may want to rethink that statement. I thought the same until I bought my digital camera. Now I wouldn't trade it for anything. You know immediately if the picture is going to turn out, you don't pay a developer (who can screw up your pictures--been there, done that), and you have a higher resolution (easier editing) than what a typical scanner can get for you. I can get mega-pixel resolution with the camera, whereas my scanner can only get 1200 dpi. I have no problems with close-ups. As a matter of fact, it actually gets too close at times and shows too many errors with the models! The only drawback is that the camera eats batteries--more so if you use the LCD display all the time. I have found it best to use the AC adapter when I shoot models at home to eliminate this problem. BTW, outside shots look good too. Paul >>> 03/28/2000 12:54:45 PM >>> Perhaps I would be better off spending my $ on a scanner instead of digital camera. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:09:44 +0100 From: "Nigel Rayner" To: Subject: Photography (was Dumb Question) Message-ID: <001601bf98e9$30d17ae0$8f7c883e@nigelr> There have been various threads about photographing models (down Ernest) recently. As I mentioned previously, I just bought a digital camera, and I can't recommend this form of photography highly enough. Let me say first that I know nothing about photography, so the idea of using a "real" camera for detail model shots is a no go for me. Then there's the cost of developing etc etc. However, I wanted to try to get some photos of my work, so thought I 'd go digital, mainly after being inspired by some of the digital efforts of listees (thanks Scho et al). So I bought a Kodak DC215 and was amazed. Within minutes of trying the thing I was able to get very reasonable quality shots using just a couple of desk lamps and a window for lighting. What's even better is you can preview the shot through the LCD screen on the back, which is great for close up work (avoids that parallax effect if that's the right word). Also, you can download the results into the pc immediately to see if they're any good - if not, just dump 'em and keep trying til you get it right. And of course, no loss of quality thorugh scanning. No delay and expense of developing. My camera, which is a low to mid-price one, is OK for close ups. It can get in to about 8", and gets pretty good close ups of 1/72 kits, the main problem being handshaking (must get a tripod). So if you're not a serious photographer, I'd recommend you try digital (I'm finding I'm using it much more for general family photos as well). Cheers, Nigel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:17:36 PST From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: <20000328191736.87128.qmail@hotmail.com> >From: "Matthew Bittner" >On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:54:12 -0500 (EST), Otisgood@aol.com wrote: > > > Perhaps I would be better off spending my $ on a scanner instead of >digital camera. > >I think Tom is the only one against the digital camera's. If you >want to >see good quality photo's of model taken digitally, go to my >club's site >(ipms fort crook) and look through any of the images >there. They're all >digitally taken, and look better than most other >images I have seen on any >other web site - Modeling Madness and >Hyperscale included. Matt: My pictures (ot WW2 Japanese) on the IPMS Fort Crook site are taken with a Minolta 7000i, not a digital. I'm not saying wether I could do better with a digital; I don't know. Michael ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:23:00 -0600 From: "Matthew Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: <200003281923.NAA25745@mail2.neonramp.com> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:21:48 -0500 (EST), Michael Kendix wrote: > My pictures (ot WW2 Japanese) on the IPMS Fort Crook site are taken with a > Minolta 7000i, not a digital. I'm not saying wether I could do better with > a digital; I don't know. Whoops. That's right. Okay, 3/4ths of the images on my club's site are digital. ;-) Matt Bittner http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/misc/ww1fr.htm http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:30:29 EST From: Otisgood@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: <3f.2a15780.26126255@aol.com> OK, now I'm really confused! I guess I'll just get it all and that way I can't go wrong (until a new technology comes out!. It's just money. That close up stuff concerns me, though. You all will be able to see all my defects. Have to work harder on those seams. Thanks again for all the advice. otis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:20:36 -0600 From: Lee Mensinger To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu, Otisgood@aol.com, lemen@wireweb.net Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: <38E11414.F266A5DE@wireweb.net> Sir, I noticed your question about taking the pictures and the digitization of the film. I use Kodak, authorized, services in Dallas, TX as my primary processor, but, Wolf Camera and Ritz do much the same thing. I do believe it is available from places like Seattle Film Works as well so it is not a local thing. I just prefer the Kodak route. They will return it on a 3.5 inch floppy, or a CD, and I believe the CD can be rather expensive but I have never used that. One thing is very certain. It will cost a lot more to have it done at a later time. The least expensive method is having it done at the time of processing. With a scanner it is possible for you to save the photos in various formats and with a CD recorder make your own CDs' at a much lower rate. Lee M. Otisgood@aol.com wrote: > Tom, Thanks for the info. Once you shoot the film, do you then have it "digitized"? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:53:47 +0100 From: Steve Cox To: Subject: Re: What's (OT) on the work bench? Message-ID: I don't have a workbench but I do have a tray and a seat in the lounge. On the tray: Port Victoria PV7 Grain Kitten : 1/72 Scaleplanes vacform : 5 days : 30% complete. Wings filled flat on undersurface for high-lift section. Port Victoria PV8 Eastchurch Kitten 1/72nd Scaleplanes vacform : 8 days : 30% complete. Added the fairing under the fuselage that shows in photographs but is not moulded By the chair Albatros DrI 1/72 Airfix/Revel conversion : 12 months : 70% complete, my first use of lozenge decal sheet- Pegasus 5 colour. Decals are on, ready for assembly, I just can't face all those struts :-) AD Sparrow 1/72 Scaleplanes vacform : 4 months : 50% complete. Ready to start assembling wings onto fuselage Bleriot XI 1/72 Frog : 2 years : 80% complete. Started as an exercise in rigging the fuselage with nylon line, otherwise pretty much OOB. In the cupboard Bristol M1C 1/72 Pegasus : 1 year : 10% complete. Nieuport Bébé 1/72 Revell Nie.17 conversion : 18months : 20% complete. maybe I'll buy the kit instead. Rumpler DI 1/72 Merlin : 1 year : 40% complete. Fuselage ready for painting Sopwith Pup 1/72 Airfix : 2 years : 70% Sopwith Pup 1/72 Airfix Triplane/Bristol F2b conversion : more years than the Airfix Pup has been available : 70% complete. I think I will re-hash this as the Alcock Scout. Vickers Vimy 1/72 Novo : 5 years : 20% complete. Main parts painted and started assembly, then found some more interesting subjects Steve =========================================== steve@oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk http://www.oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk If I didn't spend so much time on line ‹‹ I'd get some models finished ================ > From: "Charles and Linda Duckworth" > Reply-To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu > Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:25:39 -0500 (EST) > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: What's (OT) on the work bench? > > Wondering with all the new resin, plastic coming out this past century could > we get a recaps of > what 'on-topic' kit you're working on > Maker and scale > how long have you been working on it and % complete > comments as to the kit or decals > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:53:47 +0100 From: Steve Cox To: Subject: Re: USAAS mounts Message-ID: The US Navy flew Hanriot HD2s at Dunkerque. There was a nice article in Scale Aviation Modeller International for Dec 99 building both float and wheeled versions. Steve =========================================== steve@oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk http://www.oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk If I didn't spend so much time on line ‹‹ I'd get some models finished ================ > From: KarrArt@aol.com > Reply-To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu > Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:41:04 -0500 (EST) > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: USAAS mounts > > In a message dated 3/27/00 9:35:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, > tbittners@sprintmail.com writes: > > << >> So what were the combat aircraft of the USAAS in France? >> >> I have 1/72 kits of the Nie.28, Spad XIII, Breget 14, DH4, Se5a, Salmson, >> Tommy Morse, and Jenny. Of course the last two weren't combat planes. >> >> Did I miss any? > > SPADs 11, 12 and 16. Nieuport 17bis+ for training at Isoudun. Maybe > some Strutters? > > > Matt Bittner >> > > Two squadrons, the 148th A.S.and the 17th A.S. flew Camels (see my goofy > website http://members.aol.com/karrart/index.htm for a painting of a > 148th Camel...BTW- they kept their British roundels); 1st Aero flew Dorand AR > 1 and 2 in combat for awhile; 90th and 99th AS flew Strutters. Alot of > interestting airplanes beyond the usual Spad/Nieuport/Liberty Plane stuff! > RK > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:04:19 EST From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: was Photographs - now Get a Scanner Message-ID: <37.3129bc7.26127853@aol.com> In a message dated 3/28/100 1:52:07 PM EST, Otisgood@aol.com writes: << Perhaps I would be better off spending my $ on a scanner instead of digital camera. >> Hear! Hear! Far better off!! :-) Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:13:29 EST From: Sixmilfigs@cs.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: KC pics Message-ID: <33.2fe25fe.26128889@cs.com> Thanks for the help. My searches proved useless, coming back with everything from American Board of Medical Specialties to Australian Baptist Ministries, but nothing to do with photos of scale models. I thought it was perhaps an IPMS or AMPS club, or just a typo. Will take a look. Thanks Shawn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:35:04 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: What's (OT) on the work bench? Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1E94@mimhexch.mim.com.au> > Sounds like a man with experience!! > Huh? Which post does this refer to? Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:45:53 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Photographs Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1E95@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Matt says: > > Perhaps I would be better off spending my $ on a scanner > > instead of digital camera. > > I think Tom is the only one against the digital camera's. Nope. Add me. I have a $2000 digital camera which is less capable of producing a decent photo than my wifes $100 2nd hand SLR Problems with digital 1. Pathetic resolution 2. Low capacity 3. Abysmal battery performance 4. Poor control of exposure 5. No control of depth of field through point of focus 6. Uncertain colour balance 7. etc.. ...and this on Nikons top of the line digital camera. I'm hard pressed to find a "Pro" but... 1. You can see how bad the photo is each time and try again until you get a less bad one 2. Easy to download to the net Yes, I'm negative. Yes, I have tried three other cameras (Kodak, Canon, another Nikon) Yes, I was once 20+ years ago a pro photographer so I have biases but IMHO the bias is towards acceptable outcomes. Mine gets used to document datacoms installations. Except if it's important, then I use a camera. Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:56:03 -0500 From: bucky@ptdprolog.net To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Help!! Message-ID: <38E14693.1722E6FC@ptdprolog.net> Dennis Could I trouble you for a copy? Mike Muth bucky@ptdprolog.net Dennis Ugulano wrote: > Mark > > >> I have an ancient kit of the Caudron G3. << > > You have the Metrop 1/24th scale Caudron G3 designed by Arnaldo > Pocher. (remember the Pocher car kits?) > > I have one about half completed and it is beautiful. The engine is > a masterpiece of design and turns as smooth as anything. One suggestion is > to scrape the yellow fabric and paint the paint the kit unbleached linen > (CDL). > > It will take a lot of work but I think the results will be well > worth it. I have no idea where I'm going to put mine when its finished. I > may mount it under plexiglass and try and sell it. I enjoy some large > models but don't want to keep them. > > I have some reference material and a review on building this kit > sent to my a list member that I will share with you. Send me an email or > snail mail address and I will get to you. > > Dennis Ugulano > email: Uggies@compuserve.com > http://members.xoom.com/Uggies/dju.htm > Page Revised 2/6/00 > "Every modeller will rise to his own level of masochism" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:59:19 -0500 From: "Leonard Endy" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Photographs Message-ID: <9ak2es0kn4c1j2d624f6hi259tvjhpk1p5@4ax.com> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:48:32 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >Nope. Add me. I have a $2000 digital camera which is less capable of >producing a decent photo than my wifes $100 2nd hand SLR > >Problems with digital > >1. Pathetic resolution >2. Low capacity >3. Abysmal battery performance >4. Poor control of exposure >5. No control of depth of field through point of focus >6. Uncertain colour balance >7. etc.. > A lot of these problems will gradually disappear but if you don't already own a 35mm camera get one and go the scanner/photo CD route. Digicams are still in their infancy and some of the problems above will never be fixed. 4 and 5 have been dealt with to a certain extent. There are Digicams available that allow you to select aperture priority, shutter priority, and full manual mode, allowing you complete control over shutter speed and f-stop (aperture) which both have an effect on depth of field. Two of the bigger problems with Digicams are the realtive film speeds - most work using an ASA rating of 80 to 100. Definitely not for low light/indoor use. Digicams with faster ASA ratings tend to introduce a lot of noise into the picture. The other being the range of aperture control. With a good 35mm camera you can expect a range between f1.2 (fast shutter speed/poor depth of field) to f22 (slow shutter speed/good depth of field). Most digicams start out at around f2.3 or so. >..and this on Nikons top of the line digital camera. > >I'm hard pressed to find a "Pro" but... > >1. You can see how bad the photo is each time and try again until you get a >less bad one >2. Easy to download to the net > 3. You don't waste money on having prints developed only to find out the pictures are terrible. 4. They are fun to use. I have both and depending on the circumstances either one will do what I want. To a Pro, or someone very familiar with prints, it is very easy to pick out the digicam pics but to the average user prints from a digicam with a 2 megapixel or higher resolution are pretty good. Oops....didn't mean to drag this out. Any replies should be sent to me direct as to not clutter the list. Len ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:05:30 -0800 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Hawker's DH2 Message-ID: <200003290104.RAA23505@mail.rapidnet.net> THE SQUADRON BOOK IS WRONG !!!!!!!!! With all the correct information on DH2s presented in other sources, it is a shame that this is one of the worst sources for markings available .. My own profile of Hawker's DH2 was done 10 years ago using the OTF article on 24 Sqn .. however much of the information here has since been found to also be incorrect in the case of the DH2s .. the Datafile and various C&C(GB/INT) articles are the best source. The 24 Sqn DH2s done in 1995 are a better bet, but as you note, it is hard to tell if nacelles are PC10 and gray, or PC10 overall. Your best bet is to do what feels right to you. I forget my reasoning of the time, but I was satisfied to go with PC10/gray. As for the sawtooth pattern, you're on your own there as well unless a photos can be found for the particular aircraft you are doing. Bob ---------- >From: "Carol & David Solosy" >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Hawker's DH2 >Date: Tue, 28 Mar, 2000, 5:33 AM > > OK list, I need your opinions on the paint scheme of Maj Lanoe Hawker's DH2 > 5964 at the time he was shot down by MvR on 23 Nov 1916. > > I have conflicting references: The list's very own Bob Pearson,using OtF 3/3 > as a reference notes the nacelle as being battleship gray, the fabric panel > as PC10 and depicts the fin as PC10. The red and white striped outer struts > accord with the paintings on the back of DF 48, researched by B J Gray and > painted by Ray Rimell. Bob notes that his profile depicts 5964 as at July > 1916. > > Don Greer's cover art on the Squad Signal book shows 5964 as: nacelle in > battleship grey, fabric panel as CDL and fin in CDL, with top mounted header > tank. The outer struts are eight alternate white and red stripes. > > It's very difficult to tell from the photos of 24 sqn DH2s in the DF, on > pages 12 and 13, if they are PC10 over the whole nacelle, or battleship grey > nacelle with a PC10 fabric panel. There's a lot of light eflecing off the > aircraft in theses photos. > > Any opinions on either of the above or any variations? And what do you opine > about the saw tooth CDL under-nacelle pattern on 5964 on 23 Nov 1916? > > TIA > > David from Perth ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:17:21 -0600 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Photography (was Dumb Question) Message-ID: <38E1599F.17C6EF02@bellsouth.net> Nigel Rayner wrote: > There have been various threads about photographing models (down Ernest) Zoiks!!! I didn't realize I was in attack mode. For the record, I maintain a neutral position in the real/digital camera debate. I use a 'real' camera because that's what was available to me. And I was mightily impressed with the digital shots that Alberto took of my N.17. My only point was that I prefer natural lighting to artificial. There's advantages to both. On the plus side, there a whole lot less apperatus involved with natural lighting. On the minus side, production can get bogged down when I want to keep a photo record of a build during the long nights of the fall/winter season when I can generally only shoot on the weekends. As for artificial lighting, yes, you can shoot any time of the day or evening, which is a huge plus for we who are nocturnal modelers. But I sure would hate to have the DEA helicoptors mistake a photo shoot for a marijuana grow room. Far fetched? Maybe. But people have had their doors kicked in for less. E. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:20:15 -0500 From: smperry@mindspring.com To: Subject: Re: Hawker's DH2 Message-ID: <002501bf991d$0be7b8a0$fb0956d1@default> The Datafile quotes some RFC orders that were given on certian dates. I'll go look it up. I was able to make a case for my 5994 being representative of the aircraft in the late spring of 1916. I'll go dig sp ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Pearson" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Hawker's DH2 > THE SQUADRON BOOK IS WRONG !!!!!!!!! With all the correct information on > DH2s presented in other sources, it is a shame that this is one of the worst > sources for markings available .. > > My own profile of Hawker's DH2 was done 10 years ago using the OTF article > on 24 Sqn .. however much of the information here has since been found to > also be incorrect in the case of the DH2s .. the Datafile and various > C&C(GB/INT) articles are the best source. > > The 24 Sqn DH2s done in 1995 are a better bet, but as you note, it is hard > to tell if nacelles are PC10 and gray, or PC10 overall. Your best bet is to > do what feels right to you. I forget my reasoning of the time, but I was > satisfied to go with PC10/gray. As for the sawtooth pattern, you're on your > own there as well unless a photos can be found for the particular aircraft > you are doing. > > Bob > > ---------- > >From: "Carol & David Solosy" > >To: Multiple recipients of list > >Subject: Hawker's DH2 > >Date: Tue, 28 Mar, 2000, 5:33 AM > > > > > OK list, I need your opinions on the paint scheme of Maj Lanoe Hawker's DH2 > > 5964 at the time he was shot down by MvR on 23 Nov 1916. > > > > I have conflicting references: The list's very own Bob Pearson,using OtF 3/3 > > as a reference notes the nacelle as being battleship gray, the fabric panel > > as PC10 and depicts the fin as PC10. The red and white striped outer struts > > accord with the paintings on the back of DF 48, researched by B J Gray and > > painted by Ray Rimell. Bob notes that his profile depicts 5964 as at July > > 1916. > > > > Don Greer's cover art on the Squad Signal book shows 5964 as: nacelle in > > battleship grey, fabric panel as CDL and fin in CDL, with top mounted header > > tank. The outer struts are eight alternate white and red stripes. > > > > It's very difficult to tell from the photos of 24 sqn DH2s in the DF, on > > pages 12 and 13, if they are PC10 over the whole nacelle, or battleship grey > > nacelle with a PC10 fabric panel. There's a lot of light eflecing off the > > aircraft in theses photos. > > > > Any opinions on either of the above or any variations? And what do you opine > > about the saw tooth CDL under-nacelle pattern on 5964 on 23 Nov 1916? > > > > TIA > > > > David from Perth ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:32:18 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Photographs Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1E98@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Len says (quite a lot of sensible stuff including:) > A lot of these problems will gradually disappear but if you don't > already own a 35mm camera get one and go the scanner/photo CD route. I have three 35mm SLR's, and a 6x4.5 sLR.. All of them perfectly able to produce decent photos with no more accesories than a +3 close up lens, heavy tripod and cable release. > Digicams are still in their infancy and some of the problems above > will never be fixed. I wouldn't say never, not in this business. > There are Digicams available that allow you to select aperture > priority, shutter priority, and full manual mode, allowing you > complete control over shutter speed and f-stop (aperture) which both > have an effect on depth of field. This being my second greatest irritant we have at least got some progress. Battery life is #1 IMHO, one set of top class alkaline batteries cost as much as processing a 36 exposure colour film and will last almost long enough to take 36 pics IF you don't need to use flash. Otherwise, 24 is a good get. > >I'm hard pressed to find a "Pro" but... > > > >1. You can see how bad the photo is each time and try again > until you get a > >less bad one > >2. Easy to download to the net > > > 3. You don't waste money on having prints developed only to find out > the pictures are terrible. Swings and roundabouts. My employer is buying batteries for the digital camera I use at work. And paying more than we ever did for processing films because one side effect of being able to review each shot immediately, is an extension of using an "automatic" camera. You tend to disengage *your* brain and let the camera do the work. So instead of getting the good shot first time you take it three times, deleting the first two and (invisibly) wasting batteries. The added cost of developing the bracketed "film" is paid to the battery manufacturer instead of Kodak. OTOH, using a standard setup and letting a simple SLR do its thing, I took 24 pics of models last weekend without one failure. Admitedly, I have had practice, but the setup is so ludicrously simple *anyone* would get the same results. > > 4. They are fun to use. So I thought at first. Now the jury is out > > I have both and depending on the circumstances either one will do what > I want. I guess this is true of me too. If I want to email a pic of an installation to a contractor who doesn't care if it looks like cr*p I'll use the digicam. If I urgently want to show a listee something I'll use a digicam. If I want him to know what it looks like I'll use a camera. However, as we both said at the start, the digicams will improve. But IMHO, at the moment, unless the driving factor is immediacy and the requirement to email a result ASAP - you'd be better waiting for the digicams to improve some more. Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:34:22 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Photography (was Dumb Question) Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1E99@mimhexch.mim.com.au> E, > Nigel Rayner wrote: > > > There have been various threads about photographing models > (down Ernest) > > Zoiks!!! I didn't realize I was in attack mode. I *think* Nigel was worried you'd get all excited about *silicone* enhanced models as opposed to *styrene* enhanced models ;-) Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:34:32 -0500 From: smperry@mindspring.com To: "Multiple recipients of list" Subject: Hawker's DH-2 Message-ID: <003001bf991e$ef8c9660$fb0956d1@default> ok I dug out the DF: In May 1916 RFC HQ says all Nacelles were to be painted dull gray. The same month the RFC began painting upper surfaces and later side panel fabric with PC-10. The gray nacelles were retained, but later in the year some were painted overall PC-10. Thus Hawkers could have been PC-10 in November 1916. The sawtooth was most likely an addition once the entire nacelle was PC-10, (see photo 29 inthe DF), and would have also been later in the year. I'd say a PC-10 nacelle with a sawtooth pattern on the bottom would be a fair bet for Hawker's DH-2. Now, will whomever knows for a fact that I'm dead wrong, please speak up ;-) sp I E-mail smperry@mindspring.com Web Site http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/wwimodeler/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:38:20 EST From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Photography (was Dumb Question) Message-ID: In a message dated 3/28/100 8:17:49 PM EST, ethomas6@bellsouth.net writes: << But I sure would hate to have the DEA helicoptors mistake a photo shoot for a marijuana grow room. Far fetched? Maybe. But people have had their doors kicked in for less. >> E's not being paranoid here, especially in Louisiana recently, from what I hear about their "zero tolerance policy" when they stop a car they like that could be carrying something. Apparently the NOPD has the same problem as the LAPD when it comes to understanding the term "law and order." Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2224 **********************