WWI Digest 4081 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: WWI digest 4078 by "Fraser May" 2) Re: New addition by "Fraser May" 3) =?big5?Q?=A6n=B1d=AC=DB=B3=F8?= by Net5¯S§O±ÀÂË 4) Re: My digital cam by "Matt Bittner" 5) depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow by Crawford Neil 6) Re: On the subject of French Roundels... by "Matt Bittner" 7) Re: French Roundels - was: Hello - Salmson decals by Crawford Neil 8) Re: French Roundels - was: Hello - Salmson decals by David Fleming 9) Re: French Roundels - was: Hello - Salmson decals by Crawford Neil 10) =?iso-8859-1?Q?=DF_for_Mac-challenged_people=2C_and_airplane_d?= by "ZELNICK, KENNETH T" 11) Ni 17 ammo box question by "StefenK" 12) Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow by "Lee M." 13) Re: Oberusel attn: Neil E.............. by David Fleming 14) Roundels and painting by "Mark Shannon" 15) Re: On the subject of French Roundels... by David Fleming 16) Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow by David Fleming 17) Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Y by Crawford Neil 18) Re: Roundels and painting by PetersList@aol.com 19) wire wheels by PetersList@aol.com 20) R: Ni 17 ammo box question by "a.casirati@cornali-trasporti.it" 21) Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow by Nigel Cheffers-Heard 22) Re: My digital cam by "Muth and Zulick" 23) Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow by "ot811" 24) Re: On the subject of French Roundels... by "Muth and Zulick" 25) Re: New addition by Crawford Neil 26) Dont you hate it when by "ot811" 27) Re: Kurt Wolff's Albatros by Sharon Henderson 28) Re: Depth of field wasRe: My digital cam by "Hans Trauner" 29) Re: Dont you hate it when by "Michael Kendix" 30) R: Re: Depth of field wasRe: My digital cam by "a.casirati@cornali-trasporti.it" 31) Re: Kurt Wolff's Albatros by "Hans Trauner" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:10:50 +0100 From: "Fraser May" To: Subject: Re: WWI digest 4078 Message-ID: <000001c19f26$f08f95c0$ec6814d4@m1i9c9> Nigel wrote Colorsync works really well on Macs, and lets you get your monitor colours really close pretty easily. Most PC users have too much contrast and too much colour. If you have a purple shadow, you either have mixed colour lighting which the printer has tried to correct, or crossed curves, which is a whole new kettle of fish..... Properly exposed and processed Superia definitely doesn't give purple shadows. Have you tried scanning the neg yourself? N Actually that one probably was a function of a mix twixt daylight and a colour balanced, full spectrum light, I scanned the neg, and my monitor is set up using Adobe's Gamma tool in Photoshop. The actual colours of the model look spot on. It should be on site when Matt's got time to put it up. The processing was nought special and makes my point about the stack of variables when shooting your models... Regards Fraser ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:25:15 +0100 From: "Fraser May" To: Subject: Re: New addition Message-ID: <000601c19f28$33b08840$ec6814d4@m1i9c9> Another nice one Pedro. Really like the colour scheme. Regards Fraser ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:27:21 -0500 (EST) From: Net5¯S§O±ÀÂË To: ¿Ë·Rºô¤Í Subject: =?big5?Q?=A6n=B1d=AC=DB=B3=F8?= Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_Lr6gCmgSkYuxnPNL Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_Lr6gCmgSkYuxnPNLAA" ------=_NextPart_Lr6gCmgSkYuxnPNLAA Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8ZnJhbWVzZXQgcm93cz0qIGZyYW1lYm9yZGVyPSJOTyIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBmcmFt ZXNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNvbHM9Kj4NCjxmcmFtZSBzY3JvbGxpbmc9InllcyIgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8v aW1nLm5ldHM1LmNvbS9BRC9hbGUvYWxlMDExNy5odG0iPg0KPC9mcmFtZXNldD4NCjwvaHRtbD4= ------=_NextPart_Lr6gCmgSkYuxnPNLAA-- ------=_NextPart_Lr6gCmgSkYuxnPNL-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 05:18:09 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: My digital cam Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:36:01 -0500 (EST), Ray Boorman wrote: > Very nice Rata, what colour is the seat back btw?? Metal use aerolak, a blue-green color. Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:40:50 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow Message-ID: I think depth of field is more important on smaller models, I noticed Alberto uses f16, and I think I use the same kind of figures, at least as much as I can get with the available light. Taking good photos of 1/48 models is easier. Close-ups are also a little easier, the difficult thing is when you want to get the whole model sharp, and it has long wings, and a long fuselage. I should think a Short 184 would be difficult to get all of it in focus, even in 1/48. Sopwith Triplanes are difficult too for some reason. /Neil C. Bob wrote: > Most digicams in that price range have an upper aperture of f13, which is good > depth of field. You will not get f22 out of any thing under $2000 anytime > soon and to be honest you don't really need it. The only time I have > problems with depth of field is when I'm using macro mode so > the camera is > fairly close to the model. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 05:57:52 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: On the subject of French Roundels... Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:17:56 -0500 (EST), David Fleming wrote: > Did the French ever apply roundels to the fuselage sides a la RFC/RNAS ? Usually, no. There may have been instances, but as a rule they did not. > Is a side roundel a good indiaction that a Morane/Nieuport etc is in British > service ? No, because the IRAS applied roundels on the sides. In fact, you could go all out with a SPAD SA.4, and apply IRAS roundels on *every* surface - top of the upper wing, underside of the lower wing, sides of the fuselage, and both topside and underside of *both* sides of the horizontal tail. Pilot must have had some bad experience with getting shot at by his own people. ;-) Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:16:37 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: French Roundels - was: Hello - Salmson decals Message-ID: Because it's twice as much work, spraying the blue too, makes it three times the work. Incidentally it's the blue that's tricky, with my compass/knife setup, it's on the limit for smallest circle possible. I'm going for some kind of decal on my Spad 12, painting on roundels is just a pain in the posterior, and the advantages are marginal compared to the mess you can make if you screw up. /Neil C. (who's painted on roundels on both Spad 2-seaters) (Although, if > you're going to spray the white, why not spray the red as > well. Just thinking out loud, here.) > > > Matt Bittner > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:29:16 +0000 From: David Fleming To: Subject: Re: French Roundels - was: Hello - Salmson decals Message-ID: <1011270556.3c46c39c52ba5@netmail.pipex.net> Quoting Crawford Neil : > > Because it's twice as much work, spraying the blue too, makes > it three times the work. Incidentally it's the blue that's > tricky, with my compass/knife setup, it's on the limit for > smallest circle possible. I've used a (borrowed) punch set to make (in my case red) roundel centres for 1/144th models. Another option is one of the template sets, where you just mask off the other holes & spray/paint the circle. I've done that on decal paper rather than on the model, more tolerant of mistakes. then we are back to the arguement that started it all !! dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:39:52 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: French Roundels - was: Hello - Salmson decals Message-ID: > > I've used a (borrowed) punch set to make (in my case red) > roundel centres for > 1/144th models. Good idea, but they're too small for french 1/72 roundels. You lucky b-----r building british aircraft;-) Another option is one of the template sets, > where you just mask > off the other holes & spray/paint the circle. I've done that > on decal paper > rather than on the model, more tolerant of mistakes. Yes, I thought about doing that, but I was worried about paint leakage. In the end I used tin-foil. It's feasible to do it, and the sort of thing I'm glad I've done, but I'd prefer not to have to do it again! /Neil C. then we > are back to the > arguement that started it all !! > > dave > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:09:13 -0600 From: "ZELNICK, KENNETH T" To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=DF_for_Mac-challenged_people=2C_and_airplane_d?= Message-ID: <15888960D28CD211AD1900105A24907803EC9542@ano-exs02.ano.entergy.com> For those of us who don't have an "option" key, press the "alt" key, then enter 225 on the numeric keypad. You'll get a ß. Second part, to keep this OT: When measuring aircraft length, is the propeller (and spinner, if one exists) included? TIA, Ken Zelnick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:25:56 -0500 From: "StefenK" To: "WWI Modeling List" Subject: Ni 17 ammo box question Message-ID: <3C44DD0E0008141A@mail.san.yahoo.com> (added by postmaster@mail.san.yahoo.com) Good morning, For the option of Vickers-armed 17s, Eduard includes an ammo box face and what should be a spent-casing chute. Are these parts reasonably accurate? The photos of cockpit internals in both the original DF and the Ni Fighters Special do not show these components, perhaps because they are of Lewis-armed machines. The Eduard instruction sheet is also a little ambiguous about the placement and orientation of the chute: is it perpendicular to the ammo case front? Finally, how thick was the ammo case? One belt wide? Any visual aids will be greatly appreciated. TIA to all, Stefen ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:37:03 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow Message-ID: <3C46D37F.123E7654@x25.net> Crawford, I regret that the first line, of your comment, is exactly backwards to reality. Depth of field is more important with larger models and less with 1/72nd. The smaller model fits more plane, or what ever, into the in-focus distance..... In a few words. Photographing a pin head takes less depth of field than photographing a nail head or the head of a person. Here are a few examples of what is happening.: Using a 50mm lens on a 35 mm camera, set to 25 feet and f 16 the camera will be in focus from (1/2 of 25 feet) 12' 6" to infinity. while the same lens set at 3' 6" will only be in focus from 2'11 1/2" to 4' 3 1/2. About 1' 4". So if the wings/fuselage is longer than 1' 4" a part will be out of focus. At f2.8 and 25 feet,it would be 19' 11" to 33'8" while close up 3' 6" would become 3' 4 3/4" to 3'7 1/2". Note: This set-up gives you an in-focus distance of less than 4 inches. f 16 would cover 10' 2" to infinity and set for 3' 6" in-focus is 2" 11 1/2" to 4' 3 1/2". This set-up gives you 1' 4". Using a #1 or #2 close up lens reduces the in-focus distance to a matter of and inch or less. A 50mm with +1 set at 4' will be in focus from 20" to 25" With a + #2 and 4' it is in focus from 13" to 15" With a + #3 and 4' it is in focus 10" to 11" So with shorter wings and fuselage, more of the smaller plane will be in focus and less of the larger one. Because the in focus distance will be exactly the same since the lense setting has not changed. All lens, 35 mm or Digital, work exactly the same just the numbers change for the field included in the photo. The numbers were taken from a Kodak Master Guide for close up photography. Some times it works better to get a little more distance between your camera and the subject. Then enlarge the image to suit your needs. Lee M. New Braunfels Crawford Neil wrote: > > I think depth of field is more important on smaller models, ************************************************************* I noticed > Alberto uses f16, and I think I use the same kind of figures, at least as > much as I can get with the available light. Taking good photos of > 1/48 models is easier. Close-ups are also a little easier, the > difficult thing is when you want to get the whole model sharp, and > it has long wings, and a long fuselage. I should think a Short 184 > would be difficult to get all of it in focus, even in 1/48. Sopwith > Triplanes are difficult too for some reason. > /Neil C. > > Bob wrote: > > Most digicams in that price range have an upper aperture of f13, which is good > > depth of field. You will not get f22 out of any thing under $2000 anytime > > soon and to be honest you don't really need it. The only time I have > > problems with depth of field is when I'm using macro mode so > > the camera is > > fairly close to the model. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:54:07 +0000 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Oberusel attn: Neil E.............. Message-ID: <3C469F3E.EF5082D9@dial.pipex.com> CoolSpadLuke@aol.com wrote: > Amen to that, Warren. As an EM in a (ot alert) B-45 bomber sqdn in England in the '50s, the "additional duty" assigned for minor goofups was spending weekends on a hydraulic lift type maintenance stand polishing the aluminum-skinned bombers. ot, but they had to stop polishing the bare aluminium of Queens Flight aircraft in as they were eroding the metal !! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:36:06 -0600 From: "Mark Shannon" To: Subject: Roundels and painting Message-ID: Just a thought, have any of those trying to solve the problem of decal or painting on roundels looked at the local scientific supply house? The device used to bore holes in corks and stoppers, called, amazingly, a cork borer, may be just what you are looking for. This can be purchased in a set that goes from about 3mm up to about 20-25mm. Each borer is a brass or steel tube, sharpened at one end and the other with a 'T' handle. The whole set nests together. In 1/72nd scale, this range would probably suffice for roundel parts for most sizes, certainly could be used in combination with a divider compass or circle cutter. It could either be used to cut roundel masks from frisket or tape, both inner and outer parts usable, or cut roundels from painted or colored decal film. The main trick to cutting the outer roundel ring would be getting the cutout centered with the outer diameter, but that is just what modeling is about. Unfortunately, the size range is less useful in 1/48th or larger scales. It would still be useful for cutting perfect inner dots, however. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:29:47 +0000 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: On the subject of French Roundels... Message-ID: <3C46D1CB.FD10CAAF@dial.pipex.com> Matt Bittner wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:17:56 -0500 (EST), David Fleming wrote: > > Is a side roundel a good indiaction that a Morane/Nieuport etc is in British > > service ? > > No, because the IRAS applied roundels on the sides. In fact, you > could go all out with a SPAD SA.4, and apply IRAS roundels on > *every* surface - top of the upper wing, underside of the lower > wing, sides of the fuselage, and both topside and underside of > *both* sides of the horizontal tail. Bit like + on Pfalz monoplanes ! Doesn't the IRAS roundel have a 'white' centre, so that a 'dark centre' is either French or British (Leaving Italy & Belgium out of this at the moment !!). Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:33:32 +0000 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow Message-ID: <3C46D2AC.9B13E6F0@dial.pipex.com> Crawford Neil wrote: > I think depth of field is more important on smaller models, I noticed > Alberto uses f16, and I think I use the same kind of figures, at least as > much as I can get with the available light. Taking good photos of > 1/48 models is easier. Close-ups are also a little easier, the > difficult thing is when you want to get the whole model sharp, and > it has long wings, and a long fuselage. I should think a Short 184 > would be difficult to get all of it in focus, even in 1/48. Sopwith > Triplanes are difficult too for some reason. You're getting into hyperfocal distance & focussing there ! My camera has a depth of field preview, so I can usually get it all in !! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:43:37 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Y Message-ID: I dunno Lee, I suppose you're correct, but the two 1/48 models I've taken pics of have been dead easy, and most 1/72 are swine to get in focus, half the time I can't even find them in front of my wobbling lens! Is it something to do with having to go closer? /Neil C. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee M. [mailto:lemen@x25.net] > Sent: den 17 januari 2002 14:36 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [WWI] Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or > Yellow > > > Crawford, > > I regret that the first line, of your comment, is exactly backwards to > reality. > > Depth of field is more important with larger models and less with > 1/72nd. The smaller model fits more plane, or what ever, into the > in-focus distance..... > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:48:47 EST From: PetersList@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Roundels and painting Message-ID: <153.763910a.2978303f@aol.com> In a message dated 17/01/02 13:39:49 GMT Standard Time, MSHANNON@tnrcc.state.tx.us writes: << Unfortunately, the size range is less useful in 1/48th or larger scales. It would still be useful for cutting perfect inner dots, however. >> Always a problem. A circle cutter is fine for the outer diametres but no good for the centre spots. A hole punch works if you happen to have one the right size, but this thing seems worth investigating. cheers Peter L ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:12:37 EST From: PetersList@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: wire wheels Message-ID: <43.511b21d.297843e5@aol.com> I am sure I remember one of our number having an article somewhere on the web about making wire wheels. Can someone point me in the right direction please. cheers Peter L ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:08:47 +0100 From: "a.casirati@cornali-trasporti.it" To: "'StefenK@netzero.net'" Cc: "Wwi Modeling List (Posta elettronica)" Subject: R: Ni 17 ammo box question Message-ID: <43EB244779F3D411966E0060082C59E90F03F6@SERVER1> Dear Stefen, I do not know Eduard's kit, unfortunately, so I cannot comment about those parts' accuracy. Did you visit Mike Fletcher's wonderful Nieuport site ? Amongst many other useful items, it features several useful detailed drawings on the Ni 17. Here is the relevant URL: http://members.home.net/nieuport/Drawings/It/index.html I believe I have one contemporary picture of a Macchi-built Ni17 cockpit, with the Vickers gun in place. I can send a scan of it to you, if you so wish. Just let me know ! All the very best, Alberto -----Messaggio originale----- Da: StefenK [SMTP:StefenK@netzero.net] Inviato: giovedi 17 gennaio 2002 14.32 A: Multiple recipients of list Oggetto: [WWI] Ni 17 ammo box question Good morning, For the option of Vickers-armed 17s, Eduard includes an ammo box face and what should be a spent-casing chute. Are these parts reasonably accurate? The photos of cockpit internals in both the original DF and the Ni Fighters Special do not show these components, perhaps because they are of Lewis-armed machines. The Eduard instruction sheet is also a little ambiguous about the placement and orientation of the chute: is it perpendicular to the ammo case front? Finally, how thick was the ammo case? One belt wide? Any visual aids will be greatly appreciated. TIA to all, Stefen ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:36:12 +0000 From: Nigel Cheffers-Heard To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow Message-ID: Sorry, have to disagree here. The above statement is only true if you photograph them from the same distance, and lets face it, the head of a pin from 400mm doesn't make a very impressive image. There is one omission in the above statement, ie, TO GET THEM FULL FRAME, and this changes things... a smaller object full frame is at a greater absolute scale, and DoF is inversely proportional to the scale at a given aperture. The law is simple: Depth of Field if directly related to aperture and scale of reproduction ONLY. Nothing else matters. If you want to fill the frame with a persons head, you photograph them from a fair distance, whereas if you want to fill the same frame with the head of a pin, you photograph it from mere mm away, and you will have very little DoF, and will need a very small aperture to get it acceptably sharp all over. I have spent many years photographing small objects for posters. If you want to photograph the head of a razor to fill the frame, you cannot get it all sharp even at f45. (Remember the SCALE thing...and bear with me...) SO you employ a modelmaker to build a razor head one metre across, and you now pull the camera back and get it all sharp at f16. No problem. What has changed is the SCALE of reproduction, ie a bigger original lets you fill the frame from further away, and you are not blowing it up so much. So: 1/48th scale models are easier to get sharp than 1/72nd, honest. Sorry to wander, but felt this needed clarifying. N -- Nigel Cheffers-Heard photography + design tel: +44 (0)1392 87 58 57 fax: +44 (0)1392 87 74 97 mobile: 0771 261 4514 nigelch@cheffers.co.uk www.cheffers.co.uk Laburnums, Bridge Hill Topsham, Exeter EX3 0QQ, UK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:00:00 -0500 From: "Muth and Zulick" To: Subject: Re: My digital cam Message-ID: <001701c19f70$0647b200$0100005a@ptd.net> Damn, those are great pictures. My girlfriend's digital camera (a sneaky gift from me) doesn't give nearly as good results....then again, my models don't look as good as your, either! ;-)) Mike Muth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Bittner" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Wednesday,January 16,2002 8:09 PM Subject: [WWI] My digital cam > Not as good as Chris', but I'm not going to send it back. :-) > > Take a look at http://www.kithobbyist.com/VVS/shared. It's not > WW1, but you can see how well my Fuji digital does. Sweet! > > Gee, now I want to build more I-16s... :-) > > > Matt Bittner > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:59:24 -0500 From: "ot811" To: "wwi-list" Subject: Re: depth of field wasRE: RE: Color films was:Red or Yellow Message-ID: <00f201c19f6f$f3411700$0800010a@cyberelan.com> Aha! Now I know why I build in 1:48 regards SSH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:06:05 -0500 From: "Muth and Zulick" To: Subject: Re: On the subject of French Roundels... Message-ID: <005801c19f70$de38c320$0100005a@ptd.net> > > Is a side roundel a good indiaction that a Morane/Nieuport etc is in British > > service ? > > No, because the IRAS applied roundels on the sides The Belgian's also put one on the fuselage side of their Nieuports, but closer to the cockpit. Mike Muth ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:14:22 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: New addition Message-ID: Yes it is very nice, well done Pedro. /Neil C. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fraser May [mailto:fraserinprague@volny.cz] > Sent: den 17 januari 2002 08:25 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [WWI] Re: New addition > > > Another nice one Pedro. Really like the colour scheme. > Regards > Fraser > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:18:18 -0500 From: "ot811" To: "wwi-list" Subject: Dont you hate it when Message-ID: <011401c19f7a$f6d5d580$0800010a@cyberelan.com> you drop your airbrush parts in lacquer thinner in a plastic cup, ... ... and come back next day to a solid glob of plastic. Question for the chemistry gurus: Can I rescue the nozzle parts ? This was a condiment cup you find in fastfood places, made of translucent plastic. The whole thing is now one solid mass with the needle etc firmly embedded in it. The whole thing is firmly stuck to the sink counter top. regards SSH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:17:59 -0800 (PST) From: Sharon Henderson To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Kurt Wolff's Albatros Message-ID: <20020117171759.16137.qmail@web9806.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Bob, To which the best reply I can think of (besides Hi everyone, yes I'm still alive, life is -- uhh -- INteresting, I've missed you all....) is this: WHICH of Wolff's Albatri? I have tons of pics. Tell me which one, and I'll send them to you off list. Cheers, Sharon --- Laskodi wrote: > I am trying to locate a picture or profile of Kurt > Wolff's Albatros. I do > not know of any, can any one be of some help here? > Thanks, > -------------Bob > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:25:35 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: Depth of field wasRe: My digital cam Message-ID: <002301c19f7b$f933cd40$81bc72d4@FRITZweb> It works, thanks. Your pics highlight the problem. They are showing a I-16, a relative short a/c. And there are depth-of-field problems, if you look close and if you are a little bit nit-picking. What I want to have is *perfect* sharpness from one end of the wing to the other. In 1/48 scale. I know.... the need for depth of field would be smaller if I would make 1/72... I want to have f22. Not maximum f8, with no way to control it. Hans. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Bittner" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:34 AM Subject: [WWI] Re: My digital cam > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:19:57 -0500 (EST), Hans Trauner wrote: > > > Forbidden > > You don't have permission to access /VVS/shared on this server. > > DOH! Sorry. Fixed now. > > > Matt Bittner > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:26:12 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Dont you hate it when Message-ID: >From: "ot811" >you drop your airbrush parts in lacquer thinner in a plastic cup, ... >.. and come back next day to a solid glob of plastic. > >Question for the chemistry gurus: >Can I rescue the nozzle parts ? This was a condiment cup you find in >fastfood places, made of translucent plastic. The whole thing is now >one >solid mass with the needle etc firmly embedded in it. The whole >thing is >firmly stuck to the sink counter top. Sanjeev: Why not just leave it as an ornament? When guests arrive, it could be a talking piece, though perhaps your wife has talked to you about it already. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:18:59 +0100 From: "a.casirati@cornali-trasporti.it" To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: R: Re: Depth of field wasRe: My digital cam Message-ID: <43EB244779F3D411966E0060082C59E90F03F8@SERVER1> [Casirati Alberto] Hans Trauner wrote: What I want to have is *perfect* sharpness from one end of the wing to the other. In 1/48 scale. I know.... the need for depth of field would be smaller if I would make 1/72... [Casirati Alberto] Yes, but the final result would not necessarily be easier to achieve, as you would have to place your camera much nearer the subject, which usually make things worse.... I want to have f22. Not maximum f8, with no way to control it. [Casirati Alberto] f22 will most probably solve the problem. Good luck ! All the very best, Alberto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Bittner" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:34 AM Subject: [WWI] Re: My digital cam > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:19:57 -0500 (EST), Hans Trauner wrote: > > > Forbidden > > You don't have permission to access /VVS/shared on this server. > > DOH! Sorry. Fixed now. > > > Matt Bittner > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:37:01 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: Kurt Wolff's Albatros Message-ID: <008501c19f7d$92867be0$81bc72d4@FRITZweb> Sharon, I have looked through my books and magazines etc, and could not find any. Am I blind? Would you do me a favour and tell me a source of a, let me say, D.III of him? Or send my a pic, also? Thanks, thanks! Hans ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sharon Henderson" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:19 PM Subject: [WWI] Re: Kurt Wolff's Albatros > Hi Bob, > > To which the best reply I can think of (besides Hi > everyone, yes I'm still alive, life is -- uhh -- > INteresting, I've missed you all....) is this: WHICH > of Wolff's Albatri? > > I have tons of pics. Tell me which one, and I'll send > them to you off list. > > Cheers, > Sharon > > --- Laskodi wrote: > > I am trying to locate a picture or profile of Kurt > > Wolff's Albatros. I do > > not know of any, can any one be of some help here? > > Thanks, > > -------------Bob > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 4081 **********************