User talk:Paul1513

Nikon FE2 Mediation

Hello, Paul1513, I am Shadow1, the mediator for the Nikon FE2 case you requested in the Mediation Cabal. In order to ensure that all parties involved are able to communicate, I am asking that you please go User:Shadow1/Nikon FE2 and explain why you believe that the anonymous user(s) involved should not revert your edits. I hope that we will be able to resolve this issue quickly and without any problems. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Thanks! Shadow1 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLR chronology

That's quite a chronology you added to the SLR page, Sir.

Because it's released under the GFDL, I can swipe the whole thing and recycle it here. But to do so seems ill-mannered at best, so I shan't. Let me instead invite you to this place (weak for the mainstream, good for the unexpected). As this will show, in the last 48 hours or so some nitwit teen has unleashed malware on the site; but that should soon be under control: in the medium and long term, your edits there will not be wasted. -- Hoary 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the amicable go-ahead; but really, I do urge you to do some recycling (correcting, etc.) yourself; you're much more knowledgable than I am and I'd hate to screw up your material. ¶ Since I last wrote, the malware attack has been thwarted, simply by requiring provision of a working email address. So your contributions would be safe in the short term too. -- Hoary 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) .... PS a note on Zunow: The financially weak Zunow company was unable to capitalize on its design: I don't think that's wrong but I also don't think it's the major factor. This highly ambitious design was Zunow's first camera as well as its last, and I'm not even sure that -- in a period when the engineers moved among camera companies quite a bit, contrary to stereotypes about "lifetime employment system" -- it was designed by people who'd worked on cameras elsewhere. Production was slower than expected, and there's at least one disastrous design flaw: I've seen a photo of a seriously chewed up gear cog, obviously made of far too soft an alloy. -- Hoary 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Comments on my Userpage

Paul: Thanks for your comments and 'yes' whenever you get a chance to upload that information, that would be very useful. I made some quick edits to some photography pages today. Someone had removed my mention of the Fuji IS-1 on the Digital Single Lens Reflex page so I put it back in, with a note to go to the discussion page. Feel free to 'weigh-in' on that discussion and let others know. I feel that the mention of this camera is important and useful as, in the 'old' days, a photographer would simply put infrared film into the camera and add a red filter to photograph in the infrared and/or ultraviolet spectrum. Interestingly, Nikon had made a 'dedicated', limited quantity 105mm f/4 UV Micro Nikkor (and how many people know about this lens?) and I have no idea whatever became of this optic or how other users felt about it. Now for myself, last year I needed (not 'wanted') the 70-180 AF Micro Nikkor (and please don't ask me to put the full designation of that lens in :} ) and, hopefully soon, I'll get around to using my D200 (or D300 as I'm thinking of upgrading) to photograph my family albums going back to the turn of the last century. This is a lot of work! I'm not too keen about doing this but with that lens and a copy stand that I've constructed from an old enlarger, etc., I feel that this would be much faster than a dedicated scanner; I've also added the 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor to my lens arsenal so technically I'm all ready. I had built the copy stand based on a 1980's article in Popular Photograpy titled "Daylight Color Copy Stand". Maybe I should make a photograph of it and show it to you.

As for the other discussion, I honestly don't know how this issue with the more serious pages of Imette St. Guillen and the other women that I've "weighed-in-on" is getting resolved. I can't even go to the Admin page anymore because they've removed everything and maybe archived the discussion. I was going 'back-and-forth' with very logical arguments and getting only Wikipedia policy arguments returnedj to me, etc. However, they had a discussion about one page which led me to a plethora of pages on Pedophilia! Pedophilia on Wikipedia? C'mon! I don't know of any encyclopedia, electronic or otherwise that has that stuff on it! Doesn't deserve to be anywhere but some sicko's hard drive! I'll only discuss those pages if you really want the page titles, otherwise, let's just discuss our great loves of cameras and photography. BTW, some unidentified user put in a new reference for a song on the Imette St. Guillen page. So now, it appears that poor Imette is definitely part of our popular culture.--MurderWatcher1 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLR chronology bibliography

Hi MurderWatcher1! This is the bibliography I promised you of sources for my SLR Chronology entries (which is almost all of them). Sorry, it's much longer than the expected forty to fifty items; over a hundred items. I hope you find it useful! Paul1513. Paul1513 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all it may concern: I have moved an updated History of the single-lens reflex camera Chronology bibliography to my User Page. Paul1513 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul1513 this is great! I'll have to look this over in my spare time but thank you for this in-depth research. A lot of this research brings back memories. BTW, I was at the PhotoPlus Expo show - three days of camera heaven! I held almost everything! What I didn't hold (and I'm sad that I didn't) was the Linhof Technikardan models. Now those are view cameras! Found a reference yesterday to another brand of view camera that I had never heard of before; the Shen-Hao. Here's a few websites on that instrument:

[1] Nice picture of the Shen Hao HZ45.A2 - in Teak finish at £495.
[2] This webpage shows various Shen Hao TFC45 models - Teak finish again at £550.
[3] Discussion of the Shen-Hao TFC45.

I'm certain that you can do other searches in Google on this fine camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderWatcher1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the SLR page

Hey Paul! I see you were edting the History of the SLR page around the same time as I was. Thought I'd say 'Hi'. I've been too busy to study your listing in detail but sooner or later I will. I didn't have a chance to get my old magazines yet. That will take time. I was thinking of PDF'ing them but that's a lot of work! Anyway, hope you're doing well.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MurderWatcher1. Good to hear from you. I saw you editing when I saw your name one the Talk page - I always check to see if the changes registered. I've been able to get more "Modern Tests" reports from the late 1970s from the library and I will be adding some more entries to the Bibliography. Don't expect them to be up for a while though - the upcoming holidays are keeping me busy.

Working on a Deardorff camera page

Hi, User talk:Paul1513. I am currently working on a Deardorff camera page. I'd like to know if you have any knowledge of this camera. I put some references in my Sandbox (you can go to my user page to find that) but I've seen very little write up on same. Thanks for any input.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MurderWatcher1. This is Paul1513. About your request for Deardorff info: I'm sorry to say that I know almost nothing about the specifics of large-format view cameras, including Deardorff. Once I understood that they were not for me – that large format was as billed (too large for my needs), and that the Scheimpflug principle was an applied geometry/trigonmetry problem (which I thought was simple) – I put them out of mind.

However, I have uncovered a fascinating Deardorff nugget: Joe Blackburn, a New York based pro, took a 5×7 Deardorff, four Schneider lenses, a Gitzo tripod and a couple thousand sheets of Ektachrome and T-Max (plus a lot of 35 mm equipment) on the Everest '88 Assault expedition as the expedition photographer. Although Blackburn and the Deardorff did not summit, Blackburn did lug his gear 50 miles to base camp at 17,000 feet, frequently went up to the 18,000 foot advance camp, and made it as far as 19,500 feet. (Sint, Steve. "Sint's View: Large Format Scales New Heights" pp 68-69, 78. Modern Photography, Volume 53, Number 6; June 1989.)

I don't believe this is useful for a general-purpose encyclopedia article, but I hope you'll find interesting.

Paul1513 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul. What you've given me is pretty interesting! I'll have to research further. Once again, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Keppler

Paul, I just learned, sadly, that Herbert Keppler passed away last week. I learned this through DPREVIEW.COM; here is the weblink:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010702herbertkeppler.asp

Surprisingly, there is no Wikipedia page for him, and in his case, there should be! He, Norman Rothschild, Cora Wright Kennedy and some others were influential in my learning various photographic techniques, and I wil miss him very much.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaprism.jpg

Hi there- I just wanted to let you know that I've vectorized your image Image:Pentaprism.jpg to Image:SLR Pentaprism.svg and all the instances have been replaced, as part of Wikipedia's transition to SVG files for diagrams. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Thank you! Mononomic (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources for Focal-plane shutter?

Paul, can you please cite your sources? Otherwise, you're just making work by others to clean up by adding all this unsourced info, and you may not like the way they clean it up. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days, maybe a week, to format them, but I can source all factual statements. Do you want footnotes, or bibliographic? Paul1513 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with the ref-style footnotes that the article has one example of already. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've provided 80 footnotes for the additions I made to the FP shutter article. Look them up! That should be detailed enough. If you need more information, ask. Paul1513 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camera lens

I notice some additions to Camera lens. Can you also have a look at Photographic lens design to accommodate some of the more technical issues around photographic lens - some of your stuff might fit better there rather than at Camera lend. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Camera lens

Once I can make heads or tails of what is written it is actually informative and you should be commended on your research. But there lies the problem --- Wikipedia articles are not based on original research, they are based on the published research of other people (experts) (secondary sources WP:SECONDARY). You cite allot of instances of lenses you have observed in ad copy, product guides, patents and other primary sources, i.e. you are citing your own original research on the topic. That’s partly why I added an "original research" tag, original research in an encyclopedic sense does not mean you didn't source something, it just means the sources either don't match what you are writing, or the source is not the reliable secondary source required, i.e. creating an article from "original analysis of the primary-source material".

As to "essay" --- the original research, the un-source original definitive statements, and the original interpretation of the history or roll of different types of lenses (Wikipedias doesn't "spread kudos" BTW, the language is supposed to be neutral (WP:NPOV), plus the lack of reference to the rest of the encyclopedia, makes the section come off as a stand alone essay.

Re: "The catadioptric "mirror" lens" edits. I have edited this section again. Digging for the references has made me see what you were talking about, and I have cleaned up the language so someone who is not you or me can understand it ;). I deleted large parts of this section because, A) it was redundant... this encyclopedia already has telescope history sections that can simply be linked, B) off topic - taking almost four paragraphs to get to catadioptric lenses, and C), parts had the wrong description re: Catadioptric photographic Cassegrains do not use spherical mirrors because the are easier "to produce", they use them because they are half of a compound Catadioptric system, the other half being a lens with the opposite aberration, canceling each other out (Although I do see references to "easier to produce" as being a big part of some designs since they can't be so expensive that no one could buy them, early solid CATs had this problem, could be added in). There was no "Mangin-Cassegrain" in 1874 it was just a single element Catadioptric mirror, and it was not an imaging system, it was a searchlight reflector. The Schmidt-Cassegrain front aspheric plate does not correct coma, it corrects spherical aberration. The reword should help. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Wikipedia writers have drilled into them "do not plagiarize," "do not cut and paste." So I use my own words to report on the works I consulted. And then I'm dinged as essaying and deviating from my sources. Wikpedia also demands "verifiability." So I use the best available sources to confirm that lens diagrams and specifications are accurate. For that, I'm accused of original research (using primary sources) for consulting patents, brochures and manuals. Why did I even bother?! I can't win either way!

In the hope this helps you to determine that I'm a not fraud: the sources that I found most useful on what lenses are historically significant and why, and how they've evolved over the last two centuries were:

Cox, Arthur. Photographic Optics: A Modern Approach to the Technique of Definition. Expanded (from Thirteenth) Edition. London, UK: Focal Press, 1971. ISBN 0-8174-0665-4. (cited a dozen times)

Kingslake, Rudolf. A History of the Photographic Lens. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1989. ISBN 0-12-408640-3. (cited fifty times. This is the only complete book on the history of photographic lenses that I'm aware of.)

Kraszna-Krausz, Andor; chairman of editorial board. The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography. Revised Desk Edition, 1973 reprint. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969. no ISBN. (cited twenty-five times)

Ray, Sidney F. The Photographic Lens. Second revised edition. Oxford, UK: Focal Press/Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992. ISBN 0-2405-1329-0. (cited over twenty times)

About thirty articles by Herbert Keppler for Modern Photography and Popular Photography magazines. Keppler reported on photography for those magazines from 1950 to 2007. After he died, he was given a public memorial service at photokina 2008.

This lens history is only giving me agitata now. I need to take a break from Wikpedia. I think I'll go out and take pictures. Paul1513 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pentaprism.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pentaprism.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Angenieux35f25Retrofocus-t.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Biogon-text.svg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Canon400DOtext.svg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]