www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

This article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30744464

doesn't seem to have generated any interest. So deleting

Deleted.

Deleted

Do you have a lot of time on your hands??

Tony M.

My world is in greyscale anyway at the moment, Jack, with just a hint of sepia on Minnie's ears ..



Guy

Missed the original post, Jack.
If you want to replace yours, I guess I could lend you mine.......

That Box Brownie of yours would probably be worth as much as our house in Ireland. Want to do a swap? (Not serious).

Jack

Interesting. I've just read the article linked to your first posting Jack and got totally engrossed in the nostalgia, and read the article right through to the end during working hours - my boss would have a fit if he knew
Chris

Now there is a degree of interest, here is my contribution.

Jack

cjackson wrote:Interesting. I've just read the article linked to your first posting Jack and got totally engrossed in the nostalgia, and read the article right through to the end during working hours - my boss would have a fit if he knew
Chris

No wonder France is on its knees!!

Mind you, I haven't exactly increased GB's GDP today but that's another story..........

For those who didn't use film cameras, just imagine how many rolls of film you would use on a shoot if you banged-away as you can with digital equipment!
For that reason, you used to be very careful with each shot; not that, most of the time, you ended-up with in-focus and sharp pictures......most of the time it was a sense of disappointment at the time (and expense) expended to get some s**t shots back....

....or I could lend you this, if you wanted an upgrade, Jack!
An Eastman Kodak

NickB wrote:For those who didn't use film cameras, just imagine how many rolls of film you would use on a shoot if you banged-away as you can with digital equipment!
For that reason, you used to be very careful with each shot; not that, most of the time, you ended-up with in-focus and sharp pictures......most of the time it was a sense of disappointment at the time (and expense) expended to get some s**t shots back....

Only me, then?

NickB wrote:

NickB wrote:For those who didn't use film cameras, just imagine how many rolls of film you would use on a shoot if you banged-away as you can with digital equipment!
For that reason, you used to be very careful with each shot; not that, most of the time, you ended-up with in-focus and sharp pictures......most of the time it was a sense of disappointment at the time (and expense) expended to get some s**t shots back....

Only me, then?

No, I feel your pain too Nick..... The boxes are my Costa Rica pics, probably took 3 times that many but thats all the ones I kept and the folder is where I keep all by butterfly slides. Out of every roll of 36 I would on average throw away 50%, such a waste!

And that is just the tip of my slide iceberg!

....or I could lend you this, if you wanted an upgrade, Jack!
An Eastman Kodak

I had one of those (or very similar). I fixed a simple close up lens and an L-shape wire to show the correct distance and frame to photograph butterflies.

We were on holiday in Somerset (I would have been 13 years old at the time) and I had just encountered my first ever Green Hairstreak. For some reason I put the camera on the ground and subsequently stepped back on to it. I was in tears but Dad took pity and I got a brand new Zeiss Nettar as replacement.

Jack

If you want to re-create the Box Brownie 'look' from your digital files, there's a good BW 'plug-in' for Photoshop Elements from http://www.photo-plugins.com/
There are sliders to set the colour response (even choose really old 'colour blind', blue-sensitive film if you like), to emulate the effect of colour filters, to 'tone' the print, and to add as much grain as you like!

Mike