Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcc6.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix654 From: ix654@sdcc6.UUCP ({) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Re: Camera Vibration and Sharpness Message-ID: <1968@sdcc6.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Mar-85 19:24:26 EST Article-I.D.: sdcc6.1968 Posted: Sun Mar 17 19:24:26 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 04:28:28 EST Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center Lines: 33 >The OM-1 and (I think) The OM-2 have a handy mirror lock up lever on the >right hand side of the lens mount, opposite the PC connector for the >flash. The OM-3's & 4's seem to have lost it in the race to >modernization. >{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu \ > ihnp4!amdahl / !rtech!daveb No, OM-2 has no mirror lock-up. Newer models (OM-2S, 3, 4) use the self-timer trick that someone mentioned in a related article. >..... about 75% of the print--mainly the center--was sharp; but >the corners were blurry, thus ruining what otherwise was a really >good photo. I've heard explanations that the enlarger lens was >faulty; and I've heard that's impossible in a good commericial >shop. Anyone have any experience with this? >Ken Wolman >Bell Communications Research @ Livingston, NJ >lcuxc!kenw If the slides are not glass-mounted, then they are never completely flat, so if the enlarger is focused on the center - the edges may be blurred. If I understand the principle behind depth of field correctly, this can be minimized by stopping the lens down (it should work "backwards", i.e. not only in cameras). But that means longer exposure times and I have yet to find a commercial lab that would be willing to slow down their tempo for the sake of their demanding clients (maybe .001 % ?) By the way, my experiences with processing labs, excluding Kodak, are disastrous, and I would like to hear some comments about that from other people. E.J. Behr, UCSD (sdcc6!ix654)