Should all smokers be taken out and shot?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Your Photos On Canvas High Quality Low Price From £15
Next: Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
From: ray on 8 Aug 2010 16:55 On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700, RichA wrote: > I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens > had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are > usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens > tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns out, > the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The whole > lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front element > surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. It took > an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back of the lens > were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. I'm glad I didn't > have to see the camera. But I've seen this before on optics. How can > anyone do this to a camera? IMHO - the ones who should be "taken out and shot" are those who ask: "should all <fill in the blank> be taken out and shot". What a person does with his own personal property and/or his own body is his business - not yours.
From: Savageduck on 8 Aug 2010 16:59 On 2010-08-08 13:16:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:41:51 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > >> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >> drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> saying >> something like: >> >>> I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens >>> had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are >>> usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens >>> tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns >>> out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The >>> whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front >>> element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. >>> It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back >>> of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. >>> I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before >>> on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera? >> >> Vandal! >> You've destroyed many years of patina, puffed out by tens of thousands >> of cigarettes and the cost of many thousands of dollars. >> That nicotine coating was responsible for the prize-winning portraiture >> that lens could make. >> > > Exactly. The original owner was renowned for his portraiture using a > nicotine density filter. So that is what ND means! I guess it provides a "smokey haze" effect. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Nervous Nick on 8 Aug 2010 18:13 On Aug 8, 3:16 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:41:51 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > > > > <grimly4REM...(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > >drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> saying > >something like: > > >>I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens > >>had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are > >>usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens > >>tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns > >>out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The > >>whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front > >>element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. > >>It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back > >>of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. > >>I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before > >>on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera? > > >Vandal! > >You've destroyed many years of patina, puffed out by tens of thousands > >of cigarettes and the cost of many thousands of dollars. > >That nicotine coating was responsible for the prize-winning portraiture > >that lens could make. > > Exactly. The original owner was renowned for his portraiture using a > nicotine density filter. NICE! TFTL. -- YOP...
From: RichA on 8 Aug 2010 18:45 On Aug 8, 4:55 pm, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700, RichA wrote: > > I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens > > had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are > > usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens > > tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns out, > > the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The whole > > lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front element > > surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. It took > > an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back of the lens > > were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. I'm glad I didn't > > have to see the camera. But I've seen this before on optics. How can > > anyone do this to a camera? > > IMHO - the ones who should be "taken out and shot" are those who ask: > "should all <fill in the blank> be taken out and shot". What a person > does with his own personal property and/or his own body is his business - > not yours. It is if I'm buy it and am not warned beforehand. How do you think it would sell on Ebay: "One prime lens in good condition, except it's covered with YEARS of tobacco smoke residue."
From: Allen on 8 Aug 2010 18:53
ray wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700, RichA wrote: > >> I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens >> had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are >> usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens >> tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns out, >> the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The whole >> lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front element >> surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. It took >> an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back of the lens >> were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. I'm glad I didn't >> have to see the camera. But I've seen this before on optics. How can >> anyone do this to a camera? > > IMHO - the ones who should be "taken out and shot" are those who ask: > "should all <fill in the blank> be taken out and shot". What a person > does with his own personal property and/or his own body is his business - > not yours. Wouldn't it be easier just to take RichA out and shoot him? Just one bullet needed, but to be on the safe side perhaps a wooden stake would be better. Allen |