A disastrous farewell to film.
Yesterday was sunny and springlike in Scotland, so I decided to burn up some of my last rolls of Velvia. I had some film in my PZ-1 and an LX with a partly used roll in it, so I packed a bag and headed into the hills. There is a lovely glade with photogenic waterfall near us and I set up the tripod at the top to take some shots. The PZ-1 was loaded with some 400 ASA stuff and I snapped a few shots with that ahead of doing some slow speed shots of the water. I was about to reload the PZ-1 with Velvia when I decided that I'd rather use the slow exposure settings of the LX, so put the PZ-1 down, opened the LX back and stared blankly at the half finished roll of Velvia that was already in it. Doh!! I reloaded the LX, set up the tripod, put my F28mm f/2.8 on it and started shooting. I then decided I wanted to go a little wider, so went back to the bag and picked up the FA* 24mm f/2. I walked back to the tripod, slipped, kicked the tripod with LX and lens attached towards the waterfall, made a despairing grab for the assemblage and only succeeded in sending the 24mm after it. Trying not to cry, I looked down and saw that both lends and tripod / body / lens were stuck against rocks in the water, so I waded out across the slippery rocks above the waterfall and managed to retrieve all the kit. By this stage my appetite for photography had vanished, so I went home, put the soaking bits on the central heating boiler to dry out and went to read my insurance policy. I've just looked at the kit and the damage report isn't as bad as I thought. The LX looks fine, and the shutter is working in both manual and electronic modes, and although I got nothing out of the meter this morning, much to my amazement it seems to be working perfectly now. The finder is still a bit misty inside, and I need to check the alignment, but this 25 year old body seems to have survived a 20 foot fall plus partial immersion in a mountain stream for 5 minutes very well. Even more amazingly, the 28mm also appears to have escaped unscathed! I put it on the PZ-1 this morning and it stopped down and autofocused perfectly. No damage to any glass either. The 24mm is slightly less well off. Mechanically and optically still perfect, stops down OK, but autofocus is not functioning and my istDL can't get any sense out of it in terms of aperture readings etc. My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it seems that all the insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair job on the 24mm. Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
> > From: Peter Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it seems that all the > insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair job on the 24mm. So do you want congratulations or commiserations? I'm glad I wasn't there. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
If your insurance will pay for it, have the LX checked out as well. Misalignment is a distinct possibility. Paul On Mar 28, 2007, at 6:32 AM, Peter Jordan wrote: > Yesterday was sunny and springlike in Scotland, so I decided to > burn up > some of my last rolls of Velvia. I had some film in my PZ-1 and an LX > with a partly used roll in it, so I packed a bag and headed into > the hills. > > There is a lovely glade with photogenic waterfall near us and I set up > the tripod at the top to take some shots. The PZ-1 was loaded with > some > 400 ASA stuff and I snapped a few shots with that ahead of doing some > slow speed shots of the water. I was about to reload the PZ-1 with > Velvia when I decided that I'd rather use the slow exposure > settings of > the LX, so put the PZ-1 down, opened the LX back and stared blankly at > the half finished roll of Velvia that was already in it. Doh!! > > I reloaded the LX, set up the tripod, put my F28mm f/2.8 on it and > started shooting. I then decided I wanted to go a little wider, so > went > back to the bag and picked up the FA* 24mm f/2. I walked back to the > tripod, slipped, kicked the tripod with LX and lens attached > towards the > waterfall, made a despairing grab for the assemblage and only > succeeded > in sending the 24mm after it. > > Trying not to cry, I looked down and saw that both lends and tripod / > body / lens were stuck against rocks in the water, so I waded out > across > the slippery rocks above the waterfall and managed to retrieve all > the kit. > > By this stage my appetite for photography had vanished, so I went > home, > put the soaking bits on the central heating boiler to dry out and went > to read my insurance policy. > > I've just looked at the kit and the damage report isn't as bad as I > thought. The LX looks fine, and the shutter is working in both manual > and electronic modes, and although I got nothing out of the meter this > morning, much to my amazement it seems to be working perfectly now. > The > finder is still a bit misty inside, and I need to check the alignment, > but this 25 year old body seems to have survived a 20 foot fall plus > partial immersion in a mountain stream for 5 minutes very well. > > Even more amazingly, the 28mm also appears to have escaped > unscathed! I > put it on the PZ-1 this morning and it stopped down and autofocused > perfectly. No damage to any glass either. > > The 24mm is slightly less well off. Mechanically and optically still > perfect, stops down OK, but autofocus is not functioning and my istDL > can't get any sense out of it in terms of aperture readings etc. > > My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it seems that all the > insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair job on the 24mm. > > Peter > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: A disastrous farewell to film.
I'm sorry for you Peter but wonder what kind of insurance would cover such an accident. At least here in Switzerland there exists no insurance for that since it was your own camera equipment and no third party was involved. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Jordan Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: A disastrous farewell to film. Yesterday was sunny and springlike in Scotland, so I decided to burn up some of my last rolls of Velvia. I had some film in my PZ-1 and an LX with a partly used roll in it, so I packed a bag and headed into the hills. There is a lovely glade with photogenic waterfall near us and I set up the tripod at the top to take some shots. The PZ-1 was loaded with some 400 ASA stuff and I snapped a few shots with that ahead of doing some slow speed shots of the water. I was about to reload the PZ-1 with Velvia when I decided that I'd rather use the slow exposure settings of the LX, so put the PZ-1 down, opened the LX back and stared blankly at the half finished roll of Velvia that was already in it. Doh!! I reloaded the LX, set up the tripod, put my F28mm f/2.8 on it and started shooting. I then decided I wanted to go a little wider, so went back to the bag and picked up the FA* 24mm f/2. I walked back to the tripod, slipped, kicked the tripod with LX and lens attached towards the waterfall, made a despairing grab for the assemblage and only succeeded in sending the 24mm after it. Trying not to cry, I looked down and saw that both lends and tripod / body / lens were stuck against rocks in the water, so I waded out across the slippery rocks above the waterfall and managed to retrieve all the kit. By this stage my appetite for photography had vanished, so I went home, put the soaking bits on the central heating boiler to dry out and went to read my insurance policy. I've just looked at the kit and the damage report isn't as bad as I thought. The LX looks fine, and the shutter is working in both manual and electronic modes, and although I got nothing out of the meter this morning, much to my amazement it seems to be working perfectly now. The finder is still a bit misty inside, and I need to check the alignment, but this 25 year old body seems to have survived a 20 foot fall plus partial immersion in a mountain stream for 5 minutes very well. Even more amazingly, the 28mm also appears to have escaped unscathed! I put it on the PZ-1 this morning and it stopped down and autofocused perfectly. No damage to any glass either. The 24mm is slightly less well off. Mechanically and optically still perfect, stops down OK, but autofocus is not functioning and my istDL can't get any sense out of it in terms of aperture readings etc. My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it seems that all the insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair job on the 24mm. Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
In a message dated 3/28/2007 3:53:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > From: Peter Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it seems that all the > insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair job on the 24mm. So do you want congratulations or commiserations? I'm glad I wasn't there. What he said. Both. :-) Marnie aka Doe ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On 28/3/07, Markus Maurer, discombobulated, unleashed: >I'm sorry for you Peter but wonder what kind of insurance would cover such >an accident. >At least here in Switzerland there exists no insurance for that since it was >your own camera equipment and no third party was involved. How odd - you can't insure against accidental damage? For my TV gear I pay a grand a year for accidental damage, public liability, and employer's liability - and the stills gear is included. Even on non- professional policies, accidental damage is an absolute - else why have insurance? -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On 28/3/07, Peter Jordan, discombobulated, unleashed: >I walked back to the >tripod, slipped, kicked the tripod with LX and lens Look on the bright side, at least you didn't kick the bucket ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry for you Peter but wonder what kind of insurance would cover such > an accident. My camera insurance (Alte Leipziger Versicherung AG) covers theft, loss, and all kinds of accidental damage, practically every conceivable kind of mishap with the only exception of simply forgetting the camera on a train or elsewhere (literally "liegengelassen"). Further conditions: no coverage if stolen from the car between 11 pm and 7 am, and the gear must not be visible from outside of the vehicle (and even this latter condition is waived for rented cars). When I dropped my 6x17 panorama camera in France, over Xmas, they paid the repair after I simply faxed them a copy of the price estimate from Nikon. No further questions asked. In fact, I had the money on my account even before Nikon had completed the repair. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
- Original Message - From: "Peter Jordan" Subject: A disastrous farewell to film. > > My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it seems that all the > insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair job on the 24mm. Send everything in for repair anyway. Water inside the camera will eventually cause rust, and a camera that stops working. Same with the lens. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: A disastrous farewell to film.
> > From: "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/03/28 Wed PM 01:28:59 GMT > To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" > Subject: RE: A disastrous farewell to film. > > I'm sorry for you Peter but wonder what kind of insurance would cover such > an accident. > At least here in Switzerland there exists no insurance for that since it was > your own camera equipment and no third party was involved. > Greetings > Markus It is unlike the Gnomes to miss an opportunity like that. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Peter Jordan > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:33 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: A disastrous farewell to film. > > Yesterday was sunny and springlike in Scotland, so I decided to burn up > some of my last rolls of Velvia. I had some film in my PZ-1 and an LX > with a partly used roll in it, so I packed a bag and headed into the hills. > > There is a lovely glade with photogenic waterfall near us and I set up > the tripod at the top to take some shots. The PZ-1 was loaded with some > 400 ASA stuff and I snapped a few shots with that ahead of doing some > slow speed shots of the water. I was about to reload the PZ-1 with > Velvia when I decided that I'd rather use the slow exposure settings of > the LX, so put the PZ-1 down, opened the LX back and stared blankly at > the half finished roll of Velvia that was already in it. Doh!! > > I reloaded the LX, set up the tripod, put my F28mm f/2.8 on it and > started shooting. I then decided I wanted to go a little wider, so went > back to the bag and picked up the FA* 24mm f/2. I walked back to the > tripod, slipped, kicked the tripod with LX and lens attached towards the > waterfall, made a despairing grab for the assemblage and only succeeded > in sending the 24mm after it. > > Trying not to cry, I looked down and saw that both lends and tripod / > body / lens were stuck against rocks in the water, so I waded out across > the slippery rocks above the waterfall and managed to retrieve all the kit. > > By this stage my appetite for photography had vanished, so I went home, > put the soaking bits on the central heating boiler to dry out and went > to read my insurance policy. > > I've just looked at the kit and the damage report isn't as bad as I > thought. The LX looks fine, and the shutter is working in both manual > and electronic modes, and although I got nothing out of the meter this > morning, much to my amazement it seems to be working perfectly now. The > finder is still a bit misty inside, and I need to check the alignment, > but this 25 year old body seems to have survived a 20 foot fall plus > partial immersion in a mountain stream for 5 minutes very well. > > Even more amazingly, the 28mm also appears to have escaped unscathed! I > put it on the PZ-1 this morning and it stopped down and autofocused > perfectly. No damage to any glass either. > > The 24mm is slightly less well off. Mechanically and optically still > perfect, stops down OK, but autofocus is not functioning and my istDL > can't get any sense out of it in terms of aperture readings etc. > > My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it seems that all the > insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair job on the 24mm. > > Peter > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
- Original Message - From: "Markus Maurer" Subject: RE: A disastrous farewell to film. > I'm sorry for you Peter but wonder what kind of insurance would cover such > an accident. > At least here in Switzerland there exists no insurance for that since it > was > your own camera equipment and no third party was involved. Any all inclusive insurance plan should cover that sort of accident. Frankly, any plan that doesn't isn't worth buying. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
At least you didn't break a leg ... a pain in the wallet is easier to bear than a pain in the arse. :-) I lost two Leica II cameras in similar incidents. One fell into the Pacific Ocean from 26,000 feet and the other tumbled down the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico, breaking into bits as it went. Not a huge financial loss but an emotional one as those were the first Leica cameras I'd bought for myself... It sounds like you'll be able to recover things, however. Have all of it serviced... G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
Yikes, Peter! Snafu...big time. I was on a river yesterday morning with the 67 shooting a covered bridge. As I was walking over the sand bar and negotiating the rocks I kept thinking of how to shift my balance to put myself in the water and hold the camera out of it in case I lost my balance. Luckily, it didn't happen and both the camera and I stayed out of the drink. I'm sure it will someday. Anyone who goes out into the wilds to shoot will eventually sacrifice something to the photographic gods. Good luck with the 24mm. This story is a good reminder to me to make sure that my serial number database is current and that the insurance company has all of the same info. -Brendan --- Peter Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yesterday was sunny and springlike in Scotland, so I > decided to burn up > some of my last rolls of Velvia. I had some film in > my PZ-1 and an LX > with a partly used roll in it, so I packed a bag and > headed into the hills. > > There is a lovely glade with photogenic waterfall > near us and I set up > the tripod at the top to take some shots. The PZ-1 > was loaded with some > 400 ASA stuff and I snapped a few shots with that > ahead of doing some > slow speed shots of the water. I was about to reload > the PZ-1 with > Velvia when I decided that I'd rather use the slow > exposure settings of > the LX, so put the PZ-1 down, opened the LX back and > stared blankly at > the half finished roll of Velvia that was already in > it. Doh!! > > I reloaded the LX, set up the tripod, put my F28mm > f/2.8 on it and > started shooting. I then decided I wanted to go a > little wider, so went > back to the bag and picked up the FA* 24mm f/2. I > walked back to the > tripod, slipped, kicked the tripod with LX and lens > attached towards the > waterfall, made a despairing grab for the assemblage > and only succeeded > in sending the 24mm after it. > > Trying not to cry, I looked down and saw that both > lends and tripod / > body / lens were stuck against rocks in the water, > so I waded out across > the slippery rocks above the waterfall and managed > to retrieve all the kit. > > By this stage my appetite for photography had > vanished, so I went home, > put the soaking bits on the central heating boiler > to dry out and went > to read my insurance policy. > > I've just looked at the kit and the damage report > isn't as bad as I > thought. The LX looks fine, and the shutter is > working in both manual > and electronic modes, and although I got nothing out > of the meter this > morning, much to my amazement it seems to be working > perfectly now. The > finder is still a bit misty inside, and I need to > check the alignment, > but this 25 year old body seems to have survived a > 20 foot fall plus > partial immersion in a mountain stream for 5 minutes > very well. > > Even more amazingly, the 28mm also appears to have > escaped unscathed! I > put it on the PZ-1 this morning and it stopped down > and autofocused > perfectly. No damage to any glass either. > > The 24mm is slightly less well off. Mechanically and > optically still > perfect, stops down OK, but autofocus is not > functioning and my istDL > can't get any sense out of it in terms of aperture > readings etc. > > My initial despair has receded somewhat, and it > seems that all the > insurance company has to do is cough up for a repair > job on the 24mm. > > Peter > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On 28/3/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >I lost two Leica II cameras in similar incidents. One fell into the >Pacific Ocean from 26,000 feet 26,000 ? Come on Godders - let's hear it ! ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 04:34:44PM +0200, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm sorry for you Peter but wonder what kind of insurance would cover such > > an accident. > > My camera insurance (Alte Leipziger Versicherung AG) covers theft, loss, > and all kinds of accidental damage, practically every conceivable kind > of mishap with the only exception of simply forgetting the camera on a > train or elsewhere (literally "liegengelassen"). > > Further conditions: no coverage if stolen from the car between 11 pm and > 7 am, and the gear must not be visible from outside of the vehicle (and > even this latter condition is waived for rented cars). My camera coverage doesn't even have those kind of exclusions; If I leave the camera in a taxi, or on a bench, it's still covered. The cheapest way (at least in the US) to get that kind of coverage is as an addendum to a household insurance policy. Exactly how much it costs will also depend on where the coverage starts. In my case the first $500 of any single claim is my problem; after that everything is covered at full replacement cost. (Of course the one time I might have needed it - when I snapped my MZ-S off the back of my big lens, leaving the lens mount behind - the repair bill came to $480 :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Cotty wrote: >> I lost two Leica II cameras in similar incidents. One fell into the >> Pacific Ocean from 26,000 feet > > 26,000 ? Come on Godders - let's hear it ! ;-) I thought I told the story at a prior time. About 1986, I was working at JPL on a flight project that involved a radar scatterometer measurement of ocean surfaces. We had managed a 'piggy back' data acquisition session on another group's time that we shared the airplane with, a C-130, and were going to be in flight for about 10 hours. I wanted to get out of the office for a couple of days and was accepted in the flight crew as a backup tech for our radar scatterometer system. The flight path went out over the waters of the Pacific near La Jolla, California, leaving from March AFB in Riverside. Our first target was right in that neighborhood, so we prepped prior to take off. Everything checked out. In the middle of the first data pass (about 15 minutes), the SNR from the rear antenna went nuts and ruined the data take. We physically examined as much of the system and cabling as possible and determined that the problem lay in a short stretch of cable that passed right over the top of the C-130s immense rear cargo door, and was inaccessible without opening the door (assuming that it wasn't the antenna itself that had gone faulty, of course). Since the other experiment was the plane's primary purpose for this flight and they were paying the bills, we were faced with the notion of sitting around in a noisy plane for 9 more hours with nothing to do or attempting to replace the cable section. We talked it over with the pilot and copilot, and they said they could crack the door open about a foot, holding it on the hydraulics, while using a cargo net and body harnesses for safeties as well as a limit link on the door's motion. Bill and I, being the techs assigned, agreed. I had the Leica IIc in my tool belt, as usual, when we suited up and got the rest of the gear in order. The pilot leveled us off at 26,000 feet for a transit section to the next target and the plane's crew setup the safeties, unlocked and opened the cargo door about 18 inches. Just enough room for us to reach the connector that we needed to get to by climbing up the cargo netting on the door and reaching outside the plane on the underside of the fuselage's tail section. The cable replacement went well, although Bill was cursing loudly about "not being paid enough for this kind of s**t!!!", and we were about to wrap up ... I reached down to grab the camera for a snap of the repair. A tiny bit of bumpy air caught us right then and the hydraulics jumped, allowing the door to pop open to the limit of the safety link on the door's motion. It was only about 8 inches that it moved, but it felt like it was yawning wide open and I made a grab for the cargo netting. Bill near lost his lunch. In that motion, the camera slipped from where I was pulling it out of the holster and my hand, somehow found its way over the edge of the door to disappear into the ocean below. We were done, however, crawled back down the netting, closed up the door, and proceeded to make five successful data runs on the rest of the flight. A lot of laughs, some jokes about "racing underwear", and a good stiff drink or three ensued after we landed ... Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On 28/3/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I thought I told the story at a prior time.
First I've read. Must've been asleep.
>About 1986, I was working at JPL on a flight project that involved a
>radar scatterometer measurement of ocean surfaces. We had managed a
>'piggy back' data acquisition session on another group's time that we
>shared the airplane with, a C-130, and were going to be in flight for
>about 10 hours. I wanted to get out of the office for a couple of
>days and was accepted in the flight crew as a backup tech for our
>radar scatterometer system.
Coool.
>
>The flight path went out over the waters of the Pacific near La
>Jolla, California, leaving from March AFB in Riverside. Our first
>target was right in that neighborhood, so we prepped prior to take
>off. Everything checked out. In the middle of the first data pass
>(about 15 minutes), the SNR from the rear antenna went nuts and
>ruined the data take. We physically examined as much of the system
>and cabling as possible and determined that the problem lay in a
>short stretch of cable that passed right over the top of the C-130s
>immense rear cargo door, and was inaccessible without opening the
>door (assuming that it wasn't the antenna itself that had gone
>faulty, of course).
Once a scientist, always a scientist ;-)
>
>Since the other experiment was the plane's primary purpose for this
>flight and they were paying the bills, we were faced with the notion
>of sitting around in a noisy plane for 9 more hours with nothing to
>do or attempting to replace the cable section. We talked it over with
>the pilot and copilot, and they said they could crack the door open
>about a foot, holding it on the hydraulics, while using a cargo net
>and body harnesses for safeties as well as a limit link on the door's
>motion. Bill and I, being the techs assigned, agreed.
Nice one.
>
>I had the Leica IIc in my tool belt, as usual, when we suited up and
>got the rest of the gear in order. The pilot leveled us off at 26,000
>feet for a transit section to the next target and the plane's crew
>setup the safeties, unlocked and opened the cargo door about 18
>inches. Just enough room for us to reach the connector that we needed
>to get to by climbing up the cargo netting on the door and reaching
>outside the plane on the underside of the fuselage's tail section.
>The cable replacement went well, although Bill was cursing loudly
>about "not being paid enough for this kind of s**t!!!", and we were
>about to wrap up ... I reached down to grab the camera for a snap of
>the repair.
Excellent.
>
>A tiny bit of bumpy air caught us right then and the hydraulics
>jumped, allowing the door to pop open to the limit of the safety link
>on the door's motion. It was only about 8 inches that it moved, but
>it felt like it was yawning wide open and I made a grab for the cargo
>netting. Bill near lost his lunch.
Girl!
>
>In that motion, the camera slipped from where I was pulling it out of
>the holster and my hand, somehow found its way over the edge of the
>door to disappear into the ocean below.
Ouch. I'd love to see your insurance claim form ;-))
>
>We were done, however, crawled back down the netting, closed up the
>door, and proceeded to make five successful data runs on the rest of
>the flight. A lot of laughs, some jokes about "racing underwear", and
>a good stiff drink or three ensued after we landed ...
My last ride in Fat Albert was filming the RAF's parachute display team
('Falcons') jumping in Cornwall from about 12k. I was harnesses and
hitched, standing on the open rear platform with the display team ready
to go. Bad weather meant the ground unit at the DZ were calling the go
for the jump by the minute. Low pressure and a broken cloud base of
about 800 feet so it was looking badand sure enough at the last
minute the DZ said no, so it was back to base. As soon as the 'no' was
called, several things happened at once - the loadmaster closed the
door, the team waltzed off to get rid of their kit, and the pilot stood
the plane on it's wing as they revelled in thoughts of an early bath.
This pulled about 2 G which is nothing - but the camera on my shoulder
that weighs 24 lbs suddenly weighed 58 lbs (or thereabouts) and I
collapsed in a heap on the closing platform.
Neeldess to say, I was not happy. Add to this that RAF (and I dare say
USAF) pilots love to play 'avoid the clouds' in a broken sky - because
they can - and the 45 minute flight back to RAF Brize Norton in
Oxfordshire was pure hell. I like a horizon to stair at, especially with
G all over the shop, so I blagged my way onto the flight deck and sat in
a bunk behind the pilots for the return.
The last laugh? Not mine: we dropped the display team at Brize (15
minutes drive from where I lived at the time) and then hopped to RAF
Lyneham (where the Hercs are based and where the flight originated fro
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
Good stories. Shooting from a helicopter may well be more dangerous if not as hard on the stomach as that C130 stint. I used to produce commercials with a director named Jim Edwards. One of Jim's favorite laments was "All the good helicopter pilots are dead." It was said with the tongue only partially in the cheek as a lot of the Hollywood fly boys did buy their lunch making movies. One of the first shoots I did with Jim and a copter was at Stag's Leap winery in Napa Valley. The driveway was lined with trees that were about forty feet tall, with canopies about twenty feet off the ground. To get the shot Jim wanted of a car moving down the driveway, the copter had to fly right at the bottom of the canopies, and he had to get in real tight to make it wide enough to show some environment and still make the car big in frame. As he flew down the road, you could see twigs being cut off the end of the branches by the blades. Another Jim Edwards shoot was the Viper on top of a volcano in Hawaii. Again, Jim wanted profile running shots over the uneven terrain. The copter had to cut in between rock formations and fly just a few feet off the ground. You can see some of that footage here: http://stenquist.org/Paul/Ride.htm Paul On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Cotty wrote: > I love filming from helicopters but when they ask for a crew for > the C130 I fade into the back ground. > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
Having grown up around that industry, it's more a case that all the good helicopter pilots aren't insane enough to do film work. It's dangerous enough just getting into the damned silly things. I've shot a bit from a helicopter(courtesy of my father's company), but nothing as insane as that. -Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: > Good stories. Shooting from a helicopter may well be more dangerous > if not as hard on the stomach as that C130 stint. I used to produce > commercials with a director named Jim Edwards. One of Jim's favorite > laments was "All the good helicopter pilots are dead." It was said > with the tongue only partially in the cheek as a lot of the Hollywood > fly boys did buy their lunch making movies. One of the first shoots I > did with Jim and a copter was at Stag's Leap winery in Napa Valley. > The driveway was lined with trees that were about forty feet tall, > with canopies about twenty feet off the ground. To get the shot Jim > wanted of a car moving down the driveway, the copter had to fly > right at the bottom of the canopies, and he had to get in real tight > to make it wide enough to show some environment and still make the > car big in frame. As he flew down the road, you could see twigs being > cut off the end of the branches by the blades. Another Jim Edwards > shoot was the Viper on top of a volcano in Hawaii. Again, Jim wanted > profile running shots over the uneven terrain. The copter had to cut > in between rock formations and fly just a few feet off the ground. > You can see some of that footage here: > http://stenquist.org/Paul/Ride.htm > Paul > On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Cotty wrote: > >> I love filming from helicopters but when they ask for a crew for >> the C130 I fade into the back ground. >> >> -- >> >> >> Cheers, >> Cotty >> >> >> ___/\__ >> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com >> _ >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:44 AM, William Robb wrote: > Water inside the camera will eventually cause rust, and a camera > that stops > working. > Same with the lens. That's why real pros use Canon. Plastic doesn't rust. - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: A disastrous farewell to film
> > From: > "Markus Maurer" > I'm sorry for you Peter but wonder what kind of insurance would cover such > an accident. > At least here in Switzerland there exists no insurance for that since it was > your own camera equipment and no third party was involved. > Greetings > Markus In the US the camera equipment would be considered "personal property" and would be covered by "homeowner's" insurance. Unless it was in your car when it was lost/damaged, in which case your automotive insurance. Just how much insurance coverage you might have, and whether it covered the property when you took it away from home depends on the policy. Additionally, some credit cards advertise they offer insurance for property bought using those cards. Was it American Express or Visa that ran the TV ads where the kid puts a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the new VCR? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
ROTFLMAO :-) David Mann wrote: > On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:44 AM, William Robb wrote: > >> Water inside the camera will eventually cause rust, and a camera >> that stops >> working. >> Same with the lens. > > That's why real pros use Canon. Plastic doesn't rust. > > - Dave > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
Thinking about it in retrospect, I was fairly stupid to go wandering around the top of a waterfall. It was probably only a 20 foot drop, but that can do you serious damage. My household insurance has an all risks add on which will cover me and I will send everything away for a check and service asap. I've been a little tardy in responding to the thread because I've had to travel out to Singapore for a few days. I'd earmarked this as the place to enable myself with a K10D, and to my delight, Cathay Photo (who I can thoroughly recommend) had a 77mm limited in stock as well as the K10D. I compromised by not buying the battery grip, but can see myself being in big trouble with the finance committee when I return. Incidentally, I emailed Cathay before I went and asked for their best price for the K10D and they undercut B&H as well as rip off Britain. The store is fantastic with a huge amount of gear. Sadly, the Pentax range was relatively small, but the rest of it was awesome with some fairly esoteric kit. Am now about to go out and enjoy my new enablement. Peter Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > At least you didn't break a leg ... a pain in the wallet is easier to > bear than a pain in the arse. :-) > > I lost two Leica II cameras in similar incidents. One fell into the > Pacific Ocean from 26,000 feet and the other tumbled down the Pyramid > of the Sun in Mexico, breaking into bits as it went. Not a huge > financial loss but an emotional one as those were the first Leica > cameras I'd bought for myself... > > It sounds like you'll be able to recover things, however. Have all of > it serviced... > > G > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A disastrous farewell to film.
On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Peter Jordan wrote: > Thinking about it in retrospect, I was fairly stupid to go wandering > around the top of a waterfall. It was probably only a 20 foot drop, > but > that can do you serious damage. No kidding. Ah, impetuous youth ... ;-) > I've been a little tardy in responding to the thread because I've > had to > travel out to Singapore for a few days. I'd earmarked this as the > place > to enable myself with a K10D, and to my delight, Cathay Photo (who > I can > thoroughly recommend) had a 77mm limited in stock as well as the > K10D. I > compromised by not buying the battery grip, but can see myself > being in > big trouble with the finance committee when I return. I bought the battery grip but haven't used it yet. I fitted it once and determined that it worked... but I'm beginning to think I'll just sell it. Enjoy the K10D. It's a wonderful camera. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
