This is the glass from Pripiat. Chernobyl. I have it here. It's no longer there.
Probbaly, yes. Not sure though. Don't care.
Probbaly, yes. Not sure though. Don't care.
My dining room. Bass lesson. Rob. These pictures were taken in May - I've been waiting for them...
Apropos of something or other I have been researching Formica.
Came across this. Quite apart from its inherent interest and beauty, I was drawn in by the fact that I expected an old London haunt, that I know has gone, to be included. It is albeit in 'RIP' form. As a student in the late seventies / early 80s I used to go to the cafe with Mark and Geggs. Then with Ann and our work mates.
It was an amazing and tiny place with six tables (I think) with fixed bench seats. Classic simple Formica and wood tables. Kitchen was at the back. Very simple menu with a few specials. No license (obviously) but you could take your own vin. There was no loo which always infuriated Ann and she always threatened to report them. Not sure who to though. The loo police maybe.
Classic dishes that I, we, all had there were Rigatoni Alfredo, and Gnochi al Forno. Tried to reproduce these many times at home and always failed.
Once, with Mark, we ordered somethign that looked inteersting, and that had a lot of garlic in it. The waitress (she was always grumpy) said no, that's just for Italian people - you won't like it. So we said Great, that's what we'll have then. It was utterly fabulous.
The cafe was, BTW, on (just off if you like) Cambridge Circus, half-way down Charing Cross Road.
I reckon if I look hard enough I will find that I have pics, 35mm, from the cafe. Of the cafe. In the cafe. Yikes, i'd have to connect the scanner to the Mac.
From the Classic Cafes website...
--
Centrale, Moor Street W1. RIP-ish
Closing Dec 2004... (Tiny but with a good big window frontage and battered old brown vinyl seats. Functional and lovely, this is where Malcolm McClaren used to dragoon his 1980s band, Burundi pirateers, Bow Wow Wow.) "The area is to be 'developed' to make away for a block of apartment-hotels, apparently on the basis that they will deter undesirables... The properties on that side of Moor Street (excluding Ed's Easy Diner and the pub) are being demolished, as are some of the properties at the rear in Old Compton St...18th century buildings that should have been listed." (Patrick Turland). Re-opens in Archer St, W1 Feb 2005
--
Came across this. Quite apart from its inherent interest and beauty, I was drawn in by the fact that I expected an old London haunt, that I know has gone, to be included. It is albeit in 'RIP' form. As a student in the late seventies / early 80s I used to go to the cafe with Mark and Geggs. Then with Ann and our work mates.
It was an amazing and tiny place with six tables (I think) with fixed bench seats. Classic simple Formica and wood tables. Kitchen was at the back. Very simple menu with a few specials. No license (obviously) but you could take your own vin. There was no loo which always infuriated Ann and she always threatened to report them. Not sure who to though. The loo police maybe.
Classic dishes that I, we, all had there were Rigatoni Alfredo, and Gnochi al Forno. Tried to reproduce these many times at home and always failed.
Once, with Mark, we ordered somethign that looked inteersting, and that had a lot of garlic in it. The waitress (she was always grumpy) said no, that's just for Italian people - you won't like it. So we said Great, that's what we'll have then. It was utterly fabulous.
The cafe was, BTW, on (just off if you like) Cambridge Circus, half-way down Charing Cross Road.
I reckon if I look hard enough I will find that I have pics, 35mm, from the cafe. Of the cafe. In the cafe. Yikes, i'd have to connect the scanner to the Mac.
From the Classic Cafes website...
--
Centrale, Moor Street W1. RIP-ish
Closing Dec 2004... (Tiny but with a good big window frontage and battered old brown vinyl seats. Functional and lovely, this is where Malcolm McClaren used to dragoon his 1980s band, Burundi pirateers, Bow Wow Wow.) "The area is to be 'developed' to make away for a block of apartment-hotels, apparently on the basis that they will deter undesirables... The properties on that side of Moor Street (excluding Ed's Easy Diner and the pub) are being demolished, as are some of the properties at the rear in Old Compton St...18th century buildings that should have been listed." (Patrick Turland). Re-opens in Archer St, W1 Feb 2005
--
Just out of interest (JOOI) I had not heard the term 'prime lens' until I was researching the purchase of my Canon 20D many years ago (yikes, was it that long ago?). I had no term (or knew of any term) that related to (simply) non-zoom lenses. I suppose in this context prime means 'non divisible through adjustment'. That sounds like crap BTW.
Anyway, I did use to own a 20-210 Tamron that I used with my OM-1 and it was the first and only zoom I ever had. It was heavy, beautifully made, oiled, tactile, and full of glass. Other than that, I only ever used 'prime' lenses - in my parlance, they were 'lenses'. Zooms being 'non-lenses'. In those days nobody used zooms as everyday lenses. Or did they? Did I move on the wrong circles? Probably. Good.
I always 'made do' wich a 50 and a 135. Not a lot that you can't do with those. And they were small. Light. Oiled. Tactile. Full of glass.
When I bought thew 20D I had no intention of getting a zoom. Or having a 'kit lens'. I bought the body and, obviously, a 35 and an 85 which in digital multiply-by-1.6 land = 50 and 135. Not a lot you can't do with these.
I had owned wide angle lenses before though. I had a 35 - I didn;t want a 28 as that's what everyone else had. A 35 would make my picures different. And it was the nearest I could get to an un-affordable 35 shift lens. I did like wide angle lenses.
With the 20D I managed brilliantly with my 'primes until I decided to go and climb (walk up) Kili. I thought 'wow, wide open landscapes; streetscapes; foreign beautiful lands; space...' I need a wide angle. I wanted a prime obviously.
But, seduced by lens reviews and overridingly the need / desire / advide-take-directive-that-more-pounds-=-less-chance-of-getting-to-the-top I just wanted one lens on Kili.
So in Japan I bought a heavy, full-of-glass, not oiled, not tactile, but very fast wide-to-portrait zoom.
It ws great on Kili. It was heavy but it covered all the bases. And that's what zooms do: cover all the bases. In a mediocre way. They don't do anything well. At all. They're just plain convenient. And heavy. And generally, very slow. I was lucky, I had money to spend. Money = speed. And that needs glass. And that means weight.
Anyway, what's the poitn of all of this? What made me think of all this and rant so?
It is the picture below, of Rob.
[I have not found out how to get MT4 to display EXIF data. Very poor show. If I could, you'd know what I was on about here.]
The picture was taken with the 85. The 'prime'. A lens designed to do just one job. And designed to do it well.
I always carry it. But rarley use it. Stupid really. It is fast and light. And small.
And the results.
I'd vouch that my (any) zoom would not get that level of detail. You can see from the banding / noise in the background that this was on 1600/3200. Just checked.. it was 1/30 at f2.8 (lens is 1.8) at 1600. No where as near as good as Tri-X (hey - that's a separate post - an argument for film. Sigh).
Side story: Last year, on holiday on France, I decided to gho back to my roots (LOL) and use a 50 for my pics. First day on France, beautifiul setting, on a bridge on rural France with the girls. Get the girls to pose, as you do, press the shutter release. Nothing. Lens was fucked. It wouldn't focus. Reach into bag and get zoom. Saved the day. Apparently, the Canon 35 (35 x 1.6 = 50) suffers from a melancholy that renders it useless unless you take it to pieces and solder something up. I have such a sad and useless lens. I'll fix it as it is very small and light (not oiled or tactile though obviously).
Anyway, I did use to own a 20-210 Tamron that I used with my OM-1 and it was the first and only zoom I ever had. It was heavy, beautifully made, oiled, tactile, and full of glass. Other than that, I only ever used 'prime' lenses - in my parlance, they were 'lenses'. Zooms being 'non-lenses'. In those days nobody used zooms as everyday lenses. Or did they? Did I move on the wrong circles? Probably. Good.
I always 'made do' wich a 50 and a 135. Not a lot that you can't do with those. And they were small. Light. Oiled. Tactile. Full of glass.
When I bought thew 20D I had no intention of getting a zoom. Or having a 'kit lens'. I bought the body and, obviously, a 35 and an 85 which in digital multiply-by-1.6 land = 50 and 135. Not a lot you can't do with these.
I had owned wide angle lenses before though. I had a 35 - I didn;t want a 28 as that's what everyone else had. A 35 would make my picures different. And it was the nearest I could get to an un-affordable 35 shift lens. I did like wide angle lenses.
With the 20D I managed brilliantly with my 'primes until I decided to go and climb (walk up) Kili. I thought 'wow, wide open landscapes; streetscapes; foreign beautiful lands; space...' I need a wide angle. I wanted a prime obviously.
But, seduced by lens reviews and overridingly the need / desire / advide-take-directive-that-more-pounds-=-less-chance-of-getting-to-the-top I just wanted one lens on Kili.
So in Japan I bought a heavy, full-of-glass, not oiled, not tactile, but very fast wide-to-portrait zoom.
It ws great on Kili. It was heavy but it covered all the bases. And that's what zooms do: cover all the bases. In a mediocre way. They don't do anything well. At all. They're just plain convenient. And heavy. And generally, very slow. I was lucky, I had money to spend. Money = speed. And that needs glass. And that means weight.
Anyway, what's the poitn of all of this? What made me think of all this and rant so?
It is the picture below, of Rob.
[I have not found out how to get MT4 to display EXIF data. Very poor show. If I could, you'd know what I was on about here.]
The picture was taken with the 85. The 'prime'. A lens designed to do just one job. And designed to do it well.
I always carry it. But rarley use it. Stupid really. It is fast and light. And small.
And the results.
I'd vouch that my (any) zoom would not get that level of detail. You can see from the banding / noise in the background that this was on 1600/3200. Just checked.. it was 1/30 at f2.8 (lens is 1.8) at 1600. No where as near as good as Tri-X (hey - that's a separate post - an argument for film. Sigh).
Side story: Last year, on holiday on France, I decided to gho back to my roots (LOL) and use a 50 for my pics. First day on France, beautifiul setting, on a bridge on rural France with the girls. Get the girls to pose, as you do, press the shutter release. Nothing. Lens was fucked. It wouldn't focus. Reach into bag and get zoom. Saved the day. Apparently, the Canon 35 (35 x 1.6 = 50) suffers from a melancholy that renders it useless unless you take it to pieces and solder something up. I have such a sad and useless lens. I'll fix it as it is very small and light (not oiled or tactile though obviously).
