"Grif" Keith Griffith is the quick and lucky winner, it is on its way to a new
home. Make and post some images Grif!

Regards,
Jay Wesselink


--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, "recumblelink" <wesselink@...> wrote:
>
> I have a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 outfit with its box, flashcube extender, 2
dead batteries for someone to rebuild.
>
> Find battery rebuild instructions here:
> http://home.comcast.net/~youngds/110Cameras/Kfactour/TheKFactour.htm
>
> I will not bother trying to sell this on Ebay. If any Submini group member
wants this outfit let me know and we can work out how to get it to you. The 60
has rangefinder focusing.
>
> Regards,
> Jay Wesselink
>

Greetings Submini friends,

I haven't been on the forum for a while. I have a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60, 2
dead "K" batteries, the box, instructions, flash cube extender. Its not worth it
to me trying to sell on Ebay. Who wants the whole outfit? I'm cleaning out.

I did find the instructions online to rebuild the batteries if you want that...
http://home.comcast.net/~youngds/110Cameras/Kfactour/TheKFactour.htm
Let me know.

Regards,
Jay Wesselink

--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, Donald Qualls <silent1@...> wrote:
>
> 'Grif' wrote:
> >
> > One thing I wish,,, a 16mm rangefinder a guy could afford.
> >
>
> If you don't dawdle, you might still be able to get enough 110
> cartridges to reload for a bit, one of the Kodak Pocket Instamatic line
> had a fully functional rangefinder (as well as automatic exposure for
> ISO 100 and 400, detected from the cartridge, and a built-in strobe).
> The K batteries are long gone, but if you can find a shell you can
> "reload" those too (and if you're careful and good with glue, you can
> probably make a shell).
>
> --
> If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
> it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
>
> Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com
>
> Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
> and don't expect them to be perfect.
>

I have a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 outfit with its box, flashcube extender, 2
dead batteries for someone to rebuild.

Find battery rebuild instructions here:
http://home.comcast.net/~youngds/110Cameras/Kfactour/TheKFactour.htm

I will not bother trying to sell this on Ebay. If any Submini group member wants
this outfit let me know and we can work out how to get it to you. The 60 has
rangefinder focusing.

Regards,
Jay Wesselink

The link to my minox pics are picks that are either scans of Blue Moon prints
and many are direct scans of negatives. All pics are from minocolor or minoxpan
except image529 which is ilford XP2 400 holding a 3 stop red filter in front of
the lens. The ilford XP2 is on a cassette reloaded by Joe of Goathill.

I uploaded some of my minox pics at flickr

My people name at flickr in 'minoxmonk'

the web link is
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallertrees/

--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, "ku7j5" <ku7j5@...> wrote:
>
> Now that I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
tools were calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or converting
but when it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to 0.003936996 in.
converting becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004 but the
mental anguish remains :-)]
>
> Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining now it is back to work.
>
An update of sorts.

This slitter is a crank type that started as much because I wanted to play with
my unimat lathe/mill as for  any other reason (my flatbed slitter works just
fine).

After measuring a dozen or so cassettes that ranged from 9.2456 to 9.3472 mm.
depth (using a B&S vernier depth micrometer) I have opted for a 9.24 width and
will shim from there if necessary.

My two cents worth on the "tolerance" thread.

My observation from many years in photofinishing and some camera repair is that
the equipment that film goes through has relatively loose tolerances in the
advance and take up areas. The film plane and pressure plates are close to dead
on and the rest are in the ball park. It's not a matter of sloppy work but an
acknowledgment of the conditions that a camera will be used under. They are
expected to work in -double digit to + triple digit temperatures and similar
extremes in humidity. Toss into that brew some degree of dust as well as the
normal bouncing and banging in everyday usage. In those conditions if they were
made to be both functional and have super close tolerances throughout the price
would make the most expensive camera today look cheap.

xkaes@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/21/09 12:25:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> silent1@... writes:
>
> mark  hahn wrote:
>> geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances  don't you?
>> The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which  is very
>> small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work  perfectly fine
>> if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not  34.8mm.
>>
>
> For perspective, this difference is about the same as  the thickness of
> common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the  thickness of 35 mm
> still film stock.
>
>
>>>
>
> Great, but when you are cutting Minox film that is 9.2mm, if you cut it
> 9.4mm, it won't fit in the cassette.. So sometimes the 0.2mm does matters. If
> it  doesn't matter to you, that's fine, but to some people under some
> circumstances,  it does matter. I'm sorry I tried to enlighten you regarding
this
> detail. You  can bet it will never happen again.
>
>

As suggested, tolerances matter, and often they're best considered as a
percentage of the total dimension.  For Minox film, 0.2 mm is more than
2% of the final width, in a high precision system (there's only 0.6 mm
clear film on either side of the frame).  Minolta 16 film cut that much
too wide will make a cassette fail to close, also, though the cameras I
have will tolerate the variation if you can get the film to advance.
For 35 mm "double frame" Leica/Kodak format, that amount of variation is
just over 0.5% of the width, and there's plenty of tolerance in the
cameras.  This same issue arises with other slitting situations, of
course; when I slit 120 to 127, I have to contend with either having the
strip narrow enough to be loose in the spool, or having film too wide to
fit a 127 developing reel (though that same problem hasn't arisen in
cutting 120 to make 828; perhaps I just don't cut precisely enough to
notice, or perhaps the backing on 828 isn't as much wider than the film
as it is in 127).

For my own contribution above, it's worth noting that if you somehow
manage to double load 4x5 film in the holder, the extra thickness will
result in very noticeable focus error because the emulsion will no
longer be in precisely the same position as the ground glass.  There
surely are situations in which that much change matters, and others
where it doesn't.  All I was doing is pointing out how big or small 0.2
mm is in real world dimensions.

--
If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Ohhhh,,,,, somebodies forgot their happy pills!

   It's just film and a hobby.  The really big thing...It's not going
to mess up anybody's Christmas no matter who's right.

   I'll bet you won't even remember this in a week when you wake up
Saturday morning.


At 11:30 AM 11/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 11/21/09 12:25:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
>silent1@... writes:
>
>mark  hahn wrote:
> > geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances  don't you?
> > The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which  is very
> > small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work  perfectly fine
> > if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not  34.8mm.
> >
>
>For perspective, this difference is about the same as  the thickness of
>common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the  thickness of 35 mm
>still film stock.
>
>
> >>
>
>Great, but when you are cutting Minox film that is 9.2mm, if you cut it
>9.4mm, it won't fit in the cassette.. So sometimes the 0.2mm does matters. If
>it  doesn't matter to you, that's fine, but to some people under some
>circumstances,  it does matter. I'm sorry I tried to enlighten you
>regarding this
>detail. You  can bet it will never happen again.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to
>SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
>
>
>

In a message dated 11/21/09 12:25:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
silent1@... writes:

mark  hahn wrote:
> geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances  don't you?
> The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which  is very
> small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work  perfectly fine
> if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not  34.8mm.
>

For perspective, this difference is about the same as  the thickness of
common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the  thickness of 35 mm
still film stock.


>>

Great, but when you are cutting Minox film that is 9.2mm, if you cut it
9.4mm, it won't fit in the cassette.. So sometimes the 0.2mm does matters. If
it  doesn't matter to you, that's fine, but to some people under some
circumstances,  it does matter. I'm sorry I tried to enlighten you regarding
this
detail. You  can bet it will never happen again.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mark hahn wrote:
> geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances don't you?
> The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which is very
> small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work perfectly fine
> if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not 34.8mm.
>

For perspective, this difference is about the same as the thickness of
common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the thickness of 35 mm
still film stock.

--
If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Tom Nelson wrote:
> My presumption is that we call it 35mm from the Leica and the first still
> cameras for the format out of Europe.  Does anyone know?

Story I heard a long time ago was that Kodak's first slitters were
imported from france and were designed to slit cigarette paper, and thus
they were calibrated in MM.  They probably were adjustable in increments
of 5mm.

The Nitrate stock that Dickson was using probably changed dimensions in
the processing baths.  Kodak called it 35mm when they started to sell
it, it may have been 35mm then, and the dimensions have changed over the
years, a small amount smaller would prevent the film from catching on
the edge of the camera gate for example.

The perforations for negative film went from .1870 inch to .1866 inch
between centres when safety film did not shrink as much as Nitrate did.
   Positive film, (and still film) is still .1870  The perforations have
also changed shape over the years with Movie negative having what are
called "bell and Howell" perforations while positive and still film have
what is called Kodak Standard.

The Leica camera was originally fed with short ends of Motion Picture
stock, with film made specially for it later once the format caught on.

--
Charles MacDonald                 Stittsville Ontario
cmacd@...              Just Beyond the Fringe
http://www.TelecomOttawa.net/~cmacd/
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.

geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances don't you?  The
difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which is very small.  I'm sure
that many "35mm cameras" would work perfectly fine if the film used was actually
35mm in width and not 34.8mm.

In a message dated 11/20/09 2:17:42 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
tomnetch@... writes:

My  presumption is that we call it 35mm from the Leica and the first  still
cameras for the format out of Europe.  Does anyone  know?


>>

The same, exact film had been used for decades in earlier cameras, but it
was never called 35mm. Why would Leica call film that was not 35mm,  35mm?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My presumption is that we call it 35mm from the Leica and the first still
cameras for the format out of Europe.  Does anyone know?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@...> wrote:

>
>
> What an interesting story - it something I've always just taken for
> granted, that "35mm" film was so-named because it was, well, 35mm across. I
> suppose its still easier than calling it "one-and-three-eights" film.
> Although we do call "two-and-one-quarter" film just that, and not "57.15mm"
> film (I suppose we could just say '57mm' or '58mm' to be easier...). I will
> agree with the original poster that using metric measurements makes
> converting much easier... although it doesn't seem common among machinists.
>
> Jim Brokaw
>
> ________________________________
> From: "xkaes@... <xkaes%40aol.com>" <xkaes@... <xkaes%40aol.com>>
> To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com <SUBMINI-L%40yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: Rosielily@... <Rosielily%40aol.com>
> Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 6:47:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Slitter assembly tweaking stage.
>
> In a message dated 11/20/09 7:32:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> ku7j5@yahoo. com writes:
>
> Now that I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
> tools were calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or
> converting but when it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to
> 0.003936996
> in. converting becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004
> but the mental anguish remains :-)]
>
> Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining now it is back to work.
>
> >>
>
> This is a good point, but one think to keep in mind -- not all dimensions
> are the real dimensions. For example, 35mm film is not 35mm wide. I don't
> know why or how it got to be called 35mm film, because when it was created,
>
> it was not 35mm wide. Go figure. It is really 34.8mm wide. That 0.2mm
> difference can have adverse effects in a slitter.
>
> W.K..L. Dickson, in an article written for the SMPTE Journal in 1933,
> described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and
> Kinetograph. It gives us a look at how 35mm still cameras evolved. Dickson
> was
> a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in
> 1887. By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using
> multiple rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid. In
> late
> 1888, Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at
> the
> New York Camera Club, which Dickson attended. He immediately open
> discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with
> George
> Eastman, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's
> new
> flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman
> requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater
> flexibility of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the
> product
> right from the beginning. Dickson's account gives the impression that the
> flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the
> Edison
> experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his
> first 50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that
> "All these samples and experiemnts were made exclusively for us by Mr.
> Eastman, who took an ever-increasing interest in what we were doing." The
> Edison people had to cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is
> unclear
> what width the 50 rolls were. Dickson goes on, "At the end of the year
> 1889,
> I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4, then, to 1 inch
> 3/4 inch high. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for
> perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture,
> which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This
> standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation,
> unaltered to
> date." This was true in 1933, and it's still true today. It's
> interesting that he gives the dimensions in inches, not millimeters. If you
> measure
> a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across
> (only 34.8mm).
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What an interesting story - it something I've always just taken for granted,
that "35mm" film was so-named because it was, well, 35mm across. I suppose its
still easier than calling it "one-and-three-eights" film. Although we do call
"two-and-one-quarter" film just that, and not "57.15mm" film (I suppose we could
just say '57mm' or '58mm' to be easier...). I will agree with the original
poster that using metric measurements makes converting much easier... although
it doesn't seem common among machinists.

Jim Brokaw




________________________________
From: "xkaes@..." <xkaes@...>
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Rosielily@...
Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 6:47:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Slitter assembly tweaking stage.



In a message dated 11/20/09 7:32:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
ku7j5@yahoo. com writes:

Now that  I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
tools were  calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or
converting but when  it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to
0.003936996
in. converting  becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004
but the mental  anguish remains :-)]

Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining  now it is back to work.

>>

This is a good point, but one think to keep in mind -- not all dimensions
are the real dimensions. For example, 35mm film is not 35mm wide. I don't
know  why or how it got to be called 35mm film, because when it was created,
it was  not 35mm wide.  Go figure. It is really 34.8mm wide. That 0.2mm
difference  can have adverse effects in a slitter.

W.K..L. Dickson, in an article written for the SMPTE Journal in 1933,
described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and
Kinetograph.  It gives us a look at how 35mm still cameras evolved. Dickson  was
a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in
1887.  By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using
multiple rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.  In  late
1888, Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at  the
New York Camera Club, which Dickson attended.  He immediately open
discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George
Eastman, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new
flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman
requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater
flexibility  of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the
product
right  from the beginning.  Dickson's account gives the impression that the
flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison
experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his
first  50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that
"All these  samples and experiemnts were made exclusively for us by Mr.
Eastman, who took an  ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."  The
Edison people had to  cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear
what width the 50 rolls  were. Dickson goes on, "At the end of the year 1889,
I increased the width of  the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4, then, to 1 inch
3/4 inch high. The actual  width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for
perforations now punched on both  edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture,
which perforations were a shade smaller  than those now in use. This
standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with  only minor variation,
unaltered to
date."  This was true in 1933, and it's  still true today.   It's
interesting that he gives the dimensions in  inches, not millimeters.  If you
measure
a piece of 35mm film, you'll see  that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across
(only 34.8mm).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/20/09 7:32:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
ku7j5@... writes:

Now that  I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
tools were  calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or
converting but when  it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to
0.003936996
in. converting  becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004
but the mental  anguish remains :-)]

Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining  now it is back to work.



>>

This is a good point, but one think to keep in mind -- not all dimensions
are the real dimensions. For example, 35mm film is not 35mm wide. I don't
know  why or how it got to be called 35mm film, because when it was created,
it was  not 35mm wide.  Go figure. It is really 34.8mm wide. That 0.2mm
difference  can have adverse effects in a slitter.

W.K..L. Dickson, in an article written for the SMPTE Journal in 1933,
described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and
Kinetograph.  It gives us a look at how 35mm still cameras evolved. Dickson  was
a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in
1887.  By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using
multiple rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.  In  late
1888, Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at  the
New York Camera Club, which Dickson attended.  He immediately open
discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George
Eastman, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new
flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman
requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater
flexibility  of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the
product
right  from the beginning.  Dickson's account gives the impression that the
flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison
  experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his
first  50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that
"All these  samples and experiemnts were made exclusively for us by Mr.
Eastman, who took an  ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."  The
Edison people had to  cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear
what width the 50 rolls  were. Dickson goes on, "At the end of the year 1889,
I increased the width of  the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4, then, to 1 inch
3/4 inch high. The actual  width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for
perforations now punched on both  edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture,
which perforations were a shade smaller  than those now in use. This
standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with  only minor variation,
unaltered to
date."  This was true in 1933, and it's  still true today.   It's
interesting that he gives the dimensions in  inches, not millimeters.  If you
measure
a piece of 35mm film, you'll see  that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across
(only 34.8mm).


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now that I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my tools
were calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or converting but
when it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to 0.003936996 in. converting
becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004 but the mental anguish
remains :-)]

Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining now it is back to work.

Thanks for sending this out.  I've wanted one of these for many years and kept
putting off buying it.

________________________________
From: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
ku7j5
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:53 PM
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Submini-L] emoscop... getem while you can.



I received them following from emoscop.

We are sorry to advise that we do not carry this accessory anymore, as
production has been stopped for the EMOSCOP. We are only selling out the stock
of complete sets.

Kindest regards,

TOBI DOERINGER
EMOSCOP




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
----------
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose, distribute or
copy this communication.  Please notify the sender that you
have received this e-mail in error and delete the original and any copy of the
e-mail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
---------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Picked-up a Minolta 16-II and am now in need of a film splitter!  Anyone got a
used one to part with for a non-usurious price?  Many thanks.

John M.     <john2k_99@...>

I received them following from emoscop.

We are sorry to advise that we do not carry this accessory anymore, as
production has been stopped for the EMOSCOP. We are only selling out the stock
of complete sets.

Kindest regards,

TOBI DOERINGER
EMOSCOP

5x7 is my favorite as well. I'm rather a fanatic about dust in the camera or the
darkroom when it comes to the Minox so my 8x10's usually come out okay with a
bit of spotting. If I know before hand that I'll probably want bigger than 5x7 I
use a 35mm (sp500)

--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, mark hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
>
> I found that 5x7's were the sweet-spot for Minox printing (with slow films)...
I was never happy with any 8x10's I did due to spots, streaks, scratches etc...
but for 5x7's spot-all was fine and I got impressive prints.
>
> --- On Mon, 11/9/09, ku7j5 <ku7j5@...> wrote:
>
> > From: ku7j5 <ku7j5@...>
> > Subject: [Submini-L] Re: for all you skeptics
> > To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 8:58 PM
> > Na just needed something to complain
> > about. :-)
> >
> > Just gave my Hasselblad stuff to my daughter. After a
> > several years dry spell I'm getting back into processing and
> > printing my own Minox negatives. I typically print 5x7 and
> > seldom anything over 8x10 so after the relearning curve and
> > with a bit of care everything should be good.
> >
> > --- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com,
> > Donald Qualls <silent1@> wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to make LARGE prints, you still have all
> > the excuses you
> > > could ever want to buy a medium or large format.�
> > Otherwise, just get
> > > set up with a reliable way to feed your Minox or
> > Minolta 16 with good,
> > > slow film.
> > >
> > > --
> > > If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally
> > get what you want,
> > > it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
> > >
> > > Donald Qualls, aka The Silent
> > Observer���http://silent1.home.netcom.com
> > >
> > > Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what
> > they're worth
> > > and don't expect them to be perfect.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@...!
> > Groups Links
> >
> >
> > � � SUBMINI-L-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>