Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Burton Strauss III, post: 2484824, member: 59677&quot;]<img src="http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b519/BStrauss3/Slab2016.XBJ_detail_zpszf1hsecl.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p>I did another shot. Normally with 3 difused Jansjos I shoot at around 0.5s, but the histogram said that was overexposed so I dropped down to 1/3s which some said was too dark, so here is it at 0.4s.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think this is a more accurate photo (except I need to fiddle with the positioning of the lights to avoid the washouts on the foreleg and back hip, and I guess I could change the exposure a drib to split the time difference, and ...)</p><p><br /></p><p>Other than whatever you want to say about Accugrade itself (take that to /dev/null, please), it has been in the holder since the mid 80s so I know it hasn&#039;t <i>recently </i>been messed with.</p><p><br /></p><p>But I really don&#039;t see a lot of luster there either... it&#039;s a terrible strike (look at Liberty - if you can find it). But that&#039;s also not unheard of in type 1s (there was a reason they made the type 2s after all).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Personally, I think the tiny bit of dirt in the eye is from circulation so I&#039;m in the low AU camp myself.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[USER=75931]@BATTERup646[/USER] - it wasn&#039;t me, the OP, that said anything, so play nice, BOTH of you![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in