Origin of the keris

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Pusaka

Sorry Rick, yes he is king vishnuvardhana.

Thanks for the ID !
Say; do you have a copy of Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood ?
Think about buying a copy .

Added any new keris to your collection ?

[Battara]

First, is the monkey with the blade Hanuman?

Secondly, Rick, you should get the Elgood book, it is great.

[A. G. Maisey]

I always thought he was Hanoman, but I`ve seen this same relief ---with the altered blade base, of course---in publications by people who know more about the literature than I do, describe him as just a "monkey warrior". I don`t think it makes much difference for our purposes whether it's Hanoman or or a warrior. Both monkeys. Both using weapons.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Battara

First, is the monkey with the blade Hanuman?

Secondly, Rick, you should get the Elgood book, it is great.

I've got it Jose .

[Pusaka]

Originally Posted by Rick

Thanks for the ID !
Say; do you have a copy of Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood ?
Think about buying a copy .

Added any new keris to your collection ?

No I don’t have that book but will probably get round to buying it at some point.
I do have a few keris and will post a few pic`s when I get a new camera. The Camera I have at the moment is useless and I can’t seem to get any decent close up photos with it.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Pusaka

No I don’t have that book but will probably get round to buying it at some point.
I do have a few keris and will post a few pic`s when I get a new camera. The Camera I have at the moment is useless and I can’t seem to get any decent close up photos with it.

I can understand Pusaka; I have a Fuji F700 digi and sometimes I just cannot get decently focused pictures out of it .

I have a collection of Nikon film cameras that give me no problems; but digi's drive me crazy!!
I use mine at 1 meg per picture because really a computer screen only renders at 72 DPI; so what's the use of shooting at a higher res.
Frustrating !!

Have you downloaded irfanview ?
www.irfanview.com free !

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by Rick

... I have a Fuji F700 digi and sometimes I just cannot get decently focused pictures out of it .
...but digi's drive me crazy!!
I use mine at 1 meg per picture because really a computer screen only renders at 72 DPI; so what's the use of shooting at a higher res.
Frustrating !!

Have you downloaded irfanview ?
www.irfanview.com free !

Gee.. Rick, I'm using a Fujifilm Finepix F700, too. Most of my pics are, OK except for a few, under certain conditions. Normally, I'll take a 3.2 megapixels pic and edit to get a sharper res. As for simple picture editing, I use Google's Picasa2, it's free too. http://picasa.google.com/download/index.html

[A. G. Maisey]

Hate digipics.

Hate digicams.

Hate the false focal length, which means that at 5'8'' I need to balance on an old paint tin to focus anything bigger than a Jawa keris.

Hate the indefinite focus.

Hate the time I have to spend with photoshop to produce anything like acceptable , fast download pics.

Hate the dust that can get attracted to guts of the thing if you change lens.

Hate the predicted short working life---still got and use my old Nikon F from 47 years ago---it still takes good pics and has been dropped, kicked, taken swimming lessons, and otherwise trashed. Two Nikon techos assure me that anything over five years out of my D70 is a gift from God.

Probably other things I hate about them too, just can`t think of anything else at the moment.

Nothing works like a macro lens for closeups.

The devil was at work when they invented digital cameras.

[John]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

---still got and use my old Nikon F from 47 years ago---it still takes good pics and has been dropped, kicked, taken swimming lessons, and otherwise trashed. Two Nikon techos assure me that anything over five years out of my D70 is a gift from God.

Wow, still using the Nikon F! That even precedes my F2S of the 70s which got stolen...and now an F5 which is so bulky. I like my Nikon coolpix 5700... , it's light and convenient.

[A. G. Maisey]

I`ve got a few Nikon F's. The one I mentioned is the first one I got, and it really has had a hiding. Had it serviced fairly regularly, and at the last service everything was still within tolerance. When I used to do hardcopy cats, I used this camera probably more than 50% of the time to take the pics, along with the macro lens of the same age. The most recent F I have, I bought only ten years ago---its an F something or other, but is still essentially the same camera as the original. Any decent pics that I`ve taken in Indonesia have been taken with the old Nikon.Got a couple of little point and push Nikons too, and they also take a pretty decent shot.
The new D70 does not begin to match the the old F's on quality. I really, really dislike this camera.About all I can say in its favour is that it appears to be better than just about all the other digicams I`ve handled.I`ll be amazed if its still producing pics in even ten years time, though.

Here`s a couple pics that were done with Old Reliable, and then put on to CD.

The relief is another one from Panataran, and the keris budha is a very early bronze one.

[Pusaka]

Originally Posted by Rick

I can understand Pusaka; I have a Fuji F700 digi and sometimes I just cannot get decently focused pictures out of it .

I have a collection of Nikon film cameras that give me no problems; but digi's drive me crazy!!
I use mine at 1 meg per picture because really a computer screen only renders at 72 DPI; so what's the use of shooting at a higher res.
Frustrating !!

Have you downloaded irfanview ?
www.irfanview.com free !

The editing software I use came with the digital camera. The software itself is quite good with many features but sadly I can’t say the same for the camera.
I don’t think it’s a question of mega pixels because my digital camera is a 4 mega pixels camera with 6x digital zoom. That should be sufficient resolution to take a good photo however that is not the case.
I find that it is too sensitive to movement and if I want to take close up photos I have to rest my hand on something to make it really steady. Even if I manage to do this 8 out of 10 photos are not of a suitable quality.
Also I find it eats batteries like no tomorrow.
Taking a simple close-up photo has never been so difficult!
I think im better-off going back to “primitive” optics and to hell with this technological junk!

[Rick]

Jeepers !

I go off to bed here in New England and I wake up to a photo equipment discussion!

Might as well throw my two cents in here also; I like others here have a pair of early 1960's F's they; are unmetered old beasts and I have a hand held light meter . I've also got the large prism sports finder which some people I guess are willing to kill for . Also got that lovely micro-NIKKOR-P 3.5 lens that A.M. was raving about . Also got a N90s with a very large zoom for surf photography and an S just for sentimental reasons .

I guess I'll just have to keep practicing on my digi; I've read better instruction books though; it's just that it gives such immediate gratification when you want to throw a picture up on the forum . It seems mostly to be the mid range pictures that give me trouble with sharpness. Maybe I'll try upping my file size and see if that helps .

I wonder when they'll be coming to take away our film; most stuff for publication is digi these days.

[David]

OK, i was thinking about starting a brand new thread on this subject, but since Pusaka has also joined in with the camera talk i guess i'll just post here. Photography has been my profession for more nearly 25 yrs. now, so hopefully i know a fair bit about the subject. I sympathize with all those frustrated with digital technlogy. I was personally brought kicking and screaming into the digital world,but if i hadn't made the switch about 4 yrs. ago i wouldn't be working today, plain and simple. Like any new technology, digital has had it's problems, but i will say that it has come a long way in the past couple of years. One of my major frustrations is just how fast the technology is improving. The camera i bought 4 yrs. ago is obsolete already! Like Alan i shot for years on the same old Nikons and Leicas. I went through college using two old Leicas that were as old as i am and still work to this day. I love old manual cameras and the days when i would just LOOK at the light through a meterless camera and say,"Oh, that's f8 @ 1/60 ".
Ah, but the times they are achangin'. Like any new technology you need to really learn it to make it work for you. I am still learning quite a lot about digi every day. I tend to figure things out on a need to know basis, so i don't know as much as i probably should, but do know enough to get by on a professional level. Part of my job as a staff shooter for a weekly paper is that i am the one who does all the "toning" for the images that go to print. Digital images are not the same as film in that ALL digi images need post shooting work. Well, film does too, but most people don't really take this into account. They drop the film for others to process where a lab tech develops your film and then prints it. These machine prints arec rarely acceptable by pro standards, so prints would then be hand done, with bthe tech adjusting color and contrast levels to produce the correct print for the job. With digi, you are the "processer". To do this well you need to have good programs and you need to learn how to use them. Once you do you can do the job faster and more efficiently than any lab tech could have with film, in the light of day and without dangerous chemicals.
Alan, to address a few of your concerns more directly:
1. Digital is here to stay, and unfortuately it does require some serious expenses. Bottom line to your lens issues is that you need to buy new lenses that will get you off the paint tins when you take your photos. You can only do so much trying to get by with your old lenses.
2. I am not sure what you mean by "indefinite" focus.
3. I work with photoshop everyday and find it fast and efficient. It has some amazing features that allow you to do things you never could do in the darkroom. I would recommend the lastest editions for the best and most complete features. Frankly, i don't even know what half the program will actually do, but if you learn what you need it shouldn't eat up too much of your time in the operation.
4.Dust IS a major factor with digitals. The best thing to do when changing lenes is to not only turn off the camera, but also remove the battery, as even when off there can still be a charge on the CCD that attracts dust. Most of the time though, i just turn the camera off and switch lenses as fast as i can. I probably do this a whole lot more than most of you and only rarely get dust on my CCD. When i do i blow it out.
5. Remember that even though it wasn't cheap, the D70 is NOT a professional camera. The F series Nikons were made for professionals which is why they are so tough. My D2X is similarly built to last, though with all the technology there is certtainly more that can go wrong. Did once drop my D1X two feet onto the concrete with no problem. Your D70 is more akin to something like the old Nikon FM. Those cameras didn't hold up anywhere near as well as the Fs did. The real problem though is that in 5 yrs. your D70 may well be working, but it will be far outdone by the newest and cheaper cameras.

Pusaka, even with film cameras it would be a good idea to put the camera on a tripod. Close-up work limits you depth of field (DOF is the zone of sharp focus in any given image). You would therefore want to use the smallest lens opening (which is the largest number) as that increases DOF. But that also means slower shutter speeds so you would want to steady the camera with a tripod. Yes, "older" digitals do tend to eat battery power, but this has been GREATLY improved in later models. As for going back to "primitive" optics, the optics haven't changed all that much, it's the rest of the camera. The technology isn't "junk", it just needs to be used properly. Never use a digital zoom BTW, unless you want crappy images. A DIGITAL zoom merely crops the image to make it larger. That means that it is just an enlargement and a great deal of quality is lost. 4 MP should indeed be enough to make quality images, especial for the internet, but if you then crop those images with digital zoom it is no longer a 4MP image. The more you zoom, the worse it gets. When buying point-and-shoot digicams, always look for the ones that offer an OPTICAL zoom.
As for sharpness issues, i have found my photos to be incredibly sharp, but NO IMAGE COMES DIRECTLY OUT OF A DIGITAL CAMERA SHARP. ALL digital images need to be sharpened ( and probably have their levels tweaked and color slightly adjusted) through a program similar to Photo Shop's Unsharp Mask. This is a program which also must me applied properly for optimum effect. Many people tend to vastly over-sharpen their images and the effect looks very unnatural. Experiment with your programs and you will find what looks best for you camera and different shooting situations.
Lastly Rick, i highly doubt they will be coming anytime soon to take your film away. Video did not eliminate motion picture film. Film itself did not eliminate oil paints and pastels. Films, as a medium for artistic expression is here to stay. Unfortunately, with less use of film we will see some of our favorite types fade away and i am afraid that the cost of them will probably rise. But for those who wish to keep shooting the stuff, i think it will be around.

[Pusaka]

Thanks for the info David, I had noticed that the digital zoom produced poor images in close up photos so I tend not to use that feature and instead try to get closer to the object. Well I’m going to start looking for a digital with optical zoom as you suggested. With my digital camera it’s obviously a focal problem i.e. the image has sufficient resolution (@ 4 mega pixels) but lacks focus so everything is blurred. Perhaps it a fault in the camera.