is red oak firewood always extra smoky

Page 3 of 3  
On 1/16/2016 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:

We see a lot, but comprehend little. Cameras change the way you see things. Especially once you learns what "depth of field" is and how to control it. That was a big step in my photography.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/17/2016 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I took a physics class in college and several of the classes covered "light". Several years before getting my first decent camera, a Canon TX, followed by an AE-1, A-1, EOS 659, EOS 630 and finally the leap to digital, I knew all about hows and whys on the filtering of light and exposure.
I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual metering.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

I agree. My first decent camera was a fully manual Yashika TL-Electro X. If you wanted to double expose a frame in that camera, you had to actually (try to...) rewind the film after cocking the aperture for the second shot. But - that was an early '70's camera and lacked any of the modern conveniences. You had to learn about taking pictures to get anything more than snapshot quality out of it. That's why we read books by people like Ansel Adams...
--
-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@windstream.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/17/2016 12:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

The Canon TX, AE-1, and IIRC A-1 had a button on the bottom of the camera to release the advance lever so that it would not advance the film and that release allowed the crank to rewind the film into the canister. The advance lever also set the shutter for the next shot. Double, triple exposure etc was simple.
Today I use Fugi brand cameras with non removable lenses. I really really miss the fast lenses, fast compared to today's standards. DOF really comes into it's own when you have the aperture wide open and your are shooting closer to you vs. focused closer to infinity.
I am however considering going back to a Canon DSLR, probably one of the Rebels. I still have my old EOS 630 and IIRC my old lenses will work on the new EOS DSLR's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/17/16 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:

I resemble this!
I have (still) an A-1, Built like a tank, made with RTL (resistor transistor logic), precursor to TTL (transistor-transistor logic).
I "upgraded" to a digital Rebel with the same idea of using my old lenses as a bonus, that doesn't work. If I recall correctly, the old mounts have some doo-wah-jabber that interferes.
I have been buying lenses for my Rebel that are for full frame sensors so I can still use them when I upgrade to a more professional body.
-BR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/18/2016 8:43 AM, Brewster wrote:

My old lenses fit my EOS 630, they are EF lenses and should work. Once I finally sold my A-1 the lenses went with it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/17/2016 1:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Then you had the fun of the darkroom. I spent more time printing a shot than it took to take it with the camera. Once I went to digital I never turned the lights off again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes - I sure did. Started at it when I was stationed in Okinawa, and spend many hours in a blacked out bathroom. It was fascinating turning out some really cool pictures - generally somewhat tweaked. Used to have a supply of paper free from a buddy that worked in the photo lab, so I got to play and experiment to my heart's desire.
--
-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@windstream.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Ditto. Many/most have no idea what they are doing or how to do it again.
I messed with cameras for more than 50 years, from sub-niniature to 11 x 14. When I retired, I kept three...a Canon A-1 with a few lenses and two Rolleiflexes. The Rolleis aren't very versatile but they were far and away my favorites although they got little use after the early 60s.
Now, I use a Fuji "bridge" camera, spend an inordinate amount of time trying to remember how to access what I want in the menus. Easier in the old days...SAFE (shutter, aperture focus, expose),
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/17/2016 3:16 PM, dadiOH wrote:

Lens goes, 35mm equivalent, 28-400mm optically and will double that digitally. I don't digitally zoom for any other reason than to see something closer, never for actual printing. ;~) Unfortunately its fastest F-Stop is 2.8, not really slow but I had 1.8 years ago and that was significantly faster. and that might explain why most digital cameras don't go below 100 on film speed. I remember when ASA 160 was HOT! LOL I mostly used 64 or 120 and occasionally 25.
And you are right about the menu's. I can never remember how to view a picture and zoom or crop it and save on the camera.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dadiOH wrote:

exposure value and the aperture and speed rings locked together. Loved that feature--if you needed a fast exposure the aperture was automatically right for that speed.
--
GW Ross

Press any key to continue or any other
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I had a Canon FTb when I was in college. I put around 20-36exp rolls of Tri-X and perhaps 10 x 20exp rolls of infrared B&W though it a week. After I graduated, some moron swiped it (and everything else of value in our apartment). I replaced it with a AE-1 that I absolutely hated. Too automatic and too difficult to use manually (no match needle but that was only the obvious loss).
In later years I bought a bunch of very nice black-body FTbs and lenses that cost more than my annual salary, at the time. Of course I generally use my cell phone as a camera now. ;-)

+1!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Red Oak has more tannin and decays faster. Large pore and such. It has reddish color and 'bleads' if cut when sap is running.
I just had a dozen logs sawed in the back yard. I had a massive 35" to 30" log that yielded a stack of 4x4's.
It was funny watching sometimes - he used a medium size tractor trying to pick up 22' log like that and it was to heavy. It drove the tractor into the ground with the weight. It was cut to 11 feet and he could just make it.
Not sure on what he was trying to say. Red is red when dripping sap. White like winter wood or dried.
I'd look at leaves and bark and cells to call an oak an oak. They morph easily between each other.
Martin On 1/13/2016 4:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:24:47 -0600

the smoky oak i bought last time i think was red oak but not sure
maybe the prevalence of tannins caused more smoke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/17/2016 7:46 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

More than likely was still green. I know of no oak that won't burn cleanly if dry and in sufficient draft.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.