Analyse technique de Julien : Miele
Erreur F19 sur Lave-Vaisselle Miele : Diagnostic et Solutions
🔍 Rapport Complet: https://www.reparation-gem.org/miele/article/miele-lave-vaisselle-erreur-f19-signification
#f19
Zu Besuch bei #F19 in #Wetzlar. Heute ist WPX Contest und #DP6C ist auf 28.876 MHz in der Luft.
#hamradio #amateurfunk
An AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile should take care of this tropical storm. #xplane #xp12 #flightsim #f19
The clouds in the latest X-Plane 12 release look so much better. No more blurriness. #xplane #xp12 #flightsim #f19
The idea of a "stealth fighter" surely captured the popular imagination in late 1980s. Tom Clancy described it in the novel Red Storm Rising , a low-flying solo pilot in clandestine operation amidst an escalating battlefield. Clancy's books provided synopses for half a dozen Microprose games (including RSR), so no wonder the stealth fighter scenario was made into a game.
As is pointed out in the manual, the stealth mission is a situation where the lone-pilot approach makes some real world sense and this could be translated into a satisfying game. Nobody knew exactly what the Stealth Fighter would be like, but Microprose made some educated guesses and I believe a simulator of a yet-to-be-public plane was a world first.
The game must have been popular, as Microprose kept remaking it a number of times. It began life as Project: Stealth Fighter on the Commodore 64, and the greatly expanded PC/Amiga/ST versions were renamed as F-19 Stealth Fighter.
It's worth noting the Amiga/ST versions are only slightly different from the PC one, with a different palette and dashboard graphics. The simulation was once more revised into F117A Nighthawk , after the real stealth fighter became public. I only have the Project:Stealth Fighter and the F-19 Stealth Fighter at hand.
Project: Stealth Fighter
Back in the day, I bought this game on C64 cassette even if I knew it would not work very well. I recall it was disturbing to lose your craft early on and then having to load everything again from tape.
Later, I used an Action Replay cart to store a mission starting point so I could at least practice more.
Those Paul Klee rejects are the USS America and the supporting fleet
A ZX Spectrum version existed, something which I had forgotten. Glancing at it, it's a bare-bones version of the game, all the C64 features are probably there but with less graphics and presentation. It's not perceivably faster and I have to confess the Spectrum's colour scheme does not lend itself to the tech-thriller stealth atmosphere so well.
F-19 Stealth Fighter
The DOS version of Stealth Fighter is an older generation PC game. My version came in 5'25" floppies and should work on a 8088/CGA PC. The roughly 320 x 100 pixel area reserved for the main view is surprisingly crude, and although there's a world of detail compared to the C64 game, the visuals are not that far from each other from today's perspective.
Some instruments are strangely lacking, there's no accurate numeric readout for your current bearing, for instance. You have to rely on the visual indicator at top.
That's not where the Souda Bay is?
There's a bunch of functions that can be assigned to the two dashboard monitors. Using the camera becomes quite important when landing, because the ILS is not that good for seeing the precise alignment of your plane in relation to the strip. The Reverse Tactical View can also help getting it right.
For this reason I've felt it better to approach the airfield from about 2000-3000' as you can get a more angled camera view from up there.
The stealth model
The most interesting feature in the game is the radar threat indicator which displays enemy radar signal strength against your craft "stealth" profile. Higher altitude generally means more visibility, and rolling the craft also increases your profile.
If the radar blip bars overlap with your stealth bar, it means they've caught a glimpse of you. One such error is usually not significant, but repeated scans will have the MiGs and SAMs firing missiles at you in no time.
Below the TRAK at centre, the radar signal and your stealth level
In the geographic map all the radar signals are visualized as expanding circles, and you can navigate your way in or around the sites. Pulse radars can be approached head-on, whereas doppler radars are better dealt tangentially to the signal.
This straightforward logic gives a slightly puzzle-ish feeling to the missions.
The 8-bit Project: Stealth Fighter only had a simple meter to gauge your stealth level, but little to no information about the radars and their impact on the meter.
Although the 16-bit game might provide unrealistic amount of data to the player, I believe this is for the benefit of the game and the simulation. Microprose did wisely to make more of the battlefield visible instead of limiting the scope strictly to the pilot's seat. You get a sort of sectional view of warfare, which is certainly very instructive and makes for a more interesting game.
In theory, the "signal map" needs to be negotiated just as the physical space, but at least on lower difficulty levels you can get away by simply flying low and taking note of the more active radar sources.
Flying low you also get to see the landscape and occasionally need to navigate around hills and mountains, something that's usually only seen in helicopter simulators. It seems the mountains do not block the radar waves, which is a pity.
**
**
Preparations
Microprose games from earlier era always had very lavish manuals, maps and keyboard overlays replete with technical, procedural and even political information.
Perhaps somehow the actions around these paper materials, floppy discs that had to mechanically inserted into the drive, etc. added to the atmosphere. Not only you were a stealth fighter pilot, you were the military planner, the spy, the researcher, a hacker or whatever.
I have lost my 8-bit stealth fighter maps, which is sad, as the black/white maps were more atmospheric. But as there was more detail in the F-19 game, different maps were needed.
You would almost never really ever see the enemy fighters close-up, so their presence was added by having the pictures and data in the manual.
These were also needed for the copy protection.
Post-mission
In Microprose-style, the missions are generated instead of "canned" storylines. Therefore they are repetitive with some variety in them.
As the navigation points are inserted to your on-board computer, there isn't that much to do in a mission except follow the navpoints and deal damage. Many choices are still left to you, as the flight path may need adjusting because of mountains, radar sites. It may sometimes make more sense to pick the secondary target first, and so on.
The basic narrative dynamic is created from having a primary and a secondary target. As you destroy the first, the enemy is usually on high alert. Then you have to decide if the secondary target can be achieved.
The spice of the game is often in the situations when something goes wrong. If you miss the target, are the conditions favorable to try again? Running out of fuel you'll be desperate for any friendly airfield other than the designated one. There's a plethora of weapon systems each of which are launched in different ways and suitable for different targets, and just possibly you'd prefer to use something easier than the one suggested.
I always loved how Microprose inserted those amusing images after completing a mission. It seems that to your friends you are only as good as your last mission:
Those days, you didn't have the Urban Dictionary at hand
The idea of a "stealth fighter" surely captured the popular imagination in late 1980s. Tom Clancy described it in the novel Red Storm Rising , a low-flying solo pilot in clandestine operation amidst an escalating battlefield. Clancy's books provided synopses for half a dozen Microprose games (including RSR), so no wonder the stealth fighter scenario was made into a game.
As is pointed out in the manual, the stealth mission is a situation where the lone-pilot approach makes some real world sense and this could be translated into a satisfying game. Nobody knew exactly what the Stealth Fighter would be like, but Microprose made some educated guesses and I believe a simulator of a yet-to-be-public plane was a world first.
The game must have been popular, as Microprose kept remaking it a number of times. It began life as Project: Stealth Fighter on the Commodore 64, and the greatly expanded PC/Amiga/ST versions were renamed as F-19 Stealth Fighter.
It's worth noting the Amiga/ST versions are only slightly different from the PC one, with a different palette and dashboard graphics. The simulation was once more revised into F117A Nighthawk , after the real stealth fighter became public. I only have the Project:Stealth Fighter and the F-19 Stealth Fighter at hand.
Project: Stealth Fighter
Back in the day, I bought this game on C64 cassette even if I knew it would not work very well. I recall it was disturbing to lose your craft early on and then having to load everything again from tape.
Later, I used an Action Replay cart to store a mission starting point so I could at least practice more.
Those Paul Klee rejects are the USS America and the supporting fleet
A ZX Spectrum version existed, something which I had forgotten. Glancing at it, it's a bare-bones version of the game, all the C64 features are probably there but with less graphics and presentation. It's not perceivably faster and I have to confess the Spectrum's colour scheme does not lend itself to the tech-thriller stealth atmosphere so well.
F-19 Stealth Fighter
The DOS version of Stealth Fighter is an older generation PC game. My version came in 5'25" floppies and should work on a 8088/CGA PC. The roughly 320 x 100 pixel area reserved for the main view is surprisingly crude, and although there's a world of detail compared to the C64 game, the visuals are not that far from each other from today's perspective.
Some instruments are strangely lacking, there's no accurate numeric readout for your current bearing, for instance. You have to rely on the visual indicator at top.
That's not where the Souda Bay is?
There's a bunch of functions that can be assigned to the two dashboard monitors. Using the camera becomes quite important when landing, because the ILS is not that good for seeing the precise alignment of your plane in relation to the strip. The Reverse Tactical View can also help getting it right.
For this reason I've felt it better to approach the airfield from about 2000-3000' as you can get a more angled camera view from up there.
The stealth model
The most interesting feature in the game is the radar threat indicator which displays enemy radar signal strength against your craft "stealth" profile. Higher altitude generally means more visibility, and rolling the craft also increases your profile.
If the radar blip bars overlap with your stealth bar, it means they've caught a glimpse of you. One such error is usually not significant, but repeated scans will have the MiGs and SAMs firing missiles at you in no time.
Below the TRAK at centre, the radar signal and your stealth level
In the geographic map all the radar signals are visualized as expanding circles, and you can navigate your way in or around the sites. Pulse radars can be approached head-on, whereas doppler radars are better dealt tangentially to the signal.
This straightforward logic gives a slightly puzzle-ish feeling to the missions.
The 8-bit Project: Stealth Fighter only had a simple meter to gauge your stealth level, but little to no information about the radars and their impact on the meter.
Although the 16-bit game might provide unrealistic amount of data to the player, I believe this is for the benefit of the game and the simulation. Microprose did wisely to make more of the battlefield visible instead of limiting the scope strictly to the pilot's seat. You get a sort of sectional view of warfare, which is certainly very instructive and makes for a more interesting game.
In theory, the "signal map" needs to be negotiated just as the physical space, but at least on lower difficulty levels you can get away by simply flying low and taking note of the more active radar sources.
Flying low you also get to see the landscape and occasionally need to navigate around hills and mountains, something that's usually only seen in helicopter simulators. It seems the mountains do not block the radar waves, which is a pity.
**
**
Preparations
Microprose games from earlier era always had very lavish manuals, maps and keyboard overlays replete with technical, procedural and even political information.
Perhaps somehow the actions around these paper materials, floppy discs that had to mechanically inserted into the drive, etc. added to the atmosphere. Not only you were a stealth fighter pilot, you were the military planner, the spy, the researcher, a hacker or whatever.
I have lost my 8-bit stealth fighter maps, which is sad, as the black/white maps were more atmospheric. But as there was more detail in the F-19 game, different maps were needed.
You would almost never really ever see the enemy fighters close-up, so their presence was added by having the pictures and data in the manual.
These were also needed for the copy protection.
Post-mission
In Microprose-style, the missions are generated instead of "canned" storylines. Therefore they are repetitive with some variety in them.
As the navigation points are inserted to your on-board computer, there isn't that much to do in a mission except follow the navpoints and deal damage. Many choices are still left to you, as the flight path may need adjusting because of mountains, radar sites. It may sometimes make more sense to pick the secondary target first, and so on.
The basic narrative dynamic is created from having a primary and a secondary target. As you destroy the first, the enemy is usually on high alert. Then you have to decide if the secondary target can be achieved.
The spice of the game is often in the situations when something goes wrong. If you miss the target, are the conditions favorable to try again? Running out of fuel you'll be desperate for any friendly airfield other than the designated one. There's a plethora of weapon systems each of which are launched in different ways and suitable for different targets, and just possibly you'd prefer to use something easier than the one suggested.
I always loved how Microprose inserted those amusing images after completing a mission. It seems that to your friends you are only as good as your last mission:
Those days, you didn't have the Urban Dictionary at hand
The idea of a "stealth fighter" surely captured the popular imagination in late 1980s. Tom Clancy described it in the novel Red Storm Rising , a low-flying solo pilot in clandestine operation amidst an escalating battlefield. Clancy's books provided synopses for half a dozen Microprose games (including RSR), so no wonder the stealth fighter scenario was made into a game.
As is pointed out in the manual, the stealth mission is a situation where the lone-pilot approach makes some real world sense and this could be translated into a satisfying game. Nobody knew exactly what the Stealth Fighter would be like, but Microprose made some educated guesses and I believe a simulator of a yet-to-be-public plane was a world first.
The game must have been popular, as Microprose kept remaking it a number of times. It began life as Project: Stealth Fighter on the Commodore 64, and the greatly expanded PC/Amiga/ST versions were renamed as F-19 Stealth Fighter.
It's worth noting the Amiga/ST versions are only slightly different from the PC one, with a different palette and dashboard graphics. The simulation was once more revised into F117A Nighthawk , after the real stealth fighter became public. I only have the Project:Stealth Fighter and the F-19 Stealth Fighter at hand.
Project: Stealth Fighter
Back in the day, I bought this game on C64 cassette even if I knew it would not work very well. I recall it was disturbing to lose your craft early on and then having to load everything again from tape.
Later, I used an Action Replay cart to store a mission starting point so I could at least practice more.
Those Paul Klee rejects are the USS America and the supporting fleet
A ZX Spectrum version existed, something which I had forgotten. Glancing at it, it's a bare-bones version of the game, all the C64 features are probably there but with less graphics and presentation. It's not perceivably faster and I have to confess the Spectrum's colour scheme does not lend itself to the tech-thriller stealth atmosphere so well.
F-19 Stealth Fighter
The DOS version of Stealth Fighter is an older generation PC game. My version came in 5'25" floppies and should work on a 8088/CGA PC. The roughly 320 x 100 pixel area reserved for the main view is surprisingly crude, and although there's a world of detail compared to the C64 game, the visuals are not that far from each other from today's perspective.
Some instruments are strangely lacking, there's no accurate numeric readout for your current bearing, for instance. You have to rely on the visual indicator at top.
That's not where the Souda Bay is?
There's a bunch of functions that can be assigned to the two dashboard monitors. Using the camera becomes quite important when landing, because the ILS is not that good for seeing the precise alignment of your plane in relation to the strip. The Reverse Tactical View can also help getting it right.
For this reason I've felt it better to approach the airfield from about 2000-3000' as you can get a more angled camera view from up there.
The stealth model
The most interesting feature in the game is the radar threat indicator which displays enemy radar signal strength against your craft "stealth" profile. Higher altitude generally means more visibility, and rolling the craft also increases your profile.
If the radar blip bars overlap with your stealth bar, it means they've caught a glimpse of you. One such error is usually not significant, but repeated scans will have the MiGs and SAMs firing missiles at you in no time.
Below the TRAK at centre, the radar signal and your stealth level
In the geographic map all the radar signals are visualized as expanding circles, and you can navigate your way in or around the sites. Pulse radars can be approached head-on, whereas doppler radars are better dealt tangentially to the signal.
This straightforward logic gives a slightly puzzle-ish feeling to the missions.
The 8-bit Project: Stealth Fighter only had a simple meter to gauge your stealth level, but little to no information about the radars and their impact on the meter.
Although the 16-bit game might provide unrealistic amount of data to the player, I believe this is for the benefit of the game and the simulation. Microprose did wisely to make more of the battlefield visible instead of limiting the scope strictly to the pilot's seat. You get a sort of sectional view of warfare, which is certainly very instructive and makes for a more interesting game.
In theory, the "signal map" needs to be negotiated just as the physical space, but at least on lower difficulty levels you can get away by simply flying low and taking note of the more active radar sources.
Flying low you also get to see the landscape and occasionally need to navigate around hills and mountains, something that's usually only seen in helicopter simulators. It seems the mountains do not block the radar waves, which is a pity.
**
**
Preparations
Microprose games from earlier era always had very lavish manuals, maps and keyboard overlays replete with technical, procedural and even political information.
Perhaps somehow the actions around these paper materials, floppy discs that had to mechanically inserted into the drive, etc. added to the atmosphere. Not only you were a stealth fighter pilot, you were the military planner, the spy, the researcher, a hacker or whatever.
I have lost my 8-bit stealth fighter maps, which is sad, as the black/white maps were more atmospheric. But as there was more detail in the F-19 game, different maps were needed.
You would almost never really ever see the enemy fighters close-up, so their presence was added by having the pictures and data in the manual.
These were also needed for the copy protection.
Post-mission
In Microprose-style, the missions are generated instead of "canned" storylines. Therefore they are repetitive with some variety in them.
As the navigation points are inserted to your on-board computer, there isn't that much to do in a mission except follow the navpoints and deal damage. Many choices are still left to you, as the flight path may need adjusting because of mountains, radar sites. It may sometimes make more sense to pick the secondary target first, and so on.
The basic narrative dynamic is created from having a primary and a secondary target. As you destroy the first, the enemy is usually on high alert. Then you have to decide if the secondary target can be achieved.
The spice of the game is often in the situations when something goes wrong. If you miss the target, are the conditions favorable to try again? Running out of fuel you'll be desperate for any friendly airfield other than the designated one. There's a plethora of weapon systems each of which are launched in different ways and suitable for different targets, and just possibly you'd prefer to use something easier than the one suggested.
I always loved how Microprose inserted those amusing images after completing a mission. It seems that to your friends you are only as good as your last mission:
Those days, you didn't have the Urban Dictionary at hand
Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 MKII Review: A Stunning Vintage-Style Lens
Just over a year ago, Lomography launched the 180th Anniversary Edition of the Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 MKII Bokeh Control Art Lens which promised a bevy of improvements over its 85mm predecessor. It looked as though it would put a historic lens back in the hands in creatives at an affordable $549 price. So does it?
The 80.5mm f/1.9 MKII Art Lens with Bokeh Control was in development at Lomography for about seven years and is finally available for Nikon F and Canon EF mounts. While the "basic version" is available in three different colors, the bokeh control model that I reviewed here is only available in black aluminum.
Besides the color limitation, the real difference between the basic and this bokeh control version is the ability to control the amount of swirly bokeh effect in the images using the Bokeh Control Ring which goes from 1 (barely noticeable) to 7 (maximum bokeh). I do feel like making the scale go to eleven was a missed opportunity but, we can let that slide for now.
The original Petzval lenses from 1840 were previously only adaptable to large format cameras until Lomography started rebuilding them for digital systems in 2013. In doing so, the company sought to bring back the old "romantic" aesthetic from early portraits. Even though this particular lens was meant for the Nikon F mount, adapting it with the FTZ mount made it quick and easy to use on the Nikon Z mirrorless system without any issues.
Since the lens only weighs 440 grams, it is easy to balance on a gimbal which could make it quite a fun lens for videographers to use as well. For the purposes of this review, however, we'll focus on the lens from the perspective of a still shooter.
Build Quality and Design
The 80.5mm Petzval lens doesn't look all that different from any other manual lens aside from the built-in lens hood and the metal lens cap. It does have a couple of notable differences though: the bokeh control ring located at the end of the lens and the "slide plates" you can insert to change the shape of the bokeh, should you decide to go that extra step.
The focus, aperture, and bokeh rings each have a good amount of tension in them that I noticed when making adjustments, so you shouldn't have to worry about any drifting due to gravity or positioning. However, since all three of these rings are the "clickless" style (meaning there is no noticeable click when you make changes), you should double-check your settings if you are about to take an important shot to make sure no ring has slipped.
I found that when I shot freehand it was easy to accidentally bump one of the three rings slightly while moving around. Outside of that cautionary moment, the lens handled well and overall felt great to shoot with. Aesthetically, the lens is rugged, too. Even the paint on the barrel of the lens and the lettering felt almost impossible to scuff up. It is clear that the team at Lomography took their time with the quality presentation and look of this lens.
Something that does concern me about the longevity of this optic though is the lack of weather sealing or protection. While the lens seems to be designed quite well, the fact that there is no mention of weather sealing on the official website and that lens has a drop-in bokeh pattern insert leads me to believe you should be extra cautious using this lens outside in the "elements" just to be sure no water gets inside of it.
It is also worth noting that the bokeh control version of this lens is unable to have an ND, polarizer, or any other threaded filter type mounted to it. In my testing, I didn't have any need for it, but I can absolutely envision situations where an ND filter would come in handy. Maybe in the future, this could be something that could eventually be added into the drop-in section for the bokeh control.
Focus and Aperture
The lens has an aperture range of f/1.9 to f/16 and each of those stops looks as expected from a quality standpoint. That said, with a lens like this it's kind of hard to imagine why you would want to shoot it at anything more than wide open, as it detracts from the whole purpose of having it the more you close that aperture down.
When taking photos at f/4 or higher and with bokeh control at its minimum, it honestly looks like any other 80mm lens. When you are at f/3.5 and shallower, that's when the true nature of the lens starts to shine. Still, I can see the advantage of a lens that has the ability to offer wildly unique visuals while also is able to transform into something more "normal." It does add to the usability of the optic.
When you shoot wide open, you will be met with a soft focus and distorted vintage feel, which is likely the whole reason you would pick up something like this lens in the first place. With that in mind, be prepared to take a lot of extra shots to be sure you've nailed your focus as it can be easy to miss. That brings me to my next note about a learning curve -- The Bokeh Control.
I have never used a lens like this before and, at first, it really threw my composition game for a loop. As I learned how to use the lens, I will admit that there were a lot of deleted shots in the review process. Like I mentioned above, the bokeh control lets you shift through seven levels of bokeh, with level one being pretty much the same as you'd see on a standard f/1.9 type lens and level seven pushing out the maximum bokeh effect. Since I wanted to treat this like a vintage-style lens, I shot at f/1.9 and cranked the bokeh dial all the way up to seven.
What I discovered is with a lens like this, you have to throw your conventional training for composition completely out the window.
Notice her forehead and hair are out of the "safe zone" and blurred here.
To get things "in focus" at those settings, you effectively need to ensure your subject is dead center in the frame. Even if your camera tells you it is in focus near the edges with focus-peaking, once you take the shot, the borders will be filled with swirl and bokeh. When I treated the Petzval 80.5mm like any other portrait lens, I messed up a bunch of the early images until I managed to compensate for this.
Once you shift your compositional thinking, taking photos with this lens can get quite fun with the 80.5mm's soft focus and incredibly swirly bokeh patterns.
Image Quality
If you do happen to use this lens at f/4 or higher, it behaves and returns results like any other prime lens of that focal length on the market except for the very outer edges of the frame which will still show a small amount of tell-tale bokeh swirls and vignetting the Petzval lenses are made to produce. I did take a fair amount of shots at that f/4 to f/16 range and they were all very similar to the sample image below.
As long as you nail your focus, the image is sharp. Colors come out of the camera a little bit on the cooler side than normal, but that is easily compensated for in post if you want to warm things back up.
f/8 Bokeh Level 1 f/1.9 Bokeh Level 7
As you can see from the above examples, the difference from "normal" to "true Petzval" is pretty extreme, and I have to say… I kind of love it on the extreme end. The thing to keep in mind with this lens is if you use it the way it is meant to be used, only your "center mass" will be in focus. When you do so, your shots will be soft, dreamy, and full of incredible bokeh.
Additionally, if you want to get a little more creative with your bokeh patterns, the lens allows you to insert bokeh slides with some pre-cut shapes in them, shifting the patterns from the soft oval/circle to something entirely new. In the package I reviewed, the lens came with three inserts that allow you to add a star, diamond, or heart pattern to your shots as seen below.
Sample Images
A Wonderfully Enjoyable Lens
After nearly a year of not really shooting due to the pandemic, not only did working with this lens force me to adjust my subject framing mindset, it actually got me incredibly inspired to get out and shoot more as a whole. I found myself capturing more images of things I would have never even looked at previously as subject matter, all because of how the bokeh patterns can do such wild and interesting things.
The Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 MKII SLR Bokeh Control Art lens is available from the Lomography shop for $549, placing it somewhere around the middle of other "normal" 85mm lens prices that range from $200 to $800.
Things I Liked
- The ability to control the amount of bokeh is interesting and fun
- Solid metal body and lens hood
- Smooth and stable aperture, focus, and bokeh rings
- Sharper than I expected when shooting f/4 to f/16
- Small and Lightweight
- Useful for video
- Affordable price given the niche market
- Clickless rings work well
- Paint seems to be very scuff-proof
Things I Didn't Like
- Rather significant learning curve
- Unable to mount ND or other filters
- Focusing can be exceptionally challenging, especially when shooting wide open
- No weather proofing
Are there Alternatives?
The Petzval lenses are a very niche style with the only real rival for something else as unique and interesting as the Lomography lenses would be the Lensbaby lineup, and while Lensbaby has some incredibly fun and interesting products, I don't believe they have anything that truly competes or compares to the Petzval bokeh patterns, nor this lens's flexibility or sharpness.
Should You Buy It?
Yes. The Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 is suitable for both professional as well as creative reasons, and -- perhaps most importantly -- it's just a blast to shoot. After I return this review unit, I'm buying one for myself.
#equipment #reviews #bokeh #bokehcontrol #bokehinserts #f19 #lens #lensreview #lomography #manual #manuallens #petzval #photography #review #swirl #vintage
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.07
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst