Interesting .276 UK Experimental Stuff


#1

I got this bandolier and ammo a little while ago. There’s a small “EXPTL.” mark on the back side. I think a small quantity of rifles and ammo were sent to both Canada and South Africa for testing, ca.1913-14. The clip itself is rather unique and the rounds have an R^L headstamp. They will also be at Williamsport for a bit of Show-and-Tell.


#2

Jon–The pictures are so dark you can barely tell what they are. Please run them through an image processor of some sort to lighten them up and repost them. If people can’t see them they can’t help you.


#3

Very nice bandoleer.
I have ball, Inspectors and Drill rounds on that case and am keen to find a blank. The chargers are extremely difficult to find these days also.

There were 1050 Pattern 13 troop trial rifles that went to various units of the British army including overseas stations in hot and cold climates.

Regards
TonyE


#4

I’m confused. I posted these from work a couple of hours ago. They looked great when I previewed them. I’m now home looking at them and they still look just fine and clear to me. I see each and every wrinkle on the bandolier and all the spots on the cases.
JOKE ALERT!
Have you cleaned your glasses today???
END OF JOKE ALERT!


#5

Jon

Photos are a little on the dark side for me also, but not bad at all.

How do they compare in size with the 276 Pedersen?

Ron

I have found that it only takes a minute to save a photo to my picture file, open it and click on “Quick Fix”. That’s usually quicker than waiting for the original poster to get back and edit his thread.

Ray


#6

I’m glad you can see them. I am trying to improve my technique.
The 2 rounds are completely different. I’ll try to get some dimensions up later. Maybe even a sidexside pic!


#7

Ray–What you said is true. I was just posting as one of the Admin. The majority of pictures that are posted, especially headstamps done on a scanner need some post-scanning improvement. I can not tell you how many images Teak, Chris and myself have improved and re-posted so they were usable. This is not the first reminder from all of us that before posting to use the preview. If they are dark, lighten them up and repost. Remember, each indivdial is probabily only posting a few pictures per week, but as Admin. I have improved as many as 10 or more per day. It should be the original posters responability, not ours. As you said it only takes minutes to do this.


#8

They are a little dark here as well but perfectly “see-able”. There are lots of free image editors that will brighten them. Most likely the scanner or camera had a disk with somthing as well.
-Josh


#9

Well, it is beginning to sound as if it is an issue with variation between the individual systems. All I get from these (and many others) are dark blobs on a moonless night. I don’t have this problem with most images on most sites, but - much as I TRULY hate to say it - the darkness is not limited to Jon’s photos or even to this site . . . just that they are universally so on my system. I use Firefox for a browser - I think I’ll try the M$ browser as an experiment to determine if that might be a factor . . . ?

. . . Nope, no improvement.

.


#10

Does that mean I might not be evil??? Tomorrow I’ll ask one of my savvy students to help me with pic quality.


#11

There is plenty of variation at how pictures show up on various screens. My current screen shows all pictures better than the last one I had. However, when I print a picture - any picture - it comes out quite darker than my computer screen shows it, which makes a lot of work if I want to print one out for an article I am writing, etc. Unfortunately, I have found no one that knows even if a color laser printer like mine has any adjustments for color tone, and if so, how to adjust it.

I can see Jon’s pictures of these .276s perfectly well, although the cartridges are a shade dark for photography as an art form. For reference of shape, features, etc., they are fine on my screen.


#12

Jon C–My comments were not meant to be a direct critism of just your pictures. Like Teak said above, on my system they are dark muddy brown. And, yes, I realize that the pictures look different on different systems. LCD’s tend to be brighter tha CRT’s and Plasma screens are different also.

John Moss–Yes your Laser printer does have adjustment for color tone. It will be in the set-up menu. But be careful. You can royaly screw up your color balance big time. Most systems have adjustments for Brightness, Contrast and Gamma as well as Cyan, Blue and Yellow (the 3 colors that are used to make all the other colors) If you adjust the indidual colors be sure you record the original settings so you can return to them. Same for the other adjustments, but you can get into less trouble with them tan the color adjustments.

You commented about the fact that the printed colors are not as bright as the viewed colors on the screen. This is primariarly a result of how the two are viewed. On-Screen images are transmited light and printed images are reflected light. Plus, the colors themselves are created by different process’s. Ink behaves much different than light as it is mixed to make the different colors. It is almost impossible to make on-screen and printed images match. For professional results you really need to create what are called “Color Seperations” to be sent to a printing Company. Plus, you need to include a Color Chart that the printer can match to. The Pantone system is the universal standard for color printing.


#13

I am about 99 and 44/100 % computer ignorant but I noticed a difference between images on my monitor and printed images when I first got this machine. At that time my nerd neighbor told me that a good printer can print a photograph with much higher quality than a poor monitor can show (and vice-versa). So that may be what is happening here. My monitor is a flat screen 15" Dell and it can be adjusted for contrast, brightness, etc. On the other hand my printer is a cheapo H&P from K Mart so hard copies are seldom as good as what my monitor shows. I did try an expensive Canon printer and noticed how much better the hard copies were.

So, bottom line is, maybe it’s all in your individual harware. I haven’t noticed but a very photos on this or other Forums that were of really poor quality. I’d say that the ones Jon posted were as good or better than most, at least on my monitor.

FWIW,

Ray


#14

Ron, no insult inferred. I know my pics aren’t great. I actually delete most that I take and only post the better ones. Have any of you looked at the 9mm pics I posted on the thread about the Israeli underground factory? How were those?