Re: OT: Seeing IR (cry for help)
Damnation and other rude words, Some * (fill in your own expletive) has deleted the page except for the safety warning about not looking into the sun. Did anyone save a copy of this page rather than just bookmarking it? If so, I would appreciate a copy. I was looking forward to blinding a whole cohort of our students this autumn.. mike
Re: Re: OT: Seeing IR (cry for help)
hi! you could try to find the page through google, at the listings of the hits they always have a link to the google archive, maybe you are lucky and the pervious version is still there. bye Katrin mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 15.07.2003, 12:34:07: > Damnation and other rude words, > > Some * (fill in your own expletive) has deleted the page except > for the safety warning about not looking into the sun. > > Did anyone save a copy of this page rather than just bookmarking it? If > so, I would appreciate a copy. > > I was looking forward to blinding a whole cohort of our students this > autumn.. > > mike
Re: Digital question
The darkroom does not have an "Undo" key. Nor does it automatically remember all of the steps that you have taken so that you can repeat them again and again with perfect accuracy, or back up and redo any or all steps in the process. There are many more advantages to using a computer but most folks already know that, including yourself, so I won't bore the list further. Len --- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Digital question Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:43:33 -0600 - Original Message - From: "Hans Imglueck" Subject: Re: Digital question > Hi Dag, >. But as I mentioned > in my first email - digital makes it much more easy. I had this conversation with Dag a couple of months ago. He assured me that it wasn't any easier to manipulate a photo with a computer than it was to do it in a darkroom. Personally, I didn't believe him, but I didn't think it worth an arguement. William Robb _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: OT: Seeing IR (cry for help)
I think I saved a copy at home. I'm at work now but I'll check this evening when I get back there. Let me know, if you haven't gotten it from someone else first, and I'll zip it up and email it to you, assuming it's all there. I didn't have time to check it when I saved it. Len --- From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: Seeing IR (cry for help) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:34:07 +0100 Damnation and other rude words, Some * (fill in your own expletive) has deleted the page except for the safety warning about not looking into the sun. Did anyone save a copy of this page rather than just bookmarking it? If so, I would appreciate a copy. I was looking forward to blinding a whole cohort of our students this autumn.. mike _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: OT: Street Photography
Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Thanks John. Yeah, I think a flash would have gotten her attention:-). That's not always a bad thing; you could even turn a very good candid shot into an excellent "candid portrait" ... (did I really type that?!). > I never use a flash with the Leica. Just doesn't seem like it belongs. There we agree. The 1/50 sec max synch speed kind of rules out TTL fill flash in daylight ... however a good flash such as my Metz 45 CL-4 works well enough with its built-in sensor. Problem is, it simply *dwarfs* the M6, and is extremely obtrusive in use! ;-) John
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Joseph Tainter wrote: > > It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Everything: > film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, whether or not to > carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we have some > experience with gear or film, we each make our own decisions about which > trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes are just > another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. EXACTLY RIGHT!! >The debate is a non-issue. There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I cannot imagine finding a better "expert system" for guiding me through the Pentax jungle. Just my $0.02. John
Re: OT: Seeing IR (cry for help)
Yeah it may be cached, search for the paged in google and clicked on the "cached" link in the last line of the hit. hth, scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi! you could try to find the page through google, at the listings of the hits they always have a link to the google archive, maybe you are lucky and the pervious version is still there. bye Katrin mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 15.07.2003, 12:34:07: Damnation and other rude words, Some * (fill in your own expletive) has deleted the page except for the safety warning about not looking into the sun. Did anyone save a copy of this page rather than just bookmarking it? If so, I would appreciate a copy. I was looking forward to blinding a whole cohort of our students this autumn.. mike
Re: anyone heard of swiftpay
> www.swiftpay.com > > fraud??? or paypal alternative There is a thread that has just started on "rec.photo.equipment.35mm" called 'swiftpay'. Harry -- Harold Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Digital question
Hi Len, >There are many more advantages to using a computer but most >folks already know that, including yourself, so I won't bore the list >further. Perhaps it's more interesting to give Pentax some more marketing advise ;-) Cheers, Hans. _ 23a mail
Re: stalking animals
Mark Cassino said: > It's sheer speculation on my part since I don't have DSLR, but I'd theorize > that the "cropping effect" in a DSLR that boosts the effective focal length > of the lens would not similarly boost the effects of vibration on sharpness. If a point source of light were smeared out over 0.1% of a full-frame picture, it would be smeared out over 0.15% of the cropped-out digital sensor. Unless you compose it so that whatever was in the full frame is also entirely in the digital frame, but then that smear of light would cover a physically smaller distance on the sensor.
Dumb question about the 645
Did the original 645 have a removable finder so it could be used as a waist level camera? Ed _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Perhaps I'm a little slow...
I've only had one lense since I bought my SF-10 in 2000: an F 35-70/3.5-4.5. I ordered an M 75-150/4 from Adorama and it showed up last week. I was getting rather frustrated with the new lense because I could only focus it by turning what I thought was the zoom ring, and I couldn't find the narrow focusing ring that I was used to. I just realized this morning that the wide (***wide***) ring is the focusing ring, and you don't twist anything to zoom in/out; you just slide the focusing ring in/out. :-) Seeing as this is the first lense I've bought independent of a body, I don't have much frame of reference to evaluate this new purchase, but I had no problems with Adorama, and the only fault I can find with the lense is a small scratch in the black lacquer on the lense hood. -Rich Worcester, MA, USA
Re: Dumb question about the 645
On 15 Jul 2003 at 8:41, Ed Matthew wrote: > Did the original 645 have a removable finder so it could be used as a waist > level camera? A big no, none of the Pentax 645 bodies have featured a removable finder. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
OT:DPI start point
I shot 4-5 MF pictures of our GPS tech. in action last week and our coporate development group has asked me to scan them for possible use on our website/brochures/cover pages etc. Film: Fuji Provia 100F chromes Camera :Pentax 6x7 with 90 leaf Scanner : Epson 2450 My quiry is,for something like this,do i need to go full out and scan at 2450 or would 300 or 600 do the trick concidering neg size and what they will be used .They look quite sharp with a loupe and light table. Thanks in advance Dave
Re: Perhaps I'm a little slow...
On 15 Jul 2003 at 9:47, Richard Klein wrote: > I just realized this morning that the wide (***wide***) > ring is the focusing ring, and you don't twist anything to zoom in/out; you just > slide the focusing ring in/out. :-) You've just discovered how to operate a "one touch" zoom lens :-) Lots of hearty info relating to Pentax lenses and bodies can be found at: http://www.BDimitrov.de/kmp/ Have fun, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Vs: Dumb question about the 645
Which one? The Pentax 645 had a non-interchangeable viewfinder from the beginning. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Ed Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 15. heinäkuuta 2003 15:41 Aihe: Dumb question about the 645 > >Did the original 645 have a removable finder so it could be used as a waist >level camera? > >Ed > >
RE: OT: Seeing IR (cry for help)
> -Original Message- > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Damnation and other rude words, > > Some * (fill in your own expletive) has deleted the > page except > for the safety warning about not looking into the sun. > > Did anyone save a copy of this page rather than just > bookmarking it? If > so, I would appreciate a copy. > > I was looking forward to blinding a whole cohort of our > students this > autumn.. Didn't you hear the news? It's ok to look at the sun now. tv
Something to pass on to the PDML
PDML Ok, I've got a top-secret sheet of specs dated as recently as June 30th 2003 for the *ist D, this may be old news, I don't know, don't follow the group. -- First, for Canadians, it sells for about $6000+ with a lens. [Ouch] 6.1MP [Normal] Sensitivity is ISO 200 to 3200 [where is the 50 and 100?] Interface is USB 1.1 [Why don't they use USB 2.0?] Power Zoom not supported All others supported but some with function limited. 2.7 Continuous/Burst Frame Advance [Not so fast buster!] NO EXTERNAL BATTERY PACKS [Buy bulk AA batteries!] -- Those are just highlights, I can forward the complete list if someone wants it (hopefully to keep it out of some of the jerks hands for a bit) so email me. A brand new flash is also coming out soon for the *ist. I gave the reps a hard time on the name, they said they were used to it and didn't like it either. I spent a few intimate hours with the 35mm *ist and it's ho-hum and ugly. A hello to all the nice people on the list, you know who you are! Brad (BTW, I'm only subscribing to send this email, so I won't see any responses addressed to the list)
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
Mark, do you get any keepers at 800mm? And what do you suspect to be the culprit? Tripod/head combination in use? Mark Cassino wrote, in part: - at my present skill level I can consistently get sharp results with 680mm - at 800mm my results drop off dramatically. So I figure I should be able to get the same results in a DSLR at an effective 1020mm (680 x 1.5).
Re: Something to pass on to the PDML
Except for the inflated price, there's hardly something to startle. Which leads me to the suspicion this is a hoax. See the sender's address - abuse something where I doubt anyone will answer to Pentax questions - while the real sender address is buried in the headers: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be wrong, of course. Servus, Alin B wrote: BWD> PDML BWD> Ok, I've got a top-secret sheet of specs dated as recently as June 30th BWD> 2003 for the *ist D, this may be old news, I don't know, don't follow the BWD> group. BWD> -- BWD> First, for Canadians, it sells for about $6000+ with a lens. [Ouch] BWD> 6.1MP [Normal] BWD> Sensitivity is ISO 200 to 3200 [where is the 50 and 100?] BWD> Interface is USB 1.1 [Why don't they use USB 2.0?] BWD> Power Zoom not supported BWD> All others supported but some with function limited. BWD> 2.7 Continuous/Burst Frame Advance [Not so fast buster!] BWD> NO EXTERNAL BATTERY PACKS [Buy bulk AA batteries!] BWD> -- BWD> Those are just highlights, I can forward the complete list if someone wants BWD> it (hopefully to keep it out of some of the jerks hands for a bit) so email BWD> me. A brand new flash is also coming out soon for the *ist. I gave the BWD> reps a hard time on the name, they said they were used to it and didn't BWD> like it either. I spent a few intimate hours with the 35mm *ist and it's BWD> ho-hum and ugly. BWD> A hello to all the nice people on the list, you know who you are! BWD> Brad BWD> (BTW, I'm only subscribing to send this email, so I won't see any responses BWD> addressed to the list)
Re: Something to pass on to the PDML
No, Alin, Brad is well known. He's not a hoax. He left the list some time ago, and I'm surprised to see he showed up again, even briefly! Signed on just to tell the pdml-ers about some *ist-D specs? Odd, but then... keith whaley Alin Flaider wrote: > > Except for the inflated price, there's hardly something to startle. > > Which leads me to the suspicion this is a hoax. See the sender's > address - abuse something where I doubt anyone will answer to > Pentax questions - while the real sender address is buried > in the headers: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be wrong, of course. > > Servus, Alin > > B wrote: > > BWD> PDML > > BWD> Ok, I've got a top-secret sheet of specs dated as recently as June 30th > BWD> 2003 for the *ist D, this may be old news, I don't know, don't follow the > BWD> group. > > BWD> -- > > BWD> First, for Canadians, it sells for about $6000+ with a lens. [Ouch] > > BWD> 6.1MP [Normal] > > BWD> Sensitivity is ISO 200 to 3200 [where is the 50 and 100?] > > BWD> Interface is USB 1.1 [Why don't they use USB 2.0?] > > BWD> Power Zoom not supported > > BWD> All others supported but some with function limited. > > BWD> 2.7 Continuous/Burst Frame Advance [Not so fast buster!] > > BWD> NO EXTERNAL BATTERY PACKS [Buy bulk AA batteries!] > > BWD> -- > > BWD> Those are just highlights, I can forward the complete list if someone wants > BWD> it (hopefully to keep it out of some of the jerks hands for a bit) so email > BWD> me. A brand new flash is also coming out soon for the *ist. I gave the > BWD> reps a hard time on the name, they said they were used to it and didn't > BWD> like it either. I spent a few intimate hours with the 35mm *ist and it's > BWD> ho-hum and ugly. > > BWD> A hello to all the nice people on the list, you know who you are! > > BWD> Brad > > BWD> (BTW, I'm only subscribing to send this email, so I won't see any responses > BWD> addressed to the list)
Re: Dumb question about the 645
No. They do sell a 90 degree attachment, however. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/15/03 09:41AM >>> Did the original 645 have a removable finder so it could be used as a waist level camera? Ed _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Dumb question about the 645
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ed Matthew wrote: > Did the original 645 have a removable finder so it could be used as a waist > level camera? Nope. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT:DPI start point
As a general rule of thumb, you should scan so that the _output_ file will be the size of the print and 300 dpi. That's not scanning at 300dpi. Let's say you are going to make an 8 x 10 inch digital print out of the 6x7cm negative. You'd want a file that is 8 x 10 inches at 300 dpi, or 2400 pixels by 3000 pixels. If you scan your original at 1091 dpi you'd get a 2575 x 3000 pixel image, or an 8.5 x 10 inch image at 300 dpi. As a practical matter, scans are usually made at a higher resolution than needed, and then scaled down. So if you need an 8 x10 or smaller, scan at 1200 or even 2400 and you know you have it covered. - MCC At 09:53 AM 7/15/2003 +, you wrote: I shot 4-5 MF pictures of our GPS tech. in action last week and our coporate development group has asked me to scan them for possible use on our website/brochures/cover pages etc. Film: Fuji Provia 100F chromes Camera :Pentax 6x7 with 90 leaf Scanner : Epson 2450 My quiry is,for something like this,do i need to go full out and scan at 2450 or would 300 or 600 do the trick concidering neg size and what they will be used .They look quite sharp with a loupe and light table. Thanks in advance Dave - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
">The debate is a non-issue." "There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss." I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? Joe
LENS it is, LENSE it is not
Don't wish to be boring but can we eradicate the growing tendency to stick an e on the end of lens. It's incorrect, unnecessary, and a waste of a keystroke. Unless of course these folk are using the Tasmanian Aboriginal spelling, in which case I apologise profusely AB __ Join Freeserve http://www.freeserve.com/time/ Winner of the 2003 Internet Service Providers' Association awards for Best Unmetered ISP and Best Consumer Application.
OT: A more creative explanation of lens flare and "ghosting" ...
I guess no one was using a Pentax or an SMC lens! http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2331915/detail.html If you can see the video, note that the different white shapes likely correspond to differently shaped lens openings of the different cameras, including an old Kodak 110! Joe
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
> > Unless of course these folk are using the Tasmanian Aboriginal spelling, in which > case I apologise profusely > > AB Apology accepted. Dave
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
Or unless they've intended it to be plural and left off the last 's' (lenses) :-) Bill - Original Message - From: "Anton Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:27 PM Subject: LENS it is, LENSE it is not > Don't wish to be boring but can we eradicate the growing tendency to stick an e on the end of lens. It's incorrect, unnecessary, and a waste of a keystroke. > > Unless of course these folk are using the Tasmanian Aboriginal spelling, in which case I apologise profusely > > AB > > __ > Join Freeserve http://www.freeserve.com/time/ > > Winner of the 2003 Internet Service Providers' Association awards for Best Unmetered ISP and Best Consumer Application. > > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? Joe Joe - Many serious and conscientious photographers use zooms with great frequency. They are, however, not supposed to admit it on message boards . Ed _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Funny news
Hi! The town where I live has only one Pro Foto Shop. It has many Foto Shops, but only one grades itself as Pro. Anyway, my two most recent films were scanned at 4000dpi with Nikon CoolScan 4000. Two days ago I was taking my most recent film (from which by the way I published to M35/2.8 shots)... So I asked the guy why he is doing so huge scans - roughly 24 MP (mega pixels). He responded that he is going to be scanning all his films in this way, because customers keep complaining. Also, it seems to me, that except time it makes little difference at which resolution to scan. This scanner has loading mechanism that can take a whole film frame by frame automatically. So he can just load it up and come some time later to burn the CD. So by now, just for $8 I have my films processed and scanned so that I have plenty of pixels to play with. Of course, this is still worse than what I would do personally for myself, but still it is very good I think. Though now, no matter what, I have to spend at least one hour armed with Healing and Cloning tools, if you know what I mean . Just thought I'd let you know... Boris
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Pieces like that should only be taken seriously by tyros. If you know what you're doing, as in you know what you'll get on film with what you have, then you are the true expert for that shot. People who use a zoom to avoid moving around probably aren't very good photographers to begin with, and giving them a bag of primes, or just one, won't make them any better. Lack of image quality is just a consequence of buying an old/cheap zoom. BR Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that >you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I >don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to >an article that did say something like that.) > >I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. >Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I >less than a serious photographer? __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
RE: Funny news
A 4000 dpi scan with a bit depth of 16 bits/color give a file that is around 120 mb. See if turning on ICE cleans up the scans without hurting resolution too much. FARE on the Canon scanners works great without hurting resolution; I do not have to do any post scan clean up with FARE set to standard with the F4000. BR "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi! > >The town where I live has only one Pro Foto Shop. It has many Foto >Shops, but only one grades itself as Pro. Anyway, my two most recent >films were scanned at 4000dpi with Nikon CoolScan 4000. Two days ago I >was taking my most recent film (from which by the way I published to >M35/2.8 shots)... So I asked the guy why he is doing so huge scans - >roughly 24 MP (mega pixels). He responded that he is going to be >scanning all his films in this way, because customers keep >complaining. Also, it seems to me, that except time it makes little >difference at which resolution to scan. This scanner has loading >mechanism that can take a whole film frame by frame automatically. So >he can just load it up and come some time later to burn the CD. > >So by now, just for $8 I have my films processed and scanned so that I >have plenty of pixels to play with. Of course, this is still worse >than what I would do personally for myself, but still it is very good >I think. > >Though now, no matter what, I have to spend at least one hour armed >with Healing and Cloning tools, if you know what I mean . > >Just thought I'd let you know... > >Boris > > __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
I dunno. Show us the pic. Joseph Tainter wrote: ">The debate is a non-issue." "There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss." I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? Joe
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
According to Merriam-Webster (10 Ed) both lens and lense are acceptable as the singular form of the noun. I suspect it might be one of those cases where the error became so common that it was just accepted as legitimate. It also cites (right below) the use of "lens" as a transitive verb meaning to film something and the word "lensman" as a synonym for photographer (which I really like). No mention of "lensperson" ;-) Steve (the amateur lensman) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/15/03 12:27PM >>> Don't wish to be boring but can we eradicate the growing tendency to stick an e on the end of lens. It's incorrect, unnecessary, and a waste of a keystroke. Unless of course these folk are using the Tasmanian Aboriginal spelling, in which case I apologise profusely AB __ Join Freeserve http://www.freeserve.com/time/ Winner of the 2003 Internet Service Providers' Association awards for Best Unmetered ISP and Best Consumer Application.
Re: OT: Digital question
Most of the folks I know are using a computer or a DVD player (some can do this) and a TV to view images. The images are being stored on a hard drive or a CD. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/10/03 01:54PM >>> >Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images >taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of >images viewed: >a) on computer monitors >b) as home made inkjet prints >c) as lab prints >cheers, >caveman In fact, it would be kind of fun to do an unofficial poll. Everyone who's interested ask their friends (who may just be casual photographers) who are using digicams (and DSLRs) their viewing medium. Then come back and tell us. Just an idea. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Takumer (Bayonet) 135 f2.5
I have one of the aforementioned and oft besmirched lenses. I assume that this was some kind of consumer grade product. It clearly does not fit into the K, M, A, F, or FA category. Anyone know the details. I can't find it on any of the Pentax lens pages I usually access. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE; OT:DPI start point
Hi Dave, I would scan at max resolution. It is easier and better to downsize an image then it is to try and res it up. The only place you might need near the full res is a large image in a brochure, or a full page magazine ad (dream big). Better to have it and not need it then the other way around. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
I'd use the pseudonym of "Grey Lensman" but E. E. Smith would probably send Rod "the Rock" Kinnison to break both of my knees. ;-) Len --- From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:41:18 -0400 According to Merriam-Webster (10 Ed) both lens and lense are acceptable as the singular form of the noun. I suspect it might be one of those cases where the error became so common that it was just accepted as legitimate. It also cites (right below) the use of "lens" as a transitive verb meaning to film something and the word "lensman" as a synonym for photographer (which I really like). No mention of "lensperson" ;-) Steve (the amateur lensman) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Takumer (Bayonet) 135 f2.5
on 15.07.03 20:01, Steve Desjardins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have one of the aforementioned and oft besmirched lenses. I assume > that this was some kind of consumer grade product. It clearly does not > fit into the K, M, A, F, or FA category. Anyone know the details. I > can't find it on any of the Pentax lens pages I usually access. I bought it, and must say that I was surprised. It performs very good wide open with quite nice contrast and sharpness. OK, maybe not as super-sharp as SMC-K 135/2.5 but still decent performer for its price - definitely better than many of today's zooms! P.S. I can find some somples for you. Scanned from negatives (iso 400 and 160) so they don't show every detail as slide would do, bu still should give you an idea of how this lens performs in praktice. -- Best regards Sylwek
Re: RE; OT:DPI start point
Sounds like the best way to go. They are only 4, 6x7 images,at 2450 that gives me time for dinner and 3-4 beers Dave > Hi Dave, > > I would scan at max resolution. It is easier and better to downsize an image > then it is to try and res it up. The only place you might need near the full > res is a large image in a brochure, or a full page magazine ad (dream big). > Better to have it and not need it then the other way around. > > BUTCH > > Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. > > Hermann Hess (Demian) > >
Re: Takumer (Bayonet) 135 f2.5
Some details here: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html It lacks SMC. I think it falls into more of the "M" series due to its size. clearly nothing to do with SMCP-M lenses however. I think mine is a great indoor portrait lens. Christian - Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 2:01 PM Subject: Takumer (Bayonet) 135 f2.5 > I have one of the aforementioned and oft besmirched lenses. I assume > that this was some kind of consumer grade product. It clearly does not > fit into the K, M, A, F, or FA category. Anyone know the details. I > can't find it on any of the Pentax lens pages I usually access. > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Takumer (Bayonet) 135 f2.5
> It performs very good wide open with quite nice contrast and > sharpness. OK, maybe not as super-sharp as SMC-K 135/2.5 but still > decent performer for its price - definitely better than many of > today's zooms! It's a decent lens, and may be considered to be sort of a "lighthearted" companion to the "serious" SMC K 135/2.5. http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/135's/135251.jpg However, SMC it's not - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/135's/135252.jpg Fred
Howe Does the DoF button work?
I presse down the down DoFP button, and I can see that it stops down the aperture, it gets darker or ligther. But I really don't notice anything changing focus, how is it supposed to showe me what's in the DoF? This is my first camera with DoF, and there's not much in the manual about it. Its a ZX-M. Thanks, Scotte whickersworld wrote: Joseph Tainter wrote: It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Everything: film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, whether or not to carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we have some experience with gear or film, we each make our own decisions about which trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes are just another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. EXACTLY RIGHT!! The debate is a non-issue. There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I cannot imagine finding a better "expert system" for guiding me through the Pentax jungle. Just my $0.02. John
Re: Howe Does the DoF button work?
Hi, Close focus on something bright, press the DOF button, move the aperture ring on the lens from wide open to fully stopped down. You will see the range of focus increase and decrease. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "Scott D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Howe Does the DoF button work? > I presse down the down DoFP button, and I can see that it stops down the > aperture, it gets darker or ligther. But I really don't notice anything > changing focus, how is it supposed to showe me what's in the DoF? This > is my first camera with DoF, and there's not much in the manual about > it. Its a ZX-M. > > Thanks, > Scotte > > > whickersworld wrote: > > >Joseph Tainter wrote: > > > > > >>It's very simple. Everything in photography is a > >> > >> > >trade-off. Everything: > > > > > >>film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, > >> > >> > >whether or not to > > > > > >>carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we > >> > >> > >have some > > > > > >>experience with gear or film, we each make our own > >> > >> > >decisions about which > > > > > >>trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes > >> > >> > >are just > > > > > >>another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. > >> > >> > > > > > >EXACTLY RIGHT!! > > > > > > > > > >>The debate is a non-issue. > >> > >> > > > > > >There can be no reason why we should not discuss these > >trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and > >our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. > > > >I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this > >list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate > >a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from > >Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I > >cannot imagine finding a better "expert system" for guiding > >me through the Pentax jungle. > > > >Just my $0.02. > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
depends on what they like and are willing to photograph. i think it can help some, but depends on how much the person spends learning too. i used to shoot primes only but use almost all zooms now. zooms have gotten better and what i used to shoot i don't anymore. Herb - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 15:10 Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for > say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would > help zoom owner improve?
Re: Zooms vs. primes
Joe said: >I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you >are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't >claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an >article that did say something like that.) > >I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I >photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a >serious photographer? I'm going to guess that this sort of advice appeared with early zooms, when the quality really was pretty bad. But they've been improving for half a century or so, and are a lot better now than they used to be. But there seems to be a lot of very old photographers that hang on to old advice for a long time.
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
Is it one of those American/Brit things. You know, Yank-color Bloke-colour, Yank-lens Bloke-lense. :-) Bill
RE: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
> We da Tasmanians laik our lenses wid some e on da end. It > maiks da flair go avay... > > --- > Boris Liberman > www.geocities.com/dunno57 Never type with your mouth full. It makes you sound funny. :-) Len ---
Re: Howe Does the DoF button work?
The focus of your main subject will not change, but if the subject is relatively close to you, as the lens stops down, more of the foreground and background will come into focus. That's why, GENERALLY, for portraits you use a large lens(e) opening, and for lancscapes a small lens(e) opening. Bill - Original Message - From: "Scott D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:52 PM Subject: Howe Does the DoF button work? > I presse down the down DoFP button, and I can see that it stops down the > aperture, it gets darker or ligther. But I really don't notice anything > changing focus, how is it supposed to showe me what's in the DoF? This > is my first camera with DoF, and there's not much in the manual about > it. Its a ZX-M. > > Thanks, > Scotte > > > whickersworld wrote: > > >Joseph Tainter wrote: > > > > > >>It's very simple. Everything in photography is a > >> > >> > >trade-off. Everything: > > > > > >>film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, > >> > >> > >whether or not to > > > > > >>carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we > >> > >> > >have some > > > > > >>experience with gear or film, we each make our own > >> > >> > >decisions about which > > > > > >>trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes > >> > >> > >are just > > > > > >>another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. > >> > >> > > > > > >EXACTLY RIGHT!! > > > > > > > > > >>The debate is a non-issue. > >> > >> > > > > > >There can be no reason why we should not discuss these > >trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and > >our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. > > > >I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this > >list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate > >a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from > >Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I > >cannot imagine finding a better "expert system" for guiding > >me through the Pentax jungle. > > > >Just my $0.02. > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
> Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 > mm, for say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film > a week, would help zoom owner improve? > > --- > Boris Liberman > www.geocities.com/dunno57 I'm not Bruce but I think anyone could benefit from shooting with a single prime lens for a period of time, as kind of an assignment. Every couple of weeks/months change focal lengths. Len ---
Re: Howe Does the DoF button work?
Thanks, I notice it now. It is hard to notice if your not focusing on something really bright. Steve Larson wrote: Hi, Close focus on something bright, press the DOF button, move the aperture ring on the lens from wide open to fully stopped down. You will see the range of focus increase and decrease. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "Scott D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Howe Does the DoF button work? I presse down the down DoFP button, and I can see that it stops down the aperture, it gets darker or ligther. But I really don't notice anything changing focus, how is it supposed to showe me what's in the DoF? This is my first camera with DoF, and there's not much in the manual about it. Its a ZX-M. Thanks, Scotte whickersworld wrote: Joseph Tainter wrote: It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Everything: film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, whether or not to carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we have some experience with gear or film, we each make our own decisions about which trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes are just another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. EXACTLY RIGHT!! The debate is a non-issue. There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I cannot imagine finding a better "expert system" for guiding me through the Pentax jungle. Just my $0.02. John
Re: Zooms vs. primes
Depends on the lens. One of the main fixtures on my LX is an circa 1980`s zoom. But you`re right, most were crap. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Gregory L. Hansen wrote: > I'm going to guess that this sort of advice appeared with early zooms, > when the quality really was pretty bad.
OT - another show
Well, actually, it's the same show as May in the Fly Gallery here in Toronto, just in a different venue. This time it's at the Jet Fuel Cafe (ironically, where all the photos were taken). Turns out that the photographer who's in there for July didn't have enough works to fill all of the wall space, and there's a sort of not-quite-separate room in the back that's bare. So, I suggested to the owner that my stuff should fill those walls, since I just happened to have 5 big, framed prints ready to go. He said yes, so Mondo Espresso lives again. What's cool about this, is that it's not just a "storefront" like the Fly Gallery, so folks have a chance to get "up close and personal", and get a much better look at it - and who knows, maybe buy one or two (wouldn't that be nice!). So, anyone who's in and about Toronto until the end of July (I know there are a few on this list who haven't been to any TOPDML meetings), take a look at the Jet Fuel Cafe, Parliament Street, just north of Carlton (east side). Even if you don't care for my "oevre" (I can't really type that with a straight face), Jet Fuel has the best espresso in town, and cheap, too - plus, they show the Tour de France live each morning. regards, frank -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Howe Does the DoF button work?
I understand dof, I just hadn't really noticed any focus changes. Guess I just wasn't focusing on a bright enough subject. Its a nice feature if its bright enough. Bill Owens wrote: The focus of your main subject will not change, but if the subject is relatively close to you, as the lens stops down, more of the foreground and background will come into focus. That's why, GENERALLY, for portraits you use a large lens(e) opening, and for lancscapes a small lens(e) opening. Bill - Original Message - From: "Scott D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:52 PM Subject: Howe Does the DoF button work? I presse down the down DoFP button, and I can see that it stops down the aperture, it gets darker or ligther. But I really don't notice anything changing focus, how is it supposed to showe me what's in the DoF? This is my first camera with DoF, and there's not much in the manual about it. Its a ZX-M. Thanks, Scotte whickersworld wrote: Joseph Tainter wrote: It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Everything: film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, whether or not to carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we have some experience with gear or film, we each make our own decisions about which trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes are just another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. EXACTLY RIGHT!! The debate is a non-issue. There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I cannot imagine finding a better "expert system" for guiding me through the Pentax jungle. Just my $0.02. John
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
>Don't wish to be boring but can we eradicate the growing tendency to >stick an e on the end of lens. It's incorrect, unnecessary, and a waste >of a keystroke. Bloodye helle Ie couldn'te agreee moree, thise dispiccablee habite hase gote toe stope! (34 deg c today, mags court biker doing 154 mph + Fairford Air Tatoo preshoot, BBQ Koftas plus salad and a pint each of Wychwood's Fiddlers Elbow and Marston's Pedigree followed by a very large Bailey's Irish Cream (whiskey) on the rocks*parp*) I raise my glass to the PDMLe Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Something to pass on to the PDML
>No, Alin, Brad is well known. He's not a hoax. HAR! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Digital question
På tirsdag, 15. juli 2003, kl. 02:43, skrev William Robb: - Original Message - From: "Hans Imglueck" Subject: Re: Digital question Hi Dag, . But as I mentioned in my first email - digital makes it much more easy. I had this conversation with Dag a couple of months ago. He assured me that it wasn't any easier to manipulate a photo with a computer than it was to do it in a darkroom. Personally, I didn't believe him, but I didn't think it worth an arguement. ;-) As it´s a bit of "your word against mine" I don´t think I would/will care too continue anyway, so you could simply have been honest. .-) DagT
Re: Something to pass on to the PDML
Perhaps someone could get this list from Brad and post it here. Hoax or not, it might be fun. Paul Alin Flaider wrote: > > Except for the inflated price, there's hardly something to startle. > > Which leads me to the suspicion this is a hoax. See the sender's > address - abuse something where I doubt anyone will answer to > Pentax questions - while the real sender address is buried > in the headers: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be wrong, of course. > > Servus, Alin > > B wrote: > > BWD> PDML > > BWD> Ok, I've got a top-secret sheet of specs dated as recently as June 30th > BWD> 2003 for the *ist D, this may be old news, I don't know, don't follow the > BWD> group. > > BWD> -- > > BWD> First, for Canadians, it sells for about $6000+ with a lens. [Ouch] > > BWD> 6.1MP [Normal] > > BWD> Sensitivity is ISO 200 to 3200 [where is the 50 and 100?] > > BWD> Interface is USB 1.1 [Why don't they use USB 2.0?] > > BWD> Power Zoom not supported > > BWD> All others supported but some with function limited. > > BWD> 2.7 Continuous/Burst Frame Advance [Not so fast buster!] > > BWD> NO EXTERNAL BATTERY PACKS [Buy bulk AA batteries!] > > BWD> -- > > BWD> Those are just highlights, I can forward the complete list if someone wants > BWD> it (hopefully to keep it out of some of the jerks hands for a bit) so email > BWD> me. A brand new flash is also coming out soon for the *ist. I gave the > BWD> reps a hard time on the name, they said they were used to it and didn't > BWD> like it either. I spent a few intimate hours with the 35mm *ist and it's > BWD> ho-hum and ugly. > > BWD> A hello to all the nice people on the list, you know who you are! > > BWD> Brad > > BWD> (BTW, I'm only subscribing to send this email, so I won't see any responses > BWD> addressed to the list)
RE: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
I suppose there is something relevant to photography, and more specifically Pentax, in dragging Tasmanian Aboriginal people into this thread? I just wish I knew what the relevance was? Cheers Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Vic, 3658 Mob: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Anton Browne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 2:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LENS it is, LENSE it is not Don't wish to be boring but can we eradicate the growing tendency to stick an e on the end of lens. It's incorrect, unnecessary, and a waste of a keystroke. Unless of course these folk are using the Tasmanian Aboriginal spelling, in which case I apologise profusely AB __ Join Freeserve http://www.freeserve.com/time/ Winner of the 2003 Internet Service Providers' Association awards for Best Unmetered ISP and Best Consumer Application.
Re: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
>Speaking of the perception of time, especially with regards to the terms >"old" and "new", I've noticed a large difference between the UK (probably >all of Europe, but I speak English), the East Coast and the West Coast (of >the US). > >It seems that if an establishment wishes to gain stature by proclaiming how >long they have been doing business; > >In the UK they'll say something like, "Established 1858" or "Doing business >at this location since 1769!" > >On the East Coast they'll say "Established 1948" or perhaps "Here since >1910!" > >On the West Coast you'll see instead "Since 1997" or at the most "A local >business since 1988!" > >All relative I guess, but in juxtaposition it seems mighty funny to me... Thomas, I have but two simple questions for you: 1. What are you drinking? 2. Can I have some? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
Hi, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 8:54:20 PM, you wrote: > As when C. S. Lewis, portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in the movie Shadowlands, > provided his lady friend with a tour of Cambridge University: > "That's the new building." > "When was it built?" > "1733" > Quote may be inaccurate but the point is self-evident. > Those Brits have a fascinating handle on the concept of time. :) well, that's very new indeed. Most of us live in houses that you guys would treat as museums. My house was built in 1896 and is perfectly ordinary. My sister's was built in 1837, which is no age at all. My boarding house at school was built in 1585. And New College, Oxford, was founded in 1379. We're not the only ones. The French do it too. The Pont Neuf (New Bridge) was built in the 1500s - and is the oldest bridge over the Seine. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
Hi, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 10:07:07 PM, you wrote: > Is it one of those American/Brit things. You know, Yank-color Bloke-colour, > Yank-lens Bloke-lense. :-) > Bill it's not a current British spelling. I always assumed it was American ignorance - a back formation from the plural. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trip to Costa Rica
Sadly, my trip to Cotty-Land has been officially cancelled. For one, my vacation time has been cut from 10-14 days to 7. IMO, that's just not long enough to balance out the effects of both time change and travel time. Secondly, by the time i get there, my good friend who is already there will be on his way back to the States. So now there's less incentive to go. SO! I'm suddenly thinking Costa Rica (though I haven't a clue where I got the idea from). It's closer, for one. Plus I'm in Atlanta, Georgia, and Delta flies direct from here. Once the London thing got cancelled, my criteria became a place with: 1) Plenty of Photo ops (native stuff plus wildlife opportunities) 2) Not absurdly crowded, and 3) Not ridiculously hot BONUS) A nice resort in case I decide to get there, ditch the camera equipment, and veg out (2) and (3) are hard to come by in August, but Costa Rica seems to fit the bill (if I can avoid a rain spell). I'm thinking of the upper northwestern corner... like Guanacaste. There seems to be a ton of national parks and wildlife refuges in that area (but my research is still prelimenary). has anybody been? or from there? or (in the spirit of PDML) care to give advice regardless of lack of relevant experience? Thanks. I haven't purchased a plan ticket yet, so I'm also open to other suggestions. Initially, I was also thinking about Northwestern corner of the States... but for one, the crowds! And secondly, I think I'll save that one for when I can throw a tent in the back of the car and do it driving. Thought about the Florida Everglades too... but Florida in August? Way too hot. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Re: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
> 1. What are you drinking? HAR! my thoughts exactly.
Re: Something to pass on to the PDML
http://www.nrg666.com/pdml/portraits/pages/BradDobo.html I'll say no more... -frank Cotty wrote: > >No, Alin, Brad is well known. He's not a hoax. > > HAR! > -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
Hi Cotty! > "1. What are you drinking?" > A popular California beverage that starts with regular Pimms, which then put through an isomizer to create a thick honey-coloured potion we call "Pimms-oil". > "2. Can I have some?" > I'm sorry but it is only legal in Canada. - THaller
RE: Photo Essays & Street Photography
Yeah, you with the 6x7, the rest of us with our 400's - 600's. I doubt it would draw much attention, huh. -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 14, 2003 6:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Photo Essays & Street Photography Bill Sawyer wrote: > > > Oh, and BTW, this place might be a nice change of pace for the next MPDML > gathering. Mark & Ken, what do you think? > Sounds like a good idea, Bill. Just think of the reactions we could get with four of us firing at once . Paul
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
My, aren't you preciousd! Bob Walkden wrote: well, that's very new indeed. Most of us live in houses that you guys would treat as museums. My house was built in 1896 and is perfectly ordinary. My sister's was built in 1837, which is no age at all. My boarding house at school was built in 1585. And New College, Oxford, was founded in 1379. We're not the only ones. The French do it too. The Pont Neuf (New Bridge) was built in the 1500s - and is the oldest bridge over the Seine.
Re: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
Nah... When I ponder questions of time (especially the "inner workings" of time, if ya know what I mean), the substance ingested isn't usually alcohol... cheers, from the country that recently decriminalized marijuana, frank jerome wrote: > > 1. What are you drinking? > > HAR! my thoughts exactly. -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
Hi frank, > "When I ponder questions of time... the substance ingested isn't > usually alcohol..." > Then you may appreciate my response to Mr. Cotty... Besides, with 25 replies to "LENS it is..." how can I be berated for this thread?? - THaller
Re: Zooms vs. primes
S1 3.5 70-210? Steve Larson wrote: > Depends on the lens. One of the main fixtures on my LX is an > circa 1980`s zoom. But you`re right, most were crap. -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Funny news
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:31:48 +0400, Boris Liberman wrote: > The town where I live has only one Pro Foto Shop. It has many Foto > Shops, but only one grades itself as Pro. Anyway, my two most recent > films were scanned at 4000dpi with Nikon CoolScan 4000. Boy, I wish I could get that in my area. Around here, the CD scans from the photo shop are at 1000 ppi (1500 x 1000). > Also, it seems to me, that except time it makes little > difference at which resolution to scan. [...] just for > $8 I have my films processed and scanned [...] That depends on the scanner. Even ignoring the time required to swap six-frame strips, scanning is much slower at 4000 ppi than at 1000 dpi on my Canon FS4000. Like, 1000 ppi scans take less than five minutes each where 4000 ppi scans take more than ten minutes each. And it costs me about $10 per roll for develop and scan around here. > Though now, no matter what, I have to spend at least one hour armed > with Healing and Cloning tools, if you know what I mean . Get a pen like the Wacom Graphire or Intuos. Pens work much better than mice when retouching photos. That's a place where scanning your own can really help. Between having better control over the dust in the first place, and in-scanner tools like ICE and FARE, despecking/dedusting goes much more quickly on the frames I scan myself compared to the scans I get on the CD from the photo shop. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
Rock on, dudes! Thomas Haller wrote: > > I'm sorry but it is only legal in Canada. > > - THaller -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
Thomas Haller wrote: Hi frank, "When I ponder questions of time... the substance ingested isn't usually alcohol..." Then you may appreciate my response to Mr. Cotty... Besides, with 25 replies to "LENS it is..." how can I be berated for this thread?? Har! Because that is the dao of PDML. - THaller
Re: Zooms vs. primes
No, the S1 35-85/2.8. I finally found the film that works excellent with it, Fuji NPS 160. Have you tried the 160 yet Frank? Nevermind, you`re B&W only. Maybe someday I`ll get my 24-48 back :( Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes > S1 3.5 70-210? > > Steve Larson wrote: > > > Depends on the lens. One of the main fixtures on my LX is an > > circa 1980`s zoom. But you`re right, most were crap. > > -- > "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson > > >
RE: Trip to Costa Rica
Costa rica is marvelous I was there and loved it. Make sure you don't rent a car because they really end up screwing you with it. Trust me take the tours it is a lot more fun and you won't be getting lost all the time. It is an absolutely marvelous place. If you want I will scan a few images from there if you want to take a peek of what is there. Two things you have to try are the volcano heated pools and the class 4 rapids. Get the best hotel you can because the best tours are operated from there and they have internet capability for cheap. Also the people that work there are more likely to speak english if spanish is a problem for you. Goto costa rica and never look back, absolutely marvelous place. Make sure you try the coffee! al http://www.usefilm.com -Original Message- From: jerome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 6:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Trip to Costa Rica
Re: Zooms vs. primes
Hi, Steve, OOOo - a 2.8 (drool drool) - even better. I couldn't remember which one you had, but I knew you liked it. Well, I'm about 90% or more B&W, but I will buy the odd roll of colour for family and holiday snaps, only to stop the inevitable whining (why didn't you take colour?), and 'cause it's cheaper if you consider processing costs. The rare times that I shoot "serious" (I don't know how to say that without sounding pretentious) colour stuff, it's been Porta VC, lately. But, on your say-so, I'll try the Fuji. Thanks for the tip. Your 24-48 still not going yet? That is too bad - I'm still loving mine. That's one nice lens!Hope you're able to get yours fixed someday. cheers, frank Steve Larson wrote: > No, the S1 35-85/2.8. I finally found the film that works excellent with it, > Fuji NPS 160. Have you tried the 160 yet Frank? Nevermind, you`re B&W > only. > Maybe someday I`ll get my 24-48 back :( > Steve Larson > Redondo Beach, California > > - Original Message - > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:25 PM > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes > > > S1 3.5 70-210? > > > > Steve Larson wrote: > > > > > Depends on the lens. One of the main fixtures on my LX is an > > > circa 1980`s zoom. But you`re right, most were crap. > > > > -- > > "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson > > > > > > -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Something to pass on to the PDML
To keep the record straight, blame Keith for de-hoaxing Brad, not poor Cotty... And now you've put a face to him. Un fait accompli. keith frank theriault wrote: > > http://www.nrg666.com/pdml/portraits/pages/BradDobo.html > > I'll say no more... > > -frank > > Cotty wrote: > > > >No, Alin, Brad is well known. He's not a hoax. > > > > HAR! > > > > -- > "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Zooms vs. primes
Frank, Deep down I`m envious of your B&W abilities, (not to mention your 24-48) :)! I usually always have B&W loaded in a Spottie, but just don`t shoot it enough, gotta change that. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes > Hi, Steve, > > OOOo - a 2.8 (drool drool) - even better. I couldn't remember which one you > had, but I knew you liked it. > > Well, I'm about 90% or more B&W, but I will buy the odd roll of colour for > family and holiday snaps, only to stop the inevitable whining (why didn't you > take colour?), and 'cause it's cheaper if you consider processing costs. > > The rare times that I shoot "serious" (I don't know how to say that without > sounding pretentious) colour stuff, it's been Porta VC, lately. But, on your > say-so, I'll try the Fuji. Thanks for the tip. > > Your 24-48 still not going yet? That is too bad - I'm still loving mine. > That's one nice lens!Hope you're able to get yours fixed someday. > > cheers, > frank > > Steve Larson wrote: > > > No, the S1 35-85/2.8. I finally found the film that works excellent with it, > > Fuji NPS 160. Have you tried the 160 yet Frank? Nevermind, you`re B&W > > only. > > Maybe someday I`ll get my 24-48 back :( > > Steve Larson > > Redondo Beach, California > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:25 PM > > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes > > > > > S1 3.5 70-210? > > > > > > Steve Larson wrote: > > > > > > > Depends on the lens. One of the main fixtures on my LX is an > > > > circa 1980`s zoom. But you`re right, most were crap. > > > > > > -- > > > "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson > > > > > > > > > > > -- > "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson > >
Sadly another one goes
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1618301 They say the good die young.Must be true.Eight months old,now gone.Followed another local cat across a busy road to the east of us.Only one made it to the other side. Sighh Three in a year.This is to much. Over shadows my new 28mm i recieved to day.No joy in mudville tonight. Sorry for the post.I feel better typing this to my group of friends. Dave
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Joseph Tainter wrote: > > I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that > you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I > don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to > an article that did say something like that.) > > I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. > Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I > less than a serious photographer? Good point, Joseph. I think a serious photographer should be defined as someone who takes photography seriously *as a whole*. People who obsess about equipment are often not serious photographers. The serious photographer who *does* obsess about equipment is probably not someone who rejects all zooms, but appreciates the virtues of some and the weaknesses of others - as he/she does with zooms. Needless to say, I would put myself into that category! I have used both primes and zooms for the last 17 years - before that I used only primes because the affordable zooms of that time were so very bad. Since then, I have used some superb primes, and some superb zooms, and I recognise the virtues and weaknesses of both. In theory, primes are nearly always optically superior, but the best zooms are so very close that it hardly matters any more. But to suggest this on any photo forum is to invite derision from the "prime loyalists" and support from that proportion of zoom fans who couldn't recognise a bad lens if they saw a poster-sized print from it. This only confirms the worst prejudices of the prime loyalists and war breaks out. Better not to mention it really. I'm glad I didn't! ;-) Seriously though, in my case, some of my best ever lenses have been primes, but others have been zooms. I'm glad to say that one of the best zooms I have ever used is my first choice lens at this time and it is on my first choice camera body. That's the Pentax A 35-105mm on the Super A (Super Program in the USA). I also *love* my K 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.7 and my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro, but the results from the 35-105mm are so good that I need only carry the zoom except in poor light. Let no-one tell me that the A 35-105mm is a poor lens because it's a zoom. It is a fine lens, and one I am delighted to be able to use. But don't tell anyone I said that! John ;-))
Re: OT - another show
> Well, actually, it's the same show as May in the Fly Gallery here in > Toronto, just in a different venue. This time it's at the Jet Fuel Cafe > (ironically, where all the photos were taken). As Mr. Monty C Burns would say: Exelent I'l definetly try to get down and see it Frank.Good job. Dave
Re: Takumer (Bayonet) 135 f2.5
I got the M 3.5 a few months ago off ebay, for about $40 IIRC. I've been pretty happy with it. Christian Skofteland wrote: I bought my Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 for US$20.00 in "almost-never-used-because-it-was-so-clean-and-perfect" condition. Sounds like a budget lens to me.,,, (the M is probably more expensive but will probably give better flare resistance for into-the-sun shots). Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Daniel Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ok, so, if i were on a tight budget, the takumar or the m/3.5?
Re: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
cheers, from the country that recently decriminalized marijuana, frank when did you say is the next TPDML? all of a sudden, a 9hrs drive seems like nothing... mishka
Re: Time (UK vs. East Coast vs. West Coast)
Nope. It'll be the drive ~back~ that'll seem like nothing. Or it'll seem like forever, but you won't care... Next TOPDML? Like, whenever the kharma strikes us, dude! don't Bogart, frank mishka wrote: > > cheers, from the country that recently decriminalized marijuana, > > frank > > when did you say is the next TPDML? > all of a sudden, a 9hrs drive seems like nothing... > > mishka -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6
Very true. I recently used my 28-70mm to shoot fireworks, and because of the flexibility, my shots came out a lot better than they would have if I'd been stuck trying to swap primes, with limited time, in the dark. > -Original Message- > From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I think it's when you can't step forwards or backwards that > zooms become useful. There are many situations in which this > can't be easily done. But if I am free to move around, I'll > take a prime every time. > > John Dallman wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (Mark Roberts) wrote: > > > > > >>For those who haven't checked this week's "Sunday Morning > >>Photographer" yet, Mike has a few things to say on the subject of > >>"Zooms vs. Primes": > >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-07-13.shtml > > > > > > Thanks; I've not seen his writing before. I think I agree > with him on > > this > > subject - when I've tried using zooms, there always seems > too much to > > fiddle with, and hunting for a zoom ring seems more > complicated than a > > step back or forwards. > > > > --- > > John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
I think that it is something like practicing scales on a musical instrument: it's an exercise to make you better, and not an end in itself. A photographer named David Hume Kennerly did something like this with a Mamiya 67 with a single wide angle lens (read about him and the book that was the result here: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/dk_intro.html). BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would help zoom owner improve?
Re: Funny news
the Nikon 4000ED has a full roll holder. you put the entire roll in. it also is much faster. the minimal processing 4000dpi scan takes under 40 seconds per frame. the change in speed is negligible to drop to 1000 dpi. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 18:36 Subject: Re: Funny news > That depends on the scanner. Even ignoring the time required to swap > six-frame strips, scanning is much slower at 4000 ppi than at 1000 dpi > on my Canon FS4000. Like, 1000 ppi scans take less than five minutes > each where 4000 ppi scans take more than ten minutes each. And it > costs me about $10 per roll for develop and scan around here.
Re: Trip to Costa Rica
I was there Nov. 93, end of the rainy season/start of the dry season. I'm still drinking Costa Rican coffee. Great place. If I get back I'll try to photograph the long columns of leaf-cutter ants. But you are talking rainy season. Put it off until November or later if you want to do things out of doors in the afternoon, keep you photo gear dry, etc. The rains are fierce. OTOH, prices probably lower now. Joe
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
It drives crazy when vendors do this on eBay. And they do it in ignorance, not because lense is an acceptable spelling in a dictionary they have never consulted. Joe
Re: Funny news
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:16:04 -0400, Herb Chong wrote: > the Nikon 4000ED has a full roll holder. you put the entire roll > in. it also is much faster. the minimal processing 4000dpi scan > takes under 40 seconds per frame. the change in speed is negligible > to drop to 1000 dpi. Two darned good reasons for me to look into dumping the FS 4000 in favor of the 4000ED. But the last time I looked, the price of the 4000ED would buy me about four weekends of racing, where the FS4000 only cost me about one and a half. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Pop Photo reviews Optio S
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:44:10 -0400, tom wrote: > > Is this something the Frontier operator could control? > Yes. > > > Is the control easy enough that I could ask them to reduce these > > effects just on my film, like special processing? > Yes, assuming they know how to operate it. On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:42:20 -0400, Butch Black wrote: > There is a sharpening adjustment easily accessible [...] Thanks for the information guys. I'll check with the lab operators. It's a couple of steps above a WalMart/CVS type operation but a step below a pro lab. Though they do have a real dip-n-dunk pro lab downtown that I've used a couple of times. (Wolf Photo, if anyone's interested). TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
re: Trip to Costa Rica
After consulting with my friend who lived in Costa Rica for some time, here's some thoughts. 1) Plenty of Photo ops (native stuff plus wildlife opportunities): yes, definitely. 2) Not absurdly crowded: yes. 3) Not ridiculously hot: depends on the location more than the time of year. Costa Rica is quite mountainous, so the elevation has a great influence on the local weather. There are two seasons, wet and dry. For more info, check out National Geographic Travel or the Lonely Planet Travel Guides. Also, take info from the Costa Rica Tourist Board, and Costa Rican individuals, with a spoonful of salt. Hope this is helpful. Pat White
Re: Funny news
rumor has it that Nikon is going to be dropping the 4000ED and replacing it with a new model, possibly at a lower cost. nothing substantial enough for me to know whether i should believe the rumor or not. the list price plus rebate has dropped to under $1400 and you may be able to get it for under $1300. i consulted with a couple of owners of it and the 8000ED before i decided to buy one. BTW enabling Digital ICE seems to have only a small effect on scanning speed. Herb - Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 22:21 Subject: Re: Funny news > Two darned good reasons for me to look into dumping the FS 4000 in > favor of the 4000ED. But the last time I looked, the price of the > 4000ED would buy me about four weekends of racing, where the FS4000 > only cost me about one and a half. :-)
Re: Sadly another one goes
Sorry for the post.I feel better typing this to my group of friends. Dave No apology needed. Speaking as a person owned by two cats, you have my sympathy. Regards, Ed _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
condolences
Sorry to hear about your loss. Boris, my oldest, passed last year at 12 Y.O. I sometimes question the morality of keeping indoor cats, then I am reminded of this. There are a lot of outdoor cats where I live (city) Few I see more then a couple of years. A good friend of mine lost 3 older cats in just over a year. They become part of the family and their loss is every bit as real. Butch
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Rubenstein" Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > I think that it is something like practicing scales on a musical > instrument: it's an exercise to make you better, and not an end in > itself. Well put. William Robb
Re: Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6PZ (now abit long))
- Original Message - From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:36 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6PZ (now abit long)) > Mark, I have the Pentax auto tube set, two third party auto tube > sets, and the original Pentax "non auto" set. The last is the one > I like the best for macro shots. No fiddling with a dof button. > It also contains, AFAIK, the shortest tube Pentax made for 35mm. > > Mark Roberts wrote: > > "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Alan Chan wrote: > > > >>>My friend's Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8D sucked when shooting at > >>>200/2.8. Everything was diffused. Didn't know what's wrong. > >> > > > >>They all do that, Alan, especially when focused close. > > > > > > The FA*80-200/2.8 performs wonderfully wide open, even close up. I often > > use mine with an extension tube to get even closer. (I have an old > > non-auto-diaphragm Pentax extension tube that I keep in my bag at all > > times for emergencies.) > > > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
It quite possible would help the zoom owner ti improve. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for > >say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would > >help zoom owner improve? > > > > > >
