----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:56 PM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #571
------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 571 Today's Topics: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: I Am Pissed! [ "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Vs: Pentax AF-16 flash [ "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.m.korhonen@ ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Sharpness and contrast needed [ "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Is the MZ-S only fo amateurs? [ "Henk Terhell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] any experiences with Pentax 645 FA 3 [ "kanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] any news on the 35-55mm 67 zoom? [ "kanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Is the MZ-S only fo amateurs? [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: I Am Pissed! [ frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:42:41 +1000 From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The principle that makes condensor and diffusion enlargers different is the "Callier Effect" which describes the scattering of columated light rays (such as condensors supply) caused by the silver particles of a traditional B&W negative. It is most evident in the mid-tones, because full negative density blocks all or most light, and low negative density allows high transmission with very few scatter-inducing silver grains. In a diffusion light source enlarger, because all of the light rays are scattered to begin with, the silver grains do nothing to introduce more scattering. As a result the tonal relationships of a print made by diffusion are true to the negative (regardless of what one thinks about its aesthetic quality when compared to a condensor print). Colour films lack opaque silver grains, having only dye clouds, as Caveman points out. What is missed by Caveman is that the dyes are simply tiny colour filters and do not impinge upon the direction of light rays passing through. Thus the Callier Effect is not invoked. As the Callier Effect is the essential difference between diffusion and condensor lit prints, there is theoretically no difference between colour prints made with the different light sources. In practise a very small difference will be evident because of lens flare from stray light in the diffusion system, but the difference in print quality between types of enlarger is dramatically less in colour than it would be for prints from B&W silver-grained negatives. regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Just to add something to the interpolation related message: > > Instead of playing with COC, you can also play with diffusion vs. > condenser enlarger head. Results are similar - the diffuse light will > help you get some form of interpolation, i.e. something to render > between the image of the film grains. > > cheers, > caveman > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:21:45 -0400 From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: I Am Pissed! Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hi Tom & Dave, > > Since shooting between 50 and 60% more shots has the amount > of keepers > increased? Yeah...I'd say my average has gone from 180-250 to 250-400. > And Tom, from what I know about 70-120 photos > finally land up in > the album. So you dumping 1000 shots or do you give the > client a copy of > each shot? No, I edit it down quite a bit. Basically, the client gets one proof of each decent shot. I might do 10 shots of some detail, she'll get the best. If I do 10 shots of a posed shot, she might get the 2 or 3 best. tv ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:22:48 +0200 From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Vs: Pentax AF-16 flash Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yeah, the Rolleicord syncs only to 1/500. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 28. kesäkuuta 2003 5:28 Aihe: Pentax AF-16 flash Just got one today from Adorama. What a great flash -- tiny and with a pc-socket. Besides, it's difficult to go wrong at $12 :) I have been looking for something like this for daytiime fill-in with LX or Rolleicord. It was kinda weird to me that my Oly p&s takes better pictures than either one, just because it has a built-in flash that syncs up to 1/1000. Mishka ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:26:39 -0400 From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anthony Farr wrote: > Colour films lack opaque silver grains, having only dye clouds, as Caveman > points out. What is missed by Caveman is that the dyes are simply tiny > colour filters and do not impinge upon the direction of light rays passing > through. Thus the Callier Effect is not invoked. The Caveman was thinking colour (where as you observed this effect does not modify in a noticeable way the tonal reproduction). I'll leave B&W for later, it is an even more interesting example (for the reason that you don't have a "density" for the grain, it's there or not, and guess what, it scans so much worse than colour, there must be an explanation... ;-). I was interested by the effect in the reproduction of the grain image. With difuse light, the image of a dye cloud tends to "diffuse" too in its vicinity, introducing some primitive form of interpolation. Until we get to B&W, here's a link to entertain you, especially if you have a Minolta scanner: http://www.scanhancer.com/ cheers, caveman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:40:02 +0300 From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Sharpness and contrast needed Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I don't think I can go slower than ISO 100. The ME shutter goes up to four seconds and -- while I prefer longer exposures because this reduces the effect of mirror and shutter vibration -- using B is out. It would mean measuring exposure by holding a meter over the phototube. This means taking the camera off and putting it back. I am getting a photo-housing with a beam splitter soon -- I hope -- to avoid just that. This will reduce the amount of messing about I have to do -- but also reduce the amount of light getting to the film -- to get a picture and may solve the focussing problem too. It should be possible to get a sharp picture without looking at the camera screen at all -- after the first calibration has been done. In the meantime I have altered the tube length of the microscope with spacers to match the focus with that of the film plane. This may work. I haven't taken any pictures yet, but it looks okay at low (400X) magnifications. A photomicrograph should not be messed about with in Photoshop. This does not mean that you can't fiddle with the colours of crystals and other things taken for their pictorial effect. But this is not permissible when the pictures are 'supposed' to be 'accurate' representations of the specimen. Of course digital analysis and processing are often used to enhance the information available. This is another approach, but the original always accompanies any processed images in a report. In the past I have only used Kodachrome and Ektachrome for photomicrography. I used negative colour film for the very first time a few weeks ago. I'll try Ektar 100 as soon as I can lay my hands on some. But I'm inclined to go back to Ektachrome despite the scanning difficulties. Don _______________ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:05 AM Subject: Re: Sharpness and contrast needed > >once there where: > >Agfa Ultra: ISO50/18° > >Kodak Ektar ISO25/15° > > > >How would these ones compare? > > Reala is definitely sharper than Ultra 50 which is discontinued. I have > found Ektar 25 & 100 aren't that saturated, but they are sharp. I didn't > compare them to Reala however. But I think you cannot find a finer grain > film than Ektar 25. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:45:49 +0200 From: "Henk Terhell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Is the MZ-S only fo amateurs? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit it's now close to 4 months since I have ordered an eye-cup and one of the rubber strips for the contacts protection on the bottom plate of my MZ-S. Both are easily lost by sliding in and out a camera bag. No response from Pentax NL received. Fortunately I can use the eye-cup of my MZ-5 on it so I am switching this now all the time. But this signals to me that the MZ-S is not aimed for professional use if Pentax do not keep such simple spare parts around for a current model. Thanks for listening. Henk Terhell ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:49:00 +0930 From: "kanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: any experiences with Pentax 645 FA 33-55mm and 80-160mm zooms Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit are they any good do they have problems wih flare i wish it was a tad wider maybe a 29-55mm would be more suitable ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:50:43 +0930 From: "kanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: any news on the 35-55mm 67 zoom? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i heard a rumour now that would be around a 35mm film 16mm field of view equivalent just what i need is it true or just a rumour ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:10:55 +0200 From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh, Yes! You are right - didn't think of that! I often wonder, BTW - if other mail list (Nikon, Contax etc.) are like that... Jens -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 27. juni 2003 23:18 Til: Pentax List Emne: RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) >Guys >It's not digital OR film. Like it's not train OR car OR ship OR busses.... >It's film AND CCD's. Nothing's odd about that. Each media has it's >advantages. Use the media that fits each situation and assignment the best. >Isn't that quite obvious? >Jens Jens, shhhh! This has the makings of a superb war here. Digital! Digital! Digital! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:33:03 -0700 From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is the MZ-S only fo amateurs? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >it's now close to 4 months since I have ordered an eye-cup and one of the >rubber strips for the contacts protection on the bottom plate of my MZ-S. >Both are easily lost by sliding in and out a camera bag. No response from >Pentax NL received. Fortunately I can use the eye-cup of my MZ-5 on it so I >am switching this now all the time. But this signals to me that the MZ-S is >not aimed for professional use if Pentax do not keep such simple spare >parts >around for a current model. I think the problem is that the demand for expensive 135 Pentax products is always low in most places on earth. Perhaps Pentax never expected much sale outside Japan? regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:44:37 -0400 From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I Am Pissed! Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Glenn, Well, your post hits close to home! I've got dozens of exposed, undeveloped rolls hanging around the house, too. Geez, I was just thinking the other day that some of it is getting to be around 9 months old (since exposure). Better get that stuff in the freezer this weekend - I think of putting ~unexposed~ stuff there, not exposed, because up until about 6 months ago, it wasn't an issue. Thanks for being poor as well <vbg>. I've basically gone to getting contacts only, as getting b&w prints for each roll was getting too expensive. At least I'm at a point now where I'm getting more or less current - only about 3 rolls taken over the last month are undeveloped. Within a couple of weeks or month, I'll be up to date, with all the undeveloped stuff around 6 months or more old. Oh well, it's a beautiful Saturday. In about an hour, I'll be out to shoot another roll or two... <vbg> cheers, frank "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > <snip>But there's a catch: I can't afford professional processing. > So most of what I shoot has been going into the freezer to > await the day when my financial situation turns around so I > can afford to get it developed.<snip> > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch -------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 Issue #571 *********************************************
