unsubscribe
> ------------------------------
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 551
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) [ "Mark Dalal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: dorkily enabled [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: What gear is on your "lust list" [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: more stuff from fairygirl... [ "Hal & Sandra Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: dorkily enabled, KX [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: XP-2 [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Rolleiflex Sale [ "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> OT: Vacation in London [ "Lewis Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: more stuff from fairygirl... [ "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: What gear is on your "lust list" [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: RAW Conversion comparison [ "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: OT: A tax question for EU reside [ Carlos Royo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re [ Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= < ]
> OT: Music from our musicians? [ John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> RE: RAW Conversion comparison [ "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: OT: Music from our musicians? [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: OT: A tax question for EU reside [ Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re [ "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Teleconverter question [ Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: PAE #? [ Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> RE: Dissatisfied [ "David Madsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:38:28 -0600
> From: "Mark Dalal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > For those of you who didn't read the very long thread about "*ist D sensor
> > and 35mm lens resolution", I have posted shots made made with a Pentax
> MZ-S
> > and different lenses compared to almost identical shots made with a Sony
> DSC
> > F717 - a 5MP camera with a Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar lens and a 6x8mm chip.
> I
> > believe practical tests are equally informative as the facts of the
> figures
> > (according to which a 6x5mm chip should not be able to produce much
> > resulution).
> > The link is this: http://gallery50012.fotopic.net/c132825_1.html
> >
> > Nest time I'll use and a dedicated film scanner. J.C. O'Connell suggested
> > I'd use 50 or 100 ISO, but I guess the SONY (as well as the 'ist D) does
> not
> > feature less than 200 ASA. And f 1:8 is the upper limit of the Sonnar
> lens,
> > but not of the *ist D. (I believe that most lenses have their best
> > reslolution/performance at f. 1:8 - 1:11, though). This bring me to
> > suggset - again - that somone on this list will do similar tests, using
> the
> > *ist D....
>
> Quite frankly, your comparison is incredibly flawed. The equivalencies you
> seem to have drawn between film and digital are off. The ISO's of a digital
> point & shoot are not comparable to film. The f stops are not comparable
> either. And that you scanned the film on an flatbed....For this test to be
> equal, you need to open up that Sony, bend the sensor at the corners, and
> cover it with with Vaseline <G>
>
> Mark
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:47:13 -0500
> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dorkily enabled
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> "Greg Lovern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> mirror lock-up (of a sort) <<
> >
> >I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax
> >models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX).
>
> Nope, the K2 has manual mirror lock-up too.
>
> >other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the
> >self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what
> >you're trying to do.
> >
> >Also, I recall reading that when you lock up the mirror on the KX, the
> >aperature is also stopped down in advance, eliminating that much more
> >vibration.
>
> That's true.
>
> >Am I confused about the KX?
>
> Nope :)
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:12:06 -0500
> From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: What gear is on your "lust list" ? Recommendations? 70-210
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> There have been manual focus two-touch zooms made.
> The Pentax A 35-70 f4, etc. What I really want is
> a variable aperature manual focus Pentax lens without
> the F/FA "feel" or the bulk of the A 70-210. Sigh
>
> Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> >
> > I thought that historically One Touch and MF are almost one and the
> > same. If the issue with One Touch is creep, the Kiron has a zoom and
> > focus lock. In any case, unless the F is the one that is too
> > expensive, it is reasonably short, relatively close-focusing and two
> > touch. Would flare-resistance go into your equation? Because then, in
> > principle, you are really limited in choice ;-) Have you checked
> > Stan's page for reviews of the post-F zooms?
> >
> > Interested,
> > Kostas
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:07:37 -0600
> From: "Hal & Sandra Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: more stuff from fairygirl...
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Some very nice shots! Please explain how you select lenses i.e. 90mm through
> 200mm seem to produce good portraits in the right situation. You mention
> 200mm for safe distance. Which others did you use?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:14 AM
> Subject: more stuff from fairygirl...
>
>
> >
> >
> > hi guys,
> >
> > just posting a link to a gallery of kid portraits that I shot yesterday
> for
> > those who asked about portraits and the *istD. The lighting was ideal for
> > this shoot and the results were much, much better than the couple that I
> > posted the other day.
> >
> > This little girl is a very unusual looking child, and it was hard to make
> > her look "cute". PLUS, boy does she ever have an attitude, she DID NOT
> want
> > to be photographed and is very intense and totally precocious! She is two
> > years old and was telling her mum to "Get Lost"! So initially, I had to
> > shoot without flash using a 200mm lens to keep a "safe" distance from her
> to
> > capture her candidly. Toward the end, she relaxed a little and I
> distracted
> > her by bribing her with lollies and picking some lillies out of the water
> > for her to play with, so she became a little easier to work with.
> >
> > Her mum is a good friend of mine who I have shot many times in the past
> > (whilst she was pregnant and when the little girl was a newborn), but this
> > time she insisted on paying me "properly" and on me treating her as I
> would
> > a true client as she felt "sick of getting freebies" from me all the time.
> > It was really nice to be appreciated by a friend!
> >
> > So, she is over the moon with the results, and I was quite happy too, I
> can
> > definitely see my work with the *ist D improving as I get to know it
> > better...
> >
> > Still, I think there is a bit too much flash on some of those shots toward
> > the end - still learning about flash in a major way, so I expect that this
> > will improve over time...
> >
> > Here's the link:
> >
> >
> > http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/index.html
> >
> > I love this one...
> >
> > http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1398.html
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I may "soften" the effect of
> the
> > flash? I do have a diffuser over it, but I'm not getting hotspots
> anyways,
> > which is a great thing. I am just wanting to soften so that it doesn't
> > appear to dominate the entire picture, such as in this shot:
> >
> > http://www.tanyamayer.com/avagallery/pages/IMGP1386.html
> >
> > Obviously, I can't bounce it when I am shooting on location such as these.
> > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Ok, so I am off to Brisbane again in the morning, so may be a bit quiet
> > until Monday - will check my emails in my motel tomorrow night though, so
> > don't go talking behind my back, ok?!? lol...
> >
> > Have a great weekend all!
> >
> > tan.
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:23:21 -0500
> From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dorkily enabled, KX
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> You are not confused.
>
> Greg Lovern wrote:
> > I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax
> > models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX). All
> > other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the
> > self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what
> > you're trying to do.
> >
> > Also, I recall reading that when you lock up the mirror on the KX, the
> > aperature is also stopped down in advance, eliminating that much more
> > vibration.
> >
> > Am I confused about the KX?
> >
> > Greg
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:22:16 -0500
> From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: XP-2
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Yeah, but if you're doing your own developing, you'll get less spots and
> scratches than if you let the 1-hour lab folks do it. Meaning, say,
> 15 minutes with the Photoshop Clone Brush instead of an hour and a half.
>
>
> Clint Austin wrote:
> > I did the scans myself I just purchased a film scanner. I dont know how that
> > could be possible for just one to be scanned backwards, BUT I am new to
> > scanning. I dont know which way I will go traditional B&W is cheaper in the
> > long run to process but I might just shoot slides and then use PS to convert
> > them. Has anyone here had problems scanning traditonal style B&W films ? My
> > understanding was that the silver confuses ICE ?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:16:48 +1100
> From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Rolleiflex Sale
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The reason I asked interested parties to contact me off list was so I could
> answer their questions without boring the pants off every body else.Keith,
> naturally I did not mention the "net.au"in my email to you as i was brung up
> proper. Some how knew you would twig anyway.Hope my reply elucidates.
> Regards Chris K
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:18:31 -0600
> From: "Lewis Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: Vacation in London
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> A question for Londoners and UK PDML'ers -
>
> We have a ten day stay in London coming up in May; it will be our seventh
> stay in the city. I think we have visited most of the obvious places and
> some not so obvious. I would like your suggestions for places to see and
> photograph - places that a tourist from Indiana might otherwise miss
> <grins>.
>
> Rather than replying on list, I would appreciate your sending to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Thanks,
> Lewis
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:19:59 +0100
> From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: more stuff from fairygirl...
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Content-description: Mail message body
>
> On 11 Mar 2004 at 19:14, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
>
> > This little girl is a very unusual looking child, and it was hard to
> > make her look "cute".
>
> What's this thing about "cute"? Everyone who's had children know what
> they can be like when they are two years old and discover that they
> actually can have a say in things. Most notably the word "no".
>
> > PLUS, boy does she ever have an attitude, she
> > DID NOT want to be photographed and is very intense and totally
> > precocious! She is two years old and was telling her mum to "Get
> > Lost"!
>
> LOL.
> Sounds like a true toddler to me.
>
> When I looked at the pictures, I could sense the attitude in that
> kid. She's probably going to be a little monster for a while, and
> then catch up with "cute" when it suits her.
>
> I'm not a portraits photographer, but your photos tell a good story
> about a young person. For that reason, I really like them. I can't
> tell you much about techniques and stuff, but as for capturing the
> nature of a strong-headed toddler, I'm impressed.
>
> Cheers,
> Jostein
>
> --
> Photos at: http://www.oksne.net
> --
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:30:56 -0800
> From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: What gear is on your "lust list" ? Recommendations? 70-210
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I have an SMC Pentax-A 1:4-5.6 35-80mm zoom that performs very well.
> It's a little lighter than my SMC Pentax-FA 1:4 28-70mm AL.
> The feel is about the same, when I use them on manual focus on my
> M-Series bodies. . .
>
> Or, you might check out Vivitar's 28-70mm 1:3.5-4.8 MC Macro-focusing zoom.
> This IS a one-touch, and has a heavier feel to it, more like the older
> Pentax lenses.
>
> Don't know if that helps you or not. . .
>
> keith whaley
>
> Lon Williamson wrote:
>
> > There have been manual focus two-touch zooms made.
> > The Pentax A 35-70 f4, etc. What I really want is
> > a variable aperature manual focus Pentax lens without
> > the F/FA "feel" or the bulk of the A 70-210. Sigh
> >
> > Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I thought that historically One Touch and MF are almost one and the
> >> same. If the issue with One Touch is creep, the Kiron has a zoom and
> >> focus lock. In any case, unless the F is the one that is too
> >> expensive, it is reasonably short, relatively close-focusing and two
> >> touch. Would flare-resistance go into your equation? Because then, in
> >> principle, you are really limited in choice ;-) Have you checked
> >> Stan's page for reviews of the post-F zooms?
> >>
> >> Interested,
> >> Kostas
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:31:42 +0100
> From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Content-description: Mail message body
>
> Good illustration, Rob.
> Especially the black line on the shoulder.
> I think also the difference in detail level around the lips and on
> the blue fleece over his brow is markedly different.
>
> Time to upgrade. Now where did all my money go...:-)
>
> Cheers,
> Jostein
>
> On 11 Mar 2004 at 10:14, Rob Brigham wrote:
>
> > I have been reading many people sceptical about the differences in the
> > quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools
> > around.
> >
> > I have done a comparison between PhotoLab & Photoshop CS which, to my
> > eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences.
> >
> > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg
> > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg
> >
> > Look at the edge between the sleeve & background. The Pentax
> > conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line around the
> > edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail.
> >
> > IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go...
> >
> > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif
> >
> > Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do
> > one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
>
> --
> Photos at: http://www.oksne.net
> --
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:26:33 +0100
> From: Carlos Royo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: A tax question for EU residents
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Rob Studdert escribió:
> > If I shipped a used camera from Australia that was purchased new (with tax
> > paid) from a vendor inside the EU to an EU member country would it attract a
> > second round of tax?
> >
>
> I am not sure whether I have understood your question clearly but if you
> ship from within the EU, for example, from Spain to Germany, no taxes
> will apply.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carlos Royo - Zaragoza (Aragon), Spain
>
> "The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against
> forgetting" Milan Kundera ("La lucha del pueblo contra el poder es la
> lucha de la memoria contra el olvido")
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 11 Mar 2004 13:34:03 +0100
> From: Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> I would be in favour of keeping them in upper case and at the front of
> the subject line. That way they are easily visible. At the end of the
> subject line makes them disappear completely when a subject line is long
> in the overview of emails.
>
>
> On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 10:46, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Bob W wrote:
> >
> > > email. I would like to make a plea for something else: don't use the
> > > PAW or WOW prefixes at all.
> >
> > I would like to make the opposite plea: please use the PAW and WOW
> > prefixes, they are only 5 characters long (incl colon and space) but
> > help me and other filter such messages to folders. I have no objection
> > to the following though:
> >
> > > 1. write them in lower case - this would mean they don't dominate the
> > > rest of the subject line
> > >
> > > 2. put them at the end of the subject line - when the eye scans a list
> > > it needs some variety at the beginning of each line to rest on and
> > > navigate by. The prefixes make this very difficult*.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kostas
> --
> Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:37:56 -0700
> From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: Music from our musicians?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Glenn's post got me to thinking - we have some very talented musicians
> on the list, where's the music? So drag out those links, post 'em if
> you got 'em. I'd love to hear some of Glenn's tunes, for sure. Hey,
> maybe he'll produce a Best Of PDML cd... and Amita already the cover
> shot!
>
> I can't carry a tune in a bucket, but I am an appreciative fan. My
> son-in-law plays bass with this band:
> http://www.drivebysatellite.com/
>
> His name is Adam, he is third from left in the topmost photo on the
> main page. The one with the decent haircut. He's Canadian, hopefully
> they will get rich and famous and he can buy a nice trophy house in
> Scottsdale so our daughter will be close to her mom.
>
> --
> John Mustarde
> www.photolin.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:46:40 -0000
> From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: RAW Conversion comparison
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Yeah, when I tried this image I couldn't believe how bad the Pentax Lab
> was. I also couldn't believe I hadnt really niticed it before. Now I
> keep seeing it everywhere and had to get CS as I couldn't live with it
> anymore. Managed to get CS a bit cheaper by importing from the states
> though, so not as bad as I first thought!
>
> The full size preview is really good too, as is the conversion speed. I
> don't think CS does batch conversion though, does it? Maybe less of an
> issue as the single image conversion is so much quicker...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 11 March 2004 12:32
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison
> >
> >
> > Good illustration, Rob.
> > Especially the black line on the shoulder.
> > I think also the difference in detail level around the lips and on
> > the blue fleece over his brow is markedly different.
> >
> > Time to upgrade. Now where did all my money go...:-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jostein
> >
> > On 11 Mar 2004 at 10:14, Rob Brigham wrote:
> >
> > > I have been reading many people sceptical about the
> > differences in the
> > > quality produced by the Pentax RAW convertor and the other tools
> > > around.
> > >
> > > I have done a comparison between PhotoLab & Photoshop CS
> > which, to my
> > > eye at least, shows a stark view of the differences.
> > >
> > > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop.jpg
> > > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.jpg
> > >
> > > Look at the edge between the sleeve & background. The Pentax
> > > conversion if pretty horrible here, with a big black line
> > around the
> > > edge. CS also has slightly better sharpness and detail.
> > >
> > > IF you want a tiff of the zoom view then here ya go...
> > >
> > > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/LabVShop2.tif
> > >
> > > Would be interested in comparison of other tools - if anyone can do
> > > one for me (john?) I can send them the PEF to work on.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Photos at: http://www.oksne.net
> > --
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:48:10 -0500
> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: Music from our musicians?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Glenn's post got me to thinking - we have some very talented musicians
> >on the list, where's the music? So drag out those links, post 'em if
> >you got 'em.
>
> http://www.robertstech.com/music.htm
> MP3's you can download for free! :)
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:50:28 +0000
> From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: A tax question for EU residents
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Well, you'd probably have grounds for putting up a spirited argument
> along those lines, but revenue-collectors aren't noted for their
> understanding and leniency in my experienct. In practice I think it'd
> get taxed again, and the recipient would have to decide whether or not
> to try and chase it up. The original receipt would be necessary, at the
> very least.
>
> S
>
> Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> > If I shipped a used camera from Australia that was purchased new (with tax
> > paid) from a vendor inside the EU to an EU member country would it attract a
> > second round of tax?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:55:53 +1000
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-description: Mail message body
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> On 11 Mar 2004 at 13:34, Frits Wüthrich wrote:
>
> > I would be in favour of keeping them in upper case and at the front of
> > the subject line. That way they are easily visible. At the end of the
> > subject line makes them disappear completely when a subject line is long
> > in the overview of emails.
>
> Whether the prefix remains a prefix or is placed at the end of the subject line
> or is placed in the body of text any reasonable email client should be able to
> filter based on the WOW or PAW designation to an alternate sub-directory
> (folder thingy for the Mac people) or flag them for automatic deletion.
>
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:58:55 -0500 (EST)
> From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Teleconverter question
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Teleconverter question
>
> Snip
>
> "I think there might be something about the optical formula of the F* and FA*
> 300mm F4.5 lenses that makes them unsuitable for use with teleconverters."
>
> --Mark
>
> I truly doubt it with Pentax Converters, I get excellent results with the 1.4XS
> on my 300mm FA.
>
> Ken Waller
>
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:05:04 -0500 (EST)
> From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: PAE #?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Boris,
> FWIW, if you ask for a critique, take it, digest it, learn from it if possible,
> but don't defend it - you're asking for someone's opinion. If they solicit an
> answer to some aspect of the image then give it.
> My $.02 worth.
> It's no rule.
>
> Ken Waller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: PAE #?
>
> Hi!
>
> TMP> The tree to the left looks a bit strange due to it actually being taller
> TMP> than the skyscrapers, for me, it puts the perspective out a little. Maybe
> TMP> (I'm not sure where you were standing), you could have moved a little more
> TMP> to the right to not include the tree in the frame? Just by changing the
> TMP> angle, you should still have been able to keep all of the sunset and the
> TMP> rays, cityscape etc in the frame... Although then the light may have been
> TMP> coming through the clouds differently... I have no idea, just ignore me, I
> TMP> am thinking out loud and talking rubbish, I fear! lol...
>
> Tanya, with all due respect, I do think that the tree actually makes
> the shot. Which I wrote in my comments I believe. It is light, tree
> and city - three components, not less.
>
> I hope I am not breaking any rules here by countering someone else's
> opinion... If I do, I apologize in advance.
>
> Boris
>
>
>
>
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:09:41 -0700
> From: "David Madsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Dissatisfied
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Then I can understand why you don't want to shoot XP-2 anymore. Photography
> is supposed to be fun and if we are not happy with our results it's not fun.
>
> David Madsen
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.davidmadsen.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Dissatisfied
>
>
> I've not printed it yet ...
>
> I've looked at it on three monitors and three computers. It
> just looks like crap to me. I don't know how to explain it
> other than it doesn't seem to have a smooth tonality.
> Likewise all the other XP-2 shots I've worked with.
>
> --------------------------------
> End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 Issue #551
> *********************************************
