Very, very nice shots. How the slides look will to some extend depend on the light you see it through/send through it. So judgemnet is somewhat subjective. Perhaps you could use a 5000 Kelvin light box to view the slides. Add then there's the secreen and printer.... I'm not an expert at all in colour management. But I know it's very tricky - you must have the whole system calibrated to the same profiles etc. Takle a look at this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/und-print-m gmt.shtml
or this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital1.shtml This is a local company, who made colour management their business: http://www.pixl.dk/index.htm All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: arie07 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. januar 2005 15:08 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Scanning VELVIA slides with the HP S20 Scanning Velvia 100 Slides with HP S20 I am scanning a bunch of Slides from a trip to the US SouthWest and have been having trouble matching colors & lightness to look on the screen as they look in the slide. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=466206. I tried the original HP scanning software and Hamrick's Vuescan. Have any of you any tips for me? Thanks Leo ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 6:28 AM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #99 ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 05 : Issue 99 Today's Topics: Re: PP: Digital Grain [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: MZ-S: what is a good price ? [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Scanner Comparison [ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Digital anguish [ David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: PP: Digital Grain [ Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Scanner Comparison [ David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] RE: Camera Lust! [ "Antti-Pekka Virjonen" <antti-pekka ] Re: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: PP: Digital Grain [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: More Dog Stuff [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: PESO:nLet's Bar B Q [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: More Dog Stuff [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Digital grain and dogmatism [ Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: More Dog Stuff [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: More Dog Stuff [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: PESO:nLet's Bar B Q [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Digital grain and dogmatism [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] AW: AW: Digital anguish [ "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] AW: :Re: 135mm lenses - quality ? [ "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Dogmatism: what is allowed? [ "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? [ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:23:38 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain > I'd love to be proven wrong but I suspect the prints you speak of > though > resolute would look pretty bad up against prints produced using > studio MF > digital work-flows these days. Paul? Can you help us out here? I do wonder how much of the errors you speak of would actually be measurable by any means short of a microdensitometer. For all that, there is a lushness to large film contact prints that I find hard to describe in words, but once you see it, you no longer need the explanation. William Robb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:32:36 +0100 From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: RE: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one ? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The good thing about shooting didgatal is that, if the exposure is wrong, you''l find out. About Tamrons success: Since autofocus have prevailed, the sale of Adaptall lenses(mounts must have declined dramatictly. I am buying the KA adapter from Jim,, so I'll get a chance to check it out on my 'ist D before relying on it for film cameras. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: m.s.gill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. januar 2005 14:27 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one ? i have two tamron adapters K and KA and long list of tamron lenses.Whenever i put prime/zooms with KA adapter on MZ5 lens locked at minimum AE, received over exposure in programme mode the reason combination of aperture leafes and shutter. Few years back Tamron introduced a P adapter for program Carl Zeiss contax bodies. At that time i had AX and was willing to purchase this adapter but in another forum this P adapter was discussed in detail but results were the same overexposure in P and SP mode. For instance Contax MM lenses function in all mode on their P bodies but Yashica lenses (a subsidiary of Kyocera) only do AE/M modes. It is obvious tarque of aperture leafes and shutter combination differ so perfect exposure is not possible. i am not engineer but it is just observation. If Tamron has devised such P adapter with perfect results for different camera manufacturer Cos. then i think it would have been the third largest optical co and many amateur on budget will pray for their success in future endeavours. Even Chinon P gears (CP5,6,CPX) work in P mode with original Pentax K lenses but whenever i tried with Tamron with different zooms/prime over exposure or poor results faced.. If my knowledgeable colleagues have ever received excellent results with this combination will appreciate his/their expertise just to increase my knowledge and thus will be saved from budget phemenon every month & reduce my fear of being cut with knife by my wife which is perhaps global tragedy with the innocent hobbists. Is not it? Gill > Do any of you know which Adaptall mount I should look for, if I want to se > a Tamron lens that will allow for using shutter priority or programed AE on > a "A"-series body, perhaps even on the *ist D (provided I use a "A-series > Tamron lens")? > It seems there are more than one Adaptall 2 mount (R1 and ...?) > All the best ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:34:01 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Re: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one ? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one ? > The good thing about shooting didgatal is that, if the exposure is > wrong, > you''l find out. Heck, Jens, I found that out all the time shooting film. <G> William Robb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:38:37 +0100 From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: RE: MZ-S: what is a good price ? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Agree. The only problem with the MZ-S is that it came 10 yeras to late. It would have been a huge success if they made it at the same time as the PZ-1p. The good thing about it is that it came so late: Now it's posible to get a almost new one :-) And for me it was hard to get used to the "missing" aperture wheel on the body and the kinda tricky mode changing. Perhaps I didn't use it long enough (9 months). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. januar 2005 07:20 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: MZ-S: what is a good price ? I should have been more clear, in my mind, "best film body" is more like "most advanced body": if you consider AF 35mm bodies (because that's what I'm considering, I do not hesitate btween LX and Ist-Ds, the point is not there) id not see any other competition to the MZ-s than the Z1 / Z1-p. The thing is I have already a Z1. ---------------- Thibouille On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:39:02 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I'm a new owner of the MZ-S, so I haven't got any final impressions > > yet, but I'd initially rank the PZ-1p and MZ-S at the top of the list. > > ...the PZ-1p is best for flash compensation, high top shutter speed > > (1/8000), and fast winding speed (3.5fps), plus it is comfortable if > > somewhat BIG. > > ...the PZ-1 is best for transparencies with a slower winding speed > > (1.5fps?) > > > Relying on the printed specs instead of my own measurements ('cause I haven't > made any such measurements) the PZ-1p is supposed to wind at 4 fps and the PZ- > 1 at 3 fps, which I think still makes it one of the faster speeds Pentax ever > put into a camera body's built-in motor. Thus, both are faster than the MZ-S, > as well as having faster shutters. > > > > and the same top shutter speed, plus it has some > > extraordinary interval timing capabilities hidden away under the PF > > functions. Also comfortable and still BIG, > > ...The MZ-S is much smaller and lighter. It is much more like the > > standard Pentax 35mm camera offering with only minor compromises on > > shutter speed (1/6000), and winder speed (2.5fps?). The other > > features seem very comparable to the PZ-1p. I'd put it in the same > > class as the LX in terms of fit and finish, and size and weight. > > When the MZ-S came out -- and when I was able to check one out in the store > (there was a significant interval between these) I concluded, based on > comparing specs and then on comparing the cameras, that for me the MZ-s could > not replace the PZ-1. I thought at the time that the only way I'd ever go for > an MZ-s was if something happpened to my ZX-5n (I wouldn't want to give up > the -5n; I just like it; but the -S could *replace* it if need be, I > thought). However, things have changed: The -5n is now out of commission, but > I am unlikely to replace it (or repair it) because I now have an *istD; I > just don't need something in the niche formerly occupied by my ZX-5n. > > But I do agree with the point, made elsewhere in the thread, that there > probably is not *a* definite "best film body" made by Pentax. That's one > reason I disagreed with the statement that the MZ-S was the "best film body" - > - because I don't think it can be claimed that the MZ-S is a better body than > the PZ-1, the PZ-1p, the LX, the 645N (and probably some others with which > I'm not familiar) ... For me, as noted above, I felt that it was NOT a better > body than the PZ-1. I would agree with putting it in a group of "the best > bodies", but I don't think it stands out by itself. > > ERNR > > -- ------------------------ Thibouille ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:44:57 -0500 (EST) From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Scanner Comparison Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Cassino mused: > > Here's a comparison page, showing full frame and actual pixel shots of the > Canon vs the Epson, scanning 35mm B&W film: > > http://www.markcassino.com/temp/test/ > > I'd appreciate some feedback or observations on the 'actual pixel' > comparisons. The Epson looks pretty good (although the extra resolution of the Canon probably introduces a little of the apparent softness others have reported). The one thing I do note is that the Canon seems to produce a sightly darker black; that may be just an artifact of those scans, but I'd suggest a little more investigation is in order. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:08:32 +1300 From: David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Digital anguish Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Jan 24, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > What kind of scanner? A dedicated film scanner? A flatbed scanner? > What > do you want to scan? What kind of out put do you want? Most scanners > are > Mac and PC compatible - can't think of any that are not. HP S20 is PC only. Even with Vuescan. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:19:04 -0800 (PST) From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So when you do these manipulations, is the intent to make things look > as real as possible, introducing no biases of your own? That depends entirely upon the intent of the photographer for each photograph they might be inspired to create. Certainly a photograph made for purposes of documentation and historical record should be rendered as accurate to the original scene as possible, where a photograph used to illustrate or express an emotion has more aesthetic latitude in its rendering. This is no different from film-based work. > ... Or is there some aesthetic latitude given, perhaps analogous to > choosing a particular film becuase of a certain visual treatment that > it renders. ... Yes, it is precisely analogous to choosing a film and processing treatment to achieve a visual effect. The difference is that you can choose the rendering you want after you've made the exposure, allowing more flexibility to the process. To get back to my original statement, there is no "digital look". A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. Godfrey __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page - Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:24:46 +1300 From: David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Scanner Comparison Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Jan 24, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: > Been off the list for a little while, thought I'd touch base to > squelch any rumors that I'm still lost in the woods... and ask for > some input on medium format scanners. I just got my hands on a Minolta Multi Pro. If you'd like me to make some sample files let me know off-list. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:28:41 +0200 From: "Antti-Pekka Virjonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: RE: Camera Lust! Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Nice camera! I have my fathers old one (don't recall the exact model) somewhere and now that you mentioned this one I will dig it out tonight! I remember it will need some tiny holes fixed in the bellows but other than that the one I have is like new. I should have quite some E100SW in the deep freeze as well... or was it Velvia!? When I was a kid, I had my grandfathers folding 6x9 (Kodak I guess) but that one was unfortunately sacrificed in the name of science (I took it down to single parts and never found all the parts to get it back alive :-). Thanks for reminding me of the jewels of the past, Antti-Pekka ________________________________________ Antti-Pekka Virjonen Estera Oy Turku www.estera.fi www.computec.fi > -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 2:01 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Camera Lust! > > PDML rules prevent me from posting a link for the auction, but... > Here's an AGFA Isolette CRF with a Solinar lens. > Beautiful and brilliant camera! > I'd really, really love to have this, but it's quite expensive :-( > It's a like new 6x6 camera with a coupled range finder and it will fit in > your pocket or camera bag, along with what else you carry for photographing. > All you need is a light meter (or a SLR)and film. You can have a 70 > Megapixel camera in your pocket! > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/3690842/ > > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:44:31 +0000 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Re: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one ? Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24/1/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed: >The good thing about shooting didgatal is that, if the exposure is wrong, >you''l find out. Mark!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:44:40 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/23/2005 4:22:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OTOH, when doing art, the appearance of a drawing, say, can quite different based on the quality paper used -- coarseness, etc. That would be a nice option in digital. I just don't know how practical it is. No clue, really. Marnie aka Doe :-) ========== I realized later that that might have been a supremely stupid statement, as there are different kinds of papers. OTOH, it seems to me they are limited. I use Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper because I have an Epson Printer and that supposedly takes the ink the best. As I recall, there are really only two other grades (I may not be exact on this) Glossy and Matt. It just seems to me there should be even more options. But I suspect your ordinary consumer inkjet isn't really up to it yet. OTOH, I am interested in combining photography and art, so I am coming from a slightly different perspective. I tend to think texture when I think of paper -- coming from my past drawing/painting experience. However, photographs really are a different medium than drawing/painting. They need a certain resolution and (dpi, etc.) to look decent, I suppose. I was just sort of thinking aloud. (And still doing it.) Still I'd like the option to print a photo on a bumpy sort of paper. Trouble is, on my inkjet it probably wouldn't work. The ink probably would absorb unevenly and the photograph come out look like hell. Maybe someday... (Yeah, I suppose a graphic printing place could do it, but that is not what I mean). Why couldn't various types of grain be added by the paper? Not by doing some magic in an editing program. This is not something that would should up when posting pictures on the Net, only when printing and framing. Sorry, I couldn't be more concise -- just sort of rambling here. Marnie aka Doe ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:48:00 +0000 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Re: More Dog Stuff Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I went on a job the the other week and became instantly fond of a Jack Russell. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:50:14 +0000 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Re: PESO:nLet's Bar B Q Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No, no. Raw. Walking. Then running...... Did I tell you the old one about the pig with the wooden leg? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:50:59 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: More Dog Stuff Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/23/2005 11:49:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I went on a job the the other week and became instantly fond of a Jack Russell. ======= I thought Jack Russells were fiesty little hyperactive dogs? But like I said I am not dog-conversant. Marnie aka Doe :-) I think I have dog envy (of WW). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:57:02 -0800 From: Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Digital grain and dogmatism Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a bit amused at the big argument around adding grain to digital images. It seems like in no time, several people jumped to say that it is a silly thing to do, ridiculous, or that it "shouldn't" be done. Also, "if you want the look of film, shoot film." Well, NO. There is no "should." Maybe I want something that looks like film in certain ways but has the convenience of digital. Maybe I like to shoot Tri X and then try to minimize the grain with Neat Image, and then shoot with the ist D and add grain in Photoshop. Nobody is about to tell anybody else what to do--the most we can do is look away. Godfrey put it well when he used the phrase "whatever rocks your boat." It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing something else. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:57:47 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: More Dog Stuff Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In a message dated 1/23/2005 4:30:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For easy to train and docile, in the size range of a Golden or a Lab, I would go for a smallish Rottie bitch instead of a gun dog. A good Rottie is very gentle, very trainable, and an excellent family companion dog, and they aren't a dog to go looking for trouble. They can be a very headstrong animal, and they are very smart, so they will keep you on your toes. At our show this weekend, a Rottie took High in Trial with a score of 198 ˝ out of 200 in an Open trial, and she would have gotten a perfect 200 except for a handler error that didn't allow the dog to finish after the broad jump. William Robb ====== Thanks. I will ask around about them and start paying attention to them. Marnie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:02:23 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: More Dog Stuff Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/23/2005 6:59:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeshond graywolf ========= Interesting. Never heard of it before. Found a picture on the Net. Looks like a cold weather dog, though -- lots of hair. Probably never gets cold enough here for it in "sunny" (rainy) California. Marnie :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:12:27 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO:nLet's Bar B Q Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/23/2005 2:18:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But here's the bar-b-q: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3060408&size=lg Shot with the *ist D and a lens that has quickly won a place in my most favored lsit -- the DA 16-45/4. Paul ========== Nice shot. Makes me feel I can't complain about weather here. I like that lens too. In fact, I lust after it. Maybe I can find a "darkside" equivalent. :-) Marnie Sigh. Equipment lust is frustrating. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:19:18 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Digital grain and dogmatism Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/23/2005 11:58:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing something else. j ========== Sorry, I worded what I said a bit too strongly. Didn't mean it quite the way it came out. Thanks for sharing your example. I agree -- there are no rules in art. And I tend to view photography as an art form, not just a technical/mechanical thing. And if there are rules (I can think of one at least, the rule of thirds), well, then -- rules are made to be broken. Especially in art. OTOH, it does seem a bit retro to use a new medium (digital) to ape and old medium (B&W grain). Nothing wrong with it, but maybe a new medium should bring forth new expressions/techniques/impressions/textures -- whatever. Marnie Drat. I really don't know what I am talking about. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:38:22 +0100 From: "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: AW: AW: Digital anguish Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sure i could use a battery grip. But. We spoke about a travellers camera. I haven't bought one of the smallest cameras (srl), just to make it larger again with a battery grip. Battery grips are good for press photographers or other pro's, that have to shoot a very lot in a short time. But not for a long journey... -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 01:34 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: AW: Digital anguish Quoting Michael Heim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I can absolutely recommend the *istD as a traveller's camera. You > don't have to change the batteries too often, and if you have to, you > can buy batteries in every shop. You have an even better availability > of batteries than with other confentional cameras. The mz5 i use, too, > for example needs more special batteries.... As an aside -- you could use an AA battery grip on the MZ-5, couldn't you, and get that advantage? (I know it works on the -5n and various others in the series; I am assuming it would also fit the -5.) ERNR ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:43:28 +0100 From: "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: AW: :Re: 135mm lenses - quality ? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Is that just a feeling (an antipathie) ore is it fact, that lenses from china a worse, even if they should be better because of technical data (3.5 <-> 2.8) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: m.s.gill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Januar 2005 14:30 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: :Re: 135mm lenses - quality ? So am doubtful it may not be made in china.It is similar to Pentax but luckily if made in china written then it is not worth. Gill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:49:01 +0100 From: "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Now that we are speaking about "looking away" and "do's & don'ts". Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? Examples: - adding grain digitally ;-) - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture - changing colours (with digital colour filters) - cutting pimpels out of faces Does it make a difference if the photos are for - newspapers - magazines - a photo exhibition? What do you think? Michael -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Juan Buhler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 08:57 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Digital grain and dogmatism I'm a bit amused at the big argument around adding grain to digital images. It seems like in no time, several people jumped to say that it is a silly thing to do, ridiculous, or that it "shouldn't" be done. Also, "if you want the look of film, shoot film." Well, NO. There is no "should." Maybe I want something that looks like film in certain ways but has the convenience of digital. Maybe I like to shoot Tri X and then try to minimize the grain with Neat Image, and then shoot with the ist D and add grain in Photoshop. Nobody is about to tell anybody else what to do--the most we can do is look away. Godfrey put it well when he used the phrase "whatever rocks your boat." It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing something else. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:10:30 +0100 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Answers below: > fra: "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Now that we are speaking about "looking away" and "do's & don'ts". Lets > get ethical: > Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: > worked hard in photoshop) a picture? No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you choose what to photograph and how. > Examples: > - adding grain digitally ;-) > - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture > - changing colours (with digital colour filters) > - cutting pimpels out of faces These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years ago. Photoshop makes no difference. > Does it make a difference if the photos are for > - newspapers > - magazines > - a photo exhibition? Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist or artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is true, he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the context that matters. We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to believe in but lie so easily. DagT -------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 Issue #99 ********************************************
