Once you join, you can never leave!
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 2:50 PM Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #40 > What do I have to do to get off this list? Who runs this? Is there a living, > breathing, thinking, human being associated with PDML at any level anywhere? > Hello? I have asked several times to be removed from this list but so far I > have been completely ignored. Meanwhile my mailbox overfloweth. Please stop > sending this to me. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 8:41 PM > Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #40 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Content-Type: text/plain > > > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 02 : Issue 40 > > > > Today's Topics: > > Re: MS-S special ?? [ Thomas Heide Clausen > <T.Clausen@com ] > > RE: Testing an LX meter [ "Shaun Canning" > <ShaunCanning1@bigp ] > > Re: Stupid Windows question [ Dan Scott > <daniel559@directvinterne ] > > Mass market digital [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > Re: Testing an LX meter [ "Bob Rapp" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > Re: photo-essentials [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > Testing an LX [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > RE: Testing an LX meter [ "J. C. O'Connell" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 [ Norm Baugher > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks Not [ Mike Johnston > <michaeljohnston@amer ] > > Re: Testing an LX meter [ "Rob Studdert" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > Re: Testing an LX meter [ "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks Not [ Norm Baugher > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > Re: Stupid Windows question [ Paul Stenquist > <pnstenquist@comcast ] > > Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks not [ Paul Stenquist > <pnstenquist@comcast ] > > Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 [ Paul Stenquist > <pnstenquist@comcast ] > > Re: Stupid Windows question [ Paul Stenquist > <pnstenquist@comcast ] > > OT More Windows questions [ Herb Chong > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > Re: Testing an LX meter [ Paul Stenquist > <pnstenquist@comcast ] > > Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 [ Dan Scott > <daniel559@directvinterne ] > > Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks not [ Dan Scott > <daniel559@directvinterne ] > > RE: Off Topic Stupid Questions [ "Len Paris" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > RE: Testing an LX meter [ "Shaun Canning" > <ShaunCanning1@bigp ] > > Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 [ "William Robb" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 03:13:19 +0100 > > From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: MS-S special ?? > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > > Len, you are so right. I just had a japanese friend of mine look over > > the site, and he noted that it was just the MZ-S...adding humorously > > that "perhaps they need to pin out to the japanese that the 's' is > > for 'special'". According to him, it is just the regular MZ-S being > > described. > > > > Man, I should pick up on the japanese.....it's a tuff, but > > beautifully written language. > > > > --thomas > > > > (who's just gotten his 77mm limited, in black, and hence has no more > > time for computers this week...) > > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:09:36 -0600 > > "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps that is the meaning of the letter "S" in MZ-S, "Special". > > > It makes a certain amount of sense. At least to me. > > > > > > Len > > > --- > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Michel Carrère-Gée [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:00 AM > > > > To: PentaxList; pdml > > > > Subject: MS-S special ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/camera/mzs-sp/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Thomas Heide Clausen > > Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) > > M.Sc in Computer Engineering > > > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:19:38 +1100 > > From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Testing an LX meter > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > If the mirror sticks up, it is 'sticky'...if it doesn't, it aint! > > > > Cheers > > > > Shaun Canning > > Archaeology Department > > La Trobe University > > Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. > > > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 12:59 PM > > To: Pentax Discuss Mailing List > > Subject: Testing an LX meter > > > > Is it possible to test the meter/and automatic > > exposure settings in an LX without a finder? > > I think I read that the meter doesnt read off the screen, so it might > > be possible. > > > > Secondly, if the meter is accurate on manual, will > > it usually be accurate on automatic too? > > > > Thirdly, how do I test for the "sticky mirror" problem? > > JCO > > > > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > My Business references & Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:21:00 -0600 > > From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Stupid Windows question > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 04:31 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > > The Scratch disk is what PhotoShop uses to allow undos and keep track > > > of > > > the history. Every time you do something to your image, it records the > > > previous version on the scratch disk -- or at least enough information > > > so that your next step can be undone. The bigger your scratch disk, the > > > more history steps you can save. And a bigger scratch disk allows you > > > to > > > work with bigger files. Obviously, the speed of the disk being used as > > > a > > > scratch disk is crucial. With a huge firewire drive, PhotoShop flys. > > > Paul > > > > > > > Having a good HD is important for a lot of reasons, but the _best_ > > thing you can do to make your box Photoshop friendly is max out your > > RAM--and RAM is dirt cheap nowadays (cheaper than a huge firewire > > drive). > > > > I rarely hear Photoshop accessing my disk, which means Photoshop isn't > > waiting on info to be loaded or unloaded from the disk and it's only > > because I have enough of that wonderfully, amazingly, affordably cheap > > RAM--1.2 gigs on my old G4/400. > > > > Dan Scott > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:20:26 EST > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Mass market digital > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Just a couple of thoughts... > > > > Mike J. noted that Pentax was moving a ton of Optio digital cameras. > > Somebody else pointed to a Japanese article last week, calling this > > time the sweet spot in the market, suggesting that volume was big > > enough and costs were now low enough to make profits in the category. > > > > Pentax looks pretty good here, if your focus is making money. This is > > the same Mass Market position Pentax has always aimed for. Did they > > follow a plan and successfully execute it? > > > > Sony, Fuji, Kodak and others have the Mass Market tied up in the USA. > > They are the ones in the Big Box retail stores, the ones selling > electronics > > and video equipment for Christmas. > > > > 2nd thought... > > > > A woman at work asked me to recommend a digital camera. I told her where > to > > look, but had 2nd thoughts the next day. > > > > She is not computer illiterate, but I wasn't sure how much equipment she > has > > at home. I talked to here about it later in the week. She has 2 young > kids > > under 6. I could see her hard disk going down and here losing the last 5 > > years of family photos. > > > > We all are pretty computer savvy here. We have CD burners to cut our > > pictures to. We have classy printers and photo programs to manipulate the > > images and print them. It's a lot of equipment and know-how that goes > into > > having digital images. > > > > We both came to the conclusion that what she needed was a new film based > > point-n-shoot, not a digital camera. It means most of today's digital > camera > > market is computer geeks. That's a surprising thought... > > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:30:48 +1100 > > From: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Testing an LX meter > > Message-ID: <006301c29686$2ac9fda0$1502a8c0@rappr> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Is it possible to test the meter/and automatic > > > exposure settings in an LX without a finder? > > > I think I read that the meter doesnt read off the screen, so it might > > > be possible. > > > > > Depends on how much light stricks the viewing screen. Use a waist level > > finder. Metering, with the mirror down takes place via a secondary mirror > > behind the primary mirror. The primary mirror is semi-transparent so the > > center area light is seen by the photo cell mounted in the floor of the > > mirror chamber. When the mirror is up, the photo cell sees the shutter > > curtain and film. The reflectiveness of both is the same. > > > > > Secondly, if the meter is accurate on manual, will > > > it usually be accurate on automatic too? > > > > > Metering is actually more accurate in auto mode. The light at the > > film/shutter plane is measured prior to firing the shutter. In between > > shutter speeds are only available in manual. > > > > > Thirdly, how do I test for the "sticky mirror" problem? > > > > Fire the shutter, if it mirrir sticks, it has the problem. > > > > > JCO > > > > > Bob > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:36:15 -0500 > > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: photo-essentials > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > I'm having more and more senior moments. > > I meant Focus, ShutterSpeed, Aperature, ShutterButton. > > Where's me Geritol gone to? > > > > -Lon > > > > "Bill D. Casselberry" wrote: > > > > > > Lon wrote: > > > > > > > I count 4: > > > > Focus > > > > Shutter speed > > > > Aperature > > > > Focus ring. > > > > > > Nah - Wheatfield's right, just three > > > > > > 1) a means to focus > > > 2) a way to set an aperture > > > 3) a way to set a shutter speed > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > > > > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:31:48 EST > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Testing an LX > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > << Thirdly, how do I test for the "sticky mirror" problem? >> > > > > Let the camera sit for 24-48-72 hours. > > Take the lens off and watch the mirror as you fire the shutter. > > Does it hesitate for a split second before firing? > > > > Do some critical focusing with shallow depth of field. > > Check the prints when you get them back. > > Was the focus accurate? > > That's the other symptom of sticky mirror syndrome. > > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:31:24 -0500 > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Testing an LX meter > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > I've heard that this only happens if the camera has been sitting a while. > > After a few exposure it goes away. How long is sitting > > "a while"??? > > JCO > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:20 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Testing an LX meter > > > > > > > > > If the mirror sticks up, it is 'sticky'...if it doesn't, it aint! > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Shaun Canning > > > Archaeology Department > > > La Trobe University > > > Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. > > > > > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 12:59 PM > > > To: Pentax Discuss Mailing List > > > Subject: Testing an LX meter > > > > > > Is it possible to test the meter/and automatic > > > exposure settings in an LX without a finder? > > > I think I read that the meter doesnt read off the screen, so it might > > > be possible. > > > > > > Secondly, if the meter is accurate on manual, will > > > it usually be accurate on automatic too? > > > > > > Thirdly, how do I test for the "sticky mirror" problem? > > > JCO > > > > > > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > My Business references & Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:36:59 -0800 > > From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > I think all three of you are out to get me, from now on I'll reply to > > every one of your posts! > > Norm > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > ><< My fault Bruce. >> > > > > > >Bill, > > > > > >Don't apologize to Bruce! > > >Nobody is forcing him to read the digest, > > >and judging from his attitude, he doesn't like us much anyway. > > > > > >Bruce, > > > > > >This is just a sinister plot to get you to totally unsubscribe. > > >We don't want anybody throwing cold water on our Pollyanna frame of mind. > <g> > > >Tell us something about Nikon or Canon digitals for the Mass Market... > > >something that sells for under US$600. Or do they just make Pro cameras? > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:43:16 -0600 > > From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks Not > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > > > > > Welcome back Mike. > > > > > > Hi Bob! > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:42:26 +1000 > > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Testing an LX meter > > Message-ID: <3DE61D42.31035.4E58F04@localhost> > > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > Content-description: Mail message body > > > > On 27 Nov 2002 at 20:58, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > > > Is it possible to test the meter/and automatic > > > exposure settings in an LX without a finder? > > > I think I read that the meter doesnt read off the screen, so it might > > > be possible. > > > > Yes, metering is via a secondary mirror in the mirror box pre-exposure and > off- > > the-film during exposure so neither a focus screen or finder is required > for > > metering. > > > > > Secondly, if the meter is accurate on manual, will > > > it usually be accurate on automatic too? > > > > Yes as long as you have a strip of unprocessed dummy film across the film > plane > > (otherwise the back plate reflectivity will cause a longer than expected > auto- > > exposure). > > > > > Thirdly, how do I test for the "sticky mirror" problem? > > > > Generally you should be suspect of any hessitation in the mirror action, > most > > often it is more severe if the camera has not be fired for a day or so. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:45:42 +1100 > > From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Testing an LX meter > > Message-ID: <00b401c29688$415085b0$5539aa83@RMIT3105237> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > I read that email incorrectly, so my reponse is wrong :) i thought you > were > > asking about the electronic and manual shutter speeds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, if the meter is accurate on manual, will > > > > it usually be accurate on automatic too? > > > > > > In my experience no, they seem to operate independent of each other. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Paul > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:48:01 -0800 > > From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks Not > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Great to have you back Mike... > > Norm > > > > Mike Johnston wrote: > > > > >>Welcome back Mike. > > >> > > >> > > >Hi Bob! > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:55:59 -0500 > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Stupid Windows question > > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > > > I've never had to work with that big an image. But I regularly work with > > 400 meg images and seem to be able to record several gigs of data on the > > scratch disk. But again it's a Mac. No NTFS or FAT32. > > > > Herb Chong wrote: > > > > > > Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >And a bigger scratch disk allows you to > > > work with bigger files. Obviously, the speed of the disk being used as a > > > scratch disk is crucial. With a huge firewire drive, PhotoShop flys. > > > Paul< > > > > > > rgardless of scratch disk size, Photoshop does not let you work with an > > > image that takes more than 1GB. also regardless of scratch disk size, > each > > > of its scratch files can't exceed 2GB. doesn't matter whether on NTFS or > > > FAT32. > > > > > > Herb.... > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:01:54 -0500 > > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Soon. Over the Holidays. > > > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > > > >Anyone want a review of MXen through a KX'ers eyes? > > > > > > > > > >-Lon > > > > > > Sure do! When can we expect it? <g> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:59:48 -0500 > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks not > > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > > > Great to see you posting here. Great post as well. > > Paul > > > > Mike Johnston wrote: > > > > > > >> This just > > > >> confirms my impression that Pentax is a moribund brand. > > > > > > Hardly. With the first DSLR coming out next Spring, the baby Optio > digicams > > > selling like hotcakes for Christmas, the first flagship body in years > still > > > new (well, newish) on the market, whole medium format lines including an > AF > > > 645, and...yes, riches galore, endless riches, on eBay, from Pentax > > > history.... > > > > > > I don't know, but I suspect that most of the people on this list, like > me, > > > could survive for the rest of our photographic lives quite nicely if > EVERY > > > OTHER photographic brand name BUT Pentax dried up and blew away > tomorrow.... > > > > > > Pentax uber alles, > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > Mike Johnston > > > ________ > > > > > > See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two > > > locations: > > > > > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml > > > > > > http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/smp_index.html > > > > > > Also, check out my new monthly column in the English _Black & White > > > Photography_ magazine! > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:58:02 -0500 > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 > > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > > > The discussion about operating systems has centered around their > > PhotoShop compatability. And PhotoShop is an essential photographic tool > > for both film and digital shooters. > > Paul > > > > Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > > > > > You are wrong. My complaint was that most of the posts were about > computer > > > operating systems, rather than photography. It is reassuring to think > that > > > people have other things in their lives than cameras. I do not know why > a > > > brand specific camera mailing list has to encompass all aspects of their > non > > > photographic lives. > > > > > > From: "CBWaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Hey Bruce, > > > Correct me if I'm wrong (or just being a smartass) but wasn't your post > > > complaining about too many non-Pentax-related posts really a post a bout > a > > > computer mailing list? Even this post only has Pentax related material > after > > > the main body of text...sheesh. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:05:33 -0500 > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Stupid Windows question > > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > > > RAM is crucial as well. I have 768 meg, which is adequate but just > > barely. However, I think PhotoShop writes every operation to the scratch > > disk regardless of how much RAM one might have. I can't hear my drives, > > but I do see the light on my Firewire drive switch on for every > > PhotoShop operation, even when working with a small file. I'll have to > > experiment a bit and verify that. But I think that's the way it works. > > Paul > > > > Dan Scott wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 04:31 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > > > > The Scratch disk is what PhotoShop uses to allow undos and keep track > > > > of > > > > the history. Every time you do something to your image, it records the > > > > previous version on the scratch disk -- or at least enough information > > > > so that your next step can be undone. The bigger your scratch disk, > the > > > > more history steps you can save. And a bigger scratch disk allows you > > > > to > > > > work with bigger files. Obviously, the speed of the disk being used as > > > > a > > > > scratch disk is crucial. With a huge firewire drive, PhotoShop flys. > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > Having a good HD is important for a lot of reasons, but the _best_ > > > thing you can do to make your box Photoshop friendly is max out your > > > RAM--and RAM is dirt cheap nowadays (cheaper than a huge firewire > > > drive). > > > > > > I rarely hear Photoshop accessing my disk, which means Photoshop isn't > > > waiting on info to be loaded or unloaded from the disk and it's only > > > because I have enough of that wonderfully, amazingly, affordably cheap > > > RAM--1.2 gigs on my old G4/400. > > > > > > Dan Scott > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:07:26 -0500 > > From: Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: OT More Windows questions > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Content-Disposition: inline > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > > Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Also, what, if any, are the downsides to using NTFS over Fat32?< > > > > the downside is that unless you are willing to fool around with 3rd party > > drivers, if you can't boot XP/NT for any reason, and the NT emergency disk > > doesn't get you back, you are hosed. it is a very rare condition, but it > > happens. lots of tools can pull things off of a FAT32 disk provided you > can > > access the drive. > > > > Herb... > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:08:51 -0500 > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Testing an LX meter > > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > > > I'd want to test it after sitting for 24 hours or so. It might also be > > good to subject it to about 100 degree F temperatures. My sticky mirror > > first showed up when I left the camera on a tripod in the sun. However, > > if I bought a used LX that had not been CLAed in the recent past, I'd > > ship it off to Colorado regardless. > > Paul > > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > > > > I've heard that this only happens if the camera has been sitting a > while. > > > After a few exposure it goes away. How long is sitting > > > "a while"??? > > > JCO > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:20 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: Testing an LX meter > > > > > > > > > > > > If the mirror sticks up, it is 'sticky'...if it doesn't, it aint! > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Shaun Canning > > > > Archaeology Department > > > > La Trobe University > > > > Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. > > > > > > > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 12:59 PM > > > > To: Pentax Discuss Mailing List > > > > Subject: Testing an LX meter > > > > > > > > Is it possible to test the meter/and automatic > > > > exposure settings in an LX without a finder? > > > > I think I read that the meter doesnt read off the screen, so it might > > > > be possible. > > > > > > > > Secondly, if the meter is accurate on manual, will > > > > it usually be accurate on automatic too? > > > > > > > > Thirdly, how do I test for the "sticky mirror" problem? > > > > JCO > > > > > > > > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > My Business references & Websites: > http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:11:46 -0600 > > From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 07:07 PM, William Robb wrote: > > > > > > As an aside, why are they called news groups. > > > I am on one regarding dog training methods, and there seems to > > > be no news, and lots of posturing and other foolishness. > > > Imagine the PDML at the worst it could be (say a Mafud vs. > > > "rhymes with Oboe") multiplied a hundred fold. > > > How these people can control a dog when they can't control > > > themselves is beyond me. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > Yep. The increase in noise on Usenet has accelerated the growth of mail > > lists. Someone, can't remember who, bluntly summed it up as, "Winning > > an argument on Usenet is like taking a medal in the Special Olympics. > > Even though you've won, you're still retarded." > > > > Dan Scott > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:17:28 -0600 > > From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Pentax Moribund? Methinks not > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 06:56 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > > > > > > Hardly. With the first DSLR coming out next Spring, the baby Optio > > > digicams > > > selling like hotcakes for Christmas, the first flagship body in years > > > still > > > new (well, newish) on the market, whole medium format lines including > > > an AF > > > 645, and...yes, riches galore, endless riches, on eBay, from Pentax > > > history.... > > > > > > I don't know, but I suspect that most of the people on this list, like > > > me, > > > could survive for the rest of our photographic lives quite nicely if > > > EVERY > > > OTHER photographic brand name BUT Pentax dried up and blew away > > > tomorrow.... > > > > > > Pentax uber alles, > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > Hey Mike, > > > > You missed the deadline for the PUG again. ;-) > > > > Dan Scott > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:17:08 -0600 > > From: "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Off Topic Stupid Questions > > Message-ID: <000201c2968c$a27cc930$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="US-ASCII" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > > If Pentax is too moribund for you, why not go elsewhere and get a life? > > > > Len > > --- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:27 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Off Topic Stupid Questions > > > > > > > > > The last digest I received had 23 posts, 16 were about > > > computer operating systems. I think some of you folks would > > > do better joining a computer mailing list so there won't be > > > any of those pesky photography related posts. BTW, there was > > > only one reply to a Pentax specific thread. This just > > > confirms my impression that Pentax is a moribund brand. > > > > > > BR > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:22:17 +1100 > > From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Testing an LX meter > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > One of the causes is decaying rubbers around the mirror, which become a > bit > > gooey after a while. If the camera hesitates at all, send it off for a > > service, as the bump stops in the mirror housing and the foams in general > > may need to be replaced. As well as that, a full CLA will revive the thing > > to damn near new (other than cosmetics of course). > > > > Cheers > > > > Shaun Canning > > Archaeology Department > > La Trobe University > > Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. > > > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 1:31 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Testing an LX meter > > > > I've heard that this only happens if the camera has been sitting a while. > > After a few exposure it goes away. How long is sitting > > "a while"??? > > JCO > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:20 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Testing an LX meter > > > > > > > > > If the mirror sticks up, it is 'sticky'...if it doesn't, it aint! > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Shaun Canning > > > Archaeology Department > > > La Trobe University > > > Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. > > > > > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 12:59 PM > > > To: Pentax Discuss Mailing List > > > Subject: Testing an LX meter > > > > > > Is it possible to test the meter/and automatic > > > exposure settings in an LX without a finder? > > > I think I read that the meter doesnt read off the screen, so it might > > > be possible. > > > > > > Secondly, if the meter is accurate on manual, will > > > it usually be accurate on automatic too? > > > > > > Thirdly, how do I test for the "sticky mirror" problem? > > > JCO > > > > > > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > My Business references & Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:20:10 -0600 > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 > > Message-ID: <005101c2968d$0f19cf20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Norm Baugher > > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 #38 > > > > > > > I think all three of you are out to get me, from now on I'll > > reply to > > > every one of your posts! > > > Norm > > > > You'll be needing a lot of coffee. > > WW > > > > -------------------------------- > > End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 Issue #40 > > ******************************************** >
