date:20040827

If you realized that "Chock Full of Nuts" used to be a doughnut shop chain here 
in the US that had a particularly good coffee (prior to Starbucks, et al) the 
name is not so strange at all. Come to think of it Starbucks is kind of a 
strange name for coffee.

--
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Maybe, it was meant to be enjoyed with this extremely amusing beverage that
I discovered whilst I was at tv's house...
http://www.tanyamayer.com/gfm2004blog/065_std.jpg
Care for some "Chock full of nuts" with your "Spotted Dick"?
eee...

tan.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel J. Matyola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 27 August 2004 8:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: What is this stuff?
On my recent trip to Maui, I spotted a can of this stuff:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2615747
I understand this is a Brit "delicacy" of sorts, which was sent to an
English expat in Hawaii.  Can one of the British members of the list
explain what (and perhaps why) this stuff is?
The Hawaiians thought it was quite strange, and they regularly enjoy
Spam (the Armour kind, not the email kind.)
TIA,
Dan M

RE: Sometimes I like grain!

Actually the predominant color in August is usually brown!
It's been very cool and wet this month, good for me, real bad for farmers.
Lots of storms and an unusual number of tornadoes too. :-(
There is a variety of scenety here, flat central, hilly south, VERY hilly
north.
Lots of river bluffs and stuff. The really flat one is Kansas.

don

> -Original Message-
> From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sometimes I like grain!
>
>
> I don't remember Iowa being that vivid, but otherwise your photo
> looks lik the
> whole damn state. GRIN
>
> --
>
> Don Sanderson wrote:
>
> > Guess I should put my pics where my mouth is.
> > This is a snap taken with a 105SL (My carseat camera) on Fuji 400.
> >
> > http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/IowaField.jpg
> >
> > I also shot this with the MX on Reala.
> > The Reala shot is pretty but boring.
> > I think the grain and even "fuzziness" makes this for me.
> > I shamelessy edited in PS to try to get the "feeling" I had
> standing there.
> > Technically awful, very edited, but I look at the 8x10 on my
> wall a lot, it
> > relaxes me.
> > Good photo? Nope.
> > Pleasing image? Maybe. ;-)
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
>

Re: Unmanageable List

That is because the guys in the mail room often hold on to a post for a few days 
to show around and get chuckles from all their friends. They usually put them 
back into the mail, but sometimes they forget.

--
Cotty wrote:
On 26/8/04, Doug Franklin, discombobulated, unleashed:

I don't know if it's the list (because some people
seem to be getting a lot more posts than me) 
I haven't been having any troubles at all.

I've had one or two posts in the last month take a few days to show up
(from me), but otherwise it's running smoothly for me.

Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance

Why would you want to use one of those new fangled dry plates? Real 
photographers use wet plates.

--
Frantisek wrote:
Thursday, August 26, 2004, 11:54:47 AM, Lon wrote:
LW> Anyone wanna tell me how to stuff a dry plate into an MX?
Let me think... that would be around 1/16 size plate, wouldn't it?
I will check with my drogist, if he stocks these. Would you like
orthochromatic, the latest fancy, or good old fashioned unsensitised
stuff? He even should have some Autochrome from Lumiere brothers.
BTW, the chemicals are still easy to get here in Europe. Especially if
you have a business license. I do mix my own developers time to time.
Even in the States, you could probably make them yourself. Find some
silver mine, nitrate - from shit (the same way KNO3 for gunpowder is made),
gelatine would come from your cow herd or the remains of the FBI
agents ;-) would be messy...
Good light!
   fra

Re: PAW - The last one

2004-08-27 Thread David Mann

On Aug 28, 2004, at 7:31 AM, DagT wrote:
OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 
PAW´s).  I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous 
week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time 
to stop :-)
Most of my PAWs come from the archives.  I've only shot a few rolls all 
year :(

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908&size=lg
Great photo.
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/

Re: Stupid question

Well first off most modern monitors display a whole lot more than 72 pixels per 
inch nowadays. Mine will do about 144 at maximum res. Though it is set to about 
90ppi right now (1280x1024) on a 14.25x10.75 (19") screen.

Also tranparencies (light coming through) always look sharper than prints (light 
reflected off).

--
Caveman wrote:
Just wondering. When I display a good pic on my monitor, it looks sharp 
bright and contrasty. Now my monitor is small and has a resolution of 
only 72 dpi, so I can't display at 1:1 pixels but only a small part of a 
lets say 6 MP image from the *istD. Now suppose that I could buy a 
monitor with a bigger screen, and same 72 dpi resolution. With a 40x30 
inch screen, I would be able to display the whole 6 MP image. It would 
look as great as a smaller part of it on the smaller screen, at same dpi.
Now just think about trying to print the same 6 MP image on 40x30 inch 
paper. Methinks it would look soft and muddy. How comes it looks great 
on the low 72 dpi monitor and bad on the 300 dpi printer, at same final 
size ?

Re: PESO: vacation pics

2004-08-27 Thread Boris Liberman

Hi!

HC> nine days total around various parts of the Adirondacks in New York State
HC> and also in the local area as i had from Saturday to Sunday off. the first
HC> three are from Minnewaska State Park and the last one is from Harriman State
HC> Park. the rest are from various places in the Adirondacks. most of the trip
HC> was rainy when it normally is much drier. no real chances for sunsets nor
HC> macro shots. the times the sun came out, it was very humid and hazy and most
HC> of my distance shots were disappointing. didn't really take much time to
HC> find any macro shots, so didn't come away with any. so that left me with a
HC> lot of waterfall shots.

HC> http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Seasonal/

Herb, these are wonderful shots. Though I liked most those were
waterfalls were absent :). Seriously, I am sure you had a good time.

Eventually my page about Norway will come up and then you would have
your say :).

Thanks.

Boris

Re: Sometimes I like grain!

I don't remember Iowa being that vivid, but otherwise your photo looks lik the 
whole damn state. GRIN

--
Don Sanderson wrote:
Guess I should put my pics where my mouth is.
This is a snap taken with a 105SL (My carseat camera) on Fuji 400.
http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/IowaField.jpg
I also shot this with the MX on Reala.
The Reala shot is pretty but boring.
I think the grain and even "fuzziness" makes this for me.
I shamelessy edited in PS to try to get the "feeling" I had standing there.
Technically awful, very edited, but I look at the 8x10 on my wall a lot, it
relaxes me.
Good photo? Nope.
Pleasing image? Maybe. ;-)
Don

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN!
Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server.
E-mail is weird. I remember getting a e-mail from a friend who lived a few 
blocks away (in Charlotte, NC, USA) and seeing by the routing info that it had 
come to me via Australia, and a few points in between. Sometimes you can get a 
message from both directions at the same time. For instance I could send you an 
e-mail there in Norway, and it would propagate around the world and arrive 
almost simultaneously from England via Canada and Iceland, and from Germany via 
Russia, Japan, and the Phillipines. When that happens the mail server is 
supposed to note that they both have the same message number and toss one in the 
bit bucket. Sometimes that does not happen. If your e-mail client is smart 
enough it will refuse the extra, but sometimes it fails to do that. Then there 
are those messages that some server somewhere in the world for God only knows 
what reason decides to change the message number. Need I go on, and on, and on...?

Yes, I know you know all this, Jostein, but maybe it well get through to some of 
the less knowledgeable list members that e-mail is really complicated system.

--
Jostein wrote:
Tom,
I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then 
again there's the problem of repeated messages.
I think there must be more than one problem at work here...
If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding,  
that could explain many of the problems we observe on the list in one go.
Messages can be delayed for a variable amount of time, depending on the load of the 
victim server, and may loose messages while flooded. If it uses Sendmail to propagate 
the messages, it may also loose track (during floods) of which messages are sent, and 
start all over again from the top of the queue. Resends can also occur if the victim 
server fails to send a confirmation of reception back to the previous server in the 
chain. Then the previous server will assume it lost and resend it after a while. Then, 
when the server gets on top of the load again, both messages are propagated.
This may of course happen with messages destined TO the PDML server as well. It would 
give much the same results, but to fewer users.
I'm also sure Doug is aware of this and keeps the path clean as far into cyberspace as 
he can.
Jostein


I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive 
SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it 
thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer 
messages if I were to switch PDML over to there.

--
Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances
here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even
after a couple of days.  Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread Sid Barras

I still use a Gossen Luna Pro F when I'm shooting one of my vintage cameras.
almost always when incident light reading is concerned. And on the rare
occasions I'm asked to shoot an important "studio" type flash shot
(especially when using the pentax 6x7) I definitely use the flash meter
function of it. That leaf shutter lens is awesome. But I've probably only
used it in that fashion 4 or 5 times.

Though I'm no professional, and I don't have experience with other pro level
meters, I consider the Luna Pro F one of the finest meters around. I also
have many of the considerable list of accessories, like the 7.5/15 degree
"spot" attachment, the enlarging/darkroom attachment, and the "never been
used" flexible light reading attachment thingy.

I also have a zone VI modified pentax spot meter, though it has a digital
readout. I use it for sure when I'm shooting black and white with the 6x7.

Then there's also a GE vintage light meter (probably circa 1940s) that gives
light readout that in scale that I use for measuring light output in my
Metal Halide/ High Pressure Sodium illuminated Orchid and Bromeliad
Greenhouse. It still works fine. Got it on ebay for a dollar.

Sid B

Re: Polarizer


- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Polarizer


> There is a substantial difference between removing reflection and
> duplicating the effects of a pol filter.  Your original comment was
that
> you could duplicate a pol filter in Photoshop.  What are the
plug-ins that
> will remove reflections and replicate the effects of a pol filter?
>

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

William Robb

Re: Wratten Filter Numbers


- Original Message - 
From: "Pat Curran"
Subject: Wratten Filter Numbers


> Hi Guys,
> Does anyone know the wratten numbers of the following
two Pentax
> filters:
>
> 'Cloudy'
> 'Morning & Evening'

They may not have Wratten equivalents.

William Robb

Re: I enjoy film


- Original Message - 
From: "Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu"
Subject: Re: I enjoy film



> Don't forget I live in Romania. You should see how they treat the
films, and
> how the prints looks like (yup, even with those x$ Frontiers).
We may
> have few acceptable minilabs, but that's all (and you still can't
obtain
> what you want).

I recall Valentin complaints were generated when he lived in Romania
as well.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing.

William Robb

Re: DA 14, Nguyen, and Pentax

Wow, you would really have been unhappy back in the 1960's when Pentax didn't 
offer their cameras in the US until 3-4 years after the were available in Japan.

--
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Roland Mabo, formerly of PDML, posted the following on dpreview. It was 
in response to my rant about not being able to get the DA 14. Thanks to 
this post and others, I think I am now starting to understand the new 
manufacturing strategy. The future looks like it will be frustrating for 
those of us who want quality gear, and want to be able to get it when we 
want it.

Pål may have been partly correct about U.S. dealers not ordering enough 
of the DA 16-45. But I think this was correct only for their initial 
orders. Dealers surely know by know that the lens is in demand, so the 
unavailability of the lens has to be the fault of Pentax's production. 
And Pentax is surely at fault for taking so long to get the first DA 14s 
into the U.S., two months behind availability in Europe.

Order early and order often.
Joe

 From Roland:
Pentax has * not * stopped producing lenses, but all lenses - except for 
the budget zooms - are built to order. This means that Pentax tells the 
distributors about the new lenses, the distributors place orders for 
them and Pentax produces this amount. When this batch has been produced, 
Pentax awaits new orders from the distributors until they make new ones. 
They can't make one at a time you know, they have to build up an order 
stock.. Having lots of unsold lenses in stock cost very much money and 
Pentax can't afford this. The Pentax distributors obviously expects poor 
sales since they're ordering only a few lenses.

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

Wow, guys, they are the same meter. The L-28C is just an older model of the 
L-398. The Norwood Director mentioned by someone else is an older version still. 
Sekonic bought out Norwood long ago. I have actually owned all 3.

--
Frantisek wrote:
Still metering with my L398, it's a trusty tool. When? Whenever situation
calls for incident metering :)

KW> Hah! How about my trusty L-28c2?  NO batteries!  
KW> I use it when my subject is in drastically different light than my camera's
KW> in. If I can.
KW> Such as when I'm standing in full sunlight, and my subject is under a tree
KW> being shaded.
KW> Get out my Sekonic and put the hood on the lens...
The L-398 works without batteries too :)
I do like it a lot. I do not use it much with the digital, though.
For film though, incident metering is a charm, mostly. Especially if
you learn it, and do not use the idiotkugeln, but just the plain
luxmeter flat panel. Last time with film, I also used a Spotmeter for
some theater stuff, which worked very fine. If only it was actually
smaller than my film camera! (the Pentax Spotmeter V, about the best
analog spotmeter there is, is indeed very very large). Incident
(especially lux) metering will teach anybody a lot about light and
contrast. Even with digital.
Good light!
   fra

RE: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)

2004-08-27 Thread ernreed2

Jim A. mentioned:
> Yes,  the planned obsolescence of many products is unfortunate.  I had a
> good cell phone that I needed to get a replacement battery for.  When I
> took it back to the store where I got it from  I was told the battery
> was no longer available.  So I had to get a new phone. ...

Had a story with a similar beginning and different ending. The cell phone 
company customer service rep told me the phone was old and they didn't have the 
battery and all that. I'm tired of them changing the model every single year so 
that whatever problem I have, they tell me I need a new phone.
I came home, got on line, looked up the manufacturer's web site and found I 
could indeed order the battery from them. So I did.
I'm sure at some point it WILL be unavailable, but at least for the past few 
months I've been able to keep the phone I'm used to.

ERN

RE: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)

2004-08-27 Thread J. C. O'Connell

I still use my 1.3 Mpixel panasonic almost daily
for ebay pix. I don't need anymore resolution for
that, I always have to resize down anyway. I have
no plans on replacing it until it dies. Sometimes
obsolete isnt really obsolete, depends on the application.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)


Yes,  the planned obsolescence of many products is unfortunate.  I had a
good cell phone that I needed to get a replacement battery for.  When I
took it back to the store where I got it from  I was told the battery
was no longer available.  So I had to get a new phone. My Optio 230 is
very obsolete now, what with it only having 2 megapixels of resolution.
However,  it does the job and I have no eagerness to get a more
"advance" model because of the cost.

Jim A.


> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:02:33 -0600
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:08:48 -0400
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Toralf Lund"
> Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
> 
> 
> 
>> But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is
> going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely 
> there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't 
> practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and will

> be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still be a 
> huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or money 
> to buy film, in such places?
> 
> We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of 
> the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford 
> to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it

> will probably be able to support digital. Since the industry as an 
> entity wants the marketplace to switch to digital, that is where 
> developing markets will be led.
> 
> The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease of

> use, or any quality factors. It's about an manufacturing sector that 
> wants you to stop using film because there is no money in it for them.
> OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera
> every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy,
> and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last
> years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
>

Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)

2004-08-27 Thread Jim Apilado

Yes,  the planned obsolescence of many products is unfortunate.  I had a
good cell phone that I needed to get a replacement battery for.  When I took
it back to the store where I got it from  I was told the battery was no
longer available.  So I had to get a new phone.
My Optio 230 is very obsolete now, what with it only having 2 megapixels of
resolution.  However,  it does the job and I have no eagerness to get a more
"advance" model because of the cost.

Jim A.


> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:02:33 -0600
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:08:48 -0400
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Toralf Lund"
> Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
> 
> 
> 
>> But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is
> going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely
> there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't
> practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and
> will be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still
> be a huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or
> money to buy film, in such places?
> 
> We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of
> the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford
> to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity,
> it will probably be able to support digital.
> Since the industry as an entity wants the marketplace to switch to
> digital, that is where developing markets will be led.
> 
> The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease
> of use, or any quality factors.
> It's about an manufacturing sector that wants you to stop using film
> because there is no money in it for them.
> OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera
> every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy,
> and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last
> years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
>

Re: PESO: vacation pics

2004-08-27 Thread Herb Chong

when i was in the Adirondacks, i was north and west of Lake George. most of
the shots are from areas reachable from NY Route 73 toward Lake Placid or
north along NY Route 9N. along the way toward Lake Placid.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: PESO: vacation pics

> Beautiful shots, Herb. Great framing and composition. Are any of these
> from Lake George or Lake Champlain. That was our vacation site when we
> lived in Jersey. We always made a trip up to White Mountain and Lake
> Placid as well. Wonderful part of the country. Thanks for sharing.

Re: black and white

2004-08-27 Thread Frantisek

KW> We in the U.S. have a LOT of "odd" regional or national words, with one or
KW> the other historical background stories to support it's use.
KW> I suspect the same is true of most European countries as well, truth be known...

Sure. That's what makes languages fun :)

Fra

KW> That nickname came from Kodak's Kodachrome® and Ektachrome® film, from which
KW> most 'slides' in the U.S. came, from a very long time ago... You knew that!  
KW> Kodak has had a tremendous influence on the terminology in photography,
KW> worldwide!

I think the first 'Chrome was Lumieres' Autochrome. But I would have
to flick out my back issues of Camera and Darkroom (UK) to check out
:(

Good light!
   fra

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread Frantisek

>> Still metering with my L398, it's a trusty tool. When? Whenever situation
>> calls for incident metering :)

KW> Hah! How about my trusty L-28c2?  NO batteries!  
KW> I use it when my subject is in drastically different light than my camera's
KW> in. If I can.
KW> Such as when I'm standing in full sunlight, and my subject is under a tree
KW> being shaded.
KW> Get out my Sekonic and put the hood on the lens...

The L-398 works without batteries too :)

I do like it a lot. I do not use it much with the digital, though.
For film though, incident metering is a charm, mostly. Especially if
you learn it, and do not use the idiotkugeln, but just the plain
luxmeter flat panel. Last time with film, I also used a Spotmeter for
some theater stuff, which worked very fine. If only it was actually
smaller than my film camera! (the Pentax Spotmeter V, about the best
analog spotmeter there is, is indeed very very large). Incident
(especially lux) metering will teach anybody a lot about light and
contrast. Even with digital.

Good light!
   fra

PESO: vacation pics

2004-08-27 Thread Herb Chong

nine days total around various parts of the Adirondacks in New York State
and also in the local area as i had from Saturday to Sunday off. the first
three are from Minnewaska State Park and the last one is from Harriman State
Park. the rest are from various places in the Adirondacks. most of the trip
was rainy when it normally is much drier. no real chances for sunsets nor
macro shots. the times the sun came out, it was very humid and hazy and most
of my distance shots were disappointing. didn't really take much time to
find any macro shots, so didn't come away with any. so that left me with a
lot of waterfall shots.

http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Seasonal/

Herb

Re: Prodigal returns

I was in London during a hurricane that hit with considerable force. 
The weather bureau failed to post any kind of warning. I guess the 
storm gained strength right before it came out of the Atlantic. I think 
it was 1987. I was in a room on about the 20th floor of a hotel. i 
believe it was at the southwest corner of Hyde Park. I awoke in the 
middle of the night to see the big picture window blowing in and out 
with lightning flashing all around. The window must have been moving an 
inch or two in each direction. I told myself it was nothing but a storm 
and went back to sleep. The next morning I awoke and looked out the 
window. The huge and ancient Plane trees of Hyde Park had been ripped 
from the ground and tossed about. Some buildings had lost their roofs. 
A few cars were overturned. My coworkers told me that they had spent 
the night in the bathtub of their rooms. I guess they felt somewhat 
sheltered there. For the next week I had to walk to some business  
meetings in Soho. The cabs couldn't navigate the streets. Lots of 
excitement, but I've always felt bad about those huge trees that were 
lost to the park.Very sad.

On Aug 27, 2004, at 5:22 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
8-)
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Sounds like typical English weather. . .
In its changeability, yes.  In its extremity, no.  At one point 
there was just over 1" of rain in 2 hours.  Not severe by the 
standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK.

As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar 
noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping.  The next 
day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled.

Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced 
across the Atlantic.
There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and
Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming?
It feels like I've camped through them all.  I think I've gone rusty. 
Had a similar experience in 1986 with the remnants of hurricane 
Charlie.

mike

As well as I can recall, a slide originally referred to a 3-1/4" x 4" glass
plate (like a microscope slide only bigger) positive for projection. By
extension any positive transparency mounted for projection.

Technically I guess a negative is actually a negative transparency, but common
usage in the US is to call a positive transparency a transparency, and a
negative transparency a negative. Strictly speaking a slide is still only a
transparency that is mounted for projection, but the terms slide and
transparency are often used interchangeably.

And since no one seems to have looked it up and commented upon it, reversal film
is short for direct-reversal film, e.g. a film that where the image is reversed
by exposing it to a light (solarization), or by chemical means, thus
differentiated from a positive copy made from a negative image.

--
Jostein wrote:
From a scanning POV, I guess anything that requires the light to be shone through to scan it is a transparency, whether it's a photographic film or not. I think it's just in a scanning context it makes sense to talk about a negative transparency. Mounted or not. And I can't really imagine why anyone would want to project a negative...?
Paul, I don't really have a clue about the general state of the phrase "slide film", but I
have often heard both American and European business people refer to their powerpoint presentations as
"slide shows"...:-)
Jostein
Keith Whaley wrote:

Paul Stenquist wrote:

"Slide film" is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's
most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers
to it as "positive transparency" film, while what we commonly call
negative film is designated "negative transparency" film.
Paul
Isn't "negative transparency" only used if it's mounted for projection?
If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer,
it's just a "negative." No?

keith whaley

On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote:

GI> The same here in Italy: "dia", short for "diapositiva". The word
GI> "invertibile" (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent
GI> past.
Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US
must use the term "slides"... It doesn't make sense, what is slid
where ;-) ?

What about "chromes"?
Good light!
fra

Re: black and white

Just a Kodak trademark I suppose. The even used the term for some B&W films, as 
in "Verichrome Pan".

--
Anders Hultman wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Keith Whaley wrote:

What about "chromes"?
That nickname came from Kodak's Kodachrome® and Ektachrome® film, from which 
most 'slides' in the U.S. came, from a very long time ago... You knew that!  
Kodak has had a tremendous influence on the terminology in photography, 
worldwide!

Is it chrome in the film (as it is silver in b/w neg film) or do the word
come from "chroma" as in colour? 

anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!

Re: Has Pentax Ever Made.......

2004-08-27 Thread Keith Whaley


Don Sanderson wrote:
...a camera similar in quality/specs to the Olympus 35RC, or XA, or Stylus
Epic?
Three "generations" of wonderful little cameras.
I've never seen one, if they did I'd love to have one!
Don
I have an XA, a 35 SP, and a couple of Pen Fs.
I know of no similar cameras from Pentax...
keith whaley

Re: Polarizer

2004-08-27 Thread Dr. Shaun Canning

Well, if you are reasonably competent and you have the appropriate 
plug-ins, you actually can remove reflections in photoshop!

Cheers
Shaun
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Dr. Shaun Canning"
Subject: Re: Polarizer

If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after

the

shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway!

You can remove reflections easily in Photoshop?
Wow.
I don't think so.
William Robb

--
_
Dr. Shaun Canning
P.O. Box 21, 
Dampier, WA,
6714, Australia.

m: 0414 967644
http://www.heritageservices.com.au
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_

RE: I enjoy film

Whose lap was it?

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 5:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I enjoy film
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >William Robb wrote:
> >I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding photo
> >labs on this list. It is just as likely that there is a large group
> >of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs.
> >Perhaps the dependance on auto everything cameras making people think
> >they don't need to know anything is causing as many problems as it is
> >solving.
> >
> >>Again, another reason to shoot slide film.
> 
> I've only had a lap screw up my processing once in the past 10 years.
> It was slide film.
> Ruined most of the roll. I was able to salvage a few shots in Photoshop.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>

Re: I enjoy film

2004-08-27 Thread Mark Roberts

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>William Robb wrote:
>I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding photo
>labs on this list. It is just as likely that there is a large group
>of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs.
>Perhaps the dependance on auto everything cameras making people think
>they don't need to know anything is causing as many problems as it is
>solving.
>
>>Again, another reason to shoot slide film.

I've only had a lap screw up my processing once in the past 10 years.
It was slide film.
Ruined most of the roll. I was able to salvage a few shots in Photoshop.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

RE: Lens tool

Here Ya' go.
This is the Beljan 49mm one:

http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/LensTool.htm

Don


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 5:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Lens tool
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If you could show me the pictures of the tool you use
> to remove the piece around the front element, I'd
> appreciate it. :) 
> 
> -Jon Myers.
> 
> 
>   
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Re: new to list

2004-08-27 Thread Mark Roberts

Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Should it not have said "don't believe what anyone
>says, especially FRANK! "

I don't believe that.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)

2004-08-27 Thread Mark Roberts

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of
>the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford
>to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity,
>it will probably be able to support digital.

Price of Fuji Frontier minilab for film: $300,000.00
Price of Fuji PrintPix to make 4x6 prints from digital: $6,000.00

Yeah, there are cheaper minilab setups than the Frontier (in fact, there
are thousands of perfectly good minilabs in storage because there's no
longer enough business to keep them in operation and you could probably
pick one up for under $10,000.00) but there are also cheaper digital
printing kiosks than the PrintPix. There's still a big difference in
operating costs and complexity.

I've said it before: There are going to be places that skip the film
photography era altogether and go straight to digital.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Has Pentax Ever Made.......

a camera similar in quality/specs to the Olympus 35RC, or XA, or Stylus
Epic?
Three "generations" of wonderful little cameras.
I've never seen one, if they did I'd love to have one!
Don

RE: Prodigal returns

2004-08-27 Thread Malcolm Smith

mike wilson wrote:

> As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the 
> unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than 
> sleeping.  The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled.

Camping in the UK?? On the two occasions I have *endured* this, I abandoned
the tent in the awful weather and slept in the car. If I ever get conned
into such a thing again, I won't bother to pack the tent

Malcolm

FS: Almost Friday, 17 Cameras

One more time in case anyone didn't get it the first time:


I finally made up my mind as what to keep and what to sell.
Probably put these up for auction this weekend or next.
Thought I'd give you all first shot.

15 Pentax cameras, some body only, some with lenses, etc.
*ist, ZX-5, ZX-10, Super Programs, etc.

They're listed at:

http://www.donsauction.com/ebay/sale.htm

Please address inquiries to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

All on a "First Come, First Served" basis. ;-)

Thanks
Don

Re: thanks for the welcome + 4sale

So here's the lady, antithesis to the 'convince-the-missus' institution!

Welcome the list, Karen. Commendable how the million or so messages a day
didn't get you into panicpanicsh*thowdoiunsubscribe mode. I haven't yet had
the chance to browse your site, but I will pretty soon. Til then..

Cheers,
Ryan


- Original Message - 
From: "Karen Clanin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 1:50 AM
Subject: thanks for the welcome + 4sale


> thanks for the warm welcome!  and answering my questions.  understand
> about ebay now .
>
> well, lasse, you see it's this way.  way back when i bought i think my
> first SF camera i kept picking it up to find film used, settings changed
> etc.  finally told my husband "get yer own" so he did.  we just kind of
> kept leap frogging  up the newer release ladder over the years.  he bought
> the first digital camera (fuji 2900), i bought the next (fuji 5900) and he
> got the next (fuji 4900).  he still has the 2900 and uses it at work, but
> as i get older that super nice little 5900 was just to physically small
and
> i really missed that 35mm feel so i got the first *istD and as we go a few
> months later he got his.  we then found that my theory of naturally going
> to the pentax DSLR (not that i would want to tote our daughters huge canon
> around) is because we already had so much pentax equipment.  didn't take
> long to figure that the lenses that did a SUPER nice job with film wasn't
> going to give us the quality we wanted with the *istD so we've both
> purchased newer lenses in the past few months:  the sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX
> APO and tamron 28-75 2.8.  jim also uses several of his older manual
pentax
> and takumar lenses, i did buy a super takumar 135 2.5 but as i have
> difficulty visually focusing it (miss that split focusing screen on the
MX)
> i don't use it much now.  hopefully my last lens purchase (who's that
ROTFL
> out there!!!) was made last week when i purchased through ebay the pentax
> 100mm f2.8 macro as i do enjoy macro photography.
>
> regarding the subject of film vs digital -- i have no problem with people
> that prefer film, did that for many years ourselves, we will be keeping
one
> of our film cameras as i do need slides of my paintings to enter art shows
> occasionally.  but i sure do enjoy knowing on the spot if i have the shot
i
> wanted and might not have a chance to get again for a long time if ever
> again.  plus i find myself being more willing to try some things i might
> not try with film due to the cost of experimentation (laughing, yeah, cuz
i
> do know it's gonna take a while to balance the cost of the new equipment
vs
> the rolls of film!)
>
> thanks for the info re "sale day", i'll try to get a definite list
together
> for next friday as there is a lot we won't be keeping any longer, at least
> a PZ1 and maybe my PZ1P if jim's old honeywell will do the slides, a
couple
> of nice zoom lenses (70-200 and 28-300 sigmas), a couple of other fixed
> lenses, data back F, at least one flash, filters etc.  please email
> privately if you can't wait till i get the list officially together.
>
> oh, and if anyone is interested in a compete darkroom setup jim is letting
> his go, just ask privately about it.
>
> someone asked where we are in california?  atascadero which is on 101 half
> way between LA and SF, think they were in sacramento which is about 5
hours
> driving time for us.  if ya'll meet somewhere half way let us know or if
> anyone is more our direction give a yell.  i still have a lot of animals
so
> hard for us to get away together for more than a day.
>
> karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Welcome to the list, Karen!
> >You've got two *istD:s?
> >Please give me one of them...
> >Lasse
> >
>
>
>
> > >Quick question. I'm going on vacation next weekend and hope to do some
> > >nature photography (waterfalls, etc...) Should I be shooting with a
> > >polarizer? If yes, what brand do you recommend?
> > >
> > >Equipment: *IstD, Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, Sigma 20mm 1.8 (if it gets here
> > >before I leave), Pentax FA 135 2.8
>
>

RE: I enjoy film

Barnes and Noble, here I come.
Hope I can pick your brain a bit too Paul.
After 25+ years I might be a tad rusty. ;-(
Not to mention no clue as to what chemistry/paper
is available now.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 4:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I enjoy film
> 
> 
> >> Shel wrote:
> 
> >> My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The 
> >> Negative
> >> and The Print.  Those books are a great starting place, even if you 
> >> don't
> >> like Adams' work or accept some of his theories.
> 
> I couldn't agree more. When I returned to darkroom work after a twenty 
> year hiatus, I read those books cover to cover, then reread them. Like 
> Shel said, even if you don't subscribe to all of the zone system 
> particulars, you will understand the exposure/darkroom equation if you 
> fully comprehend Adams' writings. And you'll find that you incorporate 
> elements of his thinking in your work. You'll find yourself analyzing 
> shadow and highlight areas of a scene with a new understanding of how 
> they will transfer to film. In the darkroom, you'll develop a strategy 
> for dodging and burning a print that might never have occurred to you 
> had you not been exposed to the Adams methodology.
> Paul
>

RE: PAW - The last one

I love it!
DON'T stop!
Just switch to PESOs. ;-)

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: PAW - The last one
>
>
> OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26
> PAW´s).  I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous
> week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time
> to stop :-)
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908&size=lg
>
> DagT
>

RE: I enjoy film

Great post Shel, I'm getting inspired to do BW again.
All the way from exposure to final print.
Fortunately all I'll need is film, paper and chemistry.
The rest just fell in my lap the other week in the form of
6 big boxes of darkroom stuff and a decent enlarger.
It was given to a friend and he didn't want it!
I used to have the Adams books, they were lost in a flood.
Time to replace them.
Hope I can pick your brain once in a while,
I've forgotten an awful lot in 25+ years.

Don


> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I enjoy film
>
> 
> My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative
> and The Print.  Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't
> like Adams' work or accept some of his theories.  Then go see some
> exhibition quality work by the great photogs and printers.  And just
> because a work is on exhibition does not mean it's exhibition quality.
See
> real prints.  Reproductions in books are not even close to good quality.
> You MUST know what a good print looks like (and you must be familiar with
> the various styles and types of printing) before you can start making your
> own prints and start developing (literally) your own style.
>
> You must also learn how to properly expose your film.  Just getting a
> "perfect" exposure based on meter readings is not good enough.  You must
be
> able to understand light well enough to be able to creatively over or
under
> expose based on meter readings, and to be able to properly develop the
film
> for those modified exposures.  This takes a little experience and
practice.
> It's not rocket science, but a proper exposure is paramount in obtaining
> the results you want.
>
>
> Shel>

Re: Prodigal returns

What was the hurricane that hit London almost full force in 87 or 88? I 
was in a room on about the 20th floor of the hotel that sits at what 
must be the southwest corner of Hyde Park. I woke up in the middle of 
the night and the window was pushing in and out. It must have been 
moving an inch or two. I told myself it was just a storm and went back 
to sleep. When I awoke in the morning and looked out the window, I saw 
that dozens of the huge Plane trees in the park were uprooted and 
tossed about. Several buildings adjacent to the park had lost their 
roofs and some cars were overturned. My colleagues told me that they 
had spent the night cowering in the bathtub, which I suppose provided 
some sanctuary. For the next several days I had to walk all the way to 
Soho for some work meetings because the taxis couldn't get through the 
rubble.
Paul
On Aug 27, 2004, at 5:22 PM, mike wilson wrote:

Cotty wrote:
On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
8-)
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Sounds like typical English weather. . .
In its changeability, yes.  In its extremity, no.  At one point 
there was just over 1" of rain in 2 hours.  Not severe by the 
standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK.

As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar 
noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping.  The next 
day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled.

Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced 
across the Atlantic.
There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and
Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming?
It feels like I've camped through them all.  I think I've gone rusty. 
Had a similar experience in 1986 with the remnants of hurricane 
Charlie.

mike

Re: Prodigal returns

2004-08-27 Thread mike wilson

Cotty wrote:
On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:

8-)
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Sounds like typical English weather. . .
In its changeability, yes.  In its extremity, no.  At one point there 
was just over 1" of rain in 2 hours.  Not severe by the standards of 
some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK.

As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar 
noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping.  The next day's 
sailing of the catamaran was cancelled.

Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across 
the Atlantic.

There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and
Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming?
It feels like I've camped through them all.  I think I've gone rusty. 
Had a similar experience in 1986 with the remnants of hurricane Charlie.

mike

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter


Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when?
I still use a Pentax Spotmeter V from time to time. It's invaluable 
when you want to nail a specific part of a scene --  such as the sky at 
sunset.  It's also great for determining the exposure range of a scene, 
and the sweeping needle is somehow more telling than a digital readout. 
It's a wonderful tool. In addition I have the original Pentax analog 
meter mounted on my H3v. If you know how to analyze what you see 
theret, it's quite accurate and useful.
Paul

RE: PAW - The last one

2004-08-27 Thread Mark Stringer

Very nice and taken with a DA14.  So one has been manufactured. Great photo!

-Original Message-
From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PAW - The last one

OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 
PAW´s).  I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous 
week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time 
to stop :-)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908&size=lg

DagT

Re: PAW - The last one

2004-08-27 Thread Pix


Excellent, DagT. Very original. Too bad it's your last! :)

t

On 8/27/04 12:31, DagT wrote:

> OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26
> PAW´s).  I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous
> week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time
> to stop :-)
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908&size=lg
> 
> DagT
> 
> 
>

Stupid question

2004-08-27 Thread Caveman

Just wondering. When I display a good pic on my monitor, it looks sharp 
bright and contrasty. Now my monitor is small and has a resolution of 
only 72 dpi, so I can't display at 1:1 pixels but only a small part of a 
lets say 6 MP image from the *istD. Now suppose that I could buy a 
monitor with a bigger screen, and same 72 dpi resolution. With a 40x30 
inch screen, I would be able to display the whole 6 MP image. It would 
look as great as a smaller part of it on the smaller screen, at same dpi.
Now just think about trying to print the same 6 MP image on 40x30 inch 
paper. Methinks it would look soft and muddy. How comes it looks great 
on the low 72 dpi monitor and bad on the 300 dpi printer, at same final 
size ?

Re: PAW - The last one

I really like this. You've captured the sky in all its glory and your 
subject is also well exposed. The framing and composition are very 
artful and the subject is interesting. Great work. Don't stop posting 
your PAWs. We enjoy them.
Paul

From: DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26
PAW´s).  I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous
week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time
to stop :-)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908&size=lg
DagT

Re: Prodigal returns

2004-08-27 Thread Cotty

On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>8-)
>
>Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>> Sounds like typical English weather. . .
>
>In its changeability, yes.  In its extremity, no.  At one point there 
>was just over 1" of rain in 2 hours.  Not severe by the standards of 
>some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK.
>
>As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar 
>noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping.  The next day's 
>sailing of the catamaran was cancelled.
>
>Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across 
>the Atlantic.

There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and
Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming?




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: I enjoy film

Shel wrote:

My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The 
Negative
and The Print.  Those books are a great starting place, even if you 
don't
like Adams' work or accept some of his theories.
I couldn't agree more. When I returned to darkroom work after a twenty 
year hiatus, I read those books cover to cover, then reread them. Like 
Shel said, even if you don't subscribe to all of the zone system 
particulars, you will understand the exposure/darkroom equation if you 
fully comprehend Adams' writings. And you'll find that you incorporate 
elements of his thinking in your work. You'll find yourself analyzing 
shadow and highlight areas of a scene with a new understanding of how 
they will transfer to film. In the darkroom, you'll develop a strategy 
for dodging and burning a print that might never have occurred to you 
had you not been exposed to the Adams methodology.
Paul

RE: Looseness in front of lens

Hi Jon,

I have a tool for 49mm and 52mm lenses.
It is a metal cylinder with a gum rubber ring inside, works great.
Before I got that I used a wooden disc cut slightly smaller than the filter
size and a piece of the new non-slip rubber shelf liner.
Not as convenient but worked OK.
The trick is to get a "grip" without having to exert so much pressure as to
jam the threads, this is self defeating.
If you'd like to see a pic of the tool to get an idea of what to make let me
know.

Don


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Looseness in front of lens
>
>
> I can't seem to loosen it using my fingers or small
> objects pushing on that ring. I don't know where on
> earth I could find a rubber stopper big enough to fit
> around that front element to be able to unscrew the
> ring that way. Anyone have any other ideas?
>
> Got to looking at my M135/3.5, it looks like it could
> use some work too if I could get its filter ring
> off... the hood doesn't like to stay in the extended
> position. What would fix that?
>
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>

Re: black and white

2004-08-27 Thread Bob W

Hi,

> Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US
> must use the term "slides"... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ?

they are slides in the UK too. They slide into the projector. Dia and
diapositive don't make sense either - techie jargon.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread Bob W

Hi,

> Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when?

Yes. I have a Sekonic L-608 (electronic, flash, spot, etc) and a
Sekonic L-208 Twinmate (analogue, incident and reflected light).

I use the L-208 all the time for incident readings when I shoot
with my Leicas, which don't have built-in meters, and recently I
haven't shot with anything but my Leicas.

The L-608 is very good, but it is almost bigger than the cameras
and doesn't really go with the Leica way of doing things, in my
opinion.

I also have a Sekonic L-398M, but I no longer use it.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Prodigal returns

2004-08-27 Thread mike wilson

8-)
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Sounds like typical English weather. . .
In its changeability, yes.  In its extremity, no.  At one point there 
was just over 1" of rain in 2 hours.  Not severe by the standards of 
some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK.

As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar 
noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping.  The next day's 
sailing of the catamaran was cancelled.

Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across 
the Atlantic.

mike

Re: K30 vs M28/2

2004-08-27 Thread Rfsindg

DJE,

I'd take the M28/2.0.  I recently acquired the K30/2.8 and like what results I have 
seen, but the M28/2.0 seems just as good to me.  Mind you, I haven't done any formal 
testing, but the M28/2.0 seems to be as good as any wide Pentax makes from the K28/3.5 
to the K30/2.8 or either 24/2.8.  I've never had a K28/2.0, but don't think much of 
the big, clunky design.  Take the M28/2.0 and be happy with those 49mm filters.  
England is dark and wet anyway... ;-)

Regards,  Bob S.

DJE wrote:
>>... I can't decide between my K30 and the M28/2 that I
unexpectedly stumbled across too cheap to resist.  I haven't shot much with either 
lens and I'm not sure I'm going to get much of a chance to shoot with them before next 
year's planned trip to England, so I figured I'd ask for advice.

Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)

2004-08-27 Thread Toralf Lund

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Toralf Lund"
Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)

But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is

going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely
there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't
practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and
will be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still
be a huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or
money to buy film, in such places?
We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of
the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford
to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity,
it will probably be able to support digital.
Since the industry as an entity wants the marketplace to switch to
digital, that is where developing markets will be led.

Yeah, I see what you mean. OTOH, film is always going to be simpler in 
many ways, and thus ought to be easier to introduce, and as long as it's 
lower-cost, or requires a lower one-time investment, anyway, I guess 
some companies might find it viable to push it on markets where they 
would never expect to sell (higher-priced) digital - or if you like, 
dump some old technology in markets where the new one cannot be sold. 
(Perhaps that was what other people said?)

The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease
of use, or any quality factors.
It's about an manufacturing sector that wants you to stop using film
because there is no money in it for them.
OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera
every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy,
and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last
years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper.

Yes. That's more or less what's I've been thinking, too - which it's 
what making me somewhat sceptical. I guess I'd like to live in a world 
where technology development is lead by quality or functionality 
considerations. Also, I hate to see another group of products becoming 
throwaway items. However, I've seen this claim that nobody is actually 
making money on digital cameras, either. Hard to believe, perhaps, based 
on what you are saying above, which I think is completely true, but of 
course there *is* an increase in development cost involved, too. Anyhow, 
if this is true, and it continues like that for a while, I'm wondering 
what will happen next...

- T

RE: PAW - The last one

Great shot love the composition.  Simple, direct.

Shel 

> From: DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 
> PAW´s).  I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous 
> week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time 
> to stop :-)
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908&size=lg
>
> DagT

Re: I enjoy film

Vic ...

Time to burst your bubble: not every lab is going to give you the same
quality results when processing slide film.  As with all labs, there are
those that are poor, those that are good, and those that are superior.  Try
this experiment: get a few short rolls of your favorite slide film, all
from the same emulsion batch.  Expose each frame on every roll in the same
manner (you may need a neutral or controlled lighting environment for
this).  Include a Kodak grey Card or Macbeath Color Chart in the scene.
Bracket your exposures as fine as you can within a two (or preferably,
three) stop spread.  1/4 or 1/3 stop brackets are best for this little
test.  Be sure the camera is mounted on a tpod or a secure, solid base. 
Use no filters, but use a good lens hood.

Now take the rolls of slide film and deliver it to several labs, including
your favorite lab.  Pick the other labs at random, although try to include
any lab you've heard is great or awful.  Do not have the slides mounted. 
View them thru a good quality loupe on a properly calibrated and color
corrected light pad or box, or thru a slide projector on a quality screen
in a properly dark room.

Then decide for yourself  if there's no difference in lab quality and
results.  Experience here tells me that there can be substantial
differences in the results.  Substantial is, BTW, subjective.  My
substantial may be your inconsequential.  However, I'll bet you a couple of
rolls of your favorite slide film that you will see differences.

One other thing: if all you shoot is slide film, you may well be losing the
creative opportunities available from other types of emulsions.  maybe
that's a non-issue for you, but it is something to consider.

Shel

> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Again, another reason to shoot slide film. You get what you shoot. If the 
> images don't come out right, 99 per cent of the time it's your fault...
No need 
> to blame the printer. It's also the one of the best ways (along with
shooting 
> digital) to learn proper exposure. Too many negative shooters just get
close 
> enough and then blame the prints on the printer...
> Vic

PAW - The last one

2004-08-27 Thread DagT

OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 
PAW´s).  I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous 
week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time 
to stop :-)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908&size=lg
DagT

Re: Prodigal returns

2004-08-27 Thread Daniel J. Matyola

Sounds like typical English weather. . .

Statistics (was Re: I enjoy film)

2004-08-27 Thread Caveman

Hmmm. Let's do some statistics. Supposing that 80% of the camera owners 
are boneheads (in respect to photography) and 50% of the lab operators 
are boneheads (in respect to their work). What is the probability that 
when a customer enters a random lab, at least one of them 
client/operator is a bonehead ?

> It is just as likely that there is a large group
of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs.

Re: I enjoy film

2004-08-27 Thread Robert Woerner

You are a class act Shel. Glad you're still around.

Robert
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: I enjoy film


> For me the issue is quality results in conventional B&W and quality
> processing and achieving a certain look and feel from the color work that
I
> do. The digital workflow does not give me what I want, and those mini-labs
> don't come close to what I consider is good color work.  And while some of
> the pro labs here do much better work - some of it exquisite and beyond
> reproach - some of them are not much better than the cheap mini labs.  But
> at least I have a choice, some people don't, or not a choice that's as
> easily made or attainable.
>
> By the time I scan a neg and then have the results processed and printed,
> I've spent way too many hours for too little result.  The current crop of
> high end consumer scanners suck, I don't care what any techie and
> digi-workflow proponent on this or any other list or web site says.  The
> ONLY scans I've ever gotten that meet my standards (and I'll admit they
are
> high) have come from the higher end Imacon and even higher end Tango drum
> scanners.  Truth is, I don't even find the new Nikon scanners satisfactory
> for posting images to the web in many instances.  But I use the scanner to
> share what is some semblance of my work with others, and it provides some
> fun and diversion during the small hours of the night when I can't sleep.
>
> So, what the hell am I doing jerking around trying to conform to the new
> technology and photographic workflow if i can't get the results I want?
> Makes no sense whatsoever. back to doing more conventional work, and
> refreshing those skills.
>
> If you think digital will give you what you want, then by all means, make
> the move.  I'm not one to tsalk because I may get a "baby" istD, or pick
up
> a used istD Grande, at some point.  I like the digi stuf for some things,
> and want more than what my Sony camera will give me.  I think the
> CONVENIENCE of digital is wonderful, but, speaking as a B&W shooter,
> there's nothing in the digital marketplace that will replace film.
>
> Don't waste your time trying to make your own chemicals, at least not in
> the beginning.  Learn - really learn - the process first. While it's easy,
> there are many layers of subtlety that you may wish to explore.  Once you
> really know what you're doing, and really know what results you want and
> how to achieve them, then it may be a lot of fun to mix your own
chemicals,
> even make your own paper.
>
> My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative
> and The Print.  Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't
> like Adams' work or accept some of his theories.  Then go see some
> exhibition quality work by the great photogs and printers.  And just
> because a work is on exhibition does not mean it's exhibition quality.
See
> real prints.  Reproductions in books are not even close to good quality.
> You MUST know what a good print looks like (and you must be familiar with
> the various styles and types of printing) before you can start making your
> own prints and start developing (literally) your own style.
>
> You must also learn how to properly expose your film.  Just getting a
> "perfect" exposure based on meter readings is not good enough.  You must
be
> able to understand light well enough to be able to creatively over or
under
> expose based on meter readings, and to be able to properly develop the
film
> for those modified exposures.  This takes a little experience and
practice.
> It's not rocket science, but a proper exposure is paramount in obtaining
> the results you want.
>
>
> Shel
>
> > From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Ok, Shel... I've read your mail and I understand what you're saying.
> > But try to think from my point of view... First, I'm a programmer. I
work
> > with computers every day, downloading/printing/CD burning/whatever is
> > trivial for me (well... Photoshop processing is not... but I could learn
> > that easily if I want to). I have a computer; however, it needs an
upgrade
> > (already planned). As my old printer doesn't work anymore, I may as well
> buy
> > another one... just fine for digital prints.
> > I have a film camera, because I couldn't afford a good digital one...
but
> > Baby-D will appear soon. I'm tired of scratched films and dull prints I
> get
> > from minilabs. I pay allot of money for them! (I think most minilabs
here
> > don't change the chemicals. Ever :( ) And I never get what I want...
> > Because of that, I can say I don't enjoy film... not this way. So, what
I
> > can do?
> >
> > Well... of course I want to set-up a classic darkroom  (even if
I'll
> > have to use the bathroom for that), in fact I'm looking for
> enlargers&stuff
> > like that. If you want a job done right, do it yourself... And I'm su

Re: Polarizer

2004-08-27 Thread Gonz

I agree.  The filter removes information coming into the image plane, if 
you dont filter it, once the unfiltered light gets blended in, there is 
no information in the bits that say: this bit is polarized at such and 
such angle.  Photoshop stuff is a fudge at best to duplicate the look. 
Color filterization simulation is easier in photoshop, but at the 
expense of noise, a real filter is still better.

rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Polarizer


It can be done, not so sure how easy it is  depends on one's
skill and
which version of PS is being used.  I've got a tutorial on it in
one of the
PS books, but never tried it.

I can see it for large areas, such as a window, but not for
complicated scenes.
Too much fiddling, not enough photography.
I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who
try to find a software solution to everything (The "don't worry if
the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop" mentality),
but really, there are better solutions out there.
I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place.
If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing
filter.
That's just what I think.
William Robb

Re: Polarizer

2004-08-27 Thread Cotty

On 27/8/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Too much fiddling, not enough photography.
>I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who
>try to find a software solution to everything (The "don't worry if
>the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop" mentality),
>but really, there are better solutions out there.
>I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place.
>If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing
>filter.
>That's just what I think.
>
>William Robb

I agree absolutely.

BTW digital is a new method of recording pictures but really there is
nothing new in what can be done to the image that hasn't been done before
by nifty darkroom work or awesome retouching.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: Polarizer

2004-08-27 Thread John Francis

> 
> Amazing!  Seems that more and more "photography" is done in Photoshop these
> days.  Is this REALLY photography, or Photoshopography?  Never mind that
> what one gets from diddling in Photoshop is usually only similar to the
> effects achieved by a competent photographer using a camera and appropriate
> accessories.

They're both ways to achieve a desired effect.  And if anything can
make Photoshop look cheap, it's a set of two or three different types
of filters in sizes to fit a variety of lenses.  Just a polarizer and
2x/4x neutral density filters for the common 58mm plus the 77mm of my
80-200/2.8 can cost more than a full retail copy of Photoshop.

That said, it's really better to deal with the issue *before* the image
gets recorded (on film, in digital memory, or whatever ...), if you can.
I think the *ist-D benefits from a polariser far more than most film.
I certainly plan to have one before I visit Hoover Dam in a few weeks.

> As for POL filters, I like the Multi-Coated B+W filters best  Hoya
> multi coated would be an acceptable second choice.

Any opinions on the Pentax filters?

(And, for that matter, what's a Kaesemann polaris/zer?)

Re: More 15/3.5 samples - seeking opinions

2004-08-27 Thread Caveman

Look at the window and group just behind the old lady with red pants. 
IMHO that's were you have actually focused. And the lens is soft on 
corners (which is suggested by details at left of old man, should be at 
about same distance as group and window).

All in all the image has the same look as those from my dog lens (the 
non-SMC A 28-80, especially at 80 wide open).

Alan Chan wrote:
http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821247.22.jpg

Re: Polarizer

2004-08-27 Thread DagT

You can do some things. like enhancing colours, but you can´t remove 
reflections from surfaces because then you have to distinguish between 
what is reflected and what was under the surface.  No program can do 
that, but by guessing a person can do a little bit more.

DagT
På 27. aug. 2004 kl. 17.42 skrev Shel Belinkoff:
It can be done, not so sure how easy it is  depends on one's skill 
and
which version of PS is being used.  I've got a tutorial on it in one 
of the
PS books, but never tried it.

Shel
If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after
the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway!
You can remove reflections easily in Photoshop?
Wow.
I don't think so.
William Robb

FS: Cameras and lenses

2004-08-27 Thread Carlos Royo

I have the following cameras and lenses for sale:
Pentax Z-1 AF SLR + FDP Gripstrap + F electronic cable release +
instruction manual, in Spanish. I will also include 2 unused 2CR5
lithium batteries, each one lasts about twenty-five 36-exposure films.
The camera is in excellent condition, both mecanically and
electronically, but there is some "mist" into the eyepiece, barely
visible except against strong light. It doesn't have any influence on
the performance of the camera or the metering, but it is somewhat
annoying when shooting backlit scenes. I suppose it is quite easy to
clean, but I don't dare to disassemble the eyepiece, and as I want to
sell the camera, it doesn't make to much sense to have it cleaned. I
want 200 euros for everything, a cheap price due to the eyepiece issue.
Pentax MZ-5 AF SLR + Fg AA battery grip + Spanish instruction manual.
Both the camera and the battery grip are in LN condition (I don't have
the neckstrap, though). 200 euros.
SMC-Pentax FA 80-320 mm. 4.5-5.6 AF zoom (black version) + Pentax
plastic clip-on hood (designed for the K-series 85-210 mm.) 135 euros.
In excellent+ condition. 100 euros.
Kenko SHQ 1.5x AF teleconverter + case. Like new and boxed, it has the
contacts needed for Pentax powerzoom lenses. 50 euros.
If you are interested in one of these items, please send a message to my
email box, not the list. Shipping expenses are not included in these prices.
Thank you for your attention.

Re: More 15/3.5 samples - seeking opinions

2004-08-27 Thread Alan Chan

Absolutely.
http://mk37.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821246.21.jpg
http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821247.22.jpg
http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821249.24.jpg
http://mk29.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821248.23.jpg
http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821243.16.jpg
http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982020.13.jpg
http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982021.15.jpg
http://mishappa.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982022.16.jpg
http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982023.19.jpg
http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982024.20.jpg
http://mishopi.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982025.30.jpg
http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982027.36.jpg
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
unfortunately, I can't download the full scans (which, contrary to
what others say, would tell us something about the lens, as they are
not 72 dpi but big scans at 2800 dpi or so), because my browser
crashes. Could you post the direct link to the files?
Frantisek
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

Re: Polarizer

Agreed.  Your point about trying to fix lots of small reflections is well
taken.  The reflections used as an example in the tutorial I mentioned were
relatively large and quite localized - reflections off the lens of a
subject's eye glasses.  

For nature and scenics, the subtle changes that are made to a scene when
photographed thru a POL filter cannot really be duplicated in PS.  One of
the things that a POL can do well is get PAST the reflections in water,
enabling one to see below the surface.  No amount of fiddling in PS is
going to make that happen.

Shel Belinkoff

Sig line for CRB:  
"People who hate cats will come back as mice in their next life." 


> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 8/27/2004 9:21:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Polarizer
>
>
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Re: Polarizer
>
>
> > It can be done, not so sure how easy it is  depends on one's
> > skill and which version of PS is being used.  I've got a tutorial 
> > on it in one of the PS books, but never tried it.
>
> I can see it for large areas, such as a window, but not for
> complicated scenes.
> Too much fiddling, not enough photography.
> I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who
> try to find a software solution to everything (The "don't worry if
> the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop" mentality),
> but really, there are better solutions out there.
> I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place.
> If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing
> filter.
> That's just what I think.
>
> William Robb
>

Re: Polarizer

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Polarizer

> It can be done, not so sure how easy it is  depends on one's
skill and
> which version of PS is being used.  I've got a tutorial on it in
one of the
> PS books, but never tried it.

I can see it for large areas, such as a window, but not for
complicated scenes.
Too much fiddling, not enough photography.
I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who
try to find a software solution to everything (The "don't worry if
the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop" mentality),
but really, there are better solutions out there.
I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place.
If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing
filter.
That's just what I think.

William Robb

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread Mat Maessen

Gossen LunaPro F. I've got the 15/7.5 degree attachment for
pseudo-spot readings, but I use it mostly as an incident meter.
Vital equipment when I'm out with the 4x5...

-Mat

Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..

2004-08-27 Thread Bruce Dayton

Ryan, Congrats!  Sort of...  :)

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, August 27, 2004, 6:48:14 AM, you wrote:

RL> I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I actually have it in
RL> hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close
RL> enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a
RL> CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or
RL> Tuesday.

RL> Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be shooting anything on Monday or
RL> Tuesday.. I'm currently also trying to procure a Lexar 2GB WA 80x CF card
RL> and a Sigma EX 70-200 2.8, a Sigma EX 2X teleconverter, and probably a 77mm
RL> UV filter too, from Hugo So (good reviews from various sources) in Hong
RL> Kong. However, because Hugo doesn't stock Pentax (or compatible) lenses,
RL> he's taking a while to get back to me. Hence the premonished
RL> water-water-everywhere-and-not-a-drop-to-drink scenario.

RL> Anyway. Unless one of you wants to bring my attention to a better source..
RL> or post me all your old little CFs now that you've upgraded to 8gb cards
RL> (Come on, you were planning to. Be impulsive every now and then! Do
RL> something every day that scares you! Treat yourself!)

RL> Cheers,
RL> Ryan (slowly getting there)

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread Bruce Dayton

Me too.  I really like the meter.  Mostly use it for studio flash
work, but some ambient readings outdoors, too.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, August 27, 2004, 6:35:54 AM, you wrote:

DM> I was about to say yes until I paid attention to the word 'analog'.  So,
DM> NO.  I use a Gossen Luna Pro Digital F.  I like this meter because it
DM> will tell me the flash and incident light readings simultaneously,
DM> making it really easy to balance fill flash.  Dave

thanks for the welcome + 4sale

2004-08-27 Thread Karen Clanin

thanks for the warm welcome!  and answering my questions.  understand 
about ebay now .

well, lasse, you see it's this way.  way back when i bought i think my 
first SF camera i kept picking it up to find film used, settings changed 
etc.  finally told my husband "get yer own" so he did.  we just kind of 
kept leap frogging  up the newer release ladder over the years.  he bought 
the first digital camera (fuji 2900), i bought the next (fuji 5900) and he 
got the next (fuji 4900).  he still has the 2900 and uses it at work, but 
as i get older that super nice little 5900 was just to physically small and 
i really missed that 35mm feel so i got the first *istD and as we go a few 
months later he got his.  we then found that my theory of naturally going 
to the pentax DSLR (not that i would want to tote our daughters huge canon 
around) is because we already had so much pentax equipment.  didn't take 
long to figure that the lenses that did a SUPER nice job with film wasn't 
going to give us the quality we wanted with the *istD so we've both 
purchased newer lenses in the past few months:  the sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX 
APO and tamron 28-75 2.8.  jim also uses several of his older manual pentax 
and takumar lenses, i did buy a super takumar 135 2.5 but as i have 
difficulty visually focusing it (miss that split focusing screen on the MX) 
i don't use it much now.  hopefully my last lens purchase (who's that ROTFL 
out there!!!) was made last week when i purchased through ebay the pentax 
100mm f2.8 macro as i do enjoy macro photography.

regarding the subject of film vs digital -- i have no problem with people 
that prefer film, did that for many years ourselves, we will be keeping one 
of our film cameras as i do need slides of my paintings to enter art shows 
occasionally.  but i sure do enjoy knowing on the spot if i have the shot i 
wanted and might not have a chance to get again for a long time if ever 
again.  plus i find myself being more willing to try some things i might 
not try with film due to the cost of experimentation (laughing, yeah, cuz i 
do know it's gonna take a while to balance the cost of the new equipment vs 
the rolls of film!)

thanks for the info re "sale day", i'll try to get a definite list together 
for next friday as there is a lot we won't be keeping any longer, at least 
a PZ1 and maybe my PZ1P if jim's old honeywell will do the slides, a couple 
of nice zoom lenses (70-200 and 28-300 sigmas), a couple of other fixed 
lenses, data back F, at least one flash, filters etc.  please email 
privately if you can't wait till i get the list officially together.

oh, and if anyone is interested in a compete darkroom setup jim is letting 
his go, just ask privately about it.

someone asked where we are in california?  atascadero which is on 101 half 
way between LA and SF, think they were in sacramento which is about 5 hours 
driving time for us.  if ya'll meet somewhere half way let us know or if 
anyone is more our direction give a yell.  i still have a lot of animals so 
hard for us to get away together for more than a day.

karen





Welcome to the list, Karen!
You've got two *istD:s?
Please give me one of them...
Lasse


>Quick question. I'm going on vacation next weekend and hope to do some
>nature photography (waterfalls, etc...) Should I be shooting with a
>polarizer? If yes, what brand do you recommend?
>
>Equipment: *IstD, Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, Sigma 20mm 1.8 (if it gets here
>before I leave), Pentax FA 135 2.8

Re: Polarizer

It can be done, not so sure how easy it is  depends on one's skill and
which version of PS is being used.  I've got a tutorial on it in one of the
PS books, but never tried it.  

Shel 

> > If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after
>  > the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway!
>
> You can remove reflections easily in Photoshop?
> Wow.
> I don't think so.
>
> William Robb
>

Re: PESO - This Weekend at Mt. Hood

2004-08-27 Thread Pix

(Just catching up on some old threads...)

On 8/9/04 22:39, Tom C wrote:

> It was my first time to Mt. Hood.  I didn't have enough time to research the
> details, trails, etc.  There's a renowned stock photo that was taken at Lost
> Lake in winter that I have admired for over 20 years.  I used to keep it at
> my desk and escape for several minutes each afternoon.  Quite therapeutic.

Although many have photographed the mountain, the image you're referring to
may be something by Ray Atkeson, a prolific and distinctive landscape
photographer who captured Oregon on film from the late twenties through the
eighties.

I couldn't find a decent website commemorating his work, but some of his
images are available here:  and Powell's has a
summary of his books here:

One interesting comment from him that I'll never forget came from an
interview he did in the seventies. During the interview, he comments on how
the air quality has really degraded and that there are only a few months out
of the year that he can get good images of Mt. Hood.

Now, some 30 years later, the situation is much worse. It is simply
impossible to see the mountain from Portland without some trace of smog or
haze. I'm sure he's spinning in his grave.

t

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-27 Thread Jostein

Tom,
I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then 
again there's the problem of repeated messages.

I think there must be more than one problem at work here...

If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding,  
that could explain many of the problems we observe on the list in one go.

Messages can be delayed for a variable amount of time, depending on the load of the 
victim server, and may loose messages while flooded. If it uses Sendmail to propagate 
the messages, it may also loose track (during floods) of which messages are sent, and 
start all over again from the top of the queue. Resends can also occur if the victim 
server fails to send a confirmation of reception back to the previous server in the 
chain. Then the previous server will assume it lost and resend it after a while. Then, 
when the server gets on top of the load again, both messages are propagated.

This may of course happen with messages destined TO the PDML server as well. It would 
give much the same results, but to fewer users.

I'm also sure Doug is aware of this and keeps the path clean as far into cyberspace as 
he can.

Jostein

> I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive 
> SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it 
> thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer 
> messages if I were to switch PDML over to there.
> 
> --
> 
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances
> > here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even
> > after a couple of days.  Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> graywolf
> http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
> 
> 
>

Re: Slow night. Posting a self-portrait

2004-08-27 Thread Steve Desjardins

I have an office just like this buried under a bunch of stuff.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread handmaid

A Gossen Lunasix 3s for incident readings (it's spot on, no pun intended) and a 
(digital) Gossen SpotMaster for spot readings and flash (when I'm not letting the LX 
take care of the flash)

AB

-- 

Whatever you Wanadoo:
http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/

This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: 
http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm

FS Friday: PZ-1p, FA 28-70

2004-08-27 Thread Joe Wilensky

PZ-1p, KEH EX+ condition, includes grip strap, extra battery, 
everready case, instruction manual, neckstrap, body cap, etc. 
Beautiful condition and works beautifully. $325 including 
shipping/insurance in the continental U.S.

FA 28-70 f/4, EX+ condition, this one is the made in Japan one and 
feels smooth and well put together. Includes front and rear caps and 
Pentax soft case. $90 including shipping/insurance in the continental 
U.S.

If you want both as a kit, $400 including shipping/insurance will do.
Joe
--
Joe Wilensky
Staff Writer
Communication and Marketing Services
1150 Comstock Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-2601
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 607-255-1575
fax: 607-255-9873

Re: new to list

2004-08-27 Thread Brendan

Should it not have said "don't believe what anyone
says, especially FRANK! "


 --- Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Welcome, although you can see what you've gotten
> yourself into.
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2004 7:36:22 AM >>>
> frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >About the only piece of advice you haven't received
> (and I might as
> >well say it before Mark Roberts does... ): 
> Don't believe
> >anything I say.  
> 
> Right. Don't believe anything Frank says. Even that.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com 
> 
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: black and white

2004-08-27 Thread Michel Carrère-Gée

Frantisek a écrit :
GI> The same here in Italy: "dia", short for "diapositiva". The word
GI> "invertibile" (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent
GI> past.
Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US
must use the term "slides"... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ?
 

In France "diapo" !
Michel

Re: new to list

2004-08-27 Thread Steve Desjardins

Welcome, although you can see what you've gotten yourself into.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2004 7:36:22 AM >>>
frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>About the only piece of advice you haven't received (and I might as
>well say it before Mark Roberts does... ):  Don't believe
>anything I say.  

Right. Don't believe anything Frank says. Even that.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..

Ah.. I just checked it up.. interesting- I was just making the decision
based on more recent catalogues. Pretty hard to find the 70 210 2.8 I'd
think.. no?

Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..


> there's a 70 210 2.8?
>
> Ryan
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..
>
>
> > Hi Ryan.
> > Good news.
> >
> > I'd be interested in how you view the Sigma F2.8 when you receive it and
> have some trials
> > with it.
> > When i get around to getting a *isD,i was thinking of the Sigma 70-210
> f2.8
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >  > I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I
> > actually have it in
> > > hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's
close
> > > enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1,
> and a
> > > CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or
> > > Tuesday.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..

there's a 70 210 2.8?

Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..


> Hi Ryan.
> Good news.
>
> I'd be interested in how you view the Sigma F2.8 when you receive it and
have some trials
> with it.
> When i get around to getting a *isD,i was thinking of the Sigma 70-210
f2.8
>
> Dave
>
>  > I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I
> actually have it in
> > hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close
> > enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1,
and a
> > CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or
> > Tuesday.
>
>
>
>

Re: A3 prints from *istD

2004-08-27 Thread Brendan

 I have yet to try a a3 off the *istD on my 2200 but
the A4's look very good! from what I have seen a 36x24
won't be too difficult to do once proper care ( and a
good original shot! )


--- Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Jostein wrote:
> 
> > So I got curious. I asked a pro-lab in Oslo to go
> as large as _they_
> > considered reasonable quality, and told them the
> file was from a 6
> > Mpix DSLR. They print on a Epson Pro 9600. What I
> got back was an A2
> > enlargement. At this size, it was easy to spot the
> blurring of details
> > less than 3 pixels across. The Pentax way of
> anti-aliasing made them
> > blend together. There were no artificial coloring
> or moire, though.
> > Another gripe was that contrast got a bit out of
> hand, so that dark
> > detail became jagged edges or little squares, 2-3
> pixels across.
> 
> They (you) had to interpolate the file up before
> printing, just to keep 200
> to 300 dpi! That way you can ALWAYS get rid of
> visible pixelation (no extra
> detail though).
> 
> Dario Bonazza
> 
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: PESO: What is this stuff?

2004-08-27 Thread Brendan

 I should have known better.

--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: 
> Oh come now did you really think he wouldn't?
> 
> Brendan wrote:
> 
> >EEEGAADDD!!
> >
> >VAL!!! how could you!!!
> >
> > --- Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> >  
> >
> >>Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> >>
> >>  > Care for some "Chock full of nuts" with your
> >>"Spotted Dick"?
> >>
> >>How'bout a rusted one ?
> >>
> >>http://www.pbase.com/image/33058201
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>__
> 
> >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Politicians are interested in people. Not that this
> is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs.
> P. J. O'Rourke
> 
> 
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: black and white

2004-08-27 Thread Keith Whaley

Hi Paul,
One last thought...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Negative film is just negative film in most every context. But Epson does
> refer to it as a negative transparency, which is actually a very accurate
> description.
Paul
I've always thought of a "transparency" as a piece of film you view as is.
You aren't required to print it to view it as you would have seen it, had 
you been there at the time.
In other words, you put a transparency in a projector or look at it after 
it's inserted in a viewer.
But, you do NOT print it.

A "negative" on the other hand has all the light and dark tones reversed and 
needs to be printed onto print paper for the image to be as it was seen in 
person.
A negative is a negative.
If you have a different definition of a "transparency" please tell me.

Thanks,  keith whaley
Paul Stenquist wrote:

"Slide film" is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's 
most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers 
to it as "positive transparency" film, while what we commonly call 
negative film is designated "negative transparency" film.
Paul
Isn't "negative transparency" only used if it's mounted for projection?
If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, 
it's just a "negative." No?

keith whaley

On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote:

GI> The same here in Italy: "dia", short for "diapositiva". The word
GI> "invertibile" (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent
GI> past.
Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US
must use the term "slides"... It doesn't make sense, what is slid 
where ;-) ?

What about "chromes"?
Good light!
  fra

Re: Polarizer

I've got a 77mm Singh Ray gold and blue polariser (slim for wide angle), and
it's pretty interesting. Unfortunately, it seems to give clouds a pinkish
hue sometimes. It's pretty useful for sunsets and sunrises though.

Here's a link to an image I shot at both extremes (those specks in the mist
are ducks which get their bottoms wet way too early in the morning):
http://home.iprimus.com.au/heygoose/SRGBpol.jpg

Not yet got my USD310 (+shipping..) worth, but I'll get there :)

Cheers,
Ryan


- Original Message - 
From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Polarizer


>
> SinghRay and Cokin both have several "fancy" polarisers. The effects you
can create with them are mostly "romantic cliché" or "surrealism"... :-)
>
> From SinghRay I only have the plain, regular circular polariser. What I
really like about it is that it is absolutely neutral in colour, and made to
fit the Cokin P adapter system which is easily available and have cheap
parts (adaptor rings costs about USD 5 in these parts).
>
> Jostein
>
> Ryan wrote:
> > B+W and Singh Ray? exy! :) But I reckon Singh Ray makes a variety of
> > interesting polarisers which could come in handy for creating dramatic
> > landscapes.
>
>

Re: black and white

2004-08-27 Thread Jostein


>From a scanning POV, I guess anything that requires the light to be shone through to 
>scan it is a transparency, whether it's a photographic film or not. I think it's just 
>in a scanning context it makes sense to talk about a negative transparency. Mounted 
>or not. And I can't really imagine why anyone would want to project a negative...?

Paul, I don't really have a clue about the general state of the phrase "slide film", 
but I have often heard both American and European business people refer to their 
powerpoint presentations as "slide shows"...:-)

Jostein

Keith Whaley wrote: 

> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> > "Slide film" is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's 
> > most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers 
> > to it as "positive transparency" film, while what we commonly call 
> > negative film is designated "negative transparency" film.
> > Paul
> 
> Isn't "negative transparency" only used if it's mounted for projection?
> If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, 
> it's just a "negative." No?
> 
> keith whaley
> 
> > On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote:
> > 
> >> GI> The same here in Italy: "dia", short for "diapositiva". The word
> >> GI> "invertibile" (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent
> >> GI> past.
> >>
> >> Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US
> >> must use the term "slides"... It doesn't make sense, what is slid 
> >> where ;-) ?
> >>
> >> What about "chromes"?
> >>
> >> Good light!
> >>fra
> 
> 
>

Re: black and white

2004-08-27 Thread pnstenquist

Negative film is just negative film in most every context. But Epson does refer to it 
as a negative transparency, which is actually a very accurate description.
Paul


> 
> 
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> > "Slide film" is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's 
> > most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers 
> > to it as "positive transparency" film, while what we commonly call 
> > negative film is designated "negative transparency" film.
> > Paul
> 
> Isn't "negative transparency" only used if it's mounted for projection?
> If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, 
> it's just a "negative." No?
> 
> keith whaley
> 
> > On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote:
> > 
> >> GI> The same here in Italy: "dia", short for "diapositiva". The word
> >> GI> "invertibile" (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent
> >> GI> past.
> >>
> >> Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US
> >> must use the term "slides"... It doesn't make sense, what is slid 
> >> where ;-) ?
> >>
> >> What about "chromes"?
> >>
> >> Good light!
> >>fra
> 
>

Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread Otis Wright

Three Norwood Directors around here somewhere plus one or two stripped 
down for parts.   One went successfully through calibration a  couple 
of  years ago.  Works just fine.   Keep them mostly for the memories --- 
first one came into "the family"  in 1949 --- for use with the vacation 
film camera (Spotmatic Fs and ESIIs) kit.   Day-to-day a Sekonic L-508 
carries the load for the very few requirements that arise with digital 
cameras these days.  Hard to beat the info in the histograms. 

Otis Wright
Keith Whaley wrote:

Frantisek wrote:
Thursday, August 26, 2004, 11:29:27 PM, Markus wrote:
MM> This is my second post...
MM> I got a Gossen Sixtar 2 meter for $5 and wonder, how good the 
metering
MM> actually will be compared to the camera metering.
MM> I need to replace the batteries before I can test it, but welcome 
any
MM> comments from the group :-)
MM> Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when?

Dunno about your Sixtar, I don't know that model.
Still metering with my L398, it's a trusty tool. When? Whenever 
situation
calls for incident metering :)

Hah! How about my trusty L-28c2?  NO batteries!  
I use it when my subject is in drastically different light than my 
camera's in. If I can.
Such as when I'm standing in full sunlight, and my subject is under a 
tree being shaded.
Get out my Sekonic and put the hood on the lens...

Good light!
   fra

keith whaley

Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..

2004-08-27 Thread brooksdj

Hi Ryan.
Good news.

I'd be interested in how you view the Sigma F2.8 when you receive it and have some 
trials
with it.
When i get around to getting a *isD,i was thinking of the Sigma 70-210 f2.8

Dave 

> I've been trying to hold back my little shout out 
til I 
actually have it in
> hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close
> enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a
> CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or
> Tuesday.

ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..

I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I actually have it in
hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close
enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a
CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or
Tuesday.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be shooting anything on Monday or
Tuesday.. I'm currently also trying to procure a Lexar 2GB WA 80x CF card
and a Sigma EX 70-200 2.8, a Sigma EX 2X teleconverter, and probably a 77mm
UV filter too, from Hugo So (good reviews from various sources) in Hong
Kong. However, because Hugo doesn't stock Pentax (or compatible) lenses,
he's taking a while to get back to me. Hence the premonished
water-water-everywhere-and-not-a-drop-to-drink scenario.

Anyway. Unless one of you wants to bring my attention to a better source..
or post me all your old little CFs now that you've upgraded to 8gb cards
(Come on, you were planning to. Be impulsive every now and then! Do
something every day that scares you! Treat yourself!)

Cheers,
Ryan (slowly getting there)

RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter

2004-08-27 Thread brooksdj


>Dave M said: I was about to say yes until I paid attention to the word 'analog'.  So,

Oh boy. Missed that completely.D'oh.

However the iv F has an anolog scale which i do look at.lol

Dave Brooks

Re: Back from vacation