Re: Sunny 16 Rule
RK writes: > I've messed up some very important landscape shots- I had to take them > about just after noon in blazing sunlight and the resulting images are > ghastly: burnt out highlights with deep shadows. If you've gone off the end of both your highlights and your shadows then there's not really a lot you can do with your exposure. Typically on a sunny day you have to pick one: either you get highlight detail or you get shadow detail. IMO your best bet in this situation is to come back when the light is a bit better (partially or fully overcast days are great for reducing contrast but they can also make the picture look bland). You could also try a really low-contrast print film (a portrait film could work) but the paper used in printing doesn't tend to hold much contrast so it might not buy you a lot. A good scan of a print film will reveal much more detail than any print, and you can soften it further in Photoshop to get as much detail as possible in your final print. You could also shoot B&W film if that is an option. You can tailor the exposure and processing to suit the contrast in your scene (you may have heard of Ansel Adams' zone system). Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Sunny 16 Rule
Kevin Thornsberry writes: > Some rare shots just can't be metered. That's when it pays to be a good guesser > and a bracketer. Sometimes you don't even get the chance to bracket, particularly with a manual camera. Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Tamaron 90mm 2.8 Macro
Anyone have any experience/comments on the Tamaron 90mm 2.8 Macro? I know, the Pentax 100 2.8 is a great lens, I just am looking for a good 1:1 macro lens to work with in a little lower price range. I'm currently working with the Pentax 100 3.5 and am feeling the need for speed. Shall I SAVE and wait for the Pentax lens or dive into a suitable sub (if there is such a beast) for the instant gratification which spoils me. :) Any thoughts, advice, other lens suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated! Have a great day, Jeff Geilenkirchen Elk Grove, CA - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: blinking eyes with Pentax 6x7
On 4 May 2001, at 13:58, XOSNI wrote: > I have a problem in my portraits: blinking eyes. I shoot in my mini studio > using a strobe & flashes. The camera is pentax 6x7 with flash synchro speed > of 1/30. Why do I always get these blinking eyes? It has to be a > multifactorial cause, the relatively long exposure time (1/30) & the > strobefiring duration. > What is the solution? Do you think I can use the FP mode with the strobe ata > higher shutter speed (1/60)? > I'm desperate! > > Xosni The way I get around blinkers is as follows: Say "OK, i'm firing on three. Ready? One, T... (fire about 1/2 way through saying "two") Key: I vary the timing. Sometimes I fire immediately. The suggestion of a cable release is also very helpful, but I usually shoot portraits handheld so I can more easily adjust composition and angles, etc. Even shooting the 67 with 1/30s sync I have had no problems with camera shake or anything like that the strobes I use have a 1/500 to 1/800 s flash duration. Using this technique with a natural blinker not long ago I shot three rolls of 35mm Pan-F 36 exp - I got two blinking frames from the whole three rolls. Good luck! Brian - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aurora Pictures of April 17
At 11:20 PM -0600 4/25/01, aimcompute wrote: >Thanks Steve. Well from the looks of things you may get some great images! >I'd love to see them. The longer exposure ones will be better I'm sure. For >me, this is one of the most exciting things I've ever done >photography-wise... still on cloud-9 after getting the images back. It's all trade offs. The longer exposures will show more stars, but they will be trailed due to the Earth's rotation. The aurora will appear brighter and more colourful as well, but if it is an active one with a lot of movement then the detail will be smeared. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aurora Pictures of April 17
At 11:26 PM -0600 4/25/01, aimcompute wrote: >http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ has some links... I'll let you discover them... it >has both north & south polar aurora plots based on satellite observations >and current space weather. > >You may also try a search on space weather or aurora sites. I subscribed to >a month free e-mail notifications about geo-solar-astronomical phenomena... >it's about $25USD/yr to keep getting them now, but I'm hooked... > >http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > Sky & Telescope magazine runs several email lists to alert people of solar activity, novae, etc. http://www.skypub.com/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Red Green abd Blue from B&W Negatives. Prokudin-Gorskii at Library of Congress.
Douglas E. H. wrote: > Hey guy's, > A link below I picked up off /. today. I've read about the RGB > projection of B&W negatives before and here's a modern printing of some of > those early samples. Of course to print they had to use a computer. That's > why this would show up on /.. Some of these prints are amazing. You need to > check out the 90+ year old pictures. Snap up the link below. > http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ Yes, it is truly amazing and very interesting. (Shel provided the same link a week or two ago.) Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Commentary - Lasse Karlsson's "Stockholm, August 1997. Nr 7"
Paul S. wrote: > Because I am currently overwhelmed with work, I hurried through the PUG > and, quite frankly, had not given your photograph the time or attention > it deserves. Shel's comments directed me to it, and upon further > scrutiny, I found it very compelling. There is a rather vivid sensual > tone to the image. The people who are most nearly in focus are captured > in one of those fleeting moments. There are expressions of joy, fatigue, > surprise and fear, all within the confines of your image. And the > graininess and limited depth of field contribute to the communication. > In other words, I like it :-). It's a thoughtful execution. Thanks for commenting Paul! Your description of the picture sums up most of what I was going for or hoping it would convey. And - never mind who shot it - I like it too, for the very same reasons... :) Thanks, Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Red Green abd Blue from B&W Negatives. Prokudin-Gorskii at Library of Congress.
Hey guy's, A link below I picked up off /. today. I've read about the RGB projection of B&W negatives before and here's a modern printing of some of those early samples. Of course to print they had to use a computer. That's why this would show up on /.. Some of these prints are amazing. You need to check out the 90+ year old pictures. Snap up the link below. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ Douglas E Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Sunny 16 Rule
Just a note on Sunny 16 by the way. I've heard in the past that to shoot the moon use sunny 16. Makes sense since the moon is directly lit by the sun. I tried it the other day. When I picked up the pictures the lady at the lab had a fit at how good they turned out. Thought maybe somebody could use the tip. application/ms-tnef
RE: Sunny 16 Rule
Not bad advice but bracket until you are comfortable with your camera and film. I'm currently reading a book on light which recommends taking a week or so and force yourself to learn to judge with your eye sunny sixteen corrections. Some rare shots just can't be metered. That's when it pays to be a good guesser and a bracketer. As to your contrasty midday photos I don't think sunny 16 will help. Landscapes are traditionally tough at midday. -Original Message- From: RK [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:53 AM To: Pentax discuss Subject:Sunny 16 Rule I've messed up some very important landscape shots- I had to take them about just after noon in blazing sunlight and the resulting images are ghastly: burnt out highlights with deep shadows. I showed them to a pro and he recommended I use the Sunny 16 rule whenever I take photos in bright sunshine- i.e., I ignore the CW meter reading. Is this good advice? I shoot print film and my usual outfit for outdoor shots would be a MZ5+17mm Tokina Thanks. RK Yeah, I know late morning would have been great for such shots but that was not possible here. Or should I just meter for the highlights next time (there'll be a next time tomorrow!) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . application/ms-tnef
RE: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Ditto! Thanks for all you do! -Original Message- From: Lasse Karlsson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 7:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) Chris, I'm really happy to hear that you haven't been discouraged by the recent debate. application/ms-tnef
Re: Sunny 16 Rule
Unfortunately, my approach to photography is purely casual and non artistic (I have a lousy eye for art). My first 2 cameras were totally manual and lacked metering. They were Exa II and Miranda G. I had lots of fun experimenting with exposure both B&W and reversal films. My brain developed a database for exposure settings. This goes back to 1965~1975. As soon as I upgraded to auto everything cameras, the fun dissapeared. So taking out a meterless Akarelle or my new toy Horseman 970, is like my second childhood. I'm starting to have fun again. Between the sunny 16 rule and a little bit of chutzpa, It's my way of enjoying photograpy. P.S. For serious shooting, I rely on my Super Program's metering system. Jeff - Original Message - From: "Buford Terrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Sunny 16 Rule > The answer to this, like most photo questions, is what are you trying to do? > Do you just want an acceptable "been there, done that" image or do you > have some specific use or visualization in mind? Sweet 16 will get you > a workable image of sorts; sweet 16 with 1-stop brackets up and down > will definitely get you something. But if you are shooting for reproduction > in a specific medium -- glossy magazine, fine art print, B&W, electronic, > etc -- or if you have a specific visualization in mind, some combination > of spot- and center-weighted -metering is probably called for. > Programmed metering is probably too unpredictable in those circumstances. > > Those are the kinds of scenes that drive almost all B&W landscapists to > the Zone System. > > Buford C. Terrell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Professor of Law(713) 646-1857 > South Texas College of Law > 1303 San Jacinto Houston, TX 77002 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > A deep respect for Law requires intense skepticism > toward every law. > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why I submit photos to the PUG
I have a fairly similar introductoin into photography. I used to not take photographs much at all. I then began dating my significant other who has some obsession with scrapbooks, so a camera became a regular third wheel in the relationship. It only took about $15 of my own money into processing disposable cameras until i realized, "Dang...i can draw better than this". >From there i found some website which recommended the K1000 as a good 1st camera. This led me to E-bay where i found my 1st camera. Since then an addiction to both pantax cameras and ebay has led to several hundred dollars randomly being deducted from my bank account (no comparison to the thousands that many others spend, but hey...i spend what i can). This past month was my first PUG submission after sitting on the sidelines for a while and reading the PDML for about a year. I submitted to the PUG because i view my photography with a very athletic mindset. If i am going to do it, i want to be goos at it. The PUG is a place where i can see my own pictures side by side with other amatures and likewise some seasoned veterans. Some are creative, some not so. Some techinically profficient, some not so. If i get a suggestion, I'm all the better for it. If i get a praise, i smile and get a warm fuzzy. If i get a harsh critisism, the writer is probably a jerk and i don't care. I submitt to the PUG to see my work and evauate it myself against other really good photos. My goal is to be good, and being a very picky person, my standard of good is my own satisfaction. I wouldn't submit an image to the PUG i wasn't satisfied with. The PUG does, though, help me to develop and refine my concept of what is acceptable to myself. likewise longwinded...nobody wants to read this, but i wrote it anyway. Brent - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC Pentax 135/2.5 Telephoto Lens
Dangit...i wish i'd have read this a little earlier. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
SMC Pentax 135/2.5 Telephoto Lens
Spotted on eBay with a BIN price of, $65.00 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1236035211 Later, Gary - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Thank you for setting me straight. Have a nice day. -frank Len Paris wrote: > Are you visually impaired? Have you seen me participating? I > have been explaining why I do not participate but I guess I've > just been way too subtle for you. > > I don't participate in things like this because nobody actually > wants to hear opinions that differ from theirs. > > Enough said. At least, it's enough said by me. If you don't > understand what I've been saying by now, there's a good chance > you never will. This really is my last word on this. People > are already sick of hearing it. > > Len > --- > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Frank Theriault > > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 11:47 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > > > > > > I don't understand. If you don't like the idea, > > don't participate. No > > one's forcing you to. In the description/comment > > that you send in with > > each image, indicate that you don't want > > comment/critique of your > > image. I'm sure everyone will respect that. If you > > want individual > > comments, but not from the more formalized group that > > Chris set up, you > > can indicate that as well. I'm sure everyone will > > respect that. > > > > If you find the whole idea completely repugnant, you > > don't even have to > > read the critiques. I only read about 1/4 of all > > postings here, since > > most don't apply to/interest me. If a group here > > wants to organize, or > > continue to organize these comments, we're going to > > do it. Anyone who > > finds it silly, repugnant or a waste of time need not > > get involved in > > any way. > > > > regards, > > frank > > > > Len Paris wrote: > > > > > I think my message should have been perfectly > > clear, when read > > > in the context of my original post on this topic. Honest > > > comments (criticism) usually result in resentment > > directed at > > > the critics. > > > > > > Bland, pat on the back, warm hugs types of comments > > do nothing > > > to improve performance, they just falsely increase > > self-esteem. > > > Real self-esteem comes when you've done something > > to earn it. > > > > > > Nothing better can happen than finally hearing a > > harsh critic > > > say, "Well done!" All the warm hugs in the world > > can't compare > > > to that. > > > > > > If honest commentary is unwelcome, then why bother to have > > > public commentary at all? The e-mail address with each PUG > > > entry should be enough invitation to comment. If > > folks aren't > > > sending you comments on your pictures, perhaps they > > find them > > > unworthy of comment. The term "pedestrian" comes > > to mind, along > > > with the word "un-inspiring". > > > > > > Len > > > --- > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > > Lasse Karlsson > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 9:08 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > > > > > > > > > > > > Len, your message was a response to me. > > > > However, I would just want to be sure, is the deep > > > > sarcasm also directed at whatever views I have > > > > expressed on this subject? > > > > Or was it aimed at general opinions that you > > disagree with? > > > > > > > > Lasse > > > > > > - > > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. > > To unsubscribe, > > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the > > directions. Don't forget to > > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. > > To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. > > Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: pentax-discuss-digest V1 #703
In a message dated 06/05/01 21:37:20 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Acouple of years ago, I shot a roll of negative film with a camera (Akarelle) I bought at a flea market, for $15 CDN. >> Isn't that a basic 6x6 slr? Also known in UK as the Agiflex? Kind regards Peter - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
This has become utter nonsense. The comments were valid. They were well received. It is very bizarre that we would expend so much time and energy debating this issue. Leave well enough alone. Paul Chris Brogden wrote: > > On Sun, 6 May 2001, Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > > ( I F we decide on any form of "release" from the PUG participants:) > > To me this seems like an unnecessary round of messages and extra work > > for you as well as for the submitter. Why not do it like this (it > > would be simple and it wouldn't really cost anyone any extra work)?: > > Each time we submit a photo for the PUG we can add whatever comments > > we like around the picture, the shooting situation or whatever. Now, > > if comments on the list are welcome, we just add something like > > "Comments on the PDML are welcome." This wouldn't really cause anyone > > any extra work, and the possible commentator can simply check for the > > above phrase. (Or have I missed something?) > > Someone would still have to go through each PUG entry then and make a note > of which photos wanted comments. Also, there would still be people who > forget to put the line in the submissions info and would e-mail me > separately, which would mean *two* places to look. If I implemented this > idea and then *didn't* go through the 80+ images each month to see who > wanted comments, the idea wouldn't work, I don't think. If I divided the > photos up randomly, some commentators could get six or seven people who > want comments, while other could get none. So I'd have to go through each > entry each month to divide the work equally. It would be more work for > people to send an e-mail to me separately, but it would be easier on my > end if we did it that way. Am I missing something, Lasse? It's possible > I'm misreading your suggestion. > > chris > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Commentary - Lasse Karlsson's "Stockholm, August 1997. Nr 7"
Because I am currently overwhelmed with work, I hurried through the PUG and, quite frankly, had not given your photograph the time or attention it deserves. Shel's comments directed me to it, and upon further scrutiny, I found it very compelling. There is a rather vivid sensual tone to the image. The people who are most nearly in focus are captured in one of those fleeting moments. There are expressions of joy, fatigue, surprise and fear, all within the confines of your image. And the graininess and limited depth of field contribute to the communication. In other words, I like it :-). It's a thoughtful execution. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > I would never base my comments on anything but the photograph. > Whatever has transpired in ongoing discussions has no effect on how > I feel about your image or my comments. Your image stands on its > own merits. I not ridiculing the idea of commenting. > > It's not important what I, or anyone, thinks of your work. What you > think about it is paramount. Do you think it's good? What are the > strong points? What are its weaknesses? Can it be improved, and, > if so, how might you improve it? > > I now must grab a camera and enjoy the day while making some > photographs. > > Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > > > Shel, > > > > I was going to thank you for your comments, > > but got second thoughts. (In the light of the > > ongoing discussions:) I can't make out whether > > your favourable comments are sincere, or whether > > you are in fact ridiculing my photo (and the > > whole commenting idea), or not. So, could you > > please be frank about it - do you find my > > submission good work, or not? > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > There are no rules for good photographs, > there are only good photographs. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Fairy is unsubscribing...(for a little while)
On Mon, 7 May 2001 09:44:57 +1000, Tanya & Russell Mayer wrote: >So please feel free to email me off-list to stay in touch, but I will only >be checking my email once every couple of days, so please don't be annoyed >if immediate replies aren't forthcoming. I will lurk around PDML until >tonight if anyone else has something they need me to know or would just like >to say Au Revoir Hope everything goes smooth with the move, but be sure and hurry back! Later, Gary - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Fairy is unsubscribing...(for a little while)
Hi folks, Just a quick note to say adios! For those of you that don't know, we are moving house over the next couple of weeks and my hubby has already left to start his job in our new town (which is 15 hours drive away), so guess who is left to do all the packing/moving/cleaning etc. while still trying to keep my photographic appointments, oh, and there is this little matter of a couple of kids that need looking after tooSo anyways, due to my PDML addiction, I will be unsubscribing (TEMPORARILY) so that I can pack up my PC and concentrate on other things for a bit. I will be arriving in our new house on the 21st of the month, so will be back at about this time. I wasn't going to unsubscribe, but just didn't want to come back online and find 3000 PDML messages waiting in my Inbox. Anyways, I will submit to the gallery this month as I have a really good idea for the "Architecture" subject and I may just go and shoot it this afternoon. As for my take on the comments to the PUG, I feel that we should definitely keep them in some way, shape or form, but that we should just be a little more subtle about how we give what would be perceived as the "negative" aspects of a shot. I would also like to thank Adelheid for the comments on EyeSpy. My dog is so big that he is an easy model. He is too lazy to be running off anywhere too fast! So please feel free to email me off-list to stay in touch, but I will only be checking my email once every couple of days, so please don't be annoyed if immediate replies aren't forthcoming. I will lurk around PDML until tonight if anyone else has something they need me to know or would just like to say Au Revoir 8-) Fairy. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Does Z-1 / PZ-1 have 2nd curtain flash sync ?
> I finally discovered that 2nd > curtain synchronization can be performed on the Z-1 only with a > 'sophisticated' dedicated PENTAX flash unit ( such as AF330FTZ / > AF400FTZ / > AF240FT). Uh, well, a 'sophisticated' PENTAX-dedicated flash unit is what you need. Your choice also includes flashes from Metz with a dedicated adapter. I have the PZ-1, and I use the Metz 40MZ2 with the SCA3072 adapter. You can switch trailing curtain sync on the back of the adapter. Perhaps there are other brands as well that support this. Frits - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Sunny 16 Rule
Hi Bob: The Sunny-16 rule came about long and long ago, before the manufactures removed the the safety factor of about one stop that they used in rating the films. That is, film went from 200ASA to 400ASA without any change in the emulsion. This happened back in the late fifties. For best results you need to put that one stop back into the film rating. Thus you need to use 1/2 the ASA, or Sunny-11 to get the same results as you did back then. If you look in something like the film guide book Focal Press publishes, you will note most negative films have a one stop underexposure rating and a two stop overexposure rating. Using the sunny 16 rule your are several times more likely to underexpose than over expose. Also the brightest sunlight is seldom more than one stop brighter than the Sunny 16 predicts, so you only get -in the worst case- one stop overexposure, but can get several stops underexposure using the Sunny-16 rule. That said many modern color negative films have a very wide exposure latitude so can take several stops overexposure, but most only take one or two stops of underexposure so it may be better to shift the exposure a couple of stops with film like Kodak MAX. That is, rate it at 200 instead or 800. These changes did not apply to slide film because it did not have the latitude to allow it, so the Sunny-16 rule still applies to it. Though in truth I have underexposed more slides than I have overexposed, so I tend to use Sunny-11 there also. But, I usually use an incident meter and that is far more accurate than any rule of thumb. In the case of the original poster, he should check and see if his problem is not the lab rather than exposure before he does anything else. --Tom Bob Walkden wrote: > > Hi Norm, > > if they did then they were wrong (or at least, nobody's told me about > the change). I can't imagine how film emulsions on their own would > affect this. You'd also have to recalibrate all meters. It may be that > you're getting confused with the fact that meters are calibrated on > 18% grey because early measurements supported the idea that average > reflexivity in mid latitudes was 18% at midday in midsummer. However, > more recent measurements claim that the average is 13%. Nevertheless, > it doesn't seem to make any difference to any pictures, so there seems > no reason to change anything. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Why I submit photos to the PUG
Hi all With all the discussion about regarding the critiquing of photographs on the PUG, I thought I'd share why I submit photographs to the PUG. More than most on this list have been into photography a lot longer than I. More than most, I'd consider, are better photographers than I. I can accept that quite happily. A bit of history. I bought an MZ-50 about three years ago, after owning an MV almost twenty years ago. I think I ran about 20 rolls through the MV in the three or four years I owned it. About four years ago I bought a P&S to get some photographs of things I could use for textures and whatnot for some web pages I were designing. I found I enjoyed the picture taking more than the web work, so I bought an MZ-50 and a Sigma 28-80 zoom. A year later I sold the MZ-50 and bought an MZ-5n, this time with a 24-70 and 70-210 zoom set (Sigma again). An F28/2.8, F50/1.7, F50/2.8 macro, F135/2.8 soon followed. I bought a Z-1p a year later, along with a 28-80 Sigma zoom and a Sigma 300/4 APO. Tripods, monopod, cable release, filters, you name it, I bought it. I bought some books to learn some more. I think the first book I bought cost me $5 in a second hand shop, believe it or not it was "Photography for dummies". A lot of it made sense at the time, as I really knew nothing. Since then I've added a few more books relating to things I enjoy doing, macro work, landscapes, etc. I bought a book on flash and lighting, to try to get a handle on flashes. All the time I have taken bucket loads of photographs. I look at them all, to see what I did wrong (and right), and keep them for future reference. Which brings me back to why I submit photographs to the PUG. I am amazed when friends and acquaintances say to me that they like this photograph or that one. I don't know if they are being "nice", or if they genuinely like them. Funnily enough, it is more often than not, photographs that I don't like that they like. :-) Anyway, the open months are when I get to show the world the photographs I like taking, and think are good enough for the world to see. The theme months usually give me a challenge to go out and do something I might not normally do. These are the photographs that I find test my mettle (in my mind). If someone else gets enjoyment from my photographs, great. If people don't like them, great. If people want to comment on them, fabulous. Some months I get comments, some months I don't. I don't do the submitting bit because I want feedback, I do it because I want to show the world that I really can take photographs that I think are good enough for me. Submitting photographs to the PUG has some added benefits. I gave my family and friends photographs at Christmas last year. I don't think I'd have had the balls to do that if I'd never put a photograph out for the world to see. A bit long winded, yeah, but I do ramble a bit. Cheers Jon Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Subject: Re: LET'S CONTINUE W. THE COMMENTS!! (Was: No more PUG comments - My thoughts...)
I agree too. Fairy. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Sunny 16 Rule
At 03:30 PM 05/06/2001 -0400, you wrote: >Acouple of years ago, I shot a roll of negative film with a camera >(Akarelle) I bought at a flea market, for $15 CDN. >I used the exposure sheet supplied with the film for my exposure reference. >The prints came out properly exposed (a real shocker). >There's plenty of exposure latitude in today's films that 2 stops over or >under is still acceptable. > >Jeff > The answer to this, like most photo questions, is what are you trying to do? Do you just want an acceptable "been there, done that" image or do you have some specific use or visualization in mind? Sweet 16 will get you a workable image of sorts; sweet 16 with 1-stop brackets up and down will definitely get you something. But if you are shooting for reproduction in a specific medium -- glossy magazine, fine art print, B&W, electronic, etc -- or if you have a specific visualization in mind, some combination of spot- and center-weighted -metering is probably called for. Programmed metering is probably too unpredictable in those circumstances. Those are the kinds of scenes that drive almost all B&W landscapists to the Zone System. Buford C. Terrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Law(713) 646-1857 South Texas College of Law 1303 San Jacinto Houston, TX 77002 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ A deep respect for Law requires intense skepticism toward every law. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
The Effects of Drugs & Prostitution
This is a link to a series of arrest photographs of the same individual over the course of 10 years. She was about 31~32 years old at the time of the first photo. It's not a pleasant series of photos. http://www.hollywoodpolice.org/VIN_CAT/pic79_11.htm -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[4]: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Bob Walkden wrote some intelligent comments.
I'd like to respond 'in-line' to these (see below).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<< This raises the question: what is the PUG for?
If people treat it as an exhibition gallery then you're quite right,
people should behave as though they were hanging their prints in an
exhibition, and treat the comments sent via their email address on
the web page as they'd treat comments in the visitors' book. If this
is the case then there is no need for comments on the pdml.
I agree completely with this. If we each gave some private
comments, the problems would be solved.
If it is to be used as a learning forum then there is nothing to be
gained by sending in a shot you know is a sure-fire Pulitzer winner.
People who want advise on how to improve should, imo, tell us why
_they_ think the picture is not up to scratch - ie, give us a clue as
to what they want, and how we can help them - and then listen without
getting upset when we tell them they're not Ansel or Hank or Helmut or
whoever.
I think this is the point Len Paris was complaining about. Most
folks don't contribute less than their best, and squirm with
discomfort when told their 'baby is ugly'.
I think it would be great if the photographer said, 'I don't think
this shot works because of ... and I'd like to know what you folks
think!' This could inspire some interesting commentary.
If it's to be information only ('this is representative of what I do so
you can know more about me & my pdml writing'), then any comment about the
photos is superfluous.
I hope your not being sarcastic here. I'd take the task of building
a friendly, trusting, and respectful community seriously. If the PUG
gallery makes a positive contribution here, I wouldn't call it
superfluous.
Just think of it as a little water spread around to prevent flame
wars.
If it's intended to be therapy for the insecure then let's make that
clear so that nobody's allowed to tell the truth when they see a
photo they don't like, but have to say something soothing & motherly
instead. >>
I've taken a similar approach for some time now and perhaps it
is time to change to another approach.
The PUG gallery has moved from 15-20 photos per month to over
90 photos in the past 2 years. I have tried to encourage people to
participate, because I've had fun doing so and because I learned
a lot trying to meet the quality of photos and jpegs shown in the
PUG. (no bullshit and I'm not stroking any ego's here!) So, I've
been encouraging others to get into the game and enjoy the it.
We have some 400+ readers on the pdml, and some 90 contributors
of photos. That's close to 25%. Maybe it is time for us to stop
wishing for more participation in the PUG. Maybe it's time to stop
encouraging people to try it and start discouraging participation
with a bit harsher public critique of the submissions. Maybe you
want the PUG to evolve into something new.
I know after this discussion, I will be much less hesitant to offer
some
negative feedback on people's images.
Regards, Bob S.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Lasse Karlsson wrote: > I may be wrong, but I assumed that most submitters would like to get > comments. (That is if we clearly keep it to friendly general > impressions and suggestions on what can be improved upon. (All of a > sudden it has evolved into a discussion on "critique" etc, which I > never understood it to be the case from the beginning. And I am not > going to volunteer for a "PUG critiquer"...:) ) I also would think > there'd be more volunteers if we keep comments on a decidedly non > professional level.) That's a good way of putting it. The PUG comments aren't meant to be heavy-duty critiques, although I'm not ruling those out if you feel like taking the time to do it. All I'm really expecting is that commentators take the time to look at the photos and say something about them. That's it. You could say which parts of it you like or don't like, how you think it could be improved, how (or if) it resonates with you, etc. You don't have to know anything about high art to have an opinion about a photo. > I was thinking that you'd simply do the "randomizing" and sending out > the "call messages" to the volunteers, and it would be up to us to > check whether the participant wants a comment or not. Maybe someone > will get only three to comment on and somebody else will get seven, > but would there statistically be that great a risk that there will be > this great a spread of the number of assigned photos? I don't know. That would be complicated by the fact that I'm sure many people will forget to put that info in their submission and will e-mail me separately. It would also be difficult to assign more than one person to talk about a particular photo, too, I think. I don't mind taking the time to collect the names of interested people and then to distribute them randomly and evenly among the commentators. > I don't know, I'm getting tired of all this thinking. Why can't we > just go back to like we started, and just fix the directions a little, > like clearly stating that this gallery is simply for fun and the joy > of it, and not a deadly serious competition for The International > Professional & Artistic Photography Awards? I hope that's essentially what we're doing, except that we won't alienate those people who want to post to the PUG but don't want their photos discussed on the PDML. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Len Paris wrote: > If honest commentary is unwelcome, then why bother to have > public commentary at all? Do you think that honest commentary can only be phrased in a rude and confrontational manner? I've noticed that honest comments phrased constructively go over very well with the photographers. I found Shel's comments to be extremely constructive, but objective-sounding value judgments like "It's like a million other pictures of little or no significance" suggest that the photo itself is worth nothing to anyone, and can come across as unnecessarily harsh as well as untrue. It's a shame that comments like this can draw everyone's attention away from the rest of the review, which was very well thought out and constructive. It's possible, however, to phrase subjective opinions like that in a manner that is less likely to offend people, while still conveying the same amount of information. There is a middle ground between direct/harsh and sweetness/light and Shel, except for one or two slips that were promptly jumped on, found the middle ground and received good on-list responses from the photographers whose works he reviewed. > The e-mail address with each PUG entry should be enough invitation to > comment. If folks aren't sending you comments on your pictures, > perhaps they find them unworthy of comment. The term "pedestrian" > comes to mind, along with the word "un-inspiring". So you're not volunteering to become a commentator, eh? Did it occur to you that the purpose of commenting is not just to talk about unusual or outstanding photos, but to provide enough feedback to uninspiring, bland photos that the photographer might improve to the point where their shots become unusual and outstanding? Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be a rather elitist one. Before you jump on this, there's nothing wrong with elitism in some forums, but I don't want the PUG comments to be one of these forums. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Chris wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2001, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
> > ( I F we decide on any form of "release" from the PUG participants:)
> > To me this seems like an unnecessary round of messages and extra work
> > for you as well as for the submitter. Why not do it like this (it
> > would be simple and it wouldn't really cost anyone any extra work)?:
> > Each time we submit a photo for the PUG we can add whatever comments
> > we like around the picture, the shooting situation or whatever. Now,
> > if comments on the list are welcome, we just add something like
> > "Comments on the PDML are welcome." This wouldn't really cause anyone
> > any extra work, and the possible commentator can simply check for the
> > above phrase. (Or have I missed something?)
>
> Someone would still have to go through each PUG entry then and make a note
> of which photos wanted comments. Also, there would still be people who
> forget to put the line in the submissions info and would e-mail me
> separately, which would mean *two* places to look. If I implemented this
> idea and then *didn't* go through the 80+ images each month to see who
> wanted comments, the idea wouldn't work, I don't think. If I divided the
> photos up randomly, some commentators could get six or seven people who
> want comments, while other could get none. So I'd have to go through each
> entry each month to divide the work equally. It would be more work for
> people to send an e-mail to me separately, but it would be easier on my
> end if we did it that way. Am I missing something, Lasse? It's possible
> I'm misreading your suggestion.
I may be wrong, but I assumed that most submitters would like to get comments. (That
is if we clearly keep it to friendly general impressions and suggestions on what can
be improved upon. (All of a sudden it has evolved into a discussion on "critique" etc,
which I never understood it to be the case from the beginning. And I am not going to
volunteer for a "PUG critiquer"...:) ) I also would think there'd be more volunteers
if we keep comments on a decidedly non professional level.)
I was thinking that you'd simply do the "randomizing" and sending out the "call
messages" to the volunteers, and it would be up to us to check whether the participant
wants a comment or not. Maybe someone will get only three to comment on and somebody
else will get seven, but would there statistically be that great a risk that there
will be this great a spread of the number of assigned photos? I don't know.
Maybe someone who got too few could ask for additions on the list and someone who
feels he/she got too many could offer one or two more? ("- No, I don't want him, give
me X instead! - How much? - I'll send you an original Pentax cap! - Allright then,
he's yours.") Anyway, the next month, or the next, statistically the distribution
should even out, or?
I don't know, I'm getting tired of all this thinking. Why can't we just go back to
like we started, and just fix the directions a little, like clearly stating that this
gallery is simply for fun and the joy of it, and not a deadly serious competition for
The International Professional & Artistic Photography Awards?
Lasse
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Len Paris wrote: > If you really dislike a picture, or are offended by a picture, > let someone else comment on it. They may love it. There's no > accounting for taste. I realize that you're speaking sarcastically, but I think you're setting up a strawman argument to some extent. I don't agree with the above statement. The comments/commentators link is random, and I've never said that commentators shouldn't discuss images they don't like. If anything, that might prove to be the most rewarding experience for them, as they'll have to think about why they didn't like it and why others might. > If nobody likes the picture (a rare event) nothing will be said > to activate the bleeding heart defenders or the Sir Galahad > knight emulators (all hoping to win a lady's favors). > > If you must criticize at all, then only suggest ways to improve > the picture. Comments like, "You should have left the lens cap > on" or "Next time, leave your camera at home" are not considered > to be constructive criticism. > > This way, we only voice our approval and all will remain > sweetness and light. Okay, I see the problem. You think that negative criticism cannot be phrased in any way that is not blunt and direct. Telling someone to leave the lens cap on or the camera at home is not only rude but definitely not constructive, though it may be an ego-booster for the commentator. Shel never went that far, and was still constructive in his comments, however direct they may have been. Why do you think that you can't tell someone that their photo didn't do anything for you (or that you disliked it) without having to be rude and unconstructive? PUG reviews on the PDML aren't meant to be confrontational assaults, and if you have that mentality then write to the photographer off-list. This doesn't mean that you only have to say nice things or sniff rose petals while writing your comments. :) It just means that you should try to look for the good as well as the bad (not 'instead of'), and that you should write your comments in a manner that you feel will help the photographer to improve without crushing their spirit. If you want to totally demolish a photo, then it's probably best to do it off-list or at a site that specializes in critiques. Here, I hope we'll be constructive, and yes it's possible to be constructive and still mention all the things you don't like about a picture at the same time. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax stuff for sale
I didn't check new prices, only used prices at KEH. If it's too high then someone can either make me an offer or I'll take it to E-Bay. I would take less if necessary. Thanks, Ed - Original Message - From: "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Pentax stuff for sale > On Sun, 6 May 2001 08:32:03 -0400, Ed Mathews wrote: > > >* Pentax FA 28-70 F4 AF > > Ed, > > Isn't $120 a bit steep? B&H sells them for $149. :-) > > > > > Later, > Gary > > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
On Sun, 6 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I still don't think every photo deserves a public comment, or every > contributor who requests a critique deserves a public critique. Maybe only > the best should get a public critique. If 8 or 10 good comment threads > started this way, it could be very informative. Hmmm I think that good comment threads are useful for obvious reasons, but I also feel that it's hard to choose the photos most likely to inspire good threads. These are not always the best photos in a technical sense, and sometimes it's even the comments themselves that spark the thread. I can see what you're getting at, but I think it might be better served by having the commentators comment on the photos of all the people who requested this, and then we can see which ones inspire good threads. This also saves us the trouble of having to choose certain images, which is bound to upset some people. > For the first 4-5 days, the pdml gets the rush of 'great photo John', or > 'have you seen this one', or 'here are my 15 favorites', or 'these are the > cave academe awards'. > > After the initial rush, the critiques start happening, public and private. This raises a good question. When should the PUG comments appear on the PDML? I've asked for them to be posted near the start of the month, when the PUG first appears, but that was an arbitrary choice. Should they be posted then, or should we wait a week or so to give people time to view the galleries first? What does everyone think? > At this point, you, Chris, could post a list to the pdml of the folks who > want more criticism or feedback. Your pdml critiquers could then volunteer > for specific photos where they felt comfortable giving feedback. > > You could then coordinate assignments. Specifically, you could pick 7-10 of > the photos that were interesting or instructive for public critique. You > might assign 3 or 2 people who are interested in a photo to give comments. > But best of all, you might start 5 or 6 interesting discussion threads about > the photos that we can all follow in detail and might want to add to. > > If you and the critiquer team were willing, you could also make assignments > for private critiques. That way, you could assure each member submitting to > the gallery who want comments received some feedback. These are all potentially good and workable ideas, but I'm afraid they require a bit more time and energy than I'm willing to put into the commenting thing. Adn I'm still a little bothered by having to pick some photos but not others to comment on. The idea behind the comments originally was not to provide in-depth analysis of the photos but to make sure that people who normally wouldn't receive comments would get some each time they submitted a photo. I've now modified this to cover only those people who specifically request that their photos by commented on, but I still like the idea of commenting on all of the eligible photos instead of a selection. The selection would be more apropriate to individual comments, IMO. I like your idea of having more than one person commenting on each photo, however. It won't work if most of the PUGers want their photos reviewed, but if only a handful do then it should work out okay. > I guess I'm bothered that the current critiques are so fragmented and > unfocused. I can't follow and keep mental threads going on 90 PUG > photos. I could be much happier following along on 8 or 10 good > discussions...especially when the photographer was a willing > participant. Now that we need the photographer to request comments, I'm hoping that they'll all be willing participants. I understand what you're saying about the difficulty of keeping up with 90 comments, but I expect that the load will be significantly reduced now that the photographer has to request comments each month if they want them. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Sunny 16 Rule
Living in New Mexico and working sometimes in Mali, I shoot in bright, high-contrast light at whatever time of day I encounter something I need or want to photograph. Color negative film can capture the brightness range I usually encounter pretty well, but most color print papers cannot. A low-contrast portrait paper might do better for you, but you might lose some contrast that you want. To get around this problem I realized I had to do two things: (1) Shoot tranparency film (and bracket). It has less latitude than negative film, but more than color paper. (2) Go digital. Your negatives probably have detail that color print paper won't reveal. With scanned negatives, I can reduce contrast and print on my Epson 870, and get a better print that would be possible with traditional printing. Also, Gold is a high-contrast, high-saturation film. You might try Kodak Supra, a film made for photojournalists. It is tough, durable, inexpensive, and good. (You might need to order it through the mail, depending on where you live.) Supra 400 has more contrast than its predecessor, Ektapress PJ 400, but will probably give you better results than Gold in high-contrast lighting. Some people shoot Portra for low-contrast, but I have found it too flat outdoors. Fuji NPH is good too. Joe - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
I don't understand. If you don't like the idea, don't participate. No one's forcing you to. In the description/comment that you send in with each image, indicate that you don't want comment/critique of your image. I'm sure everyone will respect that. If you want individual comments, but not from the more formalized group that Chris set up, you can indicate that as well. I'm sure everyone will respect that. If you find the whole idea completely repugnant, you don't even have to read the critiques. I only read about 1/4 of all postings here, since most don't apply to/interest me. If a group here wants to organize, or continue to organize these comments, we're going to do it. Anyone who finds it silly, repugnant or a waste of time need not get involved in any way. regards, frank Len Paris wrote: > I think my message should have been perfectly clear, when read > in the context of my original post on this topic. Honest > comments (criticism) usually result in resentment directed at > the critics. > > Bland, pat on the back, warm hugs types of comments do nothing > to improve performance, they just falsely increase self-esteem. > Real self-esteem comes when you've done something to earn it. > > Nothing better can happen than finally hearing a harsh critic > say, "Well done!" All the warm hugs in the world can't compare > to that. > > If honest commentary is unwelcome, then why bother to have > public commentary at all? The e-mail address with each PUG > entry should be enough invitation to comment. If folks aren't > sending you comments on your pictures, perhaps they find them > unworthy of comment. The term "pedestrian" comes to mind, along > with the word "un-inspiring". > > Len > --- > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Lasse Karlsson > > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 9:08 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > > > > > > Len, your message was a response to me. > > However, I would just want to be sure, is the deep > > sarcasm also directed at whatever views I have > > expressed on this subject? > > Or was it aimed at general opinions that you disagree with? > > > > Lasse > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Manual for Motor Drive MX ?
--- "I don't suppose anyone might have an active link for a copy of the PDF for the Motor Drive MX ? Much appreciated. Cheers, Cotty --- Hi Cotty, I can send you a photocopy of the manual if this helps (mail me privately). Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Super A Spotted on eBay
Gary, It shows a Program A = Black Program Plus, not a SuperA (Black Super Program). Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << BuyITNow price of, $99.00 - Black SuperA body http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1235857186 >> - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Sunny 16 Rule
Hi Bob, Thanks for taking the time to post that very clear note on what might have gone wrong with my shots: Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been: I did base my exposures for the shadows and the lab printer has tried squeeze out some detail in the highlights by overexposing the print- so now I have no detail in either the highlights or the shadows :-( However, I can see the negative has a lot of detail: I now plan to get the negative scanned and then try and compress the contrast range in Photoshop- comments? I used Kodak Gold print film; the predominant tones in the scenery were around 75% blazing sunshine with the balance in fairly deep shadows (an open, thinly wooded forest with hills in the distance). Contrast range : perhaps 4:1 or more. Do an early morning or late evening shoot? This is panther territory and is about 6 hours drive from my place so I don't think that's an option. Regards, RK Bob Walkden wrote: > As far as advice to RK goes, well it depends. I've found sunny-16 to > be quite reliable in the situations where you'd expect it to be > reliable. ie, bright day with the sun behind me, and here in the UK > there is a 3-stop difference between the highest and lowest reading, > when the lowest reading is open shade. But if I wanted shadow detail > I'd expose for the shadows or possibly use fill flash or a reflector > if I had to include the sunlit highlights. > > Your exposures may have been wrong because the centre-weighting > encompassed some very non-average elements, but I don't really see how > it could have ruined both the highlights _and_ the shadows unless the > brightness range of the scene far exceeded the latitude of your film. > You'd need to tell us a bit more about the type of film you were using, > what the predominant tones in the metering area were, and what the > brightness range of the scene was. > > It's not usually a good time of day to be taking pictures. Any > photographer worth his salt rests in some cool dark cantina with a > glass of golden, foaming throat-charmer during the noonday hours. Why > do they have to be done at that time of day? Why not wait until your > shadow is longer than your height, or get up before sunrise? > > If you really must take pictures at noon, I'd recommend using an incident > meter, measuring the light falling on the most important element > of the scene, and basing your exposure around that. > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Sunny 16 Rule
Without going into a full blown discussion of the zone system, what is happening is that the film does not have enough latitude to cover the range of exposure values that is found in a bright, mid day scene. Typically, negative film can cover about a 10 stops range, and about 7 stops difference with detail. Slide film is less. The meter takes an average, between these dark shadows and bright highlights, and ends up with an exposure value that doesn't capture either. I don't think that using the Sunny 16 rule will help much in this situation. The zone system says you should try to get the shadow detail in, in other words take a meter reading for the shadows, then shoot 2 stops less than this metering reading (this will place the shadows into the area of the range that's darkest but detail is still visible). However, this doesn't help the highlights any, they will probably still blow out. One thing you can do is, if you develop your own film, and this is b&w negative film, is to underdevelop the film. This will expand the range of the film, and lower the contrast for better negatives. Todd At 01:23 PM 5/6/01 +0530, you wrote: >I've messed up some very important landscape shots- I had to take them >about just after noon in blazing sunlight and the resulting images are >ghastly: burnt out highlights with deep shadows. >I showed them to a pro and he recommended I use the Sunny 16 rule >whenever I take photos in bright sunshine- i.e., I ignore the CW meter >reading. >Is this good advice? I shoot print film and my usual outfit for outdoor >shots would be a MZ5+17mm Tokina >Thanks. >RK >Yeah, I know late morning would have been great for such shots but that >was not possible here. >Or should I just meter for the highlights next time (there'll be a next >time tomorrow!) > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[4]: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Hi,
> My point is: Why can't we just continue posting our "good
> photos" in the PUG, knowing that they are in the company of
> other "good photos"? Why should we insist on any comments when
> unfavourable comments meet with almost universal disapproval?
This raises the question: what is the PUG for?
If people treat it as an exhibition gallery then you're quite right,
people should behave as though they were hanging their prints in an
exhibition, and treat the comments sent via their email address on
the web page as they'd treat comments in the visitors' book. If this
is the case then there is no need for comments on the pdml.
If it is to be used as a learning forum then there is nothing to be
gained by sending in a shot you know is a sure-fire Pulitzer winner.
People who want advise on how to improve should, imo, tell us why
_they_ think the picture is not up to scratch - ie, give us a clue as
to what they want, and how we can help them - and then listen without
getting upset when we tell them they're not Ansel or Hank or Helmut or
whoever.
If it's to be information only ('this is representative of what I do so
you can know more about me & my pdml writing'), then any comment about the
photos is superfluous.
If it's intended to be therapy for the insecure then let's make that
clear so that nobody's allowed to tell the truth when they see a
photo they don't like, but have to say something soothing & motherly
instead.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
pdml@pdml.net
http://www01.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivat or__Aproductlist_html___222155___PE249035FA___REG___CatID=274___SID=E68467F2 610 $499 In case anyone is interested. Todd - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Super A Spotted on eBay
BuyITNow price of, $99.00 - Black SuperA body http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1235857186 Later, Gary - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Re[2]: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
It was not meant to be "helpful advice". As you said, "Most people who submit a good photo know damn well it's a good photo, so further praise is nothing but another squeeze of the ego-inflater." My point is: Why can't we just continue posting our "good photos" in the PUG, knowing that they are in the company of other "good photos"? Why should we insist on any comments when unfavourable comments meet with almost universal disapproval? The term "There's no accounting for taste" applies equally to photographers and critics. Hell, some people seem to read these messages just hoping to find something that they can use to initiate hostilities. We can't do much about that, but we can stop inviting these wars by not actively seeking comments on other people's "good photos". After all, you all know you are submitting only your very best work. Len --- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Walkden > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 9:08 AM > To: Len Paris > Subject: Re[2]: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > > > Hi, > > this is not helpful advice. If this is understood to be what's > happening then anybody whose submission is greeted > with thunderous > silence is left with the impression that nobody likes > their picture, > and nobody will tell him/her what's wrong with it! > How useful is that? > > Offering only praise is useless. Most people who > submit a good photo > know damn well it's a good photo, so further praise > is nothing but > another squeeze of the ego-inflater. If it's not a > good photo but > people just say - 'You really improved that turd with > the soft focus > effect and the starburst filter, you make da Vinci look like a > hopeless dauber' - well, again, what use is that? All > we'll get is > more pictures of turds. > > It's exactly because there's no accounting for taste > that it is useful > to hear a range of comments about a photo. > > --- > > Bob > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sunday, May 06, 2001, 2:25:19 PM, you wrote: > > > You only missed the opportunity to state the rules. > The only > > acceptable solution will be to continue comments with the > > following rules: > > > If you really dislike a picture, or are offended by > a picture, > > let someone else comment on it. They may love it. > There's no > > accounting for taste. > > > If nobody likes the picture (a rare event) nothing > will be said > > to activate the bleeding heart defenders or the Sir Galahad > > knight emulators (all hoping to win a lady's favors). > > > If you must criticize at all, then only suggest > ways to improve > > the picture. Comments like, "You should have left > the lens cap > > on" or "Next time, leave your camera at home" are > not considered > > to be constructive criticism. > > > This way, we only voice our approval and all will remain > > sweetness and light. Will the comments help improve anyone's > > photography? Probably not, but we'll be able to > share hugs all > > around and have a warm fuzzy feeling that we're on > the track to > > photographic perfection. > > > All of this proves an old Mongolian adage. "He who > is about to > > speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup". > > > Len, who obviously lied when he said he wasn't > going to say any > > more on this topic. > > -- > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > >> Lasse Karlsson > >> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 7:50 AM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > >> > >> > >> Chris, I'm really happy to hear that you haven't been > >> discouraged by the recent debate. > >> Let's hope that we will find a solution that will be > >> acceptable to most members. > >> > >> I am only adressing one of your suggestions here. > >> > >> > We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, > >> but only for the > >> > photographers each month who specifically request > >> comments. I don't mind > >> > coordinating this, so we could give it a try and > >> see how it goes. Since > >> > the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, > >> send your request for > >> > comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask > >> for comments in the > >> > letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna > >> happen. All you have > >> > to do is send a letter to me at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _ > >> and I want to have my > >> > photo commented on for the June PUG" or something > >> like that, and it'll be > >> > done. You'll have to do this each month when you > >> submit your photo, as > >> > there could be some months when you're showing an > >> image that, for whatever > >> > reason, you don't want comments on. > >> > >> ( I F we decide on any form of "release" from the > >> PUG participants:) > >> To me this seems like an unnecessary round of > >> messages and extra work for you as well as for the > submitter. > >> Why not do it li
Pentax compatable w/ Nikon?
Here's a seller that doesn't quite know his product . . . scan for the part about N in the ad . . . http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1235835125 wow, isn't Pentax great? Illinois Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
I think my message should have been perfectly clear, when read in the context of my original post on this topic. Honest comments (criticism) usually result in resentment directed at the critics. Bland, pat on the back, warm hugs types of comments do nothing to improve performance, they just falsely increase self-esteem. Real self-esteem comes when you've done something to earn it. Nothing better can happen than finally hearing a harsh critic say, "Well done!" All the warm hugs in the world can't compare to that. If honest commentary is unwelcome, then why bother to have public commentary at all? The e-mail address with each PUG entry should be enough invitation to comment. If folks aren't sending you comments on your pictures, perhaps they find them unworthy of comment. The term "pedestrian" comes to mind, along with the word "un-inspiring". Len --- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Lasse Karlsson > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 9:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > > > Len, your message was a response to me. > However, I would just want to be sure, is the deep > sarcasm also directed at whatever views I have > expressed on this subject? > Or was it aimed at general opinions that you disagree with? > > Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax screw mount eyepiece
Thanks to all who answered Jim - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Hi, this is not helpful advice. If this is understood to be what's happening then anybody whose submission is greeted with thunderous silence is left with the impression that nobody likes their picture, and nobody will tell him/her what's wrong with it! How useful is that? Offering only praise is useless. Most people who submit a good photo know damn well it's a good photo, so further praise is nothing but another squeeze of the ego-inflater. If it's not a good photo but people just say - 'You really improved that turd with the soft focus effect and the starburst filter, you make da Vinci look like a hopeless dauber' - well, again, what use is that? All we'll get is more pictures of turds. It's exactly because there's no accounting for taste that it is useful to hear a range of comments about a photo. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, May 06, 2001, 2:25:19 PM, you wrote: > You only missed the opportunity to state the rules. The only > acceptable solution will be to continue comments with the > following rules: > If you really dislike a picture, or are offended by a picture, > let someone else comment on it. They may love it. There's no > accounting for taste. > If nobody likes the picture (a rare event) nothing will be said > to activate the bleeding heart defenders or the Sir Galahad > knight emulators (all hoping to win a lady's favors). > If you must criticize at all, then only suggest ways to improve > the picture. Comments like, "You should have left the lens cap > on" or "Next time, leave your camera at home" are not considered > to be constructive criticism. > This way, we only voice our approval and all will remain > sweetness and light. Will the comments help improve anyone's > photography? Probably not, but we'll be able to share hugs all > around and have a warm fuzzy feeling that we're on the track to > photographic perfection. > All of this proves an old Mongolian adage. "He who is about to > speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup". > Len, who obviously lied when he said he wasn't going to say any > more on this topic. > -- >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >> Lasse Karlsson >> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 7:50 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) >> >> >> Chris, I'm really happy to hear that you haven't been >> discouraged by the recent debate. >> Let's hope that we will find a solution that will be >> acceptable to most members. >> >> I am only adressing one of your suggestions here. >> >> > We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, >> but only for the >> > photographers each month who specifically request >> comments. I don't mind >> > coordinating this, so we could give it a try and >> see how it goes. Since >> > the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, >> send your request for >> > comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask >> for comments in the >> > letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna >> happen. All you have >> > to do is send a letter to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _ >> and I want to have my >> > photo commented on for the June PUG" or something >> like that, and it'll be >> > done. You'll have to do this each month when you >> submit your photo, as >> > there could be some months when you're showing an >> image that, for whatever >> > reason, you don't want comments on. >> >> ( I F we decide on any form of "release" from the >> PUG participants:) >> To me this seems like an unnecessary round of >> messages and extra work for you as well as for the submitter. >> Why not do it like this (it would be simple and it >> wouldn't really cost anyone any extra work)?: >> Each time we submit a photo for the PUG we can add >> whatever comments we like around the picture, the >> shooting situation or whatever. Now, if comments on >> the list are welcome, we just add something like >> "Comments on the PDML are welcome." >> This wouldn't really cause anyone any extra work, and >> the possible commentator can simply check for the >> above phrase. >> (Or have I missed something?) >> >> Lasse >> >> - >> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. >> To unsubscribe, >> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. >> Don't forget to >> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . >> > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Len, your message was a response to me. However, I would just want to be sure, is the deep sarcasm also directed at whatever views I have expressed on this subject? Or was it aimed at general opinions that you disagree with? Lasse Len P. wrote: > You only missed the opportunity to state the rules. The only > acceptable solution will be to continue comments with the > following rules: > > If you really dislike a picture, or are offended by a picture, > let someone else comment on it. They may love it. There's no > accounting for taste. > > If nobody likes the picture (a rare event) nothing will be said > to activate the bleeding heart defenders or the Sir Galahad > knight emulators (all hoping to win a lady's favors). > > If you must criticize at all, then only suggest ways to improve > the picture. Comments like, "You should have left the lens cap > on" or "Next time, leave your camera at home" are not considered > to be constructive criticism. > > This way, we only voice our approval and all will remain > sweetness and light. Will the comments help improve anyone's > photography? Probably not, but we'll be able to share hugs all > around and have a warm fuzzy feeling that we're on the track to > photographic perfection. > > All of this proves an old Mongolian adage. "He who is about to > speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup". > > Len, who obviously lied when he said he wasn't going to say any > more on this topic. > -- > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Lasse Karlsson > > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 7:50 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > > > > > > Chris, I'm really happy to hear that you haven't been > > discouraged by the recent debate. > > Let's hope that we will find a solution that will be > > acceptable to most members. > > > > I am only adressing one of your suggestions here. > > > > > We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, > > but only for the > > > photographers each month who specifically request > > comments. I don't mind > > > coordinating this, so we could give it a try and > > see how it goes. Since > > > the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, > > send your request for > > > comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask > > for comments in the > > > letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna > > happen. All you have > > > to do is send a letter to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _ > > and I want to have my > > > photo commented on for the June PUG" or something > > like that, and it'll be > > > done. You'll have to do this each month when you > > submit your photo, as > > > there could be some months when you're showing an > > image that, for whatever > > > reason, you don't want comments on. > > > > ( I F we decide on any form of "release" from the > > PUG participants:) > > To me this seems like an unnecessary round of > > messages and extra work for you as well as for the submitter. > > Why not do it like this (it would be simple and it > > wouldn't really cost anyone any extra work)?: > > Each time we submit a photo for the PUG we can add > > whatever comments we like around the picture, the > > shooting situation or whatever. Now, if comments on > > the list are welcome, we just add something like > > "Comments on the PDML are welcome." > > This wouldn't really cause anyone any extra work, and > > the possible commentator can simply check for the > > above phrase. > > (Or have I missed something?) > > > > Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Sunny 16 Rule
Hi Norm, if they did then they were wrong (or at least, nobody's told me about the change). I can't imagine how film emulsions on their own would affect this. You'd also have to recalibrate all meters. It may be that you're getting confused with the fact that meters are calibrated on 18% grey because early measurements supported the idea that average reflexivity in mid latitudes was 18% at midday in midsummer. However, more recent measurements claim that the average is 13%. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to make any difference to any pictures, so there seems no reason to change anything. As far as advice to RK goes, well it depends. I've found sunny-16 to be quite reliable in the situations where you'd expect it to be reliable. ie, bright day with the sun behind me, and here in the UK there is a 3-stop difference between the highest and lowest reading, when the lowest reading is open shade. But if I wanted shadow detail I'd expose for the shadows or possibly use fill flash or a reflector if I had to include the sunlit highlights. Your exposures may have been wrong because the centre-weighting encompassed some very non-average elements, but I don't really see how it could have ruined both the highlights _and_ the shadows unless the brightness range of the scene far exceeded the latitude of your film. You'd need to tell us a bit more about the type of film you were using, what the predominant tones in the metering area were, and what the brightness range of the scene was. It's not usually a good time of day to be taking pictures. Any photographer worth his salt rests in some cool dark cantina with a glass of golden, foaming throat-charmer during the noonday hours. Why do they have to be done at that time of day? Why not wait until your shadow is longer than your height, or get up before sunrise? If you really must take pictures at noon, I'd recommend using an incident meter, measuring the light falling on the most important element of the scene, and basing your exposure around that. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, May 06, 2001, 1:47:32 PM, you wrote: > Didn't someone on this list mention a while back that the Sunny 16 rule > doesn't necessarily apply today due to advances in film emulsion? Or > something like that... > Norm > RK wrote: >> I've messed up some very important landscape shots- I had to take them >> about just after noon in blazing sunlight and the resulting images are >> ghastly: burnt out highlights with deep shadows. >> I showed them to a pro and he recommended I use the Sunny 16 rule >> whenever I take photos in bright sunshine- i.e., I ignore the CW meter >> reading. >> Is this good advice? I shoot print film and my usual outfit for outdoor >> shots would be a MZ5+17mm Tokina - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Sunny 16 Rule
Assuming that you are shooting in the same lighting conditions, double up on your pictures by shooting one using the Sunny 16 rule and another using the meter. The Sunny 16 rule is pretty accurate. The film makers used to always recommend it (perhaps paraphrased a bit) when they were still including instruction sheets with each roll of film. Also, if the distances are not enormous, you could use a bit of fill flash to open up the shadows. Sometimes it takes a "mojo" flash to do that, though. :-) Len --- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of RK > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:53 AM > To: Pentax discuss > Subject: Sunny 16 Rule > > > I've messed up some very important landscape shots- I > had to take them > about just after noon in blazing sunlight and the > resulting images are > ghastly: burnt out highlights with deep shadows. > I showed them to a pro and he recommended I use the > Sunny 16 rule > whenever I take photos in bright sunshine- i.e., I > ignore the CW meter > reading. > Is this good advice? I shoot print film and my usual > outfit for outdoor > shots would be a MZ5+17mm Tokina > Thanks. > RK > Yeah, I know late morning would have been great for > such shots but that > was not possible here. > Or should I just meter for the highlights next time > (there'll be a next > time tomorrow!) > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. > To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. > Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Hi, Bob,
Sounds just a tad cumbersome, don't you think?
Certainly, randomly assigning a number of photos to those who wish to critique is
the easiest way to do this. Now it seems that you're asking Chris (or whoever
co-ordinates this at any given time) to choose the best or most interesting
pictures. To wit:
> Specifically, you could pick 7-10 of
> the photos that were interesting or instructive for public critique.
>
The more complex and "value laden" (for lack of a better term) this is the better
the chance for failure. ("hey, why wasn't my image chosen for reveiw?").
Nope, I like Chris' idea as it is now. Everyone who wants to comment can,
everyone who wants a comment on their image will get at least one. What's fairer
or easier than that?
regards,
frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I like your new idea and hope you can work it out.
>
> You deserve our thanks for taking on the initial task of coordinating the
> critiques. Although trying to figure out what everybody was saying is a pain
> in the a__, I do appreciate your effort to try to make us all better
> photographers. And I am trying to read all the comments/critiques!
>
> I still don't think every photo deserves a public comment, or every
> contributor who requests a critique deserves a public critique. Maybe only
> the best should get a public critique. If 8 or 10 good comment threads
> started this way, it could be very informative.
>
> To build on your idea, I would be very happy if something like this
> happened...
>
> The gallery is opened and we all get a chance to review it.
>
> For the first 4-5 days, the pdml gets the rush of 'great photo John', or
> 'have you seen this one', or 'here are my 15 favorites', or 'these are the
> cave academe awards'.
>
> After the initial rush, the critiques start happening, public and private.
>
> At this point, you, Chris, could post a list to the pdml of the folks who
> want more criticism or feedback. Your pdml critiquers could then volunteer
> for specific photos where they felt comfortable giving feedback.
>
> You could then coordinate assignments. Specifically, you could pick 7-10 of
> the photos that were interesting or instructive for public critique. You
> might assign 3 or 2 people who are interested in a photo to give comments.
> But best of all, you might start 5 or 6 interesting discussion threads about
> the photos that we can all follow in detail and might want to add to.
>
> If you and the critiquer team were willing, you could also make assignments
> for private critiques. That way, you could assure each member submitting to
> the gallery who want comments received some feedback.
>
> I guess I'm bothered that the current critiques are so fragmented and
> unfocused. I can't follow and keep mental threads going on 90 PUG photos. I
> could be much happier following along on 8 or 10 good
> discussions...especially when the photographer was a willing participant.
>
> Hope this helps, Bob S.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Well, this certainly seems to be one of the more controversial topics
> lately. I decided to stop the assigned comments for every PUG entry for
> one reason, and this is it: the PUG is apparently a forum for displaying
> photos, not for critiquing them, and so commenting on every photo turns
> the PUG into a critiqued gallery. Although the critique was taking place
> on the PDML (which is a separate entity from the PUG, as Bill pointed
> out), it was still making some people uncomfortable. They were bothered
> by the fact that shots which they just wanted to share with people were
> being judged or criticized openly in the group, and I can understand their
> annoyance. The PUG isn't necessarily about posting your best photo with
> the intent of having it analyzed publicly; it can be more about just
> sharing a photo that means something to you. Anyway, since the PUG is not
> meant to be a critiqued gallery, I agree with the idea of not commenting
> on every photo.
>
> I originally suggested the idea of going back to the way it was before,
> where we commented on a photo or two if it caught our eye, and if we
> wanted comments on our photo we could just ask the PDML. However, since
> so many people have said that they find the comments useful and don't want
> them to stop, the list might get bogged down in comment requests. It
> would be nice if we could find a compromise. Here's one that's a mixture
> of my ideas and other people's suggestions; let me know what you think:
>
> We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, but only for the
> photographers each month who specifically request comments. I don't mind
> coordinating this, so we could give it a try and see how it goes. Since
> the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, send your request for
> comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask for comments in the
> letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna happen. All
RE: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
You only missed the opportunity to state the rules. The only acceptable solution will be to continue comments with the following rules: If you really dislike a picture, or are offended by a picture, let someone else comment on it. They may love it. There's no accounting for taste. If nobody likes the picture (a rare event) nothing will be said to activate the bleeding heart defenders or the Sir Galahad knight emulators (all hoping to win a lady's favors). If you must criticize at all, then only suggest ways to improve the picture. Comments like, "You should have left the lens cap on" or "Next time, leave your camera at home" are not considered to be constructive criticism. This way, we only voice our approval and all will remain sweetness and light. Will the comments help improve anyone's photography? Probably not, but we'll be able to share hugs all around and have a warm fuzzy feeling that we're on the track to photographic perfection. All of this proves an old Mongolian adage. "He who is about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup". Len, who obviously lied when he said he wasn't going to say any more on this topic. -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Lasse Karlsson > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 7:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA) > > > Chris, I'm really happy to hear that you haven't been > discouraged by the recent debate. > Let's hope that we will find a solution that will be > acceptable to most members. > > I am only adressing one of your suggestions here. > > > We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, > but only for the > > photographers each month who specifically request > comments. I don't mind > > coordinating this, so we could give it a try and > see how it goes. Since > > the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, > send your request for > > comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask > for comments in the > > letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna > happen. All you have > > to do is send a letter to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _ > and I want to have my > > photo commented on for the June PUG" or something > like that, and it'll be > > done. You'll have to do this each month when you > submit your photo, as > > there could be some months when you're showing an > image that, for whatever > > reason, you don't want comments on. > > ( I F we decide on any form of "release" from the > PUG participants:) > To me this seems like an unnecessary round of > messages and extra work for you as well as for the submitter. > Why not do it like this (it would be simple and it > wouldn't really cost anyone any extra work)?: > Each time we submit a photo for the PUG we can add > whatever comments we like around the picture, the > shooting situation or whatever. Now, if comments on > the list are welcome, we just add something like > "Comments on the PDML are welcome." > This wouldn't really cause anyone any extra work, and > the possible commentator can simply check for the > above phrase. > (Or have I missed something?) > > Lasse > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. > To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. > Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Canada expertise
It was strange to read about your experience with Pentax Canada. I've been there many times (I live fifteen minutes away, and often buy accessories like SMC filters there) and have always been impressed with the service. For example: loose zoom ring on FA 28-200 fixed in three days, out of adjustment diaphagm on FA 28-70 f4 reset in five minutes while I waited (I'd just gone in to see if there was a problem with the used lens, as something didn't look right). The service manager and the two technicians that I've spoken with seem very friendly and knowledgeable. You must've got a trainee on his first day or something. Pat
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Chris, I like your new idea and hope you can work it out. You deserve our thanks for taking on the initial task of coordinating the critiques. Although trying to figure out what everybody was saying is a pain in the a__, I do appreciate your effort to try to make us all better photographers. And I am trying to read all the comments/critiques! I still don't think every photo deserves a public comment, or every contributor who requests a critique deserves a public critique. Maybe only the best should get a public critique. If 8 or 10 good comment threads started this way, it could be very informative. To build on your idea, I would be very happy if something like this happened... The gallery is opened and we all get a chance to review it. For the first 4-5 days, the pdml gets the rush of 'great photo John', or 'have you seen this one', or 'here are my 15 favorites', or 'these are the cave academe awards'. After the initial rush, the critiques start happening, public and private. At this point, you, Chris, could post a list to the pdml of the folks who want more criticism or feedback. Your pdml critiquers could then volunteer for specific photos where they felt comfortable giving feedback. You could then coordinate assignments. Specifically, you could pick 7-10 of the photos that were interesting or instructive for public critique. You might assign 3 or 2 people who are interested in a photo to give comments. But best of all, you might start 5 or 6 interesting discussion threads about the photos that we can all follow in detail and might want to add to. If you and the critiquer team were willing, you could also make assignments for private critiques. That way, you could assure each member submitting to the gallery who want comments received some feedback. I guess I'm bothered that the current critiques are so fragmented and unfocused. I can't follow and keep mental threads going on 90 PUG photos. I could be much happier following along on 8 or 10 good discussions...especially when the photographer was a willing participant. Hope this helps, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Well, this certainly seems to be one of the more controversial topics lately. I decided to stop the assigned comments for every PUG entry for one reason, and this is it: the PUG is apparently a forum for displaying photos, not for critiquing them, and so commenting on every photo turns the PUG into a critiqued gallery. Although the critique was taking place on the PDML (which is a separate entity from the PUG, as Bill pointed out), it was still making some people uncomfortable. They were bothered by the fact that shots which they just wanted to share with people were being judged or criticized openly in the group, and I can understand their annoyance. The PUG isn't necessarily about posting your best photo with the intent of having it analyzed publicly; it can be more about just sharing a photo that means something to you. Anyway, since the PUG is not meant to be a critiqued gallery, I agree with the idea of not commenting on every photo. I originally suggested the idea of going back to the way it was before, where we commented on a photo or two if it caught our eye, and if we wanted comments on our photo we could just ask the PDML. However, since so many people have said that they find the comments useful and don't want them to stop, the list might get bogged down in comment requests. It would be nice if we could find a compromise. Here's one that's a mixture of my ideas and other people's suggestions; let me know what you think: We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, but only for the photographers each month who specifically request comments. I don't mind coordinating this, so we could give it a try and see how it goes. Since the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, send your request for comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask for comments in the letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna happen. All you have to do is send a letter to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _ and I want to have my photo commented on for the June PUG" or something like that, and it'll be done. You'll have to do this each month when you submit your photo, as there could be some months when you're showing an image that, for whatever reason, you don't want comments on. This method works best if there is a relatively large number of people who want their photos commented on. If only a handful of people each month request comments, then there's no point in my coordinating it and they might as well post their requests directly to the PDML. But at least for the next couple of months try mailing me directly if you want, and we'll see how it works and what kind of response we get. For the commentators: are you still interested in doing this? Since you're commenting on assigned photo
Re: Sunny 16 Rule
Didn't someone on this list mention a while back that the Sunny 16 rule doesn't necessarily apply today due to advances in film emulsion? Or something like that... Norm RK wrote: > I've messed up some very important landscape shots- I had to take them > about just after noon in blazing sunlight and the resulting images are > ghastly: burnt out highlights with deep shadows. > I showed them to a pro and he recommended I use the Sunny 16 rule > whenever I take photos in bright sunshine- i.e., I ignore the CW meter > reading. > Is this good advice? I shoot print film and my usual outfit for outdoor > shots would be a MZ5+17mm Tokina - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Cool. Chris Brogden wrote: > Any thoughts on this? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
I, for one, think that's an excellent compromise. I actually couldn't understand those who said that doing the critiques seemed "too much like homework". If so, take your name off the list of commentators. Why use that as a reason to shut down the whole idea? My guess is that most of those who have commented to date will continue to do so, and that most who contribute images to PUG will request comments. I know that I intend to be in both camps, assuming that you get enough support for your new idea. I find personal value in both commenting, and being commented upon. Seems to me that no one gets hurt this way. Thin skin? Only want to submit a family snapshot that you don't want commented upon? That works. Want criticism? That works too. I like it Chris. Count me in. regards, frank Chris Brogden wrote: > Well, this certainly seems to be one of the more controversial topics > lately. I decided to stop the assigned comments for every PUG entry for > one reason, and this is it: the PUG is apparently a forum for displaying > photos, not for critiquing them, and so commenting on every photo turns > the PUG into a critiqued gallery. Although the critique was taking place > on the PDML (which is a separate entity from the PUG, as Bill pointed > out), it was still making some people uncomfortable. They were bothered > by the fact that shots which they just wanted to share with people were > being judged or criticized openly in the group, and I can understand their > annoyance. The PUG isn't necessarily about posting your best photo with > the intent of having it analyzed publically; it can be more about just > sharing a photo that means something to you. Anyway, since the PUG is not > meant to be a critiqued gallery, I agree with the idea of not commenting > on every photo. > > I originally suggested the idea of going back to the way it was before, > where we commented on a photo or two if it caught our eye, and if we > wanted comments on our photo we could just ask the PDML. However, since > so many people have said that they find the comments useful and don't want > them to stop, the list might get bogged down in comment requests. It > would be nice if we could find a compromise. Here's one that's a mixture > of my ideas and other people's suggestions; let me know what you think: > > We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, but only for the > photographers each month who specifically request comments. I don't mind > coordinating this, so we could give it a try and see how it goes. Since > the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, send your request for > comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask for comments in the > letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna happen. All you have > to do is send a letter to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _ and I want to have my > photo commented on for the June PUG" or something like that, and it'll be > done. You'll have to do this each month when you submit your photo, as > there could be some months when you're showing an image that, for whatever > reason, you don't want comments on. This method works best if there is a > relatively large number of people who want their photos commented on. If > only a handful of people each month request comments, then there's no > point in my coordinating it and they might as well post their requests > directly to the PDML. But at least for the next couple of months try > mailing me directly if you want, and we'll see how it works and what kind > of response we get. > > For the commentators: are you still interested in doing this? Since > you're commenting on assigned photos, you're likely having to talk about > photos that you may not be interested in, and it may feel like school work > or like something that you do because you have to, not because you want > to. If you feel like this (and it's a perfectly understandable way to > feel), just drop me a note off-list and I'll take you off the commentators > list. That way you can choose to talk about the photos which interest you > and about which you feel you have something meaningful to say, at your > discretion. If it feels more like homework than fun, why do it? > > This should hopefully address most of the objections that were > raised. The default for photos submitted to the PUG will be "no > comments", and you'll have to mail me directly *each month* if you want > the commentators to talk about your shot. (Or you could wait and see if > anyone on the list comments indivdually, of course.) I hope this is > satisfactory to those people who are hesitant to submit photos because of > the comments, or who don't see the PUG as a critiqued site. As for the > tone of the comments, use your own discretion. Try to point out what you > like along with what you don't, and feel confident that if you do say > something that pisses people off you'll never hear the end of it, right > Sh
Re: PUG Comments (NEW IDEA)
Chris, I'm really happy to hear that you haven't been discouraged by the recent debate. Let's hope that we will find a solution that will be acceptable to most members. I am only adressing one of your suggestions here. > We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, but only for the > photographers each month who specifically request comments. I don't mind > coordinating this, so we could give it a try and see how it goes. Since > the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, send your request for > comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask for comments in the > letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna happen. All you have > to do is send a letter to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _ and I want to have my > photo commented on for the June PUG" or something like that, and it'll be > done. You'll have to do this each month when you submit your photo, as > there could be some months when you're showing an image that, for whatever > reason, you don't want comments on. ( I F we decide on any form of "release" from the PUG participants:) To me this seems like an unnecessary round of messages and extra work for you as well as for the submitter. Why not do it like this (it would be simple and it wouldn't really cost anyone any extra work)?: Each time we submit a photo for the PUG we can add whatever comments we like around the picture, the shooting situation or whatever. Now, if comments on the list are welcome, we just add something like "Comments on the PDML are welcome." This wouldn't really cause anyone any extra work, and the possible commentator can simply check for the above phrase. (Or have I missed something?) Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Pentax stuff for sale
Hello, In an effort to clean out some of my never or seldom used camera items, I have the following things to offer the list before I head elsewhere with them: * Super Program * Pentax 135 F3.5 M * Tamron FA 28-105 F4-5.6 AF * Pentax FA 28-70 F4 AF * Pentax F 80-200 F4.7-5.6 AF Condition of all is excellent and prices are very attractive. See more details at: http://www.komkon.org/~itsed/Temp/lens.htm E-mail me privately if interested in anything. Thanks, Ed - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Manual for Motor Drive MX ?
Hi all, I don't suppose anyone might have an active link for a copy of the PDF for the Motor Drive MX ? Much appreciated. Cheers, Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG Commentary - John Hope's "Frank"
At 15:11 6/05/01, Shel wrote: >John, this is a fine photo. It shows a part of Frank's character >quite clearly. The straight ahead look over the glasses and the >slope of Frank's shoulders give this photo a great deal of strength. > >However, there are a few small elements in the background that >detract somewhat from the impact that this photo is capable of. I >also feel that this photograph would be better served in B&W. Try >desaturating it, and bring down the bright spot on the forehead near >the hair line, lose or lessen the background distractions, and >you'll have a portrait rivaling some of the best made. A tighter >crop might also help increase the power of this portrait. Whew. Heady stuff. Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for the advice. I do like the image in B&W, I never thought of desaturating it to see what it'd look like. I may try to get it printed in B&W, if I can find someone to do it. In the meantime, Photoshop, here I come. Cheers Jon Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Rollei 35,
nicely translated Jeff! - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Does Z-1 / PZ-1 have 2nd curtain flash sync ?
Hello Jos, Do you think with a special electronic circuit in the cable I can obtain 2nd curtain synchronization ? It would be great as I finally discovered that 2nd curtain synchronization can be performed on the Z-1 only with a 'sophisticated' dedicated PENTAX flash unit ( such as AF330FTZ / AF400FTZ / AF240FT). I use a basic AF220T flash unit and for the volleyball club for which I take pictures, I would like to have nice shots with illumination at the end of the movement. Thanks again for your answer, Regards, Cyril MARION > Hi Cyril, > > The Z-1/PZ-1 has a very straight forward flash trigger system: > > The leading edge of the flash trigger pulse is synchronised > with the first curtain and the trailing edge is synchronised > with the second curtain. > Normally a flash will fire on the leading edge. > But with some simple electronics inside the flash or in the > flash cable between camera and flash, the leading edge can be > ignored and the flash will be fired on the trailing edge. > > Regards, Jos (from Holland) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: Strange languages, was: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: Rollei 35,
There´s no arguing with that (although I could add something in Finnish). All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Daphne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 05. toukokuuta 2001 23:51 Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Rollei 35, >as the hebrew saying goes, al taam vareich ein lehitvakeah :-)) > >Daphne > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Sunny 16 Rule
I've messed up some very important landscape shots- I had to take them about just after noon in blazing sunlight and the resulting images are ghastly: burnt out highlights with deep shadows. I showed them to a pro and he recommended I use the Sunny 16 rule whenever I take photos in bright sunshine- i.e., I ignore the CW meter reading. Is this good advice? I shoot print film and my usual outfit for outdoor shots would be a MZ5+17mm Tokina Thanks. RK Yeah, I know late morning would have been great for such shots but that was not possible here. Or should I just meter for the highlights next time (there'll be a next time tomorrow!) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Commentary for Jones, Francis, Marion, Thornsberry
Hi William, Thanks for your kind words on my photo. As you said i did realise there was some technical problems, had trouble with that wallabies head, i realised this at the time, but couldnt do much about it. Thanks, Paul Jones - Original Message - From: "William Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 11:09 PM Subject: Commentary for Jones, Francis, Marion, Thornsberry > Hi, > > What a great gallery this month! This month I'm happy > to comment on the following images; > > "My other half", by Paul Jones. Ummm I think that > I am going to save this one for last. > > " Tom Paxton at the Freight ", by John Francis. I > really like the tonal quality of this print. The > grain adds texture without being excessive to the > point of calling attention to itself. I like the > "moment" too, but it would be fun to see him singing > in the mic also. I'm not sure it would be any better, > and my guess is, that you got some like that and > didn't like them as well as this one. Another > alternate shot that would be fun would be something > with a wider lens (100mm??) that would show the > performer and also enough of the club so that we could > see the environment of the "Freight & Salvage". > As it is, there really isn't a sense of "place", it > could have been taken anywhere. Nevertheless, I > really like this photo. My point is that with this > good subject, and your good low light technique, there > is a lot of good photos to be made, but I'm not sure > that any would be better than this. Good Job! > > " The Bench ", by Cyril Marion. I don't know if this > picture is meant to be funny or not, but I get a > chuckle out of it. It almost seems as though the man > is waiting for a boat to come by and take him to work! > Great grab shot, and I think that the softening > background due to the use of a wider aperture actually > helps set off the subject. I think that I would have > cropped out the empty sky though. Also, the image > seems to lack some "vibrancy", perhaps lost in > scanning. > > " Dam, Mammoth Spring Arkansas ", by Kevin > Thornsberry. What makes this shot work is the brush > on the left, this adds the needed "depth" to the > image. The shadow areas are dark and left somewhat > mysterious, and I find myself wanting to see more at > the top of the image. I wonder how this image would > have looked on a cloudy day? Perhaps it would be too > "conventional". Anyway, this is a neat shot. > > Which brings me to Paul Jones' picture. One of the > great joys of photography is how we can record moments > of our daily lives as a "souvenir" of sorts, where we > have been, what we did, and who we were with. Usually > these photos will not have a lot of significance to > people who are not involved in the "memory". > > Usually. > > Paul, I think that you realize that there may be some > nit-picky things wrong with this picture, but still > you liked it enough to post to the PUG. I would like > to thank you for that, because, I like it too, enough > that I have chosen this photo for my wallpaper this > month. It reminds me not to let life's experiences > pass by unrecorded. I think that years down the road, > this photo will hold more significance for you than > any flora/fauna pictures taken that day. > > Again, great gallery folks, > > Thanks, > > William in Utah. > > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
PUG Commentary - Erin Dayton's "Contradicting Lines"
This is a surprisingly good photo, and, considering the age and experience of the photographer, an exceptional piece. Erin caught the pattern and contrast of the situation, which, I believe, many of us may have overlooked or missed entirely. In fact, it took an outside influence for me to see what Erin saw so quickly and easily. I was reading the latest copy of LensWork and saw some studio shots of leaves and wires, in which the shape of the leaves played off the straight lines of the wires. "These photos look familiar," I thought, and then I recalled Erin's photograph. One thought for improvement - and it's just a personal aesthetic - but I think the photo might have more impact if the leaf was turned a bit to the left, so that the stem crosses the lines of the background at a somewhat more perpendicular angle. Sometimes it's the last shot that's the winner. Erin's photo clearly shows that we should not stop seeing when we think we're done photographing. I'm glad you took that last shot, too. Good work, Erin! -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Ebay Negative Feedback OT
I'm pretty sure you can leave feedback on an auction after the 90days aslong as you know the auction number. I did it once. cya - Original Message - From: "Gerald Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Ebay Negative Feedback OT > On Fri, 4 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Actually, there is a way. Feedback can be left for up to 90 days. > > >I don't recall where on eBay I found this, but if you can find it, > > >wait until the 90th day and then leave the feedback. By then the > > >buyer will have probably forgotten about the incident, and IAC it > > >will be too late for a retaliatory response. > > > > Good idea. > > How about this: Wait until the last *hour* of the 90 day period (I've found > > eBay times everything to the second. Although I haven't tested it with the > > 90 day feedback limit, I'd bet it applies there as well.) That way they > > won't find out about your feedback until after it's too late. Kinda like > > snipe bidding ;) > > Is 23:59:59 PST always the cut-off time, or do they go by the end time of > the auction? I won an auction 3 days ago and have been emailing the seller > everyday, but no response. Strange, as he was quick to answer my emails > prior to the end of the auction. His reserve price was met so I don't know > what the problem is... > > Gerald > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
PUG Commentary - John Hope's "Frank"
John, this is a fine photo. It shows a part of Frank's character quite clearly. The straight ahead look over the glasses and the slope of Frank's shoulders give this photo a great deal of strength. However, there are a few small elements in the background that detract somewhat from the impact that this photo is capable of. I also feel that this photograph would be better served in B&W. Try desaturating it, and bring down the bright spot on the forehead near the hair line, lose or lessen the background distractions, and you'll have a portrait rivaling some of the best made. A tighter crop might also help increase the power of this portrait. Here are a couple of Q&D suggestions: http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/Frank2.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/Frank1.jpg -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: No more PUG comments
On Sun, 6 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My disagreement with the PUG comment process isn't based on the controversy > over Shel's critique. Let me summarize again. I would also like to point out publically that Shel's comments had *nothing* to do with the decision to stop commenting on every photo. > 1a) If you want a serious critique on your photos, there are plenty of other > galleries available. Why not take your stuff there. Do it on the net, do it > face to face at a local club. You'll find plenty of folks to critique you. I think talking about the photos that we shoot is a lot more on-topic than a lot of posts to the list. If we can talk about film, tripods and equipment, why not our photos as well? > 2) The PUG critiques are too much like a homework assignment. The PUG is a > large collection of pictures. I struggle every month to take a serious look > at the photos and make some comments on those I like, public or private > comments. This is the alternate method I'm considering, which is to have nothing organized and to let everyone comment on the shots (if any) that strike them. Or whatever. If not enough people ask to have their photos commented on, then we should just go back to this way. > Right now, I have 40+ emails critiquing photos to read on this month's > PUG. I don't want to read them until I view the pictures and form my > own opinions. Why are we creating all this public traffic? To make > sure that EACH contributor gets at least ONE critique? That was the idea. People were putting in a lot of time to take and scan images; the PUGmeisters were taking time out of their lives to put up the page each month, and it seemed like all we did on the list was talk about equipment, not our photos and the wonderful PUG. Some months the PUG would be lucky to get one or two mentions on the list, and that didn't seem right. You might as well ask, why create all the public traffic about film, tripods, camera stores, etc? Some people find photos more interesting. Me, I like both. > Isn't there a better way to do this privately, or as Boz suggested on > another list? Someone else can set up a list if they want to.Sure, we could do it privately, but then we're missing the chance for other people to jump in on the thread and comment on the comments, often resulting in a more balanced perspective on a photo. > (And who says these critiques are any good?) No one; who says your photos are any good?The point is *not* to provide a professional critique. It's just to say what you like or didn't like about a photo. It's simple, and you don't have to know anything about art to do it. > 2a) Do you really think all 90 pictures in the gallery need a public > critique? I liked the old method better. 8 or 10 of the best or most > noteworthy pictures got called to our attention and a critique (albeit > a weak critique in public). The remaining pictures may or may not > have gotten private feedback. So what's wrong with this? Can't we > learn to give each other feedback in private? When someone asks a question about equipment (especially non-Pentax stuff like film, bags, etc.), why don't you urge everyone to answer off-list then? Are you saying that that is more on-topic than our photos? I would disagree. The initial feedback is only part of the process; the responses and discussions that can follow are the real gems. If you don't think that the benefits of comments on our photos are worth the bandwidth used, then at least realize that some people feel the same about equipment. Why shouldn't we give opinions in public? chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
