Re: ThanksPentaxGiving?
Sounds like Thanksgiving to me. Toss a turkey in there somewhere and you have it nailed! Cory Waters Wishing he was snowed-in in Lake Tahoe :) - Original Message - From: "Juan J. Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, not heartwarming, but hey. > > Since in Argentina there's no Thanksgiving (it seems like we just killed the > indians without taking their food first), the holiday means little for us. > Also, we don't have any family in the US besides my wife and myself. So, for > the second year, we rented the same cabin in South Lake Tahoe with the same > two good friends (he's Mexican, she's Spanish, no thanksgiving for them > either) Spent the weekend playing cards, seeing the snow fall, and wondering > how the heck we'll get out of here tomorrow. No turkey either, but I made > empanadas. > > I shot some frames in the lake with the K1000, new for me. It's a very nice > camera, it's good to have the same interface as the MX :-) > > Right now, we just came out of the outdoor jacuzzi we have here. Snow > everywhere, your body is warm in the water and your head freezes. Oh, we got > a few pictures of us there taken with the ZX-5n. > > j > > > = > -- > Juan J. Buhler > http://www.jbuhler.com > Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. > http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 > - > 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: ThanksPentaxGiving?
>Right now, we just came out of the outdoor jacuzzi we have here. Snow >everywhere, your body is warm in the water and your head freezes. Oh, we got >a few pictures of us there taken with the ZX-5n. C'mon Juan - post 'em up! Never one to miss a chance of soem bear neked flesh ;-) Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://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 .
Club M42 is moving!
Hi folks Club M42, originally in the yahoo clubs platform (http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/clubm42) is moving. I have set up the Club M42 in the yahoogroups platform (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClubM42) ... and over the course of the next few months, I hope to do a slow migration. The Club version will still be around for a while but anyone interested should subscribe to the Groups version. I have ported over the bookmarks list and expanded it from the original 14 links to about 30 now. If you are a yahoo member, you can use Yahoo's " My Yahoo" to add the subscription. Else, you can subscribe by sending blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** What is Club M42 ? ** A unifying platform which discusses the convergence and divergence of lenses made in the M42 screwmount, used on OEM manufacturers like Pentax, Praktica/Zeiss Jena, early Zeiss Ikon, Isco-Gottiengen, KMZ/Mir, third party manufacturers etc. Also how these lenses can be adapted for a wide-range of modern cameras e.g Canon EOS,Nikon AF, Minolta , Pentax K-AF, Pentacon Scan etc. ** Please also feel free to add any related bookmarks you may wish to. Hope to see you there! - 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: Surprise Birthday Present
You may be right, John. James, it sounds like you weren't very happy at your job, so maybe this is for the best. That being said, it is still a hugely traumatic experience to be forced out of a job at any time, and I'm sure this is a very difficult time for you, James. All the best. -frank John Coyle wrote: > James, this could be a blessing! I was retrenched in 1987, and used my > severance pay to set up my own business; it has gone well, and has turned out > to be the best thing that could have happened to me! > I hope all turns out well for you too - at least now, as you say, you will have > time for the things in life that really matter. > All the best > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > > On Sunday, November 25, 2001 5:13 AM, jmadams [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > wrote: > > This Wednesday, I had my 54th birthday. Late yesterday afternoon I received > > an unexpected, if not welcome present, I was given severance from my > > position as Plant Technician, after 18 months of pure hell. What a blessed > > relief, no more stress to wreck my health. > > > > I trust and pray I will not need to sell any of my camera gear, as I would > > be hard pushed to replace it. God has always looked after us, so I have no > > fear I will be able to find a new and better job. Even though the gloom > > merchants of the press and politicians and griping that BC is in recession, > > but I've heard that so often before. What a bunch of liers and losers. > > > > This will give me a chance to spend some much needed time with my wife and > > six children. Thankfully our other two sons are living in England, and in > > their twenties. > > As I have not been able to get out on the Richmond Dykes for almost ten > > months, I have not had a chance to take any bird photos. I have seen and > > heard so many migrating birds this past few weeks, I'm itching to get out > > there with my camera. The Snow Geese have been arriving in large numbers, > > also Snowy Owls, Great Horned and Long-eared Owls and every kind of and duck > > to boot. > > > > Sorry, had to get this of my chest, but your great and thoughtful listeners > > James > > - > - > 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 optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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: Schwarschild?
Hi Peter, Welcome to the list! When the indications in the finder twink it means that you are reading an amount of light outside the possibilities of the Z-1p meter. I'm sure no camera can measure light in a way it can take the Schwarzshild effect into account, BTW. The LX can expose for several minutes, so that the effect should induce strange behaviour in certain films, but I've had no experience of that. Gianfranco - Original Message - From: Peter Smekal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: Schwarschild? > Hi, this is the first time for me in this discussion group. I start with a > question. > I recently bought what seemed to be the last Z1-p available in Sweden. It is > often described as an outdated model with an outdated auto-focus, but so far > I think it works great. I really like this camera. > However, when using the hyper-manual mode in certain "darker" situations - > inside churches for instance - both shutter and aperture numbers in the > viewer and the LCD field are twinkling. At the same time it is still > possible to find a suitable combination of aperture and shutter speed with > the help of the measurement scale in the viewer. So what does the double > twinkling indicate? Is the camera working correctly? > I have received different answers. One of the Pentax-people in town told me > that the twinkling of both figures is just a warning to use a tripod or a > flashlight, another one told me that is means that you are outside the > measurement area of the camera. Somebody explained that it had something to > do with a "Schwarzschild-effect" and that the exposure measurement is > outside the "linear are". What is true of all this? > T i a > Peter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 - 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: I just got engaged & my week
Hi, Amita, Sounds like you had a pretty good week. By some co-incidence, I just got a Yashica Mat, for which I paid just under $50 US, on eBay. I haven't received it yet, but like yours, the meter doesn't work. Can't wait to run a few rolls through it. But, the real reason I'm answering your post, is about cold hands. When I'm taking piccies in the cold, I use a pair of mittens that turn into fingerless gloves. In other words, the part of the mitten that covers the fingers flips out of the way, and sticks to the back of the hand with velcro. That way, you only need to expose your fingers for a few minutes while you manipulate your camera. Around here (Toronto), they're available at any discount store for around $5. Hope you can find some to see if they work for you. regards frank Amita Guha wrote: > Just wanted to thank all of you for your good > wishes. :) I would have done this sooner but I've > been very busy for the last week! ;) No, really, > he asked me a week ago Friday, then we spent > Saturday night/Sunday morning shooting the > Leonids, then Sunday afternoon we went to a camera > show here in the city, where I got a mint > condition Yashicamat, my very first TLR, for $50. > It works perfectly except for the light meter. > > > And now I have a question for you guys. How do you > handle the problem of cold hands? The only pair of > gloves I had that were thin enough to let me work > didn't keep my hands very warm. I had to keep > putting them in my pockets to warm them up. And > forget about changing lenses; for the first two > mornings it was way too cold for that! > > Hope you all had a good week! (and Thanksgiving if > you celebrate it :) > > --Amita > - -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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: ThanksPentaxGiving?
Cory wrote: > Anybody got any heartwarming Pentax/Thanksgiving stories to tell. We had beautiful weather here. I ran a 10k race in the morning -- 36:14 :( -- and then Lisa and I took her parents out to a local park for a walk on the trails. I took the MZ-S, FA*80-200/2.8, FA*24/2.0 and Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 and got some beautiful shots...I think. It was a great day, regardless. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.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: Vs: What Zoom?
In a message dated 11/25/01 3:33:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Sigma APO Macro Super 4-5.6/70-300. I have the earlier non-Super version and > the new one has tested even better. > All the best! > Raimo > Thanks Raimo! Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 .
ZX-10 and 28-70 f/4 SMC-FA
I had my ZX-M with me while doing family Thankgiving visits and took a few snapshots of nieces and nephews. Most of the snapshots turned out fine (thanks to 400-speed print film, f/16 and a big honking flash) but for the first time since I've had my camera I really regretted having to focus manually. The ZX-M is just the ticket for the static landscape and nature subjects that I bought it for but maybe something closer to "point and shoot" would be a nice adjunct. Manually focusing for candid shots of small children is a bit frustrating at times. I'd be interested in opinions on the idea on buying a used ZX-10 body and 28-70 f/4 SMC-FA lens to use as an fast-shooting, easy to carry snapshot-taking machine. The ZX-10 in auto-focus and program-exposure mode should work just about like a point and shoot camera and it even has a built-in flash. Is that flash powerful enough for 10-15 foot snapshots with 400-speed film? The advantage to this idea is that my prime MF lenses will work on the ZX-10 and the SMC-FA zoom will work on my ZX-M so I have some redundancy. Having that zoom to use on the ZX-M might mean I can put off buying the expensive 24mm f/2.8 SMC lens that I've been considering as my first wide-angle lens. The ZX-10/Zoom combination cost about the same as the 24mm prime lens, believe it or not (although I realize the quality of the zoom at 28mm will not hold a candle to that of the 24mm prime). - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
In a message dated 11/25/01 3:45:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > "One hindrance slowing digital down, is that it's closely associated with > computers. Not everyone wants or cares about them." Precisely my point. > high percentage of people who buy digital cameras, > also have computers. The rest, also a significant number, don't care and > will continue using film cameras." Um-hm. > hink it's only a matter of time before digital imaging becomes the rule, > as opposed to the new-fangled exception." I would add, as you proposed above, "for those who have computers." At what point computers stop their penetration into the American home is not known, but the saturation point is near, with a huge percentage of "new" computers being replacements as opposed to being bought by those who don't already own at least one computer***. ***I own four computers: 3 dead and 1 (this one) working. As the sales of "new owner" PCs steadily decline, fewer and fewer devices used by computers will be sold. One thing forgotten in the debate is most PDML members are well educated, with steady, good paying jobs and with a good degree of disposable income, a factor always considered when buying a computer. But PDML members probably represent PC/MAC owners more than they represent "average" or lower middle class Americans, the "Joe Six-packs." As a class, PDML members have monies to indulge many of their whims, "hobby" photography, the Internet and digital imaging being a few. But it is outrageous for the few of us to believe we somehow know how non-computer, non-digital camera owners feel or will do in the future. In this debate, we have imperiously superimposed our own various indulgences on the American public, the vast majority of whom do ~not~ own computers or digital anything. As America's massive layoffs continue, even fewer PCs/digital cameras/handheld devices will be sold. **America's youth, formerly the prime candidates for new desk/laptops, have chosen instead to go handheld "wireless", with no or limited need for a computer for their basic communications, including Email, note taking, class/date/test scheduling, all tasks previously done with computers now being performed by wireless devices. *Some handheld wireless devices have digital imaging add-ons. Even there, it is a matter of economics and the availability of repeaters for wireless devices. As long as computers require electricity and ISPs who demand more and more of people's disposable dollars** for their services, computers will penetrate so far and no more. *A $899 1 GIG computer is no bargain for the indigent family. There are growing concerns among American educators who see their poorer students using computers at school but are students who do not have access to computers at home for whatever reason. As the story goes: "Aye, there's the rub." **I pay $7.99 a month for my AT&T ISP/long distance service, nearly one-hundred dollars a year that many of our poor simply don't have. There's a catch there also. You need phone service to a known (fixed) street address to have an ISP. Too many Americans still don't have regular telephone service. > I'm STILL going to go down, belly on the ground, pounding my fists and > kicking my feet." > Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 .
Shades of Photoshop
Mafud: >> Not in ~my~ experiences with Photoshop. Isaac: >>How many years? What versions? How much per day? Any schooling? Whew, these are truly pertinent questions. One of my writers at the magazine was John Paul Caponigro, the son of the great landscape photographer Paul Caponigro and a pre-eminent artist using digital imaging techniques. He was a VERY early adopter of digital printing methods, and had a copy of the very first version of Adobe Photoshop. He now writes widely about Photoshop techniques, including a recent book about it. He's a beta-tester for Adobe and keeps abreast of every version and the techniques of other users. And even HE told me that he still doesn't know everything about Photoshop--every now and then he learns something he wasn't aware of. My former art director used Photoshop every day in her work and was really good with it (I thought) and yet she described herself to me as "middle of the pack" in terms of Photoshop skills. (What she had really mastered was Quark.) Photoshop is definitely not something you either know or don't know. It's always a matter of degree. --Mike - 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 .
Sorry Test only
- 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: Depreciation of assets
Frantisek Vlcek wrote: > Awful! Look at a better model: in Vietnam, AFAIK, taxes are not > extracted from individuals but from corporations. To NOT tax > corporations is just awful. The simple most externality producing > entity, a big corporation, doesn't pay for the externalities it > produces. That's immoral. Not necessarily. When corporations are taxed, the same profit get taxed twice; once on the corp profit, and once on the dividend income to the shareholders. Thus, if five people start up a business as a partnership, they will probalbly pay less taxes than if they start the same business as a corporation, although we have subchapter S corps for some, but not all corps, which allows treatment as if they were partners. There is no logical economic reason for double taxation, even with large corporations, as long as it is done fairly. There are, however, special tax laws for certain types of businesses (like oil companies), and certain transactions (like stock options) that can operate unfairly at times. It is the special tax breaks, however, that are the problem. Double taxation of corporate profits in general, IMHO, is still counterproductive and therefore unwise. It forces corporations to avoid paying the dividends they should really pay to their owners, the shareholders, which, for most corporations, are middle-income individuals. Dan -- Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanley, Powers & Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://danmatyola.com Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399 - 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 .
Time Spent Photographing
Geordie wrote: > Any > moment you have free time, jump outside and start shooting. > > > It works. So true. Photography is like jogging: the more time you devote exclusively to it, the greater the benefit you will reap. I learned this when I was testing cameras. There were times when I'd just have to go somewhere and run film through the camera, so I could write about it. But gradually it dawned on me that every now and then I was getting a picture from these "wasted" rolls that I really liked--and it was always something I never would have dreamed of taking on purpose. When you say "it works," heartily seconded. --Mike - 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: Schwarschild?
Thank you for this answer, Gianfranco, but why is it then still possible to set a seemingly right combination of shutter speed (let's say 10 s) and aperture (maybe 5.6) at the "zero point" "thermometer scale" in the viewfinder? That seems contradictory to me. 01-11-25 15.04, Gianfranco Irlanda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Welcome to the list! > > When the indications in the finder twink it means that you are > reading an amount of light outside the possibilities of the Z-1p > meter. > > I'm sure no camera can measure light in a way it can take the > Schwarzshild effect into account, BTW. The LX can expose for > several minutes, so that the effect should induce strange > behaviour in certain films, but I've had no experience of that. > > Gianfranco > > - Original Message - > From: Peter Smekal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:23 PM > Subject: Schwarschild? > > >> Hi, this is the first time for me in this discussion group. I > start with a >> question. >> I recently bought what seemed to be the last Z1-p available in > Sweden. It is >> often described as an outdated model with an outdated > auto-focus, but so far >> I think it works great. I really like this camera. >> However, when using the hyper-manual mode in certain "darker" > situations - >> inside churches for instance - both shutter and aperture > numbers in the >> viewer and the LCD field are twinkling. At the same time it is > still >> possible to find a suitable combination of aperture and > shutter speed with >> the help of the measurement scale in the viewer. So what does > the double >> twinkling indicate? Is the camera working correctly? >> I have received different answers. One of the Pentax-people in > town told me >> that the twinkling of both figures is just a warning to use a > tripod or a >> flashlight, another one told me that is means that you are > outside the >> measurement area of the camera. Somebody explained that it had > something to >> do with a "Schwarzschild-effect" and that the exposure > measurement is >> outside the "linear are". What is true of all this? >> T i a >> Peter >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> - > Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. > http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 > - > 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: what I think of current digital cameras
- Original Message - From: aimcompute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Pentax Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 3:45 AM Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras > I'm STILL going to go down, belly on the ground, pounding my fists and > kicking my feet. > > Tom C. I've heard this sentiment many times, and I've never understood it. As soon as digital cameras can do what I want at a price I like, I'll dump film in a heartbeat. As long as my images look the way I want to, that is the important thing. If I can do it more conviently and possibly less expensivly, I'm all for it. I'd never dream of putting plegding allegience to a certain process just because its all I've ever used, or even just because all of my current equipment uses it. Images first, then the process... Isaac> > > - Original Message - > From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:50 AM > Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > It seems you may be talking about the printing process where I'm talking > > about the imaging process (the ability to record and capture the image). > > Not sure. > > > > I agree that quality, may sometimes be subjective depending on the desired > > results or intended use. In that case quality is perceived versus > measured, > > and is very much in the eye of the beholder. I may like Monet, you may > like > > Picasso. > > > > But is that always the case (that quality is subjective)? Let's compare > > theoretical lenses A and B. We run them through the same set of tests and > > have measured results. Lets say lens B comes out on top. We claim lems B > > is better, while lens A is inferior. We don't simply say they have > > different qualities. We say one is of lesser or higher quality than the > > other. Lens A may very well not be able to produce as sharp, as clear, as > > distortion-free, as "robust" an image as lens B (in vernacular terms). Of > > course there may be some qualities that cannot be measured. > > > > The point I'm making (or attempting to make ) probably boils down to > > this. Correct me if I'm wrong. A 35mm film frame has the ability to > record > > more information than the same size CCD, given that one exists . The > "data > > density" is higher, among other things. This means that we are able to > make > > a larger image with the film, than with the CCD before we see degradation > > (fuzziness, grain, lack of definition, etc.) > > > > As a general consumer item, as used by most consumers, digital cameras may > > produce images that are just as good as film, in the eye of the one taking > > the photos. But try to do those things that most consumers don't do, and > > that I believe is where film wins out. > > > > Same argument can be made for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF. The reason for using > the > > larger format is to record more information, to produce a better image at > a > > given print size. That's mostly what I was meaning by the word quality. > > > > > > Sorry, I'm not intending to argue or belabor the point. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 10:38 PM > > Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras > > > > > > > Tom C. wrote: > > > > > > > Digital photography is not yet about QUALITY > > > > > > Well, I'm repeating myself, but I respectfully disagree. I was a hard > sell > > > on quality for many years. Photographs, however, do not have "quality"; > > they > > > have qualitieS. > > > > > > That is, the results of different films, cameras, formats, printing > > methods > > > and materials, alternate processes, and so forth and so on, each have > > their > > > own qualities. If you like one, you may not like another; but it's safe > to > > > say that no one universal definition of "quality" can be agreed upon. > > > Sharpness? But gum dichromate isn't sharp. Good color reproduction? > > > Obviously not! High contrast? Many platinum prints don't have that. > > > > > > We all like some things and not others. John Szarkowski, the famous > author > > > of photographic books and longtime Director of the Department of > > Photography > > > at the Museum of Modern Art, hates carbro prints. Personally, I think > > carbro > > > color perfectly suits the work of the process's most famous > practitioner, > > > Paul Outerbridge, but I loathe Cibachrome prints--can't stand 'em. I > > > personally really love the look of 35mm Tri-X, actually preferring it to > > > medium format black and white. Most would lean towards the other way > > around. > > > Many large-format devotees can't look at anything that's not made with > > sheet > > > film--they're just not interested. I like round prints, like early Kodak > > > pictures, or Emmett Gowin's or Sam Wang's. People have different > opinions > > > about the square. So
Re: Riddle of the Pentax lens
E> Aha! Bingo. I went to the B&H site and there it is, complete with E> patterned focusing ring. Now of course, I question why would they be E> testing any camera with a soft focus lens?... Oh well, at least the E> mystery is solved. Aha! Aha! Now PopPhoto goes to hell wrt accuracy of their tests. This will spread, that they use soft-focus lenses for their testing ;-))) Probably a major Nikon advertisement in the same issue, eh? Conspiracy, it's all the same conspiracy! Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: MZ-S gripe - but still enjoying it.
MCA> Also if you have the strap attached using the battery grip lug then MCA> it is impossible to use the strap clasp's rod to press the mid-roll rewind MCA> button. What a poor plan. What a sh*t of a camera! I will not buy it after reading your message! (or maybe because I don't have enough money? Can I justify stealing if it is to get a new Pentax ;-) ? Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: A Battery of Questions ...
Also, the size of two 1.5V '44 batteries is one 3V lithium battery. I don't remember the number, though. I have one as backup for my SR/LR 44 when there is really cold weather, as lithium batteries have AFAIK best performance of the three types in cold weather (with alkaline the worst, silver around the middle and lithium the best). Frantisek - 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: Where Do I Go...
a> I've searched for several hours in the archives and my own saved stuff (I a> thought I saved it), but can't find it. It was within the last two weeks. Oh, in that case, I am sorry but I can't help you, my archives date mostly earlier than that. For about half the last year, I was reading PDML only trough the sometimes-working-sometimes-not web archive so I have saved only very few posts in html from that time. Sorry. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: I just got engaged & my week
On Sunday, November 25, 2001, at 08:36 AM, Amita Guha wrote: > No, really, > he asked me a week ago Friday, then we spent > Saturday night/Sunday morning shooting the > Leonids, then Sunday afternoon we went to a camera > show here in the city, where I got a mint > condition Yashicamat, my very first TLR, for $50. Wow, that's quite the weekend! > And now I have a question for you guys. How do you > handle the problem of cold hands? The only pair of > gloves I had that were thin enough to let me work > didn't keep my hands very warm. I had to keep > putting them in my pockets to warm them up. And > forget about changing lenses; for the first two > mornings it was way too cold for that! When shooting at Vanessa's hockey games, I found myself needing gloves (especially after getting the LX, whose surface seems to get much colder much more quickly than my ME Super). I ended up getting a pair of Thinsulate gloves with no fingers, but a mitt that flips over the fingertips if you want it. They're nice and thin, and keep most of my hand warm, except the fingers, which still have to go into the pockets between periods. Hey, all you hosers (or wannabe hosers, as it were), if any of you were watching Leafs vs. Bruins on Saturday night, Vanessa and I appeared briefly on the Hockey Night In Canada feed -- we were the couple down near the glass behind the net (behind Dafoe in the first and third and Joseph in the second), me in a blue Leafs away jersey and Vanessa in a white Leafs home jersey, holding up a Curtis Joseph action figure. We didn't see it, but were told that we did indeed appear. There's another digital advantage: if you spend enough money on scanners, printers and consumables, your distributor will give you free kick-ass hockey tickets! -Aaron - 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: Monopod for heavy camera
On Saturday, November 24, 2001, at 06:53 AM, David Brooks wrote: > Aaron.I asume you buy the heads seperatly as for your needs? Nah, most of the time I use it headless. ;) I'm very much into horizontal composition. -Aaron - 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: Recommending PS Elements
On Saturday, November 24, 2001, at 06:30 AM, David Brooks wrote: > > Still plan to buy the bnig Adobe book. > I;m still learning PS but the students i employ to run > my computers at horse shows have shown me some tricks too. If you have a full version of Photoshop, I heartily recommend the tutorials on the included second disc. Yes, they're repetitive, and some of the pictures you work on are AWFUL, but they're quite educational and give you a grounding in many of the basics that are not self-explanatory. -Aaron - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
Tom C. wrote: >One hindrance slowing digital down, is that it's closely associated with >computers. Not everyone wants or cares about them. Probably an *extremely* >high percentage of people who buy digital cameras, also have computers. The >rest, also a significant number, don't care and will continue using film >cameras Anyone who works in an office or goes to school MUST use a computer. I don't know the statistics, but I think around half of the people in the US and other industrialized countries have access to a computer. It's true that consumer digital cameras have been promoted as computer peripherals more than as photographic tools. But that's changing. As their prices come down, they are being marketed as superior substitutes for 35mm point & shoots. Ritz and others promote this idea already, by making prints from "digital film" just like they do with 35mm. For non-photography business use, digital has been preferred over film for several years already. If you don't need great resolution, it's wonderful to have the immediacy and easy image storage of digital. For high volume professional photography or photojournalism, I can't imagine anyone starting out today choosing film over digital. Digital image quality (using professional digital SLRs or medium format digital backs) is excellent, and I'm sure the the equipment cost is easily justified by savings in film & procesing. 35mm film has only one market that digital has not yet dominated - the single-use camera. I see this as the last bastion of film. I really don't know the demographics of single-use camera buyers, but I suspect they are mostly people who have NO interest in photography, and don't take many pictures other than the obligatory Christmas morning or family vacation photos. Since they have so few photos, image storage isn't much of an issue, and a photo album is just as easy (or easier) to use than a CD, etc. And since they have so little interest in photography, they will use whatever tool is cheapest, which for the moment is the 35mm single-use camera. Single-use camera buyers are not necessarily lacking in spending money or computer literacy, so whenever a digital camera appears that is as cheap as a single use film camera, and can produce decent 4" x 6" images, digital may take over this market, too. However, being the most popular film size, with a large number of cameras in use, I'm sure 35mm film will be around for a long time. But as the market shrinks, there will of course be fewer different films available, and processing will become more expensive and less widely available. If I only cared about the final image, didn't already own TOO MANY cameras, and didn't have any budget restrictions, I'd be using a digital SLR. However, I'm a collector as well as a photographer. I use 35mm SLRs because they're FUN. I plan to continue doing so, without worrying about whether or not my technology is outdated. 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: OT: what I think of current digital cameras
On Saturday, November 24, 2001, at 07:52 AM, David Brooks wrote: > It all boils down to what somw one else replied.Fast > and Instant,but its paying the bills. I totally agree. Digital capture has its uses, that's for sure. I imagine that the 8x10s look pretty good, too. -Aaron - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
Tom C. wrote: > Sorry, I'm not intending to argue or belabor the point. Don't apologize! These are valuable things to discuss. They lead to better understanding. > But is that always the case (that quality is subjective)? Let's compare > theoretical lenses A and B. We run them through the same set of tests and > have measured results. Lets say lens B comes out on top. We claim lems B > is better, while lens A is inferior. We don't simply say they have > different qualities. We say one is of lesser or higher quality than the > other. And this is precisely what I have ALWAYS thought is total bullshit. To decide which lens is of "higher quality," we have to decide what parameters we're going to value. But scoring better in certain chosen parameters, whatever they are, DOESN'T help the lens make better pictures. It merely give it different qualities, which may be better for certain pictures and worse for others. One of the lenses I like best is the Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2 (which, by the bye, is reviewed in the next issue of _The 37th Frame_. Sorry for inserting the plug, but it's pertinent). This is because I tend to prefer lenses with very high large-structure contrast, say at 5 lp/mm, and microresolution doesn't matter a whit to me. Yet a noted Leica lens expert, Erwin Puts, once said of this very same lens that it is "not one of Leica's better efforts," I presume because he values ultimate fine-structure resolution in a lens. I also think that the various versions of the Pentax 50/1.4 are the very best 50/1.4's that money can buy, and, believe me, I've tried or tested a lot of the existing alternatives. Yet the Pentax lens seldom scores highest in various published lens tests. Why is that? It's because I value a variety of the qualities of that lens differently than the testers do, that's all. It's really all a matter of taste. > The point I'm making (or attempting to make ) probably boils down to > this. Correct me if I'm wrong. A 35mm film frame has the ability to record > more information than the same size CCD, given that one exists . The "data > density" is higher, among other things. And what metaphysics do you propose to demonstrate that more information makes for better pictures? I could make a very good case for the opposite being true (and if I did, neither of us would be entirely right). > As a general consumer item, as used by most consumers, digital cameras may > produce images that are just as good as film, in the eye of the one taking > the photos. But try to do those things that most consumers don't do, and > that I believe is where film wins out. Hmm. Purely playing devil's advocate, I might respond, "Is that why professional photographers are switching to digital in droves?" Penetration by digital is higher in the professional market than anywhere else. True, none of them are using 3-megapixel point-and-shoot digicams. Of course, to that response, you might simply say that I'm being argumentative, and you may be right. > Same argument can be made for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF. The reason for using the > larger format is to record more information, to produce a better image at a > given print size. That's mostly what I was meaning by the word quality. Uh-huh. So does it always work? Are medium format pictures always better than small-format pictures? Are large format pictures always "better images" than medium format pictures? Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I would say it depends, as does everything else, on how well each photographer is able to apply his visual and artistic sensibilities, technical sensitivity, and shooting skills to create any given picture. --Mike - 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: Shades of Photoshop
- Original Message - From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:34 AM Subject: Shades of Photoshop > Mafud: > >> Not in ~my~ experiences with Photoshop. > > Isaac: > >>How many years? What versions? How much per day? Any schooling? > > Mike, I agree completely with your post, but I didn't write the above sentence... Isaac - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras > In a message dated 11/25/01 3:45:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > "One hindrance slowing digital down, is that it's closely associated with > > computers. Not everyone wants or cares about them." > > Precisely my point. > > > high percentage of people who buy digital cameras, > > also have computers. The rest, also a significant number, don't care and > > will continue using film cameras." > > Um-hm. > > > hink it's only a matter of time before digital imaging becomes the rule, > > as opposed to the new-fangled exception." > > I would add, as you proposed above, "for those who have computers." At what > point computers stop their penetration into the American home is not known, > but the saturation point is near, with a huge percentage of "new" computers > being replacements as opposed to being bought by those who don't already own > at least one computer***. But why? How many photographers own darkrooms? A vanishingly small percentage. How many photographers use cameras that don't use batteries? An even smaller percentage. What will stop joe six pack from bringing his images to a photofinisher when he's done taking pictures from his cheap digital camera? A growing percentage of my digital camera customers have no intention of printing their own pictures, they treat it very much like a film camera in that regard. > ***I own four computers: 3 dead and 1 (this one) working. > As the sales of "new owner" PCs steadily decline, fewer and fewer devices > used by computers will be sold. Then don't hook it up to a computer... Epson, HP, Canon, and olympus are just some of the manufacturers of printers that do not require a computer to make prints. These start at $100, so for around $500 you could have a camera and printer that can make very acceptable (to the average consumer) 4x6 to 5x7 prints anywhere you have an outlet. This Epson printer can print much larger, but I'm being conservitive in my acceptable print quality assesments. These prices are bound to come down as well... Every anti-digital argument seems to be made based on conditions that existed two to three years ago. With the price of decent two megapixel point and shoots hovering around $400, the time of digital only being for the well heeled is almost gone. Next Christmas, two megapixel cameras will probobly be around $199, and market penetration will really take off. Pentax has already announced plans for a "disposible" digital camera... As market penetration increases, you will see more and more photofinishers offer printing services because the initial investment in equipment is potentially very low (it can be unbeiliveably expensive, but the entry level is literally $400...) and there are no more effluent headaches... All this talk about computers for indigent families is a straw man, they aren't going to own any cameras. Cameras are always a luxury, below a certain income, they are an unjustifiable luxury. Most people will never do their own printing, and within a couple of years, every photofinisher will have some sort of digital printing service, so they will not have to. This is the future, and in some places (Like DC, where I am) the future is now. Our digital printing services are by far the fastest growing area of photofinishing. All of our prints from slides are done that way, and we use the same equipment to print directly from digital files. We also have several printers that allow the customer to put in their memory card, push the print button, and get their print minutes later. The most expensive of these is $400... Isaac > One thing forgotten in the debate is most PDML members are well educated, > with steady, good paying jobs and with a good degree of disposable income, a > factor always considered when buying a computer. But PDML members probably > represent PC/MAC owners more than they represent "average" or lower middle > class Americans, the "Joe Six-packs." > As a class, PDML members have monies to indulge many of their whims, "hobby" > photography, the Internet and digital imaging being a few. But it is > outrageous for the few of us to believe we somehow know how non-computer, > non-digital camera owners feel or will do in the future. In this debate, we > have imperiously superimposed our own various indulgences on the American > public, the vast majority of whom do ~not~ own computers or digital anything. > > As America's massive layoffs continue, even fewer PCs/digital > cameras/handheld devices will be sold. > **America's youth, formerly the prime candidates for new desk/laptops, have > chosen instead to go handheld "wireless", with no or limited need for a > computer for their basic communications, including Email, note taking, > class/date/test scheduling, all tasks previously done with computer
Re: OT: what I think of current digital cameras
On Saturday, November 24, 2001, at 06:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What Aaron said, except I don't know what he meant by "digital printing > rocks"? Just that I now prefer digital colour printing to chemical darkroom colour printing. Our work here at the lab is rarely about quantity (where, I admit, chemical still has the edge), but about extra-picky custom work and "fixing up stuff" that went wrong. It is so very much easier with digital, and I am very pleased with our results. On a related note, I most frequently see wedding photographers when something has gone wrong with their shoot and I am needed to do some repair or salvage work -- and getting married in June, I have become exceptionally paranoid about hiring a photographer. I mean, I know lots of local guys, but I only ever see the very worst of their work. ;) -Aaron - 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: Depreciation of assets
Ignorance concerning taxes is appalling. Harboring the idea that corporations actually pay any taxes levied upon them shows lack of critical thinking about the subject. All corporations require net net profit (profit after taxes on net profit) in order to survive, design and build new products, modernize facilities, replace capital equipment (the costs of which are never fully covered by depreciation), pay for cost of money, pay rising costs associated with labor, etc. Taxes are an expense, like all other expenses of business, that _must_ be passed on to customers through higher prices. Unlike the US income tax, this passed on tax is not progressive. The poor pay the same corporate tax (in dollars) on a can of beans that the rich do. When you buy a product, any product, (can of beans?) you may think that the only tax you pay is the sales tax. Wrong! You pay a portion of the corporate taxes of the company that produced it; the company that advertised it, the various companies that supplied the materials that produced it, the company that shipped it to the store where you bought it, the company that produced the gasoline that you used driving to the store. All wealth comes from production. Who does the producing? You do. The workers in the company do. Taxes are an exaction from the production of individuals. The government has simply instituted a way of exacting taxes from you, from your production, without your daily conscious awareness of it. Corporations raise capital to build and expand business by selling stock. This stock is bought and sold based on investors expectations on the ability of the company to grow. This growth provides the primary source of funds for various forms or retirement for individuals, whether through individual accounts or through corporate pensions or through savings. No, I'm not a rich man or corporate executive. I'm just a common working man like many of you. I'm just aware of who really pays what and who really is hurt by what taxes. Regards, Bob... "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." - Samuel Adams, 1771 > Frantisek Vlcek wrote: > > > Awful! Look at a better model: in Vietnam, AFAIK, taxes are not > > extracted from individuals but from corporations. To NOT tax > > corporations is just awful. The simple most externality producing > > entity, a big corporation, doesn't pay for the externalities it > > produces. That's immoral. - 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 .
Moving sale Very low prices to PDML'rs
I'm moving and need to sell these items. I have a good ebay rating as [EMAIL PROTECTED] See web url below for some pictures, ignore prices on website. Also, check out my photography at http://home.earthlink.net/~cmstringer/index.htm Price includes USPS priority mail in US. If they are not as good or better than described I will accept return and refund your shipping cost. email if you want more photos. I will also tell you anything you want to know including why I am selling such nice stuff. (because I have other 6x7 and Pentax AF stuff) but ask away. SMC-A 28/2.8 EX+ beautiful. front uv filter rear cap. $100 SMC-A 50/1.4 EX+ beautiful. front uv filter rear cap. $100 SMC-M 50/1.4 EX+ condition front & rear caps. almost like new. shows no wear. $85 6x7 to K mount adapter.EX. adapts 6x7 lens to Kmount cameras. $65 K1000 body in very excellent condition with manual $125 FA 28-70 f/4 AL like new in box $125 email for picture not listed on the website below ME Super Manual original in great shape $7 not shown on website Tamron 2x MC Pentax universal screw mount in case. no caps $20?? not shown K1000 SE in very good shape but shows some stains and slight pitting on film guides. I think it was left with a roll of film in it for a very long time. Works great. $75 Super Program case. Not sure if Pentax brand but very nice condition. On bottom it says For: Pentax Super Program Taiwan. Maybe $20??? http://home.earthlink.net/~cmstringer/used.htm forget the price you see. I will sell as listed above. - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
Mike Johnston wrote: > > And this is precisely what I have ALWAYS thought is total bullshit. To > decide which lens is of "higher quality," we have to decide what parameters > we're going to value. But scoring better in certain chosen parameters, > whatever they are, DOESN'T help the lens make better pictures. It merely > give it different qualities, which may be better for certain pictures and > worse for others. > Please read all the below in the most respectful and reverent of tone. Seriously. Sure, but those reviews are written for many people, myself included, who don't totally understand the measurements. So to rate a lens on a scale and to give it a qualitative assesment is helpful. Seeing the actual images and how the measurements relate is even better. - But - I understand your point totally, and even mostly agree. MOST things in life ARE subjective. So I guess I'm really talking about MY parameters and not anyone elses. I'm probably talking in a general sense about products, that I feel have a margin of difference larger than what you're referring to. Who would argue that a 4mp (camera) is not better than a 3mp, that a 3mp is not better than a 2mp, that a 2mp is not better then a 1mp, that a 1mp is not better than a <1mp? I don't think it's wrong to make judgements based on such parameters and to refer to those differences as a difference in quality (unfortunately that was a pathetically bad example, it also being a difference in quantity, well maybe not). No one will argue that all other things the same, a 1mp camera would deliver as good of an image as a 4mp camera. But you could say you like the 1mp image better. If so, I have a 640 X 480 Mavica that only uses 307,200 pixels to record an image. I will gladly sell it to the highest bidder. Back to the lens test scenario... I agree with you pretty much. The tests are making quantitative measurements. The human brain must make the qualitative assessment. > It's because I value a variety of the qualities of that lens differently > than the testers do, that's all. It's really all a matter of taste. That you are certainly allowed. Just remember, Starkist likes tuna that tastes good, not tuna with good taste! > > > > The point I'm making (or attempting to make ) probably boils down to > > this. Correct me if I'm wrong. A 35mm film frame has the ability to record > > more information than the same size CCD, given that one exists . The "data > > density" is higher, among other things. > > And what metaphysics do you propose to demonstrate that more information > makes for better pictures? I could make a very good case for the opposite > being true (and if I did, neither of us would be entirely right). > > My own! Only I understand it! And since it's all subjective... . I would ask you, to demonstrate that it doesn't. Or to demonstrate that less information makes for just as good of an image, or that less information makes for a better image. Again we are talking matters of degree. I think it's pretty easy to prove that a 35mm frame, having more capacity to record a scene, will deliver a better image than 110 film, all other things being equal. Unless one says they like the 110 look, and how it looks when blown up. And THEN I'd say the person is just trying to be difficult, UNLESS it was specifically that effect they were looking for. If I took a digital file down to the lab and a 35mm transparency of the same subject, and asked them to give me a 20 X 30 print from each, I'm pretty sure there would be a difference. I would assess it qualitatively, you may not. > > As a general consumer item, as used by most consumers, digital cameras may > > produce images that are just as good as film, in the eye of the one taking > > the photos. But try to do those things that most consumers don't do, and > > that I believe is where film wins out. > > Hmm. Purely playing devil's advocate, I might respond, "Is that why > professional photographers are switching to digital in droves?" Penetration > by digital is higher in the professional market than anywhere else. True, > none of them are using 3-megapixel point-and-shoot digicams. > > Of course, to that response, you might simply say that I'm being > argumentative, and you may be right. > > I am sure you would know better than I regarding the pro market for digital cameras. Which pros, in what profession, and where will the images be displayed and at what size? > > Same argument can be made for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF. The reason for using the > > larger format is to record more information, to produce a better image at a > > given print size. That's mostly what I was meaning by the word quality. > > Uh-huh. So does it always work? Are medium format pictures always better > than small-format pictures? Are large format pictures always "better images" > than medium format pictures? No, obviously not. > > Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I would say it depe
Re: Where Do I Go...
Thanks for your time and desire to help! Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Frantisek Vlcek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Where Do I Go... > a> I've searched for several hours in the archives and my own saved stuff (I > a> thought I saved it), but can't find it. It was within the last two weeks. > > Oh, in that case, I am sorry but I can't help you, my archives date > mostly earlier than that. For about half the last year, I was reading > PDML only trough the sometimes-working-sometimes-not web archive so I > have saved only very few posts in html from that time. Sorry. > > Good light, >Frantisek Vlcek > - > 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: what I think of current digital cameras
Right now, you can walk into Wal-Mart, or Walgreen's drug stores and you can find a Kodak printing machine. You can put your CD or Compact Flash cards with your digital images on them into the machine and make small prints up to 8 x 10 inches. You can do cropping and brightness/contrast corrections and get pretty nice prints out. I see more and more people using these machines. So, having a computer and printer at home is not really a neccessity. Len --- - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
Jerry wrote: > Anyone who works in an office or goes to school MUST use a computer. I > don't know the statistics, but I think around half of the people in the US > and other industrialized countries have access to a computer. Access to a computer does not translate to wanting to use it, or skill in doing digital processing. Most people just want to take photos and show them to friends or send them to relatives. A computer can facilitate this, or, if the reciving party does not have one, hinder it. There are A LOT of people out there that couldn't care less about computers (my father in-law) and don't want to use or understand them. There are others who can't afford them > > It's true that consumer digital cameras have been promoted as computer > peripherals more than as photographic tools. But that's changing. As their > prices come down, they are being marketed as superior substitutes for 35mm > point & shoots. Ritz and others promote this idea already, by making prints > from "digital film" just like they do with 35mm. > Key words being "marketed as superior substitutes". Most people won't go buy a 2nd P&S if the one they likes is working just fine. Marketing digital as superior creates more sales. > For non-photography business use, digital has been preferred over film for > several years already. If you don't need great resolution, it's wonderful > to have the immediacy and easy image storage of digital. True and a very good use of even lo-res equipment/. > > For high volume professional photography or photojournalism, I can't imagine > anyone starting out today choosing film over digital. Digital image quality > (using professional digital SLRs or medium format digital backs) is > excellent, and I'm sure the the equipment cost is easily justified by > savings in film & procesing. But is it as good? > > 35mm film has only one market that digital has not yet dominated - the > single-use camera. I see this as the last bastion of film. I really don't > know the demographics of single-use camera buyers, but I suspect they are > mostly people who have NO interest in photography, and don't take many > pictures other than the obligatory Christmas morning or family vacation > photos. Since they have so few photos, image storage isn't much of an > issue, and a photo album is just as easy (or easier) to use than a CD, etc. > And since they have so little interest in photography, they will use > whatever tool is cheapest, which for the moment is the 35mm single-use > camera. Single-use camera buyers are not necessarily lacking in spending > money or computer literacy, so whenever a digital camera appears that is as > cheap as a single use film camera, and can produce decent 4" x 6" images, > digital may take over this market, too. > > However, being the most popular film size, with a large number of cameras in > use, I'm sure 35mm film will be around for a long time. But as the market > shrinks, there will of course be fewer different films available, and > processing will become more expensive and less widely available. > > If I only cared about the final image, didn't already own TOO MANY cameras, > and didn't have any budget restrictions, I'd be using a digital SLR. > However, I'm a collector as well as a photographer. I use 35mm SLRs because > they're FUN. I plan to continue doing so, without worrying about whether or > not my technology is outdated. > > Jeff The final image is what counts the most. I'm not demonizing digital by any means. I'm sure someday I will buy a 2nd digital camera. For now though, I like film. I like it's quality (ies) and I like being able to hold a 1st generation image slide in my hand. I'm touchy feely. :-) Tom C. - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
My whole point (I think) in this discussion is if you want the BEST image possible, and that is the primary consideration, I don't think a digital filmless camera is the way to go yet. If there are other considerations which weigh in on the other side, then digital by all means can be the answer for many people. My primary consideration right now is the highest quality first generation image. Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:49 PM Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras > Right now, you can walk into Wal-Mart, or Walgreen's drug stores > and you can find a Kodak printing machine. You can put your CD > or Compact Flash cards with your digital images on them into the > machine and make small prints up to 8 x 10 inches. You can do > cropping and brightness/contrast corrections and get pretty nice > prints out. I see more and more people using these machines. > So, having a computer and printer at home is not really a > neccessity. > > Len > --- - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
aimcompute wrote: > Access to a computer does not translate to wanting to use it, or skill in > doing digital processing. Most people just want to take photos and show > them to friends or send them to relatives. A computer can facilitate this, > or, if the reciving party does not have one, hinder it. There are A LOT of > people out there that couldn't care less about computers (my father in-law) > and don't want to use or understand them. There are others who can't afford > them Agreed. My sister has a computer, although she got it mainly for her daughter to use for school work, research, and the like. The computer is an older one, a gift from our brother. Sis knows little about the fine points of using the machine - she can just barely send e-mail, knows little or nothing about how to add or delete programs or files, and has little or no enthusiasm for learning. She, as a parent of a young daughter, has more important things to do. Half the time I send her a photo by email she can't read it for some reason. She doesn't know why. While she is educated and has a good income, computers and all that go with them are of little concern for her. She likes to take family pictures, and sends them to me and others in our family by regular mail. There's no hurry for her to do that. She's got no deadline. And frankly, I like getting pics in the mail. Although they can be sent via email, I'd then have to by a printer to see them other than on a screen, and I'd have to learn another program, and maybe buy a new computer, and rearrange my office to make some space for the printer, and then buy paper and ink, and I don't know what all else. It ain't worth it for a few snap shots. She mails a pic, I look at it, if I like it I put it in a frame and stick it on my dresser, and I can see it whenever I want. Sometimes people get pretty hung up on using technology to do a something very simple. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter.html http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.html - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
Going off on a tangent... One thing I've done with my Mavica is take a picture of a painting or a portion of it, like a watercolor or oil. Original painting is large wall size. Then print it on card stock at 4 X 6 size. The result is marvelous. Looks even better than the original. One other thing that's fun is to use your flat-bed scanner as a digital camera. I like collecting fall leaves and placing them on the scanner bed. I'm sure it's not as sharp of a picture as if one used a macro lens and film. However, you can print the result and lay the piece of paper on a desk with other paper, and you'd swear there were leaves lying there until you picked up the paper and they didn't fall off. Tom C. - 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: FA* 200/4 Macro vs. A* 200/4 Macro
On 25 Nov 2001, at 16:32, Fred wrote: > Rob said: > > I hope the 200/4FA* bokeh is better than the A*, I'm not all > > that impressed with it. > > Agreed. Although I am impressed by the superb sharpness of the A* 200/4 > Macro lens, I have found its bokeh to be a little disappointing (not for > macro purposes, but only for "all-around" use). In comparison, another > "200/4", the K 200/4 telephoto, seems to produce a nicer bokeh, in my > opinion, as does a couple of the "faster 200" lenses, the K 200/2.5 and > the A* 200/2.8. Hi Fred n Ed, Exactly, I should have been more specific, the SMCPA200/4 macro bokeh close in is quite pleasant. Where I have found problems is for instance when I used it as a long lens at the beach, ie birds in the distance, water behind with reflections of the sun in the small surf far behind. The sun reflections had a very hard edge to them, not smooth at all like the same subject shot with the A200/2.8. I would imagine that a lens free of aberrations would produce an out of focus point source as a perfect blur ie large COC? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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: what I think of current digital cameras
Respectfully, It depends what your ends are, I guess. I'm not dismissing it as, not good. I'm just not ready to heavily invest in it yet. Two - three years ago I invested in a Sony Mavica for $800. I bought my Dad the better one with higher res almost a year later for $1000. They are both great toys. Shoot, if I had that money now I'd get a 67II body... except I made my Dad happy... and I did get some nice pics with the Mavica albeit lo-res. I use it now for just quick pics I want to share. Tom C. Mark Cassino wrote... > > Digital is here, it's pretty good, it will get better. I love working with > film, I love working with digital. > > IMO, it's great to have a new frontier to work with. I can't fathom the > mentality that dismisses something because it may be weaker on this point > or that (while stronger on that point or this...) If there's a new tool to > use to achieve your ends - pick it up and work it! Don't sit around and > dismiss it because it's not like the old tools you have at hand. > > The day I can't deal with something new, the day I lock into looking back > instead of looking forward, is the day you all should start spading dirt > over the box I've locked myself in. - 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 .
Taxes (Re: Depreciation of assets)
You are correct! I am curious, Bob, how did you figure this out? It is the big secret we are not supposed to know. I figured it out back in the sixties when I did something unthinkable. I found out as best I could what the taxes were in this country; federal, state, and local (I am sure I missed some as that information is not in any one place where it is easy to find). I compared those figures to the gross national product for the year. That came out to 72%. That is of every dollar spent in the US in 1966, 72 cents was taxes. How could that be? I thought about it for awhile and finally realized that we had to be paying taxes no one told us about. Some further thought told me that the final consumer of any product pays every cent of tax collected on that product. For instance; when you buy a loaf of bread you pay the seed sale's peoples tax on it, you pay the farmer's tax on it, you pay the flour mill's tax on it, you pay the baker's tax on it, you pay the store's tax on it. Yes they give the money to the government, but then they add it to the price of the goods; so it is passed on down to the guy who eats the bread. All those business are tax collectors not tax payers. Let me repeat that for those who didn't understand. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT TAX PAYERS, THEY ARE TAX COLLECTORS, . --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Depreciation of assets > Ignorance concerning taxes is appalling. Harboring the idea that > corporations actually pay any taxes levied upon them shows lack of critical > thinking about the subject. All corporations require net net profit (profit > after taxes on net profit) in order to survive, design and build new > products, modernize facilities, replace capital equipment (the costs of > which are never fully covered by depreciation), pay for cost of money, pay > rising costs associated with labor, etc. Taxes are an expense, like all > other expenses of business, that _must_ be passed on to customers through > higher prices. Unlike the US income tax, this passed on tax is not > progressive. The poor pay the same corporate tax (in dollars) on a can of > beans that the rich do. When you buy a product, any product, (can of beans?) > you may think that the only tax you pay is the sales tax. Wrong! You pay a > portion of the corporate taxes of the company that produced it; the company > that advertised it, the various companies that supplied the materials that > produced it, the company that shipped it to the store where you bought it, > the company that produced the gasoline that you used driving to the store. > All wealth comes from production. Who does the producing? You do. The > workers in the company do. Taxes are an exaction from the production of > individuals. The government has simply instituted a way of exacting taxes > from you, from your production, without your daily conscious awareness of > it. > > Corporations raise capital to build and expand business by selling stock. > This stock is bought and sold based on investors expectations on the ability > of the company to grow. This growth provides the primary source of funds for > various forms or retirement for individuals, whether through individual > accounts or through corporate pensions or through savings. > > No, I'm not a rich man or corporate executive. I'm just a common working man > like many of you. I'm just aware of who really pays what and who really is > hurt by what taxes. > > Regards, > Bob... > > "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, > and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us > from the former, for the sake of the latter. > The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls > for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, > and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we > suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, > we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' > It is a very serious consideration that millions yet > unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." > - Samuel Adams, 1771 > > > Frantisek Vlcek wrote: > > > > > Awful! Look at a better model: in Vietnam, AFAIK, taxes are not > > > extracted from individuals but from corporations. To NOT tax > > > corporations is just awful. The simple most externality producing > > > entity, a big corporation, doesn't pay for the externalities it > > > produces. That's immoral. > - > 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 Use
LLAMAS (Re: what I think of current digital cameras)
If you are going to use llamas, you might as well go to 8x10. In fact, some would say you need at least a 20x24 inch camera to justify investing in llamas. Others say a 12x17 is adequate. For a 4x5 all you need is a bicycle. How many here are aware that the famed Speed Graphic was a derivative of the bicycle camera from the end of the 1800s? That was the purpose of the lunchbox design. You strapped your tripod to the frame, hung the camera from the handle bars, put a couple of film holders in your coat pocket (gentlemen always wore coats) and away you went for a day of fun and photography. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: aimcompute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras > Does anyone have a pack of llamas and a 4X5 to lend? Will you promise to > buy the results? :-) - 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: Photography Vests ...
I used to have a Banana Republic Guides Vest, (the one they stopped selling after some gun editor said in print that people were using it to conceal their handguns. Don't you just love politically correct companies). Any way I finally wore it out (must have been the handgun ). Now I have a nylon safari jacket with zip off sleeves I picked up for $20. It is a second, someone sewed the zipper in wrong way to. I have found that I prefer to roll up the sleeve rather than zip them off. The two vests above have the advantage that they are not instantly identified as Photographers Vests with a lot of expensive camera gear in them, nor do they look very military. Two problems I have noticed with vests: 1; if you put much in them they get pretty heavy and uncomfortable, not to mention lumpy. 2; they have so many pockets (both the BR vest and the current jacket have 18 pockets) it is easy to misplace things. Now that is not going to happen with a camera or lens, but I have often misplaced a pen, or notebook, or lens cap never to find it again until I took off the garment and checked each pocket one by one. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - 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 .
Camera Shooting Gloves
Hey, guys, just wear a pair of thin gloves under those mittens. Keeps your hands warmer, and your bare fingers off the metal of the camera when you are shooting. Silk is nicest but, other thin gloves work too. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:16 AM Subject: Re: I just got engaged & my week > When shooting at Vanessa's hockey games, I found myself needing gloves > (especially after getting the LX, whose surface seems to get much colder > much more quickly than my ME Super). I ended up getting a pair of > Thinsulate gloves with no fingers, but a mitt that flips over the > fingertips if you want it. They're nice and thin, and keep most of my > hand warm, except the fingers, which still have to go into the pockets > between periods. - 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: ZX-10 and 28-70 f/4 SMC-FA
You are aware that at f16you could have set the camera for 7 feet and everything from about 5' to 12' would have been acceptably in focus at 50mm? Set for 10 feet everything from about 7' to about 25' would have been ok. Set to 28mm and 10' there is problably nothing indoors that would need refocusing. Close up at 70mm you would need to focus, but then how many grab shots did you make at 70mm? I guess you make my often expressed point about automatic cameras, If the camera will do it for you, why bother to learn how to use a camera. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Brent Hutto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:15 AM Subject: ZX-10 and 28-70 f/4 SMC-FA > I had my ZX-M with me while doing family Thankgiving visits and > took a few snapshots of nieces and nephews. Most of the snapshots > turned out fine (thanks to 400-speed print film, f/16 and a big > honking flash) but for the first time since I've had my camera I really > regretted having to focus manually. The ZX-M is just the ticket for > the static landscape and nature subjects that I bought it for but > maybe something closer to "point and shoot" would be a nice > adjunct. Manually focusing for candid shots of small children is a bit > frustrating at times. > > I'd be interested in opinions on the idea on buying a used ZX-10 > body and 28-70 f/4 SMC-FA lens to use as an fast-shooting, easy to > carry snapshot-taking machine. The ZX-10 in auto-focus and > program-exposure mode should work just about like a point and > shoot camera and it even has a built-in flash. Is that flash powerful > enough for 10-15 foot snapshots with 400-speed film? > > The advantage to this idea is that my prime MF lenses will work on > the ZX-10 and the SMC-FA zoom will work on my ZX-M so I have > some redundancy. Having that zoom to use on the ZX-M might mean > I can put off buying the expensive 24mm f/2.8 SMC lens that I've > been considering as my first wide-angle lens. The ZX-10/Zoom > combination cost about the same as the 24mm prime lens, believe it > or not (although I realize the quality of the zoom at 28mm will not > hold a candle to that of the 24mm prime). > - > 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: Taxes (Re: Depreciation of assets)
Time for a TEAPARTY!!! Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discussion Malling List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: Taxes (Re: Depreciation of assets) > You are correct! I am curious, Bob, how did you figure this out? > > It is the big secret we are not supposed to know. > > I figured it out back in the sixties when I did something unthinkable. I > found out as best I could what the taxes were in this country; federal, > state, and local (I am sure I missed some as that information is not in any > one place where it is easy to find). I compared those figures to the gross > national product for the year. That came out to 72%. That is of every dollar > spent in the US in 1966, 72 cents was taxes. How could that be? > > I thought about it for awhile and finally realized that we had to be paying > taxes no one told us about. Some further thought told me that the final > consumer of any product pays every cent of tax collected on that product. > For instance; when you buy a loaf of bread you pay the seed sale's peoples > tax on it, you pay the farmer's tax on it, you pay the flour mill's tax on > it, you pay the baker's tax on it, you pay the store's tax on it. Yes they > give the money to the government, but then they add it to the price of the > goods; so it is passed on down to the guy who eats the bread. All those > business are tax collectors not tax payers. Let me repeat that for those who > didn't understand. > > CORPORATIONS ARE NOT TAX PAYERS, THEY ARE TAX COLLECTORS, . > > > --graywolf > - > The optimist's cup is half full, > The pessimist's is half empty, > The wise man enjoys his drink. > > > - Original Message - > From: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:58 AM > Subject: Re: Depreciation of assets > > > > Ignorance concerning taxes is appalling. Harboring the idea that > > corporations actually pay any taxes levied upon them shows lack of > critical > > thinking about the subject. All corporations require net net profit > (profit > > after taxes on net profit) in order to survive, design and build new > > products, modernize facilities, replace capital equipment (the costs of > > which are never fully covered by depreciation), pay for cost of money, pay > > rising costs associated with labor, etc. Taxes are an expense, like all > > other expenses of business, that _must_ be passed on to customers through > > higher prices. Unlike the US income tax, this passed on tax is not > > progressive. The poor pay the same corporate tax (in dollars) on a can of > > beans that the rich do. When you buy a product, any product, (can of > beans?) > > you may think that the only tax you pay is the sales tax. Wrong! You pay a > > portion of the corporate taxes of the company that produced it; the > company > > that advertised it, the various companies that supplied the materials that > > produced it, the company that shipped it to the store where you bought it, > > the company that produced the gasoline that you used driving to the store. > > All wealth comes from production. Who does the producing? You do. The > > workers in the company do. Taxes are an exaction from the production of > > individuals. The government has simply instituted a way of exacting taxes > > from you, from your production, without your daily conscious awareness of > > it. > > > > Corporations raise capital to build and expand business by selling stock. > > This stock is bought and sold based on investors expectations on the > ability > > of the company to grow. This growth provides the primary source of funds > for > > various forms or retirement for individuals, whether through individual > > accounts or through corporate pensions or through savings. > > > > No, I'm not a rich man or corporate executive. I'm just a common working > man > > like many of you. I'm just aware of who really pays what and who really is > > hurt by what taxes. > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > > > "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, > > and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us > > from the former, for the sake of the latter. > > The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls > > for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, > > and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we > > suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, > > we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' > > It is a very serious consideration that millions yet > > unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." > > - Samuel Adams, 1771 > > > > > Frantisek Vlcek wrote: > > > > > > > Awful! Look at a better model: in Vietnam, AFAIK, taxes are not > > > > extracted from individuals but from corporations. To NOT tax > > > > corporations is just awful. The simple most externality producin
Re: LLAMAS
- Original Message - From: aimcompute Subject: Re: LLAMAS> > Does anyone have a pack of llamas and a 4X5 to lend? How about 2 Rotties and a Tachihara? > Will you promise to buy the results? :-) You take Canadian $$? Right now they are trading 1,000,000,000,000,000 dollars to 1 Afghani. I can always afford a couple of dollars for a good cause. WW - 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 .
SP & MX Everyready case trade
Hi, I'm trying to get a Spotmatic Everyready case in reasnoble condition. Is there any one who would consider trading one for an MX everyready case. Its for a friend of my fathers who has had a SP since new and has worn the ever ready case out. Thanks, Paul Jones - 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: Digital cameras are FREE
Aaron Reynolds writes: > Man... $13,000 for the one that plays 33 and 45 rpm, and $20,000 for the > one that plays 78s as well... > > If I was rich, I'd totally have one of these. ;) I bet they're not much use to rappers... :) 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: Taxes (Re: Depreciation of assets)
Aw, the taxes on tea are not bad. Can we just toss the corporations into the harbor, along with the other tax collectors, and the politicians of course? --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: aimcompute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:44 PM Subject: Re: Taxes (Re: Depreciation of assets) > Time for a TEAPARTY!!! > > Tom C. > > - Original Message - > From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax Discussion Malling List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bob > Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:44 PM > Subject: Taxes (Re: Depreciation of assets) > > > > You are correct! I am curious, Bob, how did you figure this out? > > > > It is the big secret we are not supposed to know. > > > > I figured it out back in the sixties when I did something unthinkable. I > > found out as best I could what the taxes were in this country; federal, > > state, and local (I am sure I missed some as that information is not in > any > > one place where it is easy to find). I compared those figures to the > gross > > national product for the year. That came out to 72%. That is of every > dollar > > spent in the US in 1966, 72 cents was taxes. How could that be? > > > > I thought about it for awhile and finally realized that we had to be > paying > > taxes no one told us about. Some further thought told me that the final > > consumer of any product pays every cent of tax collected on that product. > > For instance; when you buy a loaf of bread you pay the seed sale's peoples > > tax on it, you pay the farmer's tax on it, you pay the flour mill's tax on > > it, you pay the baker's tax on it, you pay the store's tax on it. Yes they > > give the money to the government, but then they add it to the price of the > > goods; so it is passed on down to the guy who eats the bread. All those > > business are tax collectors not tax payers. Let me repeat that for those > who > > didn't understand. > > > > CORPORATIONS ARE NOT TAX PAYERS, THEY ARE TAX COLLECTORS, . > > > > > > --graywolf > > - > > The optimist's cup is half full, > > The pessimist's is half empty, > > The wise man enjoys his drink. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:58 AM > > Subject: Re: Depreciation of assets > > > > > > > Ignorance concerning taxes is appalling. Harboring the idea that > > > corporations actually pay any taxes levied upon them shows lack of > > critical > > > thinking about the subject. All corporations require net net profit > > (profit > > > after taxes on net profit) in order to survive, design and build new > > > products, modernize facilities, replace capital equipment (the costs of > > > which are never fully covered by depreciation), pay for cost of money, > pay > > > rising costs associated with labor, etc. Taxes are an expense, like all > > > other expenses of business, that _must_ be passed on to customers > through > > > higher prices. Unlike the US income tax, this passed on tax is not > > > progressive. The poor pay the same corporate tax (in dollars) on a can > of > > > beans that the rich do. When you buy a product, any product, (can of > > beans?) > > > you may think that the only tax you pay is the sales tax. Wrong! You pay > a > > > portion of the corporate taxes of the company that produced it; the > > company > > > that advertised it, the various companies that supplied the materials > that > > > produced it, the company that shipped it to the store where you bought > it, > > > the company that produced the gasoline that you used driving to the > store. > > > All wealth comes from production. Who does the producing? You do. The > > > workers in the company do. Taxes are an exaction from the production of > > > individuals. The government has simply instituted a way of exacting > taxes > > > from you, from your production, without your daily conscious awareness > of > > > it. > > > > > > Corporations raise capital to build and expand business by selling > stock. > > > This stock is bought and sold based on investors expectations on the > > ability > > > of the company to grow. This growth provides the primary source of funds > > for > > > various forms or retirement for individuals, whether through individual > > > accounts or through corporate pensions or through savings. > > > > > > No, I'm not a rich man or corporate executive. I'm just a common working > > man > > > like many of you. I'm just aware of who really pays what and who really > is > > > hurt by what taxes. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bob... > > > > > > "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, > > > and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to u
Agfa Optima
I shot a roll of Optima today for the first time. The color palette reminds me of the old Agfachrome 64 from the 60's and 70's. I've shot quite a bit of both HDC and Vista, but IMO, the Optima has a much more neutral palette. Bill, KG4LOV [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 .
When "good enough" ain't: was Re: what I think of current digital cameras
In a message dated 11/25/01 8:43:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Don't sit around and dismiss it because it's not like the old tools you have > at hand. > One of the first things I learned back in 1982 when I was first introduced to writing code for computers was the phrase: "GI=GO" (garbage in equals garbage out). Not that digital is garbage, at least not my own device(s), but when making a print from small format digital files, small format digital simply does not input as much raw data as film. Scanning a negative or slide, (and realizing most under $10,000 printers can't begin to utilize ~all~ the inputted small format film data), gives you an embarrassment of riches datawise. Not so with small format digital. Perhaps then, digital devotees ought to simply note that, beside using a Polaroid, small format digital is another quick and easy way of making images, rather than Digital's supporters seeing (promoting) small format digital as a direct competitor to small format (35mm) film, which it most certainly isn't. ***Current and future small format digital cameras hold the same unenviable position to 35mm film as small format film does to medium format film. More raw data makes better, denser prints. Scan small format digital images by whatever method or machine you choose, then drum scan 35mm negatives or slides and film wins hands down. Further, digitize a small format film drum scan, then output it digitally and the comparisons weigh even more heavily in favor of film. You can make any comparisons you want, as long as you realize you won't (can't) achieve near the same data input from small format digital what you get from 35mm film, the exact same discussion steadily raging between medium Vs. small format film supporters. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 .
