Re: Fish-eye-Takumar 1:4/17 Dust
Guys, take it easy. I just wanted to know if there's a way to clean the internal filters myself. What's wrong with wanting to clean up a newly acquired lens? FWIW, The dust is a small dark color dot surrounded by a very light color circle. The whole thing is about 0.5mm across. Is it starting fungus? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
JCO, Amen to that. It is quite common for me to pick an image for the PUG and then reject it once it is sized down - too much loss of detail. Perhaps we could suggest 2 sizes, 1 for slow connections and 1 for fast connections. We would each submit our current size and 1 more at a larger size. The viewer could then click on the one they want to view. Bruce Dayton Saturday, February 02, 2002, 7:22:36 PM, you wrote: JCOC Because the 600 pixel and 75K filesize limitations JCOC are a joke. We might as well all be using 1 Mpixel JCOC digital cameras. I just resized and jpegged a JCOC very nice P67 BW 8X10 and it looks like crap JCOC with only 600 pixels max. What the point of using JCOC all these fantastic Pentax lenses, and then reducing JCOC the image to where its ruined?? JCOC I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes. JCOC It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size JCOC images. JCOC JCO - 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: It's February, It Must Be A Cotty's Pentax Mods Site Update...
Title for the picture: Serious doubt on age of entrant to under 10s BMX competition Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cotty Sent: 02 February 2002 23:01 To: Pentax List Subject: It's February, It Must Be A Cotty's Pentax Mods Site Update... Sadly, no incredible new nuttiness to add to the collection this month, only a bit of sad middle-age crisis. http://www.macads.co.uk/pentax/ Cheers, 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 . - 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 New Photo Upload
Mike, Juan ... Well, they are, indeed, two different expressions of the same subject. The first was not a statement of anything, rather, it was more of a graphic, capturing a representation of a flag, showing, at the most, perhaps, an exhibition of pride and support. I was not thinking of making a statement, just of capturing and interpreting a nice, strong image. This photo is meant to be thought provoking and can be interpreted several ways. When I saw the scene and snapped the shutter, I was thinking that here was an image that showed America imprisoned by the fear and power of terrorism. This was at the same time that we were being told to continue our lives as they had been - spend money, buy goods and services, travel - a message that could be interpreted if not as one of corporate and political greed, then certainly of self-interest. Let's keep the wheels of commerce flowing while we are mourning our loss of loved ones and innocence. The building, one of the largest in the area, symbolizes the corporate and political POV, the barbed wire and fencing symbolizes our being trapped by circumstances, the threat of losing certain freedoms and liberties, and a heightened level of security. That's what I saw and felt the morning that I made that photograph, Juan, as I was heading to San Francisco to meet you. But that's just my interpretation. Yours may be different, but no less valid. The most important aspect of any photograph is, I think, to get the viewer to think about what he or she feels or experiences when viewing it - to get the viewer to feel something, even though it's not readily explainable or clear, even if the viewer dislikes what he or she sees. Maybe to provoke an action from the viewer. ee cummings wrote: since feeling is first who pays any attention to the syntax of things will never wholly kiss you ... It is not for us, as viewers of art, including photography, to always understand that which we see and experience. The experience can be enough at first, and the understanding can, and probably will, come later, as long as we allow ourselves to feel. Juan J. Buhler wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/flag-behind-wire.html I like this one a lot better than the other one. Says more. I also like this one a lot more than the other. It does say more, although I'm not sure what the message is. In a way, as a non-American living here, it made me think of my (currently ongoing and seemengly never-ending) greencad process. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: Radio (was: Re: Ultra telephoto lenses)
There appears to be enough of us here to do so ;-) Malcolm G0DPT ## Maybe we should try and set up a sked on 20 or 17? 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 .
Battery For S1 Meter?
Hi, I am after a battery for the coupled meter for an S1? does any one know what battery it takes and what equivelant i cant get now? I assume that its a mercury. Thanks, Paul - 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 .
Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?
Has any list-member experience of customs and taxes to be payed for articles sent to you from abroad after eBay-auctions. In Sweden were I live the custom offices official answer is that you have to pay both customs and VAT (25%) on the declared value of the parcel sent. Then of course the cost would depend on the value declared by the sender. Maybe this is only a typical Swedish policy? Any creative ideas how to evade these costs? Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: M 100 2.8
I have used mine for 20 years on the MX. In combination with a M28 /2.8 it was the sufficient equipment on my tours biking from one youth-hostel to the other. The two lenses produce the same nice pictures giving a certain harmony in a photoshow. Regards, Bernd - 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-5n
5 : Do you have a trick to use the Snap-in focus feature with an FA lens ? I don't and AFAIK this feature is only possible with manual focus lenses and a cable release It is only possible with manual focus lenses that's right but you don't need a cable. First I thought there would be something wrong as the camera did not trigger using an MF lens. But then I realized I had not hit the right distance the camera expected. Now I turn off AF-mode when using my SMC-M-lenses. Regards Bernd - 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 .
MZ-5n -- AutoBracketing?
6 : What are the ponderation that the multizone metering system uses and where are the zones that are measured ? Your manual should contain the pattern of the matrix segments. A complete list of the ponderation you mentioned knows the Asahi Opt. Co., I guess:) The camera should recognize backlight scenes and bright skies for example and compensate for them. It doesn't compensate for the scenes that have large bright or dark areas - it acts in accordance with the 18% gray rule. Therefore the exposure compensation is necessary in such cases. In case of doubts - bracket the exposure. Fortunately you get the easy-to- use AutoBracketing feature with the MZ-5n... Hi Artur, would you like to explain bracketing and 18%-rule and AutoBracketing feature, please?! I suppose there is something I should know because it seemed difficult to me making pics with super-wide-angle-lens and getting low and high light not turning into black and white without tonality. Regards, Bernd - 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 .
My PUG pic(k)s...
Hi, Fir the first time I decided (read: had time) to view all of the PUG submissions and pick up some of them... So here they are: Gates of the Valley by Dick Jones - I like the use of the foreground elements (stones) to provide balance for the composition and lead my eye into the very subject. Butterfly near Tucson, AZ - Nov. 7, 2001 by Ann Sanfedele - nice colours and tonality, also good composition and the use of DOF. I especially like the way all hues of the elements work together. Browns and yellows really compose together well:) G.G. and Mari, Thanksgiving 2001 by Mike Johnston - very good family portrait. Feelings and emotions are clearly readable. Besides, I like sepia toned images:) Greetz Artur --- Harry Potter vs Henryk Portier. Kto wygra? Kliknij! http://www.harry.wp.pl - 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: Film at airports, again
Hi, this time next week I'll be in India g. It has more or less always been impossible to get through Heathrow without having your film x-rayed, but fortunately I've never had any problems with it, even with ISO1600 film. I used to carry everything through in ziploc bags, out of the film cans, but I've never felt comfortable about travelling for however many weeks with the leaders hanging out of the can - it doesn't feel safe even though I've had no problems. However this time I've discovered Eagle Creek half-cubes (http://www.eaglecreek.com/pack-it_system/40151.html). Each 1/2 cube will hold exactly 40 film tubs. There's a cut-away panel covered with mesh so you can see inside and they are much tougher than ziploc bags. Since the film is going to be x-rayed anyway there is no particular advantage to using plastic bags and not taking the film tubs, other than a slight increase in weight and bulk which imo is offset by the convenience and safety. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, February 03, 2002, 4:16:19 AM, you wrote: Joe, I also just came back from 3 weeks overseas, carrying 75 rolls of film. Like you I requested hand inspection, and at O'Hare and Houston (twice) they grudgingly granted it. To make life easy, I always carry the film in a large clear plastic ziplock bag without plastic canisters, so the film is readily visible. They swabbed it for explosives, also, but the whole bag rather than individual films. I must say that I got very angry about the rudeness of the security staff, I really felt that I was being treated like a criminal rather than a customer. I believe it is possible to be professional without being obnoxious. Both at O'Hare and Houston I was told that the x-ray machines wouldn't affect film under ASA1000; at Houston I lied and said I had some 1600 film mixed in with the 400 and 800 which was actually in the bag. I'm thinking of buying 4 rolls of cheap 1600 film to carry with me in future so I'll have more leverage with these people. I was also told in Houston that from Feb 20 or thereabouts the FAA was mandating that all film go through the scanner. I don't know if this is true or not, but you heard it here first. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
PUG woes
Dear All, there have been several complaints about the PUG. First: the Komkon server has been down several times this week, Admin had technical problems with the server itself. I hope they are solved now. Files sizes: As Bill pointed out, there are serveral reasons to keep the filesize small. First: stealing small pics is not so attractive as big printable ones. Second: Space on the komkon Server, we don't have to pay for it and this should make us considerate of disk space. Third: We are a group situated all over the world and the bandwidth is not all over the world as good as in the Western Hemispere. And as Annsan pointed out, not everyone can aford fast big bandwidth and computers with huge screens. I think Bill's idea with the link is a good one. Please put the link in the comments for the time being. I have to talk with Jostein about an additional field. Resizing of the pics. There are two restrictions on the file sizes: first the file size must be below 75 K second the longest part of the pic is max 600 pixel. I have to resize the pics which don't follow these rules. Since I don't have photoshop I use a different freeware program to resize. And this program downgrades resized pics considerably. If you don't want me to fiddle with your pic (which I prefer) keep to the rules. And you'll get the pics the way you want them. Problems with differnt Browsers I am at present working on a way to automate the creation of the PUG. Unfortunatly my program made a mistake which I didn't realize until it was too late. The blanks should be gone from the file now. And you should be able to view the PUG with Netscrape and Opera as well. Cheers Adelheid PUG Maintainer (in training :) -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG woes
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:25:15 +0100 (MET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to resize the pics which don't follow these rules. Since I don't have photoshop I use a different freeware program to resize. And this program downgrades resized pics considerably. If you don't want me to fiddle with your pic (which I prefer) keep to the rules. And you'll get the pics the way you want them. Just a quick note here... If you used ImageMagick to resize the pics as they were uploaded this would save much time for you and would dynamically resize all images over 600 in width or height. You could use the same tool to dynamically create the thumbnails also. The resizing of images can be done without degradation of the image. Just a thought Kevin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
You of course have a demo to share with us? Otis J. C. O'Connell wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 10:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts? With conventional monitors, the PUG pictures won't get better by going to higher res, they'll just get bigger. Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language) The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image. When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful 2400X3000 pixel image. But when I resize it to 480X600 all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get all jagged. Why do you think all the digital cameras are going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the overall resolution of the image. The PUG size is adequate for general viewing, I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style about 10 YEARS ago. and I find my 6x7 scans are noticeably better than 35mm, even at this low resolution. I'll send you a 600 x 400 point jpeg that was scanned from a 6x7 color neg if you'd like to see it. It pops rather well. I dont care how much it pops at 600X400, it would look MUCH better at say 1280 X 960. Not just bigger but much more DETAIL. Most of the scans that look bad on the PUG are bad scans. They're not too small. Paul Once again I disagree. They are too small. They dont even aproach what 35mm can do let alone 6X7. They might be fine if we were shooting with pentax 110 cameras but were not. JCO = J. C. O'Connell wrote: Because the 600 pixel and 75K filesize limitations are a joke. We might as well all be using 1 Mpixel digital cameras. I just resized and jpegged a very nice P67 BW 8X10 and it looks like crap with only 600 pixels max. What the point of using all these fantastic Pentax lenses, and then reducing the image to where its ruined?? I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes. It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size images. JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Film at airports, again
We going to get reasonal solutions to a lot of air travel challenges until DOT and FAA are overhauled -- in my opinion, they servce the carriers not the customers acceptance of the new security requirements notwithstanding. These knee jerk, low tech reactions to the new security requirements are not going to foster much of a recovery for the industry -- in my opinion. It takes time to catch up, but I see no indication they know where the goal posts are located. We have reduced our air travel to only that which is just not optional. Otis Wright Richard Seaman wrote: Joe, I also just came back from 3 weeks overseas, carrying 75 rolls of film. Like you I requested hand inspection, and at O'Hare and Houston (twice) they grudgingly granted it. To make life easy, I always carry the film in a large clear plastic ziplock bag without plastic canisters, so the film is readily visible. They swabbed it for explosives, also, but the whole bag rather than individual films. I must say that I got very angry about the rudeness of the security staff, I really felt that I was being treated like a criminal rather than a customer. I believe it is possible to be professional without being obnoxious. Both at O'Hare and Houston I was told that the x-ray machines wouldn't affect film under ASA1000; at Houston I lied and said I had some 1600 film mixed in with the 400 and 800 which was actually in the bag. I'm thinking of buying 4 rolls of cheap 1600 film to carry with me in future so I'll have more leverage with these people. I was also told in Houston that from Feb 20 or thereabouts the FAA was mandating that all film go through the scanner. I don't know if this is true or not, but you heard it here first. Richard. home phone: (1)(847) 244 5463 home page: www.richard-seaman.com --- original message --- I'm just back from three weeks overseas. Departing Albuquerque airport on January 13, I asked for a hand inspection of my film, as I usually do at U.S. airports. Result: they opened and wiped every cannister, then tested each wipe on the sniffing machine (the one they use for portable computers). Then they also made me remove my shoes, and wiped and tested those. As each wipe takes a few seconds, this is time consuming for the quantity of film I had with me. Guess I won't ask for hand inspection anymore. Joe _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
J. C. O'Connell wrote: IIt depends on the SCREEN RESOLUTION being used to display the graphic. I use 1280X960 and can view an entire image up to that size without scrolling. What screen resolution are you using BTW?? I'm using 1280 x 960, so the 72 ppi PUG images are about the size of a 4 x 6 minilab print, which is adequate for general viewing. If I view a 1200 x 900 image, I'm still seeing it at 72ppi. It's just bigger. All web images are the same resolution. Some are just larger than others. Of course the other issue is that many members are still on dial-up modems. A PUG of 1200 x 900 images would be crippling for them. And Bill has pointed out that there are server issues as well. A larger dimension just isn't going to happen. But that doesn't mean we can't display nice images. Looking at PUG, I find that most of the images appear as well detailed and nicely rendered. About 10% of them, however, are obviously bad scans. Some members may be limited by their equipment, but some may be making mistakes. It was obvious in yesterday's discussions that at least one member was sizing his files so they were 75K when open, almost ten times smaller than they had to be. Paul - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Nice scans, Shel. But as you point out, the scanner's resolution isn't a factor when you're resizing for the web. Everything on the web is 72ppi. Of course, the 4000 ppi will print far better at 11 x14 than the 1000 ppi, and it will look a bit better than the 2800 ppi scan. I scan most of my images at 4000 ppi, because my principal reason for scanning is to generate files for digital printing. Web applications are secondary for me. So when I want an image for the web, I just resize one of my printing files. However I could just have easily scanned the original at a lower res. I am not certain, but I do think scanning at a resolution somewhat higher than the web number is an advantage. I think PhotoShop's resampling produces a better look than what most scanners are capable of at very low res. But that's just a guess. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yesterday I spent some time with a friend running a test of scanners. I won't go into all the details of why we're doing this, but here's what we're doing: we've got three scanners to use at this time, a Nikon Coolscan 4000, a Nikon LS 1000, and a Leaf, which will scan up to 4x5 negatives or slides. We chose two negatives to work with, one with lots of detail and a broad contrast range and the other rather low contrast with broad areas of sky and little fine detail. The first set of scans included both negs on the Coolscan, with resolution set at 4000ppi, 2800ppi, and 1000ppi, and at each resolution we scanned with and without using GEM ... but I digress. I've put up a page which has three scans of the one negative at three different resolutions. The only manipulation to the negs was to adjust the gamma a bit (all were adjusted to the same level) and to crop them ever so slightly to get rid of the black border and a distracting element, and bring the ppi down to something more compatible with the monitor. IOW, all were treated identically. Here's the page ... and without going into some photo editing software, and just by looking at the images on the screen, can you honestly see any significant difference between them. If there is any, it's not noticeable on my monitor, nor on the monitors af three other people to whom I've sent the page. Take a look and tell me what you think. http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/temp/ls4000-test-pdml.html Paul Stenquist wrote: J. C. O'Connell wrote: Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language) The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image. Yes, but you can only display so many on a monitor. For printing, hi-res is a benefit. For viewing on a given monitor, more pixels only serve to make the image larger. When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful 2400X3000 pixel image. Yes, and at 100% you can't see all of it on a monitor. But when I resize it to 480X600 all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get all jagged. If you're doing it right,, keeping it at 72ppi, and viewing it at 100%, you shouldn't see jagged diagonals on a monitor. On a print, yes. On a monitor, no. Why do you think all the digital cameras are going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the overall resolution of the image. For printing. For web viewing, it's inconsequential. The PUG size is adequate for general viewing, I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style about 10 YEARS ago. And on a 640 by 480 monitor, a 600 pixel image would almost fill the screen. On a current 1280 x 960 display, it's about the size of a 4 x 6 mini lab print. Not ideal, but adequate for viewing. and I find my 6x7 scans are noticeably better than 35mm, even at this low resolution. I'll send you a 600 x 400 point jpeg that was scanned from a 6x7 color neg if you'd like to see it. It pops rather well. I dont care how much it pops at 600X400, it would look MUCH better at say 1280 X 960. Not just bigger but much more DETAIL. Well, I scanned it at 4000 ppi, which yielded a 9848 x 7128 image after cropping (about 250 meg). That's the one I print from. For the web, I resized it to 600x400 points at 72 ppi, letting PhotoShop resample it. If I view the small jpeg at 100%, and the huge 200 meg tiff file at 6%, they're the same size on my screen. And you know what? to the naked eye, they're identical. No, that's not quite true. The small file actualy looks a little better, because the huge file generates some noise on horizontal lines. Of course, the huge file makes a magnificent 11 x 14 print on my Epson 1200. The little file will show all kinds of pixelation when printed. In other words, on a monitor, it don't make a damn bit of difference. No bullshit. Just fact. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss
RE: Fish-eye-Takumar 1:4/17 Dust
It sounds like fungus and there is no reason that you should not have it cleaned. A lens like this may very well be affected by matter between the elements. Do what makes you feel better. I'd have it professionally done as the lens has a high number of elements plus the filter mechanism. Either that or return it for a refund if the condition was not described. ppro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ming Hui Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fish-eye-Takumar 1:4/17 Dust Guys, take it easy. I just wanted to know if there's a way to clean the internal filters myself. What's wrong with wanting to clean up a newly acquired lens? FWIW, The dust is a small dark color dot surrounded by a very light color circle. The whole thing is about 0.5mm across. Is it starting fungus? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Hi Paul, I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts? Your jpeg for the PUG should be 75K stored and closed. When open, it will be around 700K. If you size your file to 75K open, you're seriously degrading it. The beauty of a jpeg format is that it compresses the file on disk but allows it to decompress when it's opened. Another note: Once you save a jpeg file don't resave it. Each time it's compressed some degradation occurs. You can view it as many times as you want, but don't keep saving it over and over again. And you don;'t have to use the save for web option on PhotoShop. Just scan your file as a tiff, modify it for the PUG, size it to 600x400 at 72 ppi, then save it as a jpeg. Photoshop will ask you to choose a quality level from one 1 to 11. After you choose the level, PhotoShop will tell you how big the stored file is going to be. Choose the highest level that keeps you under 75K, usually about 8. However this differs depending on how many colors there are in a particular shot. BWs are much smaller than color scans. Paul Sid Barras wrote: Hi all, I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG submissions. I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed): My photo in the PUG this month is a dissapointment for me due to its noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly sharp, extremely loud photo, as probably only Velvia can do. The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within the parameters stated on the pre-submission page. On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the gallery looked great on my computer. When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively speaking). I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the image with the save for web command (I use Photoshop 6), until I get to the 75k size limit. Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important: I see a 600x410 picture with a size of 26K. Didn't you say that you sent 75K? Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts. I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the server, does it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open? So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open? And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that the thumbnails will show in both netscape and explorer? Regards to all from cajunland USA... Sid B - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Dear PUG meister, Sid sent me a copy of his original 73K jpg as he submitted to the PUG. It sure is different from the 26K jpg on display in the gallery. The dimensions on the original pix are 600 tall by 400+ pixels. There was a bit of a ragged edge on the left side, but no real problem. Are we sure he didn't somehow get resized? The final image matches very closely what I get when I resize the image to 26K in Paint Shop Pro. Regards, Bob S. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
I don't know. I have very little knowledge of file types beyond those I use. But I think that an uncompressed tiff retains all of the information of the original file. I started using tiffs, because they can be transported to Quark Xpress for desktop publishing use. Steve Larson wrote: Hi Paul, I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts? Your jpeg for the PUG should be 75K stored and closed. When open, it will be around 700K. If you size your file to 75K open, you're seriously degrading it. The beauty of a jpeg format is that it compresses the file on disk but allows it to decompress when it's opened. Another note: Once you save a jpeg file don't resave it. Each time it's compressed some degradation occurs. You can view it as many times as you want, but don't keep saving it over and over again. And you don;'t have to use the save for web option on PhotoShop. Just scan your file as a tiff, modify it for the PUG, size it to 600x400 at 72 ppi, then save it as a jpeg. Photoshop will ask you to choose a quality level from one 1 to 11. After you choose the level, PhotoShop will tell you how big the stored file is going to be. Choose the highest level that keeps you under 75K, usually about 8. However this differs depending on how many colors there are in a particular shot. BWs are much smaller than color scans. Paul Sid Barras wrote: Hi all, I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG submissions. I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed): My photo in the PUG this month is a dissapointment for me due to its noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly sharp, extremely loud photo, as probably only Velvia can do. The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within the parameters stated on the pre-submission page. On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the gallery looked great on my computer. When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively speaking). I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the image with the save for web command (I use Photoshop 6), until I get to the 75k size limit. Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important: I see a 600x410 picture with a size of 26K. Didn't you say that you sent 75K? Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts. I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the server, does it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open? So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open? And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that the thumbnails will show in both netscape and explorer? Regards to all from cajunland USA... Sid B - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Battery For S1 Meter?
Paul, I don't know what battery it takes, but when you find out chances are you can get it or a replacement at: http://www.photobattery.com/ Bill KG4LOV, WPRS983 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:28 AM Subject: Battery For S1 Meter? Hi, I am after a battery for the coupled meter for an S1? does any one know what battery it takes and what equivelant i cant get now? I assume that its a mercury. Thanks, Paul - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote: I see a 600x410 picture with a size of 26K. Didn't you say that you sent 75K? Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts. I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the server, does it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open? No, not on that server (or whereever your hard-disk storage is). What happens if you open a compressed image (like a .JPG) is that it is uncompressed in the computers memory. If you have made an image that has 600x400 pixels, it will be exactly 720.000 bytes in memory (600 * 400 * 3, where the 3 is 3 bytes resulting from using 24 bits color) (and each byte holds exactly 8 bits :-) So this 720.000 bytes is almost 10 times bigger (arround 700Kb) than allowed for the PUG, that is why you will use the JPG file format to store it in, that will reduce the size of the file on DISK (and internet and ...) by using compression. That will reduce the quality of the image a bit but could size it down to something like 75Kb in this case. The size that is shown in the statusbar of your graphic manipulation program (like photoshop) is probably the uncomressed size (720.000 bytes here). So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open? No, if you would do that you reduce the number of pixels (resolution). 75Kb open, would be something like 130x200 pixels. (130 * 200 * 3 = 78.000 bytes) If you would save such a file as a JPG it would be much smaller, possibly even below 10Kb. (or maybe the 26Kb mentioned before). What I do for PUG submissions is scale it down in Photoshop (or other image program) to an image of 600x400 pixels, then add a signature-text and save it as a TIFF format. This results in a file probably arround 500Kb. Then I save it AGAIN as a JPG, just for use on the WEB (PUG). I select JPG compression such that the resulting diskfile will be 75Kb or slightly less. Most image programs let you select that by trial-and-error without actually saving the image. Once the resulting size shown is within limits, you let it save it ... And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that the thumbnails will show in both netscape and explorer? It used to be, but Netscape keeps changing :-) BTW: I use Netscape 4.61 without any problem. Regards, JvW - Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl - 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: my February PUG favorites
Thanks for the kind words Amita.He is usually in this pose about 20 hours a day.LOL. The Pug version is not as good as the print,it was scanned at a lab and all of the BW that were done came out with a Bluish haze.I worked it in PS as best as i can at this time in space. Its coming,just slowly. Dave Begin Original Message From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Grey by David J Brooks - I love the pose of the cat. - End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
At 02:52 3-2-2002 -0500, annsan wrote: I'm most bothered by images that are so big that I cant see the whole picture on my monitor. I have it set at 800 x 640 because it is better for my eyes. Every thing in large font too. It is a rather elitist attitude to just make things work for only those with the best hardware and most advanced software. I would like my photos to be viewed by as many people as possible, wouldn't you? Absolutely. Nicely said. And nothing irritates me more than having to scroll to see a picture on my monitor. My feeling is that it detracts from the image too Wendy --- Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] home page http://www.beard-redfern.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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
And a lot of people don't *want* to have higher resolution versions of their images available on the web. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Problem is, lots of us are drinking thru a very narrow straw. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes. It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size images. -- 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
I opened a tiff and then saved it as a bmp. The bmp was the same size on disk as the tiff. The only possible downside is that it's windows specific, whereas tiff is a more universal format. But if it's handy for you for printing, it should be fine. Of course you have to use jpeg compression for web images. Paul Steve Larson wrote: Hi Paul, I`ve been saving scans as bmp`s. Is saving as a tiff better? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts? Your jpeg for the PUG should be 75K stored and closed. When open, it will be around 700K. If you size your file to 75K open, you're seriously degrading it. The beauty of a jpeg format is that it compresses the file on disk but allows it to decompress when it's opened. Another note: Once you save a jpeg file don't resave it. Each time it's compressed some degradation occurs. You can view it as many times as you want, but don't keep saving it over and over again. And you don;'t have to use the save for web option on PhotoShop. Just scan your file as a tiff, modify it for the PUG, size it to 600x400 at 72 ppi, then save it as a jpeg. Photoshop will ask you to choose a quality level from one 1 to 11. After you choose the level, PhotoShop will tell you how big the stored file is going to be. Choose the highest level that keeps you under 75K, usually about 8. However this differs depending on how many colors there are in a particular shot. BWs are much smaller than color scans. Paul Sid Barras wrote: Hi all, I've started a new chain with this letter because I think it important for some of us who may be confused with the rules regarding PUG submissions. I started the older chain of conversation with this (condensed): My photo in the PUG this month is a dissapointment for me due to its noticeable pixelation. The original image, in Velvia, is an incredibly sharp, extremely loud photo, as probably only Velvia can do. The photo I sent was under 75k, and the length and width, were within the parameters stated on the pre-submission page. On my computer, the final, re-sized, retouched Jpeg, ready for the gallery looked great on my computer. When I view the same image on our gallery, it looks awful (relatively speaking). I tried to keep the image as close to the limit in size as allowed, in hopes of having the best quallity I can hope for shown. I tweak the image with the save for web command (I use Photoshop 6), until I get to the 75k size limit. Bob S., in his comment mentioned something important: I see a 600x410 picture with a size of 26K. Didn't you say that you sent 75K? Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts. I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the server, does it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open? So, the actual image must be under 75k when it is open? And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that the thumbnails will show in both netscape and explorer? Regards to all from cajunland USA... Sid B - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Hi Shel.I too am new to this digital and PS but i think you are correct in saying that saving or saveing as,will result in poorer quality images.I do however use the save to web option when i send horse show orginazers some pictures for their web sites and when i open them on their site ,they seem to look ok,ie no pixelations,drop offs etc. This may not be an ideal way either but so far in my experimenting it is the better of the two options. Experimentaion continues. Dave Begin Original Message From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Sid ... I'm new to scanning and Photoshop, and far be it from me to answer your questions, but I do have a question or two and a comment. Someone once commented that saving a JPEG image to the web in Photoshop is not the best way to get good images, and that the image is degraded by using that feature. I'm just learning PS, and am probably as curious as you about these things. Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Sunday, February 03, 2002, 5:37:22 AM, Paul wrote: PE The gigabit film - 720 lines/mm and 40 ASA - sure looks interesting. Has PE anyone tried this? It says the stock it in 35 and 4x5 and are preparing to PE produce it in 120 as well. 57 euro for 50 sheets of 4x5 and the chemistry to PE develop it doesn't sound too bad. PE Paul Ewins PE Melbourne, Australia Interesting but only if you like making 1-bit images - the film has no tones at all when developed such, it is for microfiche copying, having ONLY pure black and pure white, nothing inbetween, AFAIK. Or no? 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: Horror!!
gb There is actually what appears to be a small piece of hair on the inside of gb the rear element. I had posted several weeks back a question to see if gb anyone has ever sent their lens to pentax to have the lenses cleaned and gb roughly how much it would cost. But no one every replied. [...] Hi Gabriel, sorry about it :) I didn't mean it. I hope I didn't upset you (the ROTFL part of my message). I will try to offer some help now :) The biggest thing I would worry about when removing rear part of lens is that quite often, the rear group is aligned individually by several screws - that's centered. Unless you have a collimator or such optical bench device, you couldn't possibly center the lens right again. I learned this the hard way :) I ruined (fortunately a very inexpensive screwmount) 1.8/50, by removing the rear elements assembly to clean greasy aperture. I haven't shot with it since, though (I didn't in the first place), so I don't know if it did affect the lens performance and how much. About your problem - are you sure it even affects the optical quality of the lens? Perhaps you could try alongside a good 1.9/43 LTD, what you think? I would be reluctant to have repaired a lens which performs well - it might perform worse after you get it, and it could be a hassle to prove it. I guess official Pentax repair wouldn't degrade it, though. More, if it's directly beyond the last element, on older lenses this is often held by a retainer ring which can be loosened by spanner wrench or similar tool, removing the element and cleaning it. Often, the last element is not centered individually so that it cannot be decentered, as it is cut out exactly to fit the metal around it, with the retaining ring holding it fastly in place. I have cleaned one such older lens which got hazy on the last element from inside, and it works well. I dunno however how easy or hard is it on newer lenses. It was a preset lens too, so there was no problem with opening the rear part (no aperture coupling). As a resume: I wouldn't worry about it at all, unless it really shows in the photos. Does it affect Bokeh or something? Are you sure? If it is hair-like in dimensions, it shouldn't have any effect on optical quality at all. 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Dear Bob, I don't remember why I had to resize this particular pic. Since I don't have the original anymore I have no way of telling. Please keep to the rules then I am not forced to fiddle around with your pics. It only increases the workload anyway. Cheers Adelheid -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2002 15:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts? Dear PUG meister, Sid sent me a copy of his original 73K jpg as he submitted to the PUG. It sure is different from the 26K jpg on display in the gallery. The dimensions on the original pix are 600 tall by 400+ pixels. There was a bit of a ragged edge on the left side, but no real problem. Are we sure he didn't somehow get resized? The final image matches very closely what I get when I resize the image to 26K in Paint Shop Pro. Regards, Bob S. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?
Sunday, February 03, 2002, 11:02:19 AM, Peter wrote: PS Has any list-member experience of customs and taxes to be payed for PS articles sent to you from abroad after eBay-auctions. In Sweden were I live PS the custom offices official answer is that you have to pay both customs and PS VAT (25%) on the declared value of the parcel sent. Then of course the cost PS would depend on the value declared by the sender. Maybe this is only a PS typical Swedish policy? PS Any creative ideas how to evade these costs? Peter, does it apply to all declared values, or is there a limit? For us in Czech republic, there is a limit under which you don't have to pay anything (except small customs fee), not even VAT. The limit is 8000,- CZK for items received from persons and about 1500,- CZK for items from businesses. Perhaps there is something like it in Sweden too, only the official forgot to mention it :) ? Anyway, marking the declaration as Gift wouldn't hurt. Also, try to have the sender sent it as a private person, without any sales receipts inclosed, that way it might look really like a gift. 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Jan van Wijk wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote: I see a 600x410 picture with a size of 26K. Didn't you say that you sent 75K? Perhaps this accounts for your artifacts. I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the server, does it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open? I saved Sid's PUG image. It's a 26K jpeg compressed file on my Mac hard drive. Opening it in PhotoShop it yields a 720K image of 410 x 600 dimension. Of course it's already been degraded by the jpeg compression, but I experimented with resaving it as a jpeg. If I save it as a maximum quality jpeg, (PhotoShop's 11 grade), it yields a file of 79K. I think it was around 60 K at a 10 rating. Like some other images I've seen, this image compresses to a very small size because it has a large field of a single color. I've found that I can sometimes compress an image at 10 or 11 quality rating and still end up under 75K. With complicated images, I sometimes have to compress at a 5 rating. If this file was compressed with software that did not offer variable jpeg quality, it could well have ended up as a 26K file with normal jpeg compression. With PhotoShop it comes in at 26k when saved with a 5 quality rating, which is Medium Quality. Paul - 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: It's February, It Must Be A Cotty's Pentax Mods Site Update...
Title for the picture: Serious doubt on age of entrant to under 10s BMX competition Malcolm Ah, but Monika, it was the 'Under 10 IQ BMX Competition' - and not only was I the winner, I was the only entrant, as I got the wrong venue, the wrong date, in fact I was on the wrong planet.. (gurgling noise) time for the bouncy room again... ;-) ___ 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 .
February PUG favorites
This month's PUG runneth over with so many varied and rich views. These are a few of the pictures that kept me coming back to see more: Capitol Reef tree Sculpture by Jan van Wijk. I like the conrast between the annimated quality of the tree and the softness of the background. Caloques by Juame Lahueta. What a remarkably playful space Juame has found. I really like the interaction of the planes of the walls and the painted edges of the walkways, the interplay of the grays and white lines. Well seen, Juame! Wood and Wire by Darryn Richter. The more I look at this picture, the more harmony of shape, tone, space is revealed. The knot in the wood and the loop of wire, the grid of the wire and the edge of the composition, the softness of the weeds as one intercepts the foreground and dances my eye back into the soft focus in the background. The Event by Gianfranco Irlanda. The enlightened expressions of surprise, anticipation, and pleasure is a joy to see. It is hightened by the fact that we are not seeing what they are seeing. Below 0 (degrees) by Thomas Cakalic. I like the color and contrast of this unusaual natural formation. Leaf by Ed Kenney. Such a rich tactile presence of the droplets! Macro-Wide angle by Dan Scott. I like the contrast of the graphic image of the screen wire and the pictoral reflections of the water droplets. Butterfly near Tucson AZ. Nov. 7, 2001 by Ann Sanfedele. What delicacy! What a tapestry of tone, line, color, and transparancy! My wallpaper for quite a long time to come. Thanks, Ann! = What boots up must come down. Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Adelheid, I certainly appreciate all the work you are doing to create the PUG. The large number of images every month are a credit to it's popularity and the value it adds to this discussion group. I would appreciate knowing what it was about Sid's image that might have caused it to be resized. Perhaps Sid could send it to you again and you could check. If we have other criteria which cause an image to be resized, we sure ought to know about them in advance. Having seen the original, I personally would have been a lot less gracious about it than Sid if it had happened to one of my images. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Bob, I don't remember why I had to resize this particular pic. Since I don't have the original anymore I have no way of telling. Please keep to the rules then I am not forced to fiddle around with your pics. It only increases the workload anyway. Cheers Adelheid - 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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?
Hi, Of course, things may (and probably are) vastly different in other countries, but my experience in Canada, is that about one in ten items that I've bought from the US (sent by mail) are dinged for duties and taxes. I guess with the volume of goods crossing our borders, they can't check them all. Although I've never asked a shipper to do these things, several have marked the items as gifts, or damaged camera parts, and marked the value at under $10. It also may be that I tend to buy eBay items really cheap - typically under $30 - so maybe these things don't catch the Customs officers attention due to their low value. regards, frank Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Sunday, February 03, 2002, 11:02:19 AM, Peter wrote: PS Has any list-member experience of customs and taxes to be payed for PS articles sent to you from abroad after eBay-auctions. In Sweden were I live PS the custom offices official answer is that you have to pay both customs and PS VAT (25%) on the declared value of the parcel sent. Then of course the cost PS would depend on the value declared by the sender. Maybe this is only a PS typical Swedish policy? PS Any creative ideas how to evade these costs? Peter, does it apply to all declared values, or is there a limit? For us in Czech republic, there is a limit under which you don't have to pay anything (except small customs fee), not even VAT. The limit is 8000,- CZK for items received from persons and about 1500,- CZK for items from businesses. Perhaps there is something like it in Sweden too, only the official forgot to mention it :) ? Anyway, marking the declaration as Gift wouldn't hurt. Also, try to have the sender sent it as a private person, without any sales receipts inclosed, that way it might look really like a gift. 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 . -- 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Shel, Very nice scans. I've been lusting for that scanner since they hit the shelves. I've read some really good reviews of it. I've been seriously considering acquiring one of them to archive my negs to CD-ROM, and from what I have read, it's probably the best available scanner for the price range within my grasp (using plastic). They all look pretty much identical in quality, mainly because they all exceed the resolution capabilty of the Internet media being used, which includes everything between the website and my monitor. I'd like to see the full resolution scan, with no resizing for the web but, I'm sure you don't want to upload the whole multi-megabyte file. Er, if you do, pass along the URL. Len --- Here's the page ... and without going into some photo editing software, and just by looking at the images on the screen, can you honestly see any significant difference between them. If there is any, it's not noticeable on my monitor, nor on the monitors af three other people to whom I've sent the page. Take a look and tell me what you think. - 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 .
Annual cancer research fundraising project
Every year my S.O. runs the Boston Marathon as part of the Dana-Farber Marathon Challenge, raising money for cancer research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center. My contribution is to send a thank you gift of a CD full of computer background images to those who make contributions. This year's images are now on line at http://www.robertstech.com/dfmc/_index.htm -- 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: Film at airports, again
We have had similar issues where I work, and I work for the US Government (Env. Protection Agency). Many of field personnel who do site inspections and clean ups are issued radiation film badges a s a part of our safety policies. Several of our on-scene coordinators have been *forced* by airport security to pass their film badges through the x-ray machines, and have refused to hand inspect the items. This, in effect, fogs the badge and results in a reading that makes the individuals appears to have been exposed to a radiation source. Thus we have to go through the hassle of documenting each exposure and explaining to the NRC it is not a radiation exposure, but bone-headed stubbornness on the part of the FAA. In fact, my Radiation Safety Officer is preparing to write to FAA on just this matterand to turn over the paper work on documenting the exposures to the FAA so they can address the issue for each incident we have. It is absolutely ridiculous that the FAA will not follow its own set of rules and regulations pertaining to hand checking of items, but hopefully if we threaten them with a vast amount of paperwork, they will get the word. FWIW, the Federal Protective Service, who provide security at federal buildings, has been very good about working with others agencies to ensure sensitive items do not have to be x-rayed. It seems FAA is just not wanting to get on board with current practical policies and is just following orders to x-ray everything. - Original Message - From: Otis Wright, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 6:31 AM Subject: Re: Film at airports, again We going to get reasonal solutions to a lot of air travel challenges until DOT and FAA are overhauled -- in my opinion, they servce the carriers not the customers acceptance of the new security requirements notwithstanding. These knee jerk, low tech reactions to the new security requirements are not going to foster much of a recovery for the industry -- in my opinion. It takes time to catch up, but I see no indication they know where the goal posts are located. We have reduced our air travel to only that which is just not optional. Otis Wright Richard Seaman wrote: Joe, I also just came back from 3 weeks overseas, carrying 75 rolls of film. Like you I requested hand inspection, and at O'Hare and Houston (twice) they grudgingly granted it. To make life easy, I always carry the film in a large clear plastic ziplock bag without plastic canisters, so the film is readily visible. They swabbed it for explosives, also, but the whole bag rather than individual films. I must say that I got very angry about the rudeness of the security staff, I really felt that I was being treated like a criminal rather than a customer. I believe it is possible to be professional without being obnoxious. Both at O'Hare and Houston I was told that the x-ray machines wouldn't affect film under ASA1000; at Houston I lied and said I had some 1600 film mixed in with the 400 and 800 which was actually in the bag. I'm thinking of buying 4 rolls of cheap 1600 film to carry with me in future so I'll have more leverage with these people. I was also told in Houston that from Feb 20 or thereabouts the FAA was mandating that all film go through the scanner. I don't know if this is true or not, but you heard it here first. Richard. home phone: (1)(847) 244 5463 home page: www.richard-seaman.com --- original message --- I'm just back from three weeks overseas. Departing Albuquerque airport on January 13, I asked for a hand inspection of my film, as I usually do at U.S. airports. Result: they opened and wiped every cannister, then tested each wipe on the sniffing machine (the one they use for portable computers). Then they also made me remove my shoes, and wiped and tested those. As each wipe takes a few seconds, this is time consuming for the quantity of film I had with me. Guess I won't ask for hand inspection anymore. Joe _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Well, that stretches my German a little, but I'll give it a go :-( Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 03 February 2002 17:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Classic Low Speed Film is Back Here's a page with a comparison of numerous films - Agfa APX 25, Efke 25, Gigabit, Pan F, maybe some that I missed. You'll see that Gigabit film can produce more than simple high contrast images. http://www.chrzahn.de/Fotoseiten/Tipps/apx25Ersatz.html#giga Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Interesting but only if you like making 1-bit images - the film has no tones at all when developed such, it is for microfiche copying, having ONLY pure black and pure white, nothing inbetween, AFAIK. Or no? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: Brief overview of the Spotmatic lenses
Hi, Mike, Nice post. I agree with everything in it. Except the word essentially as used to modify the best selling SLR's of the period. They were in fact the best selling SLR's of their time. They outsold Nikon, Canon and Minolta - combined. At their peak in the late '60's, I think they were producing somewhere around 30,000 units a month (!). One of my favourite lenses of all time is the Super Tak 2.0 55mm. Not sexy in terms of looks, focal length or speed, they are none the less built like tanks, and sharp as hell. And, as you alluded to, super cheap on todays' used market - like $10 or so. I don't think there's a better bargain around. regards, frank Mike Johnston wrote: Bob, That's the series just before the Super-Multi-Coated Takumars. Roughly, there were three series of Spotmatic lens: --The Super Takumars, which were contemporaneous with the original Spotmatic known as the SP (1964); --The Super-Multi-Coated Takumars, roughly contemporaneous with the SPII (1971), but made with light-meter coupling pins for the SPF and ES series that immediately followed; --The SMC Takumars, more often found on the Spotmatic F and ES. Takumars and Auto-Takumars are earlier and generally pre-date the Spotmatic. Although SMC is an abbreviation of Super-Multi-Coated, for the purposes of lens identification the two terms are NOT interchangeable. The Super-Multi-Coated Takumars (which I abbreviate S.-M.-C.) have metal focusing rings whereas the SMC Takumars have rubberized focusing rings. The two series were almost simultaneous, with the S.-M.-C. coming before the SMC by only a couple of years. Collectors generally prefer the Super Takumars, whereas users (marginally!) tend to prefer the SMC variants. There is NOT any huge difference in performance, as the Super-Takumars are generally wonderful lenses. Super-Takumars were well-coated for the era, and later ones sometimes actually had multicoating without being marked as such. If you're interested in this stuff, we are EXTREMELY fortunate to have a most excellent book on the subject--a book that is both well-researched and attractively presented--_The Ultimate Asahi Pentax Screw Mount Guide 1952-1977_ by Gerjan van Oosten. A must-have, in my biased opinion. I'm of the rather partisan persuasion that every Pentax aficionado ought to have a Spotmatic with a Super-Takumar lens. I don't have to tell you that they are a remnant of a bygone era in camera manufacture, when a level of mechanical quality that is now almost unobtainable was virtually routine. Plus, since they were essentially the best-selling SLRs of the period, they're extremely cheap on the used market; and as a further bonus the Spotmatic is one of the most hard-wearing cameras ever made, with used cameras in excellent or better condition being the norm instead of the exception even though they may be approaching 40 years old! Hope this helps-- --Mike -- 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: Film at airports, again
On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 08:38 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Had exactly the same experience recently at Detroit Metro airport with 20 rolls that I had requested be hand inspection. The rolls were out of the plastic containers and in one large zip lock bag. I travel alot and never ask for hand inspection, but thought with the heightened security they might have increased the power with the carry on baggage scanner. They had removed the sign that had stated scanning was safe on film. Yep, this happened to me at LaGuardia at Christmas. They wanted to run all my Delta 3200 through the X-ray. I asked if it would be enough if I opened all of the foil wrappers for them (it was 120). Finally, after some haggling, they agreed, and swabbed about half of them before they got tired of it and let me through. They checked Vanessa's shoes, but not mine, and one of the metal detector guys noticed our Leafs jerseys (as we were on our way to NC to see the Leafs vs. the Hurricanes) and kept whispering Go Devils! whenever we weren't looking. -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: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG fullof artifacts?)
Hi, Paul, Bill may have had a liberal approach, but if you submitted via AutoPug, no discretion was (or is) allowed. The first time I submitted that way, I think my image was around 77 or 78K, and it was rejected. I re-sized it to right around 75K, and it was accepted. To change the current paramaters would obviously require re-setting AutoPug, which may or may not be a difficult and time consuming thing to do. regards, frank Paul Stenquist wrote: Bill seemed to have had a somewhat liberal approach to interpreting the size restrictions. Recent PUGs frequently contained images approaching 90K in file size, and something like a 600 x 450 was generally allowed. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but that's the way it appeared.) -- 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: India (was: Film at airports, again
Hi Bob: I am not Oliver, but I have been to India a few times. I find your route very nice. You seem to spend most of your time in south India, and I think it is the most enjoyable part of the country, at least of the parts of India I have visited so far. The only place in your list that is not as interesting as the rest is Madras, at least for my point of view. But near Madras you have got Mahabalipuram and Kanchipuram, both of them are recommendable visits. Take lots of film, because there is nowhere like India, especially South India, for a photographer. Also, you'll need some warm clothes to sleep in the sleeping cars of Indian trains. If the air conditioner is on, it is like travelling in a mobile fridge. Feel free to ask, and I'll try to help the best I can. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain -- - 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: Film at airports, again
They obviously know hockey! ;-) -frank Aaron Reynolds wrote: one of the metal detector guys noticed our Leafs jerseys (as we were on our way to NC to see the Leafs vs. the Hurricanes) and kept whispering Go Devils! whenever we weren't looking. -- 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 10:53 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style about 10 YEARS ago. Well, my three year old laptop has a max screen res of 800x600 on its 12 screen. I use it for the vast majority of my web viewing. Images sized more than 600ppi in any direction are basically impossible for me to view online. One of the other reasons for smaller sized scans in the PUG is the very real problem of image theft on the web -- if the image is small enough, it is unusable elsewhere. -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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 09:36 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I opened a tiff and then saved it as a bmp. The bmp was the same size on disk as the tiff. The only possible downside is that it's windows specific, whereas tiff is a more universal format. Does the bmp format hold colour profile information? tiff does, that's why we prefer it over here for incoming print 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: Film at airports, again (now OT)
On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 12:36 PM, frank theriault wrote: They obviously know hockey! ;-) Yup! :) So, Frank, you watch the All-Star skills competition? Jose Theodore kicked some ass. Who else is in favour of giving Ed Belfour the boot and inviting Jose to Team Canada? I'm looking forward to seeing Theodore play in person on the 9th. -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: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)
On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Steve Larson wrote: I`m in. Why not an even 100K. You can`t really blow up a 100K image anyway with any kind of results, and it would load fast enough on a 56K modem. It would be a step into the 21st century. Provided this will not cause a problem with the PUG's free bandwidth, I would be for this. -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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?
Hi, I have had troubles with customs in two countries recently (Finland and Slovakia), so I tried to find some more information how to avoid it in future. From: Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you buy from somebody in the E.U., you won't have to pay any taxes in Sweden, but here in Spain the local customs don't charge anything on imports from outside the E.U. if they think that the declared value of the goods is small. To my knowledge, this is not correct - when bargaining with Finnish customs officers to get my MZ-5N bought at eBay, they told me that even if the package had been sent from an EU country, since the value exceeded 300 FIM (I'm not 100% sure about this amount), I would have needed to pay customs + VAT. So, there are apparently limits even within EU countries, maybe not so strictly applied outside Finland :-). In Slovakia, the packages sent from a person to another person are free of customs as far as they are not of commercial character and do not exceed 45 euro - however, this sum refers to individual items, not the package as whole... So if you receive package of three lens each declared to cost 40 euro, you should not have any troubles with the customs officers... Well, I hope I won't! At least this is what I will try next time. I hope this gives you some help. Jozef - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 13:00:18 -0500, Aaron Reynolds wrote: Does the bmp format hold colour profile information? tiff does, that's why we prefer it over here for incoming print work. No. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ - 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 .
Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
What? You're not a fan of the 2000s Redskins? Does Jack Kent Cooke still own the team? Is Joe Gibbs still the coach? Bobby Beathard still the GM? Is Art Monk still running his routes? Big Dave Butz? Riggo still the running back? The Hogs? Man, those were the _days_. --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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?
I have had one or two problems with items sent from the USA, a Ricoh Winder from Ebay for which I paid $35US, and the sender eventually labelled after several emails, she sent it as having a value of $100 It had been returned by Canadian Customs for having no customs declaration. As a result I got charged $48CDN Brokerage and Customs duty, plus PST and GST. If the seller feels pissed off, all I can say is beware. I just got a bill for $13.98 duty for a battery($46US) I ordered for my Mitsubishi Diacam Video Camera. I can't complain, the camera came in a large Optex Video Bag for $9.95 from the Salvation Army Thrift Store in North Vancouver. I repaired the camera and it has provided hours of fun for my kids. James - Original Message - From: wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions? At 09:14 3-2-2002 -0500, you wrote: From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions? Has any list-member experience of customs and taxes to be payed for articles sent to you from abroad after eBay-auctions. In Sweden were I live the custom offices official answer is that you have to pay both customs and VAT (25%) on the declared value of the parcel sent. Then of course the cost would depend on the value declared by the sender. Maybe this is only a typical Swedish policy? Any creative ideas how to evade these costs? Oh, oh, oh, don't get me ranting on customs and Canadapost. I just picked up an envelop from the post office and was billed for an amount of $9.70. Do you know how much the item cost? An english tenner. that's just over $22 CAN. Can you believe it? No I couldn't either. BANDITS! That's all I can say. Peter, the best you can hope for is that the sender declares the item as a gift and it is treated as such by customs, then the limit for duty and tax is raised. Hopefully you will either fall under that limit wrt declared value or cop for a reduced amount of tax payable. I'm still steaming. Wendy --- Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] home page http://www.beard-redfern.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?
Jozef Balaz escribió: Hi, I have had troubles with customs in two countries recently (Finland and Slovakia), so I tried to find some more information how to avoid it in future. To my knowledge, this is not correct - when bargaining with Finnish customs officers to get my MZ-5N bought at eBay, they told me that even if the package had been sent from an EU country, since the value exceeded 300 FIM (I'm not 100% sure about this amount), I would have needed to pay customs + VAT. So, there are apparently limits even within EU countries, maybe not so strictly applied outside Finland :-). But, were you importing it from Finland to Slovakia? I said that the no taxes principle applies to transactions between EU countries, not outside the EU. That's what happens here. If I buy something from a German or British shop, for example, and I have done this quite often, you pay VAT in the place you are importing from, and that's all. When I buy or sell to another EU citizen, not a shop, there are no taxes to pay. I have bought and sold lenses and other accessories, worth several hundred euros each, to and from people in Portugal and Germany, and neither them nor I have had to pay import duties or VAT. Perhaps custom officers in Finland have a different book of rules :-( And, outside the EU, I have bought and sold a few times, from shops and to and from people in this list or other lists, for example the US, Ukraine, etc. without having to pay duties. Sometimes the amount of money has been small, but at least once it was more than 800 US $. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain -- - 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] What? You're not a fan of the 2000s Redskins? Does Jack Kent Cooke still own the team? Is Joe Gibbs still the coach? Bobby Beathard still the GM? Is Art Monk still running his routes? Big Dave Butz? Riggo still the running back? The Hogs? Man, those were the _days_. It's true, and it's also true it's hard to like anyone on the team these days besides Darrell Green and Lavar Arrington. If Spurrier can win, we'll probably like him fine too. tv -- Thomas Van Veen Photography 301-758-3085 www.bigdayphoto.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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
Shel, wouldn't it suffice to crop a central portion of the scan showing some nice detail at post these at 1:1, that would make it less than 1MB ? All the photo-review-test servers are doing it this way. 2) Why the bigger seems mushy - are you sure you are looking at it at 1:1 - 100% magnification? Frantisek Sunday, February 03, 2002, 4:33:40 PM, Shel wrote: SB I'll let you know. I'm pretty sure that I'll upload the 1000ppi scan in SB its entirety either as a TIF or PSD file. I'm not sure I want to fiddle SB with loading a 22mb file for the 4000ppi scan ... but maybe, if I don't SB have to hang around the computer, although 22megs may exceed the size of SB my free web space g. 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: VERY OT Hockey stuff - was: Film at airports, again (now OT)
Sure, Aaron, Rub it in that you're gonna be seeing my Habs at the Hangar next week! Yeah, saw Theodore in the skills competition. Was even more impressed with him in yesterday's All-Star game (which I saw with Brendan, btw! a mini-pdml get-together), Let in one weak goal, but made some pretty amazing saves otherwise. Too bad Burke was in there in the 3rd... Eddie the Eagle is a nut-bar. If he doesn't feel like playing, he'll be a sieve. I wouldn't take a chance on him. regards, frank Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 12:36 PM, frank theriault wrote: They obviously know hockey! ;-) Yup! :) So, Frank, you watch the All-Star skills competition? Jose Theodore kicked some ass. Who else is in favour of giving Ed Belfour the boot and inviting Jose to Team Canada? I'm looking forward to seeing Theodore play in person on the 9th. -- 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[2]: India (was: Film at airports, again
Hi Carlos, thanks for your offer. I won't be in Madras for long enough to get a trip to either of the places you mention I don't think. I may reconsider when I'm there and I've got a better sense of the scale of the place and how long it takes to cover particular distances. I'm taking 70 rolls of Kodachrome and will probably also take about 10 rolls of Tri-X and a few of Supra which I've got in the fridge. How do people there react to having cameras stuck in their face? --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, February 03, 2002, 5:41:04 PM, you wrote: Hi Bob: I am not Oliver, but I have been to India a few times. I find your route very nice. You seem to spend most of your time in south India, and I think it is the most enjoyable part of the country, at least of the parts of India I have visited so far. The only place in your list that is not as interesting as the rest is Madras, at least for my point of view. But near Madras you have got Mahabalipuram and Kanchipuram, both of them are recommendable visits. Take lots of film, because there is nowhere like India, especially South India, for a photographer. Also, you'll need some warm clothes to sleep in the sleeping cars of Indian trains. If the air conditioner is on, it is like travelling in a mobile fridge. Feel free to ask, and I'll try to help the best I can. - 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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?
Hi, James, Was the winder sent by UPS or some other courier? If so, NEVER EVER have anything sent cross-border by anything other than by US Postal! I always specify that, ever since UPS tried to charge me the same amount ($48) for brokerage on a cycling jersey that I paid about $12US for on eBay. Never did see the jersey, but I wasn't about to give that amount to those UPS bandits! regards, frank jmadams wrote: I have had one or two problems with items sent from the USA, a Ricoh Winder from Ebay for which I paid $35US, and the sender eventually labelled after several emails, she sent it as having a value of $100 It had been returned by Canadian Customs for having no customs declaration. As a result I got charged $48CDN Brokerage and Customs duty, plus PST and GST. If the seller feels pissed off, all I can say is beware. I just got a bill for $13.98 duty for a battery($46US) I ordered for my Mitsubishi Diacam Video Camera. I can't complain, the camera came in a large Optex Video Bag for $9.95 from the Salvation Army Thrift Store in North Vancouver. I repaired the camera and it has provided hours of fun for my kids. -- 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
Oh, baby! Riggo's performance in that Super Bowl still ranks as one of the greatest ever!! It reminded me of a broadcaster, commenting on a bunch of defenders trying to gang tackle Jim Brown: The lucky ones fell off! -frank Mike Johnston wrote: e Riggo still thning back? The Hogs? Man, those were the _days_. -- 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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
I know :) But with lots of work. I myself have been long experimenting with lith film. I don't have anything scanned, but I have some normal-contrast (well, G about 0.75) pictures. But finding the good combination is VERY hard. And then, you must expose it PRECISELY, totally. Any overexposure and you get mushy, unsharp picture. Any underxposure and no picture at all. So I bracket like hell. But if you do it right, the result is limited only by your lens-camera combo, not the film. Frantisek Sunday, February 03, 2002, 6:17:11 PM, Shel wrote: SB Here's a page with a comparison of numerous films - Agfa APX 25, Efke SB 25, Gigabit, Pan F, maybe some that I missed. You'll see that Gigabit SB film can produce more than simple high contrast images. SB http://www.chrzahn.de/Fotoseiten/Tipps/apx25Ersatz.html#giga SB Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Interesting but only if you like making 1-bit images - the film has no tones at all when developed such, it is for microfiche copying, having ONLY pure black and pure white, nothing inbetween, AFAIK. Or no? 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 .
Take two MZ-S's and call me when you get back
Here's my experience taking two MZ-S's for fieldwork in Africa and Europe, and carrying them in a backpack: 1. The cameras turn themselves on. (Well, actually, the on/off switch seems regularly to hit something in the pack that switches the camera on.) 2. They switch the metering mode (same reason). 3. They switch exposure mode. Again, same reason. This was a cute trick. I thought one body was broken when it wouldn't advance the film. Looking more closely I found that the camera had set itself to multiple exposures. It seems odd that a camera discussed here as tougher than previous models should need to be protected from its own design. I also found that (a) I tend to inadvertently switch the camera off when I am in the middle of taking several shots, and (b) the shutter switch is too sensitive, so that I would take shots when all I wanted to do was autofocus. Previously I wondered what the separate autofocus switch (under my nose) was for. In three weeks of use, I found that I couldn't adjust to these problems. Joe - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Annual cancer research fundraising project
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Every year my S.O. runs the Boston Marathon as part of the Dana-Farber Marathon Challenge, raising money for cancer research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center. My contribution is to send a thank you gift of a CD full of computer background images to those who make contributions. This year's images are now on line at http://www.robertstech.com/dfmc/_index.htm That's an impressive bunch of landscapes. With a couple of flower shots thrown in just for Mike Johnston ;-) (Actually, the flower shots were all taken with my K2 only for the purpose of checking the light meter accuracy after I recalibrated it. I was pretty surprised at how nice they came out so I decided to use several on my web page and on this project.) -- 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: Comments on Espio 738 and 838
On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 01:42 AM, Paul Ewins wrote: Hi all, does anyone have any experience with the Espio 738 or 838? I've seen results from several generations of the old 738, from when I was working at Sterling and more recently from a friend who purchased one of the new ones based on my recommendation of the old one. The 738 takes a very good picture for a point and shoot, and also is reasonably featured (allowing a bulb mode, which is nice), and is downright cheap compared to its competition. I believe that my friend bought a 738M for less than $170 Canadian at Black's. -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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Just scroll down and let the pictures do the talking g. Malcolm Smith wrote: Well, that stretches my German a little, but I'll give it a go :-( http://www.chrzahn.de/Fotoseiten/Tipps/apx25Ersatz.html#giga -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
I didn't think of that, but IAC, I want people to see the whole picture, so they can see how all the tones are rendered. Also, people with large monitors might be able to see the who picture, which I think is helpful. However, I'm going to put up a zipped version as well, which cuts the file size almost in half. It's 1:1 as far as I can tell. Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Shel, wouldn't it suffice to crop a central portion of the scan showing some nice detail at post these at 1:1, that would make it less than 1MB ? All the photo-review-test servers are doing it this way. 2) Why the bigger seems mushy - are you sure you are looking at it at 1:1 - 100% magnification? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: Comments on Espio 738 and 838
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I've seen results from several generations of the old 738, from when I was working at Sterling and more recently from a friend who purchased one of the new ones based on my recommendation of the old one. The 738 takes a very good picture for a point and shoot, and also is reasonably featured (allowing a bulb mode, which is nice), and is downright cheap compared to its competition. I believe that my friend bought a 738M for less than $170 Canadian at Black's. Personally, I'd rather get an Olympus Stylus Epic for that money, but if you want a zoom camera, the 738 is a nice little camera. The viewfinder is a lot better than it used to be, though it's still not as large or clear as Canon's Zoom 76. We sell the 738 non-date model for $139 CAN, just as a reference point. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Ultra telephoto lenses
KEH has had a used Pentax 1000/11 for sale at $429. They just dropped the price to $399! This is a steal; it sells new for $3000. Another was advertised a month ago at http://www.precision-camera.com/buy/usedpentax.htm 990806 USED PENTAX 1000/11 REFLEX W/ CASE BOX (U 8) Condition: (8) $665.00. A more flexible strategy: Get a used 500/4.5 in screwmount or K mount; add a used 2X-L adapter for $380; and, if desired, add a used 1.4X-L adapter for about $250. Now you'd have a 500/4.5, a 700/6.3, and a 1000/8.8 for a total investment of about $1200 to $1600 and a total weight of about 3740 g (8.25 lb). Paul Franklin Stregevsky 13 Selby Court Poolesville, Maryland 20837-2410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] H (301) 349-5243 - 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 .
1000ppi Scan (WAS: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)]
OK, here it is. A straight 1000ppi scan made on a Nikon Coolscan 4000 scanner, both uncompressed and ZIPped. The image was scanned on automatic, so there was no manipulation of it at all. I trimmed the black border for downloading purposes and slightly adjusted the gamma for this presentation. The photo was made using a Leica M3 and 50mm Summicron. The film used was Ilford's HP5+ processed in Ilford's ID-11 developer, diluted 1:1 http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/temp/mc6.tif http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/temp/mc6.zip -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: Test, Please Ignore
Hi there, br / br / I should be the only one reading this, hopefully everyone ignored. br / I am hoping that my troubles with html and excite are over and everything is looking peachy keen this time. Otherwise, I am pissed off! br / br / dave br / br / br / br / - 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: Ultra telephoto lenses
Paul, I think the KEH lens has gone - not that I looked for it ,you understand :-0 Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul F. Stregevsky Sent: 03 February 2002 19:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ultra telephoto lenses KEH has had a used Pentax 1000/11 for sale at $429. They just dropped the price to $399! This is a steal; it sells new for $3000. Another was advertised a month ago at http://www.precision-camera.com/buy/usedpentax.htm 990806 USED PENTAX 1000/11 REFLEX W/ CASE BOX (U 8) Condition: (8) $665.00. A more flexible strategy: Get a used 500/4.5 in screwmount or K mount; add a used 2X-L adapter for $380; and, if desired, add a used 1.4X-L adapter for about $250. Now you'd have a 500/4.5, a 700/6.3, and a 1000/8.8 for a total investment of about $1200 to $1600 and a total weight of about 3740 g (8.25 lb). Paul Franklin Stregevsky 13 Selby Court Poolesville, Maryland 20837-2410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] H (301) 349-5243 - 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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Sorry Shel, Getting on for 40, and I don't do the giving up on things, just because it causes me a little effort or, for goodness sake, I have to exercise the brain ;-) Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 03 February 2002 19:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Classic Low Speed Film is Back Just scroll down and let the pictures do the talking g. Malcolm Smith wrote: Well, that stretches my German a little, but I'll give it a go :-( http://www.chrzahn.de/Fotoseiten/Tipps/apx25Ersatz.html#giga -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that you couldn't or shouldn't read through the German, I just didn't know if you were aware of the images at the bottom of the page. Malcolm Smith wrote: Sorry Shel, Getting on for 40, and I don't do the giving up on things, just because it causes me a little effort or, for goodness sake, I have to exercise the brain ;-) -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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 New Photo Upload
I like Shel's shot a lot, too, Mike but what other one? Mike Johnston wrote: Here's one that's a little late getting to the web. Comments and criticism welcome. http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/flag-behind-wire.html I like this one a lot better than the other one. Says more. --Mike - I like Shel's shot a lot, too, Mike but what other one? annsan - 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: my February PUG favorites
Thanks for kind comment, Amita. Matjaz Amita wrote: At the end of the day by Matjaz Osojnik - great technical photo! - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
PUG comments
Hi all, I finally found some time to go through PUG and below are those photographs that caught my eye: No Mail Today by Amita Guha. I like this a lot, especially the contrast of red details on mailbox against misty background. Might be wrong but it seems a bit oversharpened to me. Frost, 20th November 2001 by Jostein Oksne, I like magical feeling of coloured reflections around the plant. The Grey by David J Brooks, very nice cat portrait, I especially like shallow DOF which creates lovely unsharpness of cat's body. Stef On Bike, Northmoor, 2000 by Cotty, I'm glad to see your son support you on PUG assignment so much ;-) Anja in blue by Edward Kreis, just love it. I like the expression on Anja's face, I like shallow DOF with focus on her eyes, I like great colours as well. Trapped !! by Geoffrey Stevens, it enhances solitude feeling to me and that is exactly why I like it. The Event by Gianfranco Irlanda, I love photographs like this one, full of emotions of crowded people in front of the lens. I think I'd love to see man's face on the left on the photo as well, to increase the depth of the photograph. Macro-wide angle by Dan Scott, great shot, love the idea and love the composition. Also got attracted by The Cat by Karoly Kovacs, Leaf by Ed Keeney, peaceful Green Zen by Flavio Minelli, family feeling of G.G. and Mari, Thanksgiving 2001 by Mike Johnston, White Nights by Alexey Tikhonov. Matjaz - 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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Hi Shel and all, not long ago I also noticed Efke films in ads in some magazines. To me, they have sentimental value as well since I started with photography on Efke films. For me, a teenager who just bought his first SLR back then in early eighties, home made Efke films (IIRC, they were made in Zagreb in Croatia, Yugoslavia at the time) were the most affordable emulsions. Although their color films were not great BW stuff was quite good and a lot of it ran through my camera. I'm glad to see that they might be (together with german company which seem to distribute their stuff) able to fill the niche which is opening now with digital forcing many good emulsions to be discontinued. Matjaz Recently the Efke line of BW negative film has been getting wider distribution, and it's now available in many places world wide. For those who, like me, have lamented the demise of Agfa's APX 25, and the earlier disappearance of Panatomic-X, Efke's 25 ISO film may be just what you're looking for. - 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
And the Cowboys still managed to beat them now and again. Does Jack Kent Cooke still own the team? Is Joe Gibbs still the coach? Bobby Beathard still the GM? Is Art Monk still running his routes? Big Dave Butz? Riggo still the running back? The Hogs? - 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 PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUGfull of artifacts?)
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:45 PM Subject: Re: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUGfull of artifacts?) Hi Bill, Sounds good to me. I'm fine with the rules as long as we have the 600 by 600 max. However, if you occasionally allowed something up to about 80K or maybe 85K, it might be good to make the real limit 90, and hold to that as an absolute limit. Just a thought. In any case, I'm thankful for the hard work of all the Pugmeisters. Paul Don't thank me, I was just pasing on iformation from when I was doing the job, and letting you know what went on in the decision making process. Almost all the images submitted to the gallery could be compressed down to less than 50k with minimal quality loss. A few need to be larger filesizes, though they could be redimensioned to say 500 pixels and then could come in under the 75k restriction. The 75k filesize was not an arbitrary number we pulled out of a hat. We had a very real need to limit server usage. Making the occassional exception to the rule when deemed necessary is a better approach, IMHO. This keeps the files that don't need to be larger at a reasonable filesize, while allowing some liberty for oversized images from time to time. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts? One of the other reasons for smaller sized scans in the PUG is the very real problem of image theft on the web -- if the image is small enough, it is unusable elsewhere. -Aaron If it's unusuable, it also doesnt communicate the art. JCO So get yourself some web space and make a gallery to call your very own. Make the files as large as you want. Make sure you put lots of meta tags into the page headers to attract as many search engines as possible. After all, you want to communicate your art. Wait 6 months then do a name search at the Lycos image repository and see what they have lifted from you. Then come back and tell us how happy you are that your art is being communicated via an offshore server, and there is not a damned thing you can do about it because some dumbass judge in California decided that under the reasonable use clause in the American copyright law they can get away with it. Thats what I ran into when I had to police it for the PUG. It took me no small effort to get them to shut down the Komkon deep links too. William Robb - 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 .
BW tips please
I have gotten back my first few rolls of Delta 400 BW prints on my winter project and i have a question.First,let me state I am not doing the processing,a Pro lab is. On some of the shots taken with a lot of open sky seem to have a bit of a dark area in one corner.I thought maybe one of the telephotos might have some drop off but it also appears with the 55 f 1.8 also. Is this something that could occur because of the bright back ground,or might this just be in processing. Also i'm happy with what i'm getting with ASA 400 but would i be better off with using 100 for grain etc.My main quest is rural winter/snow shots. Thanks in advance Dave Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
I wasn't going to say anything, but, even though the Redskins were in our nation's capitol, they were never known as America's Team. On Sunday 03 February 2002 04:30 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the Cowboys still managed to beat them now and again. Does Jack Kent Cooke still own the team? Is Joe Gibbs still the coach? Bobby Beathard still the GM? Is Art Monk still running his routes? Big Dave Butz? Riggo still the running back? The Hogs? -- Kenneth Archer + San Antonio, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ #24980801 Powered by Linux ++ Mailed by Kmail - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG comments
Thank you Matjaz.As i mentioned in an earlier post,he is one of my favorite and willing subjects.I shot him about a foot away,i just prayed he did not move. Dave Begin Original Message From: Matjaz Osojnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Grey by David J Brooks, very nice cat portrait, I especially like shallow DOF which creates lovely unsharpness of cat's body. Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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: BW tips please
- Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:47 PM Subject: BW tips please I have gotten back my first few rolls of Delta 400 BW prints on my winter project and i have a question.First,let me state I am not doing the processing,a Pro lab is. On some of the shots taken with a lot of open sky seem to have a bit of a dark area in one corner.I thought maybe one of the telephotos might have some drop off but it also appears with the 55 f 1.8 also. Can you post a scan please? Is this something that could occur because of the bright back ground,or might this just be in processing. Also i'm happy with what i'm getting with ASA 400 but would i be better off with using 100 for grain etc.My main quest is rural winter/snow shots. You are nearly always better off with a slower film if viable under the conditions you are shooting under. Of course, I don't like grain very much. William Robb Thanks in advance - 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: Horror!!
Perhaps you don't need to remove the lens mount in the 1st place. Just remove the black plastic screwed on the lens mount might give u enough space to work on the lens. Much better than removing the mount. But I have not worked on this particular lens (though I painted it matt black). regards, Alan Chan Sorry guys... that guy was me. :( I wasn't actually going to take it apart but was more curious to see whether it was possible and how someone would go about doing this. There is actually what appears to be a small piece of hair on the inside of the rear element. I had posted several weeks back a question to see if anyone has ever sent their lens to pentax to have the lenses cleaned and roughly how much it would cost. But no one every replied. I've e-mailed pentax and they cannot give me a rough estimate without me sending my lens to them. I posted the message to see (and maybe I was very naive for asking) if whether indeed it was an easy task to remove the bayonet mount and clean the rear element, if indeed that's where the little hair is. It seemed like people in that newsgroup have probably done stuff like that and I wanted to see what the exact process would be. If I know correctly removing the bayonet to get the rear element would probably be disastrous. I'm assuming there are little springs that hold the ball-bearing contacts in place and that would probably be a pain in the a*$ to re-assemble... and not to mention possibly calibrating the lens if any elements were removed. Anyways... at least I got a response from PDMLers by posting the question on another newsgroup. :) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
I wasn`t going to say anything either, but, WE DON`T EVEN HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM. We had one that never won a Superbowl, till they move to St. Louis, ARGGG. I`m sticking to hockey (GO KINGS), baseball, and basketball. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:07 PM Subject: Re: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT) I wasn't going to say anything, but, even though the Redskins were in our nation's capitol, they were never known as America's Team. On Sunday 03 February 2002 04:30 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the Cowboys still managed to beat them now and again. Does Jack Kent Cooke still own the team? Is Joe Gibbs still the coach? Bobby Beathard still the GM? Is Art Monk still running his routes? Big Dave Butz? Riggo still the running back? The Hogs? -- Kenneth Archer + San Antonio, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ #24980801 Powered by Linux ++ Mailed by Kmail - 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
GO EAGLES!! - 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: Annual cancer research fundraising project
Mark - lots of nice stuff - hope it brings in the bucks for you. One of the stormy cloud shots quite startled me - I swear it was the same cloud formation I photoed in Kansas! i'll dig it up and post it for you. THe flowers here among my faves here, by the way. Best, ann Mark Roberts wrote: Every year my S.O. runs the Boston Marathon as part of the Dana-Farber Marathon Challenge, raising money for cancer research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center. My contribution is to send a thank you gift of a CD full of computer background images to those who make contributions. This year's images are now on line at http://www.robertstech.com/dfmc/_index.htm -- 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 . - 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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Hi Paul ... Here's a test made just yesterday on the Efke 25 in medium format. I believe the film was processed in Rodinal 1:100, which is becoming one of my favorite developer options. http://63.197.80.141/film_tests.htm Paul Stenquist wrote: Very nice tonal range on the web images. Can't wait to see some wet prints. And in medium format? Woof, woof. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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 PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)
On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 11:05:11 -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: Hi Paul The PUG submission page has the following: Maximum file size is 75kb. Maximum image dimension is 600 pixels on the longest side. Oversized images will be resized. You can submit a square image 600 x 600 as long as it is under 75K. Or am I missing something rather basic? Cheers Bill seemed to have had a somewhat liberal approach to interpreting the size restrictions. Recent PUGs frequently contained images approaching 90K in file size, and something like a 600 x 450 was generally allowed. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but that's the way it appeared.) I think this was a valid approach. I'd like to see a minor adjustment of the rules to allow some leeway. For example, let's set the maximum file size at 90K. Frequently, the difference between 75K and 90 K is PhotoShop's Medium grade vs. the High grade compression. And why not change the dimension rule to say that the longest side of an image can be no more than 600 points. That would eliminate the handicap that a square image faces and would allow for more creative cropping. Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adelheid, I certainly appreciate all the work you are doing to create the PUG. The large number of images every month are a credit to it's popularity and the value it adds to this discussion group. I would appreciate knowing what it was about Sid's image that might have caused it to be resized. Perhaps Sid could send it to you again and you could check. If we have other criteria which cause an image to be resized, we sure ought to know about them in advance. Having seen the original, I personally would have been a lot less gracious about it than Sid if it had happened to one of my images. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Bob, I don't remember why I had to resize this particular pic. Since I don't have the original anymore I have no way of telling. Please keep to the rules then I am not forced to fiddle around with your pics. It only increases the workload anyway. Cheers Adelheid - 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 . -- Jon Hope, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/02/2002 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax SLR Family
Nice shot JCO, it really gives you a feeling of the size of a 67. I did a family portrait too, minus one Spotmatic II (the ugly one) at: http://www27.brinkster.com/stevelarson/Brinkster.html Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 8:35 PM Subject: Pentax SLR Family http://www.gate.net/~hifisapi/pentaxfamily.jpg The above image I just made is one I've never seen before. I think they look cool side by side. JCO - 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: Annual cancer research fundraising project
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With a couple of flower shots thrown in just for Mike Johnston ;-) *GAK!* Auuugh *COUGH* *cough* Sorry, pollen. g Wow. I had no idea they were *that* realistic! -- 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: 1000ppi Scan (WAS: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)]
Hi Shel: I just had a look at it in IE6, and at the default size (69.2%) the image looked grainy. At 100% the image smoothed out considerably. The settings reported are: Resolution 100x100dpi No compression Size 355.3 x 239 mm (Using my standard 256-colour screen) Pixellation of the curves of the motor-cycle kicks in at 75% of size, so I guess the browser is having to combine pixels to present the image at all? HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Monday, February 04, 2002 5:33 AM, Shel Belinkoff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: OK, here it is. A straight 1000ppi scan made on a Nikon Coolscan 4000 scanner, both uncompressed and ZIPped. The image was scanned on automatic, so there was no manipulation of it at all. I trimmed the black border for downloading purposes and slightly adjusted the gamma for this presentation. The photo was made using a Leica M3 and 50mm Summicron. The film used was Ilford's HP5+ processed in Ilford's ID-11 developer, diluted 1:1 http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/temp/mc6.tif http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/temp/mc6.zip -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Sid Barras wrote: I suppose this is going over my head when we begin to talk about jpeg compression, but is my file size is 74k when closed, and stored on the server, does it suddenly take up more space on the server when it is open? The important size is the size of the file on the disk. Sometimes the editing program (photoshop or paintshop pro) will show an uncompressed size, which really has no relation to the compressed size on disk. And one last puzzlement, why isn't the code for the page written so that the thumbnails will show in both netscape and explorer? It works fine under Konqueror (a linux browser). There appear to be spaces as the first character of the thumbnail filenames, which would seem to be a mistake of some sort. dave -- dave o'brien - http://www.diaspoir.net You will lose an important disk file. - 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: VERY OT Hockey stuff - was: Film at airports, again (nowOT)
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course you all saw Federov in the skills competition and the game. As always, Red Wings rule. Paul I LOVE YOU MAN!!! Cory Waters Turning the Bud-Light voice off now :) - 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 .
Some more PUG comments
some Feb PUG comments a few photos I especially enjoyed, and like to comment on, if I may. (in order as they appear in the PUG). Toladie Well by Joseph Tainter I like the spontaneity of the shot, and the story it tells. Takes me right into Africa. Also good depth of field with the line into the distance. Somewhere in Colorado by William Robb I like the glistening light on the cliffs and the rocks. Maybe it's right after a rain or morning dew? It gives it a special quality. Cadaques by Jaume Lahuerta Makes me feel like I'm standing right there at the top of the steps. I enjoy the way the photo leads you into the narrow passageway. How about a cutter for the wires (?) Gates of the Valley by Dick Jones Nice classical shot of the valley and El Capitan. Inspires me to go back to Yosemite sometime, and try some black and white. Partnachklamm in Winter by Hans-Bernhard Beykirch You can almost feel the cold. The long exposure gives it an ethereal quality. Mirror Image?? by Toni Lankerd I enjoy the luminous quality of the tulips. Interesting backlit effect despite the black background. Butterfly near Tucson, AZ - Nov. 7, 2001 by Ann Sanfedele I like the way the butterfly stands out against the background. Nice colors and perfect composition. G.G. and Mari, Thanksgiving 2001 by Mike Johnston Good family shot. Nice example of shallow depth of field. I'll have to try the Kodak Tri-X sometime. Too bad the towel is behind your mother's head. Otherwise would be almost perfect. Are you sure they are your family, and not hired models? Harald Rust - 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)
GO EAGLES!! And don't come back - 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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back
Shel, I just did a quick search on Google and came across this link reviewing Efke 25 http://www.dr5.com/efke25.html stating: Efke-25: The efke films are most exceptional in quality in dr5. Efke films are very silver rich. Their shooting numbers for dr5 are over the factory speeds, with a stunning crisp image. The film has an old-fashion type image quality, favouring contrast. Efke films are unfortunately not widely available in the US. AIM Freestyle are currently the only providers. It comes in 35 120 formats. A brilliant neutral image in developer 1-neutral and a yellow/brown in developer 2-sepia. Shoot efke-25 @ 50iso this is correct! NOTE; the efke films have shown on occasion some factory defects, but this is rare. The film also will fog easily. We advise special care, especially with the 120 film. Treat it as you would any ultra light sensitive film. Efke films have been recently put back on the market. We are working to establish contacts with the company to carry the film here at the lab. dr5 inc. - NYC 307 W. 38th St. #1910 NY NY 10018 212.244.90.85 212.244.90.83 - fax Also there are a number of film developement charts including Garage Photographers Association http://www.garagephotogs.com/tips/efke.php 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 .
