Re: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Pntx645]

Against the rest of the league -- not so good.  BUT against the Redskins -- 
2-0.   

> You know, it's odd, but I haven't heard much about the Cowboys recently.
> What was their record this year?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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]

I think the issue is settled. In the future I will include
URLs of a higher resolution images when the shot merits
worth seeing at better quality.
JCO

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?
> 
> 
> Okay, Peir 2 is acceptable for web viewing, Peir 1 would be nice to print
> from, at least up to about 8 x10. What's your point? You certainly aren't
> suggesting that the best way to view this photo is to scroll up and down?
> I don't get it. By the way, it's a nice photo. And it's still a nice
> photo in web viewing size.
> Paul
> 
> "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> 
> > whoops: thats:
> >  www.gate.net/~hifisapi/peir1.jpg
> >
> >  www.gate.net/~hifisapi/peir2.jpg
> >
> > JCO
> > >
> > >
> > > www.gate.net/~hifisapi/pier1.jpg
> > >
> > > www.gate.net/~hifisapi/pier2.jpg
> > >
> > > The second one is the reduced version
> > > I sent to PUG.
> > >
> > > The first one is really big, about 700K
> > > the second one is only 64K.
> > > 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Fred]

We interrupt all this Redskin talk to bring you some more important
news:

Looking through my red-white-and-blue-tinted glasses, it does look
like the New England Patriots (from Sweet New England - thank you,
Paul Simon) are (finally - ) the Super Bowl Champs.

Now, if we can only do something for dem Red Sox...  ;-)

Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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: Some more PUG comments

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: "harald_nancy"
Subject: Some more PUG comments


> some Feb PUG comments

> "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.

Thanks Harold. In fact, it was taken on a heavily overcast day
that spent its time either raining or threatening rain. This
shot was taken during a lull where it was just palpably humid
more than actively raining.

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: Horror!!

[Alan Chan]

>Painted it matt black?  Won't it make it hard to read the f-stops since 
>they
>are stamped in black also?

Hee... I mean the black colour plastic screwed on the lens mount, since it 
was gloss black originally.

regards,
Alan Chan


_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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 Belinkoff]

Hi James ...

Good catch!  There's been a lot of discussion about the film recently,
and there seems to be plenty of information available from many
sources.  The DR5 info is dated, however.  Freestyle no longer lists it,
but a little hole-in-the-wall shop in my area carries it.  Go figure. 
They're a little expensive compared to German mail order prices, but a
good source to grab a couple of rolls to try the film.

The Garage Photographers development chart offers but minimal
information.  I just put up a more complete chart on my site, although
it still has a few obvious omissions.

jmadams wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
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: Horror!!

[gabriel bovino]

Painted it matt black?  Won't it make it hard to read the f-stops since they
are stamped in black also?

- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 5:14 PM
Subject: 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 .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

FS: PZ-1p / AT-X 270AF / 72mm Filters

[Dave Anthony]

For Sale:

1) Pentax PZ-1p body
Description: user cond, with strap and PF wallet card
Price: CAD$500 or US$350 (OBO)

2) Tokina AT-X 270AF zoom lens (w/Tokina SH-722 hood)
Description: 28mm-70mm f/2.8 (the original AF version), exc cond, with 
original Tokina hard case, caps, boxes, manual AND rare Tokina SH-722 
dedicated metal hood, D72mm filter size.
Price: CAD$350 or US$230 (OBO)

3) Hoya 72mm Skylight (1B) Filter
Description: multi-coated, suitable as protective filter, case, exc+/LN (no 
marks)
Price: CAD$40 or US$27

4) Rowi 72mm MC C-P-L Filter
Description: multi-coated, circular polarizer, case, LN
Price: CAD $60 or US$40

Buyer pays shipping from Toronto, Canada.
(Note: CAD = Canadian Dollars, USD = U.S. Dollars)

Dave
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T 416-894-9774

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[[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_.

Kilmer, Jurgenson, Theisman, the Hogs, the Smurfs, Riggo ... yeah.
(Okay, I started with the 70s there.  Whatever.)

Well, at least we get one more season of Darrell Green...  Is there
any chance the rest of the team will be good enough in 2002 to give
him a chance to shine like he ought?

(The 2001 Redskins made me really glad I've now got the Ravens to
root for as well, though I still get annoyed when Baltimore television
stations don't show Redskins games.)

One of life's ironies -- when I was dating my most recent ex-girlfriend,
we mostly got to see each other on weekends.  Between performing at the
Maryland Renaissance Festival and spending time with her, I pretty much
didn't watch any football other than the Super Bowl for about five years.

A year or so after we broke up, she started getting interested in football.
It was the Ravens in last season's playoffs that sucked her in.  Now she
complains about the weekends when the NFL plays on both Saturday and
Sunday because it means she doesn't get anything done all weekend, she
has her own football-watching snack ritual, she started complaining last
March about how long she had to wait for more football, she yells at the
television, and we've spent several Sunday afternoons on the telephone
watching games "virtually together".  She actually watches more games than
I do.

Why, oh why couldn't she have discovered this a few years earlier?  Oh,
the Sunday afternoons we could have spent curled up together on the
sofa, the weekends I could have watched the Redskins _and_ been with
her...   *sigh*  God has an odd sense of humour.

Y'know, she's utterly _adorable_ when she says, "Touchdown!!"

-- Glenn, wy behind on email
   yet again; amused to stumble
   across a Redskins comment while
   spot-checking recent messages.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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 Belinkoff]

Hi Paul ...

I'll check my source here tomorrow.  I believe they have some Efke 25 in
120 size.  If so, would you like me to grab a few rolls for you?  After
my purchase yesterday, they had five rolls of 35mm in stock ... supplied
world-wide for the Efke 25 are short.  It'll be about a month before
they're back to normal levels, so I've read.

A number of people here (San Francisco Bay Area) have purchased from
Berlin at considerable savings.  I can provide details or a pointer to a
URL, but perhaps you should try a few rolls first.  Lemme se what my
guys have left in stock.

A more complete developing chart than what was posted here by James for
Efke film can now be found at my site at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/film-developing/efke-foma-dev-chart.pdf

although there are some obvious omissions, like Rodinal at 1:100.  For
that start with 20 minutes @ 68-deg F.

Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the info. I've been looking for a source for the Efke 25/120. A
> search on Freestyle turns up nothing. Can you offer a URL for purchase?

-- 
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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Mike Johnston]

> And the Cowboys still managed to beat them now and again.


You know, it's odd, but I haven't heard much about the Cowboys recently.
What was their record this year?



--Mike (now a Packers fan anyway...Waukesha, Wisconsin)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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)

[Mike Johnston]

> Why, oh why couldn't she have discovered this a few years earlier?  Oh,
> the Sunday afternoons we could have spent curled up together on the
> sofa, the weekends I could have watched the Redskins _and_ been with
> her...   *sigh*  God has an odd sense of humour.
> 
> Y'know, she's utterly _adorable_ when she says, "Touchdown!!"


Glenn,
You could always ask her to marry you. The Redskins in general have _very_
good karma, you know.

--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 .

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro for sale

[Paul Jones]

Hi,

I have for sale a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro, it is in as new condition,
less than 12 months old. Comes with Box, Instruction manual, hood, caps and
green carry case. It still has the little protective sticker on the badge on
the lense.

Has MF/AF switch on body, focus limiter.  Focuses down to 1:1.

I'm asking $260us for it. plus $12.50us shipping.

You can see it at B&H for $359us
http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivat
or__Aproductlist_html___148533___SI10528EXMPA___USA___CatID=0___SID=EC06F30E
280

Please email me off list.

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 .

Re: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks for the info. I've been looking for a source for the Efke 25/120. A
search on Freestyle turns up nothing. Can you offer a URL for purchase?
Paul

jmadams wrote:

> 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 .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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: B&W tips please

[tom]

From:   "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I have gotten back my first few rolls of Delta 
> 400 B&W 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.

Are you looking at proofs, negs, or contact sheets?

Could be a lot of things, but processing doesn't leap to my mind 
first.

Were you using filters? 

Sure it couldn't be a fingertip?

> 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.
> 

Yeah, if you can live without the 2 stops.

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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[tom]

From:   Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > 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.
> 
> Tom,
> Darrell Green? Cornerback? Same guy who was playing in the '80s?

The same.

He's the last holdout from the Gibbs era, and he's usually *still* the fastest man on 
the field.

He tried to retire this year, but we wouldn't let him.

tv

p.s.  What a game tonight!
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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?)

[Paul Stenquist]

Okay, but once in a while I work with an image that is handicapped at
75K. But if I submit it at 79k, I'm apparently running the risk of it
being compressed to 26K with shareware software. That's why I'm in favor
of the 90K limit.
Paul

William Robb wrote:

> - 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 .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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

[jmadams]

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 .

Re: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Pntx645]

> 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 .

Some more PUG comments

[harald_nancy]

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: VERY OT Hockey stuff - was: Film at airports, again (nowOT)

[CBWaters]

- 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 .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[dave o'brien]

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: 1000ppi Scan (WAS: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)]

[John Coyle]

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: Annual cancer research fundraising project

[Mark Roberts]

Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> With a couple of flower shots thrown in just for Mike Johnston ;-)
>
>*GAK!*
>
>Auuugh *COUGH*
>
>*cough*
>
>Sorry, pollen.
>
>

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: Pentax SLR Family

[Steve Larson]

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: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)

[Jon Hope]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Shel Belinkoff]

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: Annual cancer research fundraising project

[Ann Sanfedele]

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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Grigolia]

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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Steve Larson]

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: Horror!!

[Alan Chan]

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: B&W tips please

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: B&W tips please


> I have gotten back my first few rolls of Delta
> 400 B&W 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: PUG comments

[David Brooks]

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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Ken Archer]

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 .

B&W tips please

[David Brooks]

I have gotten back my first few rolls of Delta 
400 B&W 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[William Robb]

- 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 .

Re: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUGfull of artifacts?)

[William Robb]

- 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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Pntx645]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Matjaz Osojnik]

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 B&W 
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 B&W 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 .

PUG comments

[Matjaz Osojnik]

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: my February PUG favorites

[Matjaz Osojnik]

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 .

Re: A New Photo Upload

[Ann Sanfedele]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Shel Belinkoff]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Malcolm Smith]

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 .

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: Ultra telephoto lenses

[Malcolm Smith]

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 .

OT: Test, Please Ignore

[David Weiss]

Hi there,   I should be the only one reading this, hopefully
everyone ignored.  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!   dave


-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
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?)]

[Shel Belinkoff]

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 .

Ultra telephoto lenses

[Paul F. Stregevsky]

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 .

Re: Comments on Espio 738 and 838

[Chris Brogden]

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 .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Shel Belinkoff]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Shel Belinkoff]

Just scroll down and let the pictures do the talking .

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: Comments on Espio 738 and 838

[Aaron Reynolds]

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: Annual cancer research fundraising project

[Mark Roberts]

"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 .

Take two MZ-S's and call me when you get back

[Joseph Tainter]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Frantisek Vlcek]

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 .

Re: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[frank theriault]

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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?

[frank theriault]

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[2]: India (was: Film at airports, again

[Bob Walkden]

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: VERY OT Hockey stuff - was: Film at airports, again (now OT)

[frank theriault]

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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Frantisek Vlcek]

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 .


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: Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[tom]

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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?

[Carlos Royo]

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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?

[jmadams]

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 .

Redskins with rose-tinted glasses (OT)

[Mike Johnston]

> 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Doug Franklin]

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 .

Re: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?

[Jozef Balaz]

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: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?)

[Aaron Reynolds]

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: Film at airports, again (now OT)

[Aaron Reynolds]

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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Aaron Reynolds]

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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Aaron Reynolds]

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: Film at airports, again

[frank theriault]

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: India (was: Film at airports, again

[Carlos Royo]

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: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG fullof artifacts?)

[frank theriault]

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: Film at airports, again

[Aaron Reynolds]

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: Brief overview of the Spotmatic lenses

[frank theriault]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Malcolm Smith]

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: Film at airports, again

[John Glover]

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.kom

Annual cancer research fundraising project

[Mark Roberts]

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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Len Paris]

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 .

Re: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?

[frank theriault]

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?

[Rfsindg]

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 .

February PUG favorites

[Bob Poe]

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: It's February, It Must Be A Cotty's Pentax Mods Site Update...

[Cotty]

>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 .

Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

Jan van Wijk wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote:
>
> >
> >< >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: Customs and taxes after eBay-auctions?

[Frantisek Vlcek]

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?

[AvK]

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: Horror!!

[Frantisek Vlcek]

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: Classic Low Speed Film is Back

[Frantisek Vlcek]

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: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[David Brooks]

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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Paul Stenquist]

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):
> > >
> > > < > > 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:
> > >
> > > < > > 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Mark Roberts]

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?

[wendy beard]

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: my February PUG favorites

[David Brooks]

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 B&W 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?

[Jan van Wijk]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:08:19 -0800, Sid Barras wrote:

>
>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: Battery For S1 Meter?

[Bill Owens]

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?

[Paul Stenquist]

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):
> > >
> > > < > > 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:
> > >
> > > < > > 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: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts?

[Rfsindg]

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?

[Steve Larson]

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):
> >
> > < > 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:
> >
> > < > 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: Fish-eye-Takumar 1:4/17 Dust

[Paul M. Provencher]

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?

[Paul Stenquist]

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