Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Debra Wilborn
I think it's a nice design.  That angled top plate
reminds me of the MZ-S.  Really it looks like a very
fat -S.  Porky digicam!

Dude, it's late! 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/




Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Debra Wilborn

--- Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I sometimes feel like
 I'm arriving too late in the game.  So many of you
 have been at it for so
 long, film is old, and you look forward to digital. 
 Am I wasting my time in
 pursing 35mm SLR photography with such vigor? 


Whatever, dude!

I just got my own SLR last year and am totally in love
with film.  No way would I go all digital.  Too
expensive.  Besides, I take a certain pride in doing
things as cheaply as possible.  Like taking the time
and effort to carefully research third party lenses. 
Like running Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop.  (Go
ahead and flame me, digiphobes!)

After you get tired of 35mm, there's always 6x4.5cm,
6x6, 6x7, twin-lens-reflex, med-format rangefinders,
monorail systems, Hassies, Pentax 645 (let's hear the
Brotherhood war cry), and pin-hole cameras.  Then you
can get all creative at Kinko's Copies, hand-color a
print (or print-out), make a big collage, play with
crayons...

Remember, it's never too late to learn stuff.

G'night!

Deb in TX

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/




Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
Ok,

Time to spill my guts to you fine folks.  I need some help.  It's a silly
matter that I've had since starting shooting.  Ok, here's the equipment
first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens
example, my 28-105mm zoom.   Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras
however you like.  Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ.  Normal
indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the
P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal.  Camera is set on program.  This all
cool so far?  Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a
shutter speed of 1/30sec.  Does that make sense?  Is that correct?  I would
have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher.
Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec
shutter.  What's going on?  I always bypass this and sometimes set the
aperture, most times, I don't.  I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter
to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync.  With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180.

I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know.
Is what is happening correct?  Am I doing the right thing by setting the
shutter higher?  Btw, the pictures turn out just fine.  I just don't
understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open.

Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a
fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on.

BD
**
Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ#: 1658




Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
Thanks for the boost Deb!!!

However, while I don't really scan my prints, when I do work, it's with
Photoshop 7 :)  Free of course...only the best ;-)

Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: Debra Wilborn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:50 AM
Subject: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training



 --- Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I sometimes feel like
  I'm arriving too late in the game.  So many of you
  have been at it for so
  long, film is old, and you look forward to digital.
  Am I wasting my time in
  pursing 35mm SLR photography with such vigor?


 Whatever, dude!

 I just got my own SLR last year and am totally in love
 with film.  No way would I go all digital.  Too
 expensive.  Besides, I take a certain pride in doing
 things as cheaply as possible.  Like taking the time
 and effort to carefully research third party lenses.
 Like running Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop.  (Go
 ahead and flame me, digiphobes!)

 After you get tired of 35mm, there's always 6x4.5cm,
 6x6, 6x7, twin-lens-reflex, med-format rangefinders,
 monorail systems, Hassies, Pentax 645 (let's hear the
 Brotherhood war cry), and pin-hole cameras.  Then you
 can get all creative at Kinko's Copies, hand-color a
 print (or print-out), make a big collage, play with
 crayons...

 Remember, it's never too late to learn stuff.

 G'night!

 Deb in TX

 __
 Do you Yahoo!?
 Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
 http://webhosting.yahoo.com/





Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Bruce Dayton
Debra,

No flames from me.  I use PaintShop Pro and Picture Window rather than
Photoshop.  I tried Elements and didn't really care for the interface.
Since all I am doing is correcting scanning problems (Like Wheatfield,
I prefer to fix things in the camera, rather than later), I find that
some tools in PaintShop Pro work best and some tools in Picture Window
work best.  I am very happy with those particular editors.

Bruce



Saturday, October 26, 2002, 11:50:54 PM, you wrote:


DW Whatever, dude!

snip

DW Like running Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop.  (Go
DW ahead and flame me, digiphobes!)


DW Deb in TX




unsubscribe

2002-10-27 Thread Ian Macdonald


Ian Macdonald,
IP  CS Macdonald,
Wolli,
Somerton 2340.

Phone: 02 67606229
Fax  answering machine: 02 67606257




OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Dr E D F Williams
So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks
flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid'
would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all.

Still thick as two planks.

Argh!

Dr E D F Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


 The way I read it was that the person was so stupid
 that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface,
 which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks.
 Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it,
 thanks a lot buddies

 Feroze

 - Original Message -
 From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM
 Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


  Rob,
 
  You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a
typing
  error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me
at
  least) to 'throw them'.
 
  But I am also thick as two planks!
 
  Don
 
  Dr E D F Williams
 
  http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
  Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
  Updated: March 30, 2002
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM
  Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
 
 
   On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote:
  
That is one of the funniest I have ever heard
feroze
   
- Original Message -
Treena Harp wrote in part.

 And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid,
you
  could
 throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three
 weeks.
  
   I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-(
  
   Rob Studdert
   HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
   Tel +61-2-9554-4110
   UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
  
 
 
 






Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Bruce Dayton
Brad,

Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor.  The reason
was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the
camera's program setting.  This generally meant that your flash
pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background
somewhat blacked out.  In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has
changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand
holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens
attached.  By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible
and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image.
The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear
more natural and less like a flash picture.  This is a good thing. You
had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because
it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a
fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30.

Hope this makes sense.


Bruce



Saturday, October 26, 2002, 11:55:51 PM, you wrote:

BD Ok,

BD Time to spill my guts to you fine folks.  I need some help.  It's a silly
BD matter that I've had since starting shooting.  Ok, here's the equipment
BD first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens
BD example, my 28-105mm zoom.   Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras
BD however you like.  Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ.  Normal
BD indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the
BD P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal.  Camera is set on program.  This all
BD cool so far?  Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a
BD shutter speed of 1/30sec.  Does that make sense?  Is that correct?  I would
BD have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher.
BD Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec
BD shutter.  What's going on?  I always bypass this and sometimes set the
BD aperture, most times, I don't.  I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter
BD to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync.  With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180.

BD I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know.
BD Is what is happening correct?  Am I doing the right thing by setting the
BD shutter higher?  Btw, the pictures turn out just fine.  I just don't
BD understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open.

BD Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a
BD fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on.

BD BD
BD **
BD Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
BD Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BD ICQ#: 1658




unsubscribe

2002-10-27 Thread Ian Macdonald


Ian Macdonald,
IP  CS Macdonald,
Wolli,
Somerton 2340.

Phone: 02 67606229
Fax  answering machine: 02 67606257




Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Bob Walkden
Hi,

perhaps they threw him into part of the creek where stuff accumulates.
The Thames close to my house usually flows quite quickly but there
are parts where all the crap that people throw in upstream, often
including pairs of short planks, gathers sometimes for days at a time.
There are a couple of barges that skim it off the top every now and then.
The stuff even includes a sort of dirty foam - perhaps that's 'stupid',
although it's not as dense as the planks. I should get the public health
people to test it sometime.

---

 Bob  

Sunday, October 27, 2002, 7:09:32 AM, you wrote:

 So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks
 flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid'
 would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all.

 Still thick as two planks.

 Argh!

 Dr E D F Williams

 http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
 Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
 Updated: March 30, 2002


 - Original Message -
 From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM
 Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


 The way I read it was that the person was so stupid
 that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface,
 which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks.
 Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it,
 thanks a lot buddies

 Feroze

 - Original Message -
 From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM
 Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


  Rob,
 
  You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a
 typing
  error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me
 at
  least) to 'throw them'.
 
  But I am also thick as two planks!
 
  Don
 
  Dr E D F Williams
 
  http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
  Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
  Updated: March 30, 2002
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM
  Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
 
 
   On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote:
  
That is one of the funniest I have ever heard
feroze
   
- Original Message -
Treena Harp wrote in part.

 And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid,
 you
  could
 throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three
 weeks.
  
   I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-(
  
   Rob Studdert
   HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
   Tel +61-2-9554-4110
   UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
  
 
 
 





Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
Thanks for the reply Bruce,

Ok, let's see if I'm following so far.  What I explained in my email about
the behaviour of the camera and flash is completely normal?I'm glad for the
info on the older cameras and TTL.  I totally understand the flash results.

Ok, now the harder part.  Ok, wide aperture, more available light in. Got
it.  Is that acceptable?  DOF would not be good if you had say, fast film, a
powerful enough flash, and a big area you wanted to capture.  So at that
point is it normal to set the aperture you want?  From all I've heard and
read, generally you don't want to hand-hold below 1/60s, should I be able to
hand-hold, with confidence, a shutter speed of 1/30 with flash (as flash
does freeze some motion)?  I just don't know, it seems everyone finds a
higher shutter-sync speed to be better, with the MZ-5n it was 1/100,
considered sort of bad, and the MZ-S has 1/180, better, but not like some
that have 1/250 or 1/500.  I guess you can see I'm a little uncomfortable
shooting at a low speed.  And am shy when it comes to flash.  I generally go
a bit overboard in any situation.  Or am I still missing the point about the
ambient light?

Brad

- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know
better (ie HELP NEEDED)


 Brad,

 Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor.  The reason
 was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the
 camera's program setting.  This generally meant that your flash
 pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background
 somewhat blacked out.  In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has
 changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand
 holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens
 attached.  By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible
 and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image.
 The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear
 more natural and less like a flash picture.  This is a good thing. You
 had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because
 it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a
 fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30.

 Hope this makes sense.


 Bruce





Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Bruce Dayton
Brad,

The general rule of thumb for hand holding is 1/focal length.  So if
you are shooting a wide angle lens, slower than 1/60 should be doable.
You should practice a bit and check your results to make sure.  You
should always be congnizant of the DOF of the image you are taking. By
being in control of your aperture, you can affect the focus area as
you desire - many times for single people you want shallow DOF, but
for larger groups you deep DOF - got to make sure nobody is too soft.

The general issue for high speed flash synch is for daylight flash
fill.  The sun is quite bright and shooting at a slow flash synch may
not be possible or would give such a deep DOF as to destroy the
desired image.  By having a higher synch, you have more opportunity to
control your DOF.


Bruce



Sunday, October 27, 2002, 1:15:25 AM, you wrote:

BD Thanks for the reply Bruce,

BD Ok, let's see if I'm following so far.  What I explained in my email about
BD the behaviour of the camera and flash is completely normal?I'm glad for the
BD info on the older cameras and TTL.  I totally understand the flash results.

BD Ok, now the harder part.  Ok, wide aperture, more available light in. Got
BD it.  Is that acceptable?  DOF would not be good if you had say, fast film, a
BD powerful enough flash, and a big area you wanted to capture.  So at that
BD point is it normal to set the aperture you want?  From all I've heard and
BD read, generally you don't want to hand-hold below 1/60s, should I be able to
BD hand-hold, with confidence, a shutter speed of 1/30 with flash (as flash
BD does freeze some motion)?  I just don't know, it seems everyone finds a
BD higher shutter-sync speed to be better, with the MZ-5n it was 1/100,
BD considered sort of bad, and the MZ-S has 1/180, better, but not like some
BD that have 1/250 or 1/500.  I guess you can see I'm a little uncomfortable
BD shooting at a low speed.  And am shy when it comes to flash.  I generally go
BD a bit overboard in any situation.  Or am I still missing the point about the
BD ambient light?

BD Brad

BD - Original Message -
BD From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BD To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BD Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM
BD Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know
BD better (ie HELP NEEDED)


 Brad,

 Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor.  The reason
 was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the
 camera's program setting.  This generally meant that your flash
 pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background
 somewhat blacked out.  In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has
 changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand
 holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens
 attached.  By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible
 and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image.
 The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear
 more natural and less like a flash picture.  This is a good thing. You
 had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because
 it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a
 fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30.

 Hope this makes sense.


 Bruce




Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Bob Walkden
Hi Rob,

I like split-image microprism screens for focal lengths up to about
100mm. This probbly partly because that was the supplied screen with
the MX, and what I got used to. I like to have several options for
checking the focus, but I use the ground glass a lot.

From 100mm upwards I like plain matte because there's no centre-spot
to black out and because the image seems to 'pop' into focus better.

I keep one slr body with a plain matte screen in permanently, and use
this for longer lenses. In the other 2 bodies I keep the split-image
screens, and use those for normal and wides.

I have some grid screens, and other fancy bits, but almost never use them.

All 35mm, all manual focus.

---

 Bob  

Sunday, October 27, 2002, 5:15:27 AM, you wrote:

 Hi Team,

 I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that 
  there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, 
 full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently 
 and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens 
 were so popular. 

 So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on 
 the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so?

 My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen 
 distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses 
 mounted.

 How about you?




Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo

- Original Message -
From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


 The Thames close to my house usually flows quite quickly but there
 are parts where all the crap that people throw in upstream, often
 including pairs of short planks, gathers sometimes for days at a time.
 There are a couple of barges that skim it off the top every now and then.
 The stuff even includes a sort of dirty foam - perhaps that's 'stupid',
 although it's not as dense as the planks. I should get the public health
 people to test it sometime.

Hey, I live by the Thames as well!  It's nice and clean, what are you
talking about?  Oh darn, you're London, England, I'm in London, Ontario,
Canada ;-)

Brad




Re: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo

- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:25 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know
better (ie HELP NEEDED)


 Brad,

 The general rule of thumb for hand holding is 1/focal length.  So if
 you are shooting a wide angle lens, slower than 1/60 should be doable.
 You should practice a bit and check your results to make sure.  You
 should always be congnizant of the DOF of the image you are taking. By
 being in control of your aperture, you can affect the focus area as
 you desire - many times for single people you want shallow DOF, but
 for larger groups you deep DOF - got to make sure nobody is too soft.

 The general issue for high speed flash synch is for daylight flash
 fill.  The sun is quite bright and shooting at a slow flash synch may
 not be possible or would give such a deep DOF as to destroy the
 desired image.  By having a higher synch, you have more opportunity to
 control your DOF.


 Bruce



 Sunday, October 27, 2002, 1:15:25 AM, you wrote:

 BD Thanks for the reply Bruce,

 BD Ok, let's see if I'm following so far.  What I explained in my email
about
 BD the behaviour of the camera and flash is completely normal?I'm glad
for the
 BD info on the older cameras and TTL.  I totally understand the flash
results.

 BD Ok, now the harder part.  Ok, wide aperture, more available light in.
Got
 BD it.  Is that acceptable?  DOF would not be good if you had say, fast
film, a
 BD powerful enough flash, and a big area you wanted to capture.  So at
that
 BD point is it normal to set the aperture you want?  From all I've heard
and
 BD read, generally you don't want to hand-hold below 1/60s, should I be
able to
 BD hand-hold, with confidence, a shutter speed of 1/30 with flash (as
flash
 BD does freeze some motion)?  I just don't know, it seems everyone finds
a
 BD higher shutter-sync speed to be better, with the MZ-5n it was 1/100,
 BD considered sort of bad, and the MZ-S has 1/180, better, but not like
some
 BD that have 1/250 or 1/500.  I guess you can see I'm a little
uncomfortable
 BD shooting at a low speed.  And am shy when it comes to flash.  I
generally go
 BD a bit overboard in any situation.  Or am I still missing the point
about the
 BD ambient light?

 BD Brad

 BD - Original Message -
 BD From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 BD To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 BD Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM
 BD Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know
 BD better (ie HELP NEEDED)


  Brad,
 
  Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor.  The reason
  was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the
  camera's program setting.  This generally meant that your flash
  pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background
  somewhat blacked out.  In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has
  changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand
  holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens
  attached.  By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible
  and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image.
  The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear
  more natural and less like a flash picture.  This is a good thing. You
  had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because
  it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a
  fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30.
 
  Hope this makes sense.
 
 
  Bruce





Oops again, this is the real oneRe: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
Darn, I am really mucking things up.  I guess 3 pots of coffee and it being
4:30am may account for some of that ;-)

Bruce, that is the coolest thing.  I've filed that into my memory banks now.
Geez, after all the literature I read on photography, I never ran across
that.  Thanks!

Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:25 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know
better (ie HELP NEEDED)


 Brad,

 The general rule of thumb for hand holding is 1/focal length.  So if
 you are shooting a wide angle lens, slower than 1/60 should be doable.





Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo

 I think it's a nice design.  That angled top plate
 reminds me of the MZ-S.  Really it looks like a very
 fat -S.  Porky digicam!

 Dude, it's late!

Late is not in my vocabulary.

I've never messed with or held the existing DSLRs, but I've heard they are
rather bulky by nature of the beast and heavy too.  Any comments on this?




Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
This question is somewhat related to the messages.  When I first started
with the Pentax A3000, it had the split screen and I found it rather fun.  I
doubt any will work on the MZ-S, but is it possible to use that screen in an
AF camera/lens?  (switched to MF of course)

Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: Focus screen preferences?


 Hi Rob,

 I like split-image microprism screens for focal lengths up to about
 100mm. This probbly partly because that was the supplied screen with
 the MX, and what I got used to. I like to have several options for
 checking the focus, but I use the ground glass a lot.

 From 100mm upwards I like plain matte because there's no centre-spot
 to black out and because the image seems to 'pop' into focus better.

 I keep one slr body with a plain matte screen in permanently, and use
 this for longer lenses. In the other 2 bodies I keep the split-image
 screens, and use those for normal and wides.

 I have some grid screens, and other fancy bits, but almost never use them.

 All 35mm, all manual focus.

 ---

  Bob

 Sunday, October 27, 2002, 5:15:27 AM, you wrote:

  Hi Team,

  I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I
guess that
   there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split
image,
  full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens
recently
  and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid
screens
  were so popular.

  So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference
(based on
  the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so?

  My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the
screen
  distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast
lenses
  mounted.

  How about you?





Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Bob Rapp
Hi Rob,
The latest screen available for the 67II seems the most logical. It has
a grid, but the screen is divided in thirds - both horizontal and vertical.
This would be a great composition tool. Unfortunately, there are no similar
screens for the LX.
So, I would like a screen, similar to the above, with a split-image
central focusing aid.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Focus screen preferences?


 Hi Team,

 I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess
that
  there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split
image,
 full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens
recently
 and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid
screens
 were so popular.

 So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference
(based on
 the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so?

 My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the
screen
 distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast
lenses
 mounted.

 How about you?

 Cheers,


 Rob Studdert
 HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
 Tel +61-2-9554-4110
 UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html





Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Gatis Visnevskis

Wow, that's advanced, huh.
I have very little flash experience, because i'm shooting landscapes mostly.
It is still true for older F-lens and older bodys like ZX-7 ?

Gasha

Bruce Dayton wrote:
...


somewhat blacked out.  In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has
changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand
holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens
attached.  By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible
and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image.







rec.photo.equipment.35mm

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
A Gregory L. Hansen posted this on 26/10/2002 7:08pm and there have been a
bunch of follow-ups.  I don't know if anyone here posted to it, I'm sure
some of you have seen it, but for the benefit of others I pasted it.  May
check it out?  If I'm a total moron and everyone reads that newsgroup, just
thump me one. ;-)  Do we all think we are #4 or #3?


I was at the local Ritz Camera today to pick up various pieces, like a UV
filter for my new lens, hood, cleaning kit, film.  I asked for a cap that
goes on a Pentax camera without a lens, they didn't have one.  I asked for
a cap for the rear of a Pentax lens, they didn't have one, although they
had some for Canon and Nikon.  I asked about extension tubes, and the guy
said there are none, nobody makes lenses for Pentax any more.  And maybe
he was just distracted or having a bad day, but he seemed to say it with
the kind of sneer used by a PC fan talking to a Macintosh-using customer.
Not a Sorry, we're out, but a Nobody makes anything for that any more
with some implication that it's about time that company went away and why
aren't you using decent equipment?

I knew Pentax wasn't top dog, but I thought number 4 out of the big four
wasn't so bad.  Is Pentax on the way out, or is the sales guy just a
yo-yo?


**
Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ#: 1658




Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Heiko Hamann
Hi Steve,

on 26 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list:

I do have a question, however.  How difficult is it to  use the MZ-S
shape but recast it in polycarbonate?   I realize that it would require
new mfg lines that cast plastic instead of bend metal, screw fittings
would be needed, etc., etc., but the final product would be much cheaper
and I think a few hundred bucks cheaper would make a big difference..

Interesting question. I can't answer it but I was thinking in the same  
direction. For me the MZ-S was never a real MZ as it has a unique  
design. Pal has said, that the Pentax reps sometimes are quite  
misunderstandig. So what if the MZ-S was the developing basis for new  
products and now will be the basis for the new chassis? I could imagine  
a new chassis line as follows:

- a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6
- the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera
- the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip
- a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and
more pro-features

For me this sounds sensible (altough it is pure speculation), especially  
as this would amortize Pentax's investments in rd. On the other hand  
there is missing a replacement for the cheap consumer bodies (MZ-60  
etc.). So maybe these will still be produced in their present shape. And  
another argument against a new MZ-S-line: The LX was a similar product  
but it remained unique - there were no further developments into other  
bodies.


Regards, Heiko




Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Jan van Wijk
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:15:27 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:


I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that 
 there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, 
full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently 
and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens 
were so popular. 


Hmm, I started out with an MX that had the split-screen and was quite happy
with that. I have also used microprism on some 35mm SLR's in the past.

So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on 
the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so?


However on the current AF 35mm stuff I prefer the full matte screen (as bright as 
possible :-)

I do have one of the MX's using a grid screen now, for landscape and architecture, 
The other one still has the split-screen.

I tend to use the 67II more now, and that has the grid-screen too. Perfect for 
landscapes
and architecture, and not too distracting ...

The LX has a full matte (the new bright variant) and that is OK for the fast lenses 
that
I tend to use on that.  For much slower and wide-angle a split-screen might be handy
sometimes though ...


Regards, JvW

--
Jan van Wijk;   http://www.dfsee.com/gallery






SV: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
Hi Brad
I never use my SMC-A2.8/28mm
Jens, Denmark

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Dan Scott [mailto:daniel559;directvinternet.com]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 06:55
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)



On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 12:02  AM, Brad Dobo wrote:

 Here's my very pathetic list, I've owned more, but sold them, most 
 were the
 cheap FA Zooms, one was a nice 28mm f/2.8 A? that I sold...wish I 
 could take
 that one back.

 FA 50mm 1:1.4
 FA 100mm 1:2.8 MACRO
 FA 28-105mm 1:4-5.6 [IF]

 What I want soon are 2,

 Either, the FA* 24mm 1:2.0 AL [IF] or the FA 20-35mm 1:4.0 AL
 and
 A used fixed telephoto 300mm ~ 500mm manual focus and such.

 Brad Dobo


The FA 24/2 is very nice. I took it, the FA 35/2 and the FA 77/1.8 to 
my sister's wedding in Dallas the week before last. I ended up using 
the 24 on at least half the shots. Just have to keep remembering to 
take the hood off if I'm using the on camera flash. Easy to forget.

Dan Scott




Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
Hey there Heiko,

Of course we all are speculating, but I can see 2 of your points makes sense
to me, but the description of a new MZ flagship or whatever one may call it,
seems to be looking like a Nikon or Canon clone.  Correct me here if I am
wrong, but that would be breaking a long-standing tradition?  I can't see it
because of that and the cost to make it happen, especially since the MZ-S
was a sales flop.  I love it though, it's professional enough for me, and
really, Pentax isn't in the professional business concerning 35mm, right?

Brad Dobo

- Original Message -
From: Heiko Hamann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR


 - a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6
 - the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera
 - the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip
 - a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and
 more pro-features





Re: Re[2]: law and image

2002-10-27 Thread Jan van Wijk
Hi Brad,

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:23:27 -0400, Brad Dobo wrote:

  I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson.  I just wonder
about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) invest
large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area.  From what I
gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using
Pentax cameras.  Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction.

I DO use a Canon digital PS that is almost three years old now,
and mainly because Pentax did not have a decent one then ...

However, I DO use an Epson printer, since they are among the best, and
Pentax does not make any printer at all.

I also use a Nikon film-scanner, a coolscan III for 35mm, now replaced by an 8000 ED
to be able to scan my 67 negatives as well. Again, Pentax has NO scanner at all ...

All my film camera's (6 of them) are Pentax ...
95 percent of my lenses (about 30) are Pentax, a few are Sigma.

I use Pentax cameras mainly because that is what I happen to start with in 1977,
and because the lenses turn out to be among the best.

For other equipment I prefer Pentax, but only if comparable in quality and features.
I don't mind using other brands where they are unique, or better.

So I don't think the that those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not 
using Pentax!

Regards, JvW
--
Jan van Wijk;   http://www.dfsee.com/gallery






Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo

- Original Message -
From: arkibladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:07 AM
Subject: SV: What lenses do you have? (poll)


 Hi Brad
 I never use my SMC-A2.8/28mm
 Jens, Denmark

Yo Jens,

Why do you not use it?  Also, I was really fresh when I picked it up, for
use with the A3000.  It cost $200 Cdn, but like I said, I was fresh, and it
may not have been an 'A' lens.




Re: Re[2]: law and image

2002-10-27 Thread Brad Dobo
'Allo Jan,

It was not a blanket statement, I always assume since you and others post
here you must have and use Pentax gear.  I was aware that Pentax does not
make printers, scanners, (or, not because of your message, a DSLR)  Perhaps
I wrote poorly, it was really directed to those that use digital PS and
DSLR and spend the cash on the darkroom stuff.  I wondered how many of
those, were actually using a Pentax digital camera.

Hope that clears it up!

Regards,

Brad Dobo

- Original Message -
From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: law and image


 Hi Brad,

 On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:23:27 -0400, Brad Dobo wrote:

   I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson.  I just wonder
 about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios)
invest
 large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area.  From what I
 gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using
 Pentax cameras.  Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction.

 I DO use a Canon digital PS that is almost three years old now,
 and mainly because Pentax did not have a decent one then ...

 However, I DO use an Epson printer, since they are among the best, and
 Pentax does not make any printer at all.

 I also use a Nikon film-scanner, a coolscan III for 35mm, now replaced by
an 8000 ED
 to be able to scan my 67 negatives as well. Again, Pentax has NO scanner
at all ...

 All my film camera's (6 of them) are Pentax ...
 95 percent of my lenses (about 30) are Pentax, a few are Sigma.

 I use Pentax cameras mainly because that is what I happen to start with in
1977,
 and because the lenses turn out to be among the best.

 For other equipment I prefer Pentax, but only if comparable in quality and
features.
 I don't mind using other brands where they are unique, or better.

 So I don't think the that those that speak about Epson and Nikon and
Canon are not using Pentax!

 Regards, JvW
 --
 Jan van Wijk;   http://www.dfsee.com/gallery







Re: Re[2]: law and image

2002-10-27 Thread Alan Chan
I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson.  I just wonder
about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) 
invest
large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area.  From what I
gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using
Pentax cameras.  Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction.

I guess most people just go for the most obvious, and Pentax isn't that 
obvious to most people on Earth.

regards,
Alan Chan

_
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp



RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
Hi all
This is a very long thread based on the fact, that one Taiwaneese magasine
didn't have a picture of the future/new Pentax DSLR, that is going to
replace the abandoned (MZ-S-like) one, and used a two year old picture.

We seem to know, it's going to have a 16x24mm 5 megapix CCD (?), a KAF-mount
and will cost appr. 1500 USD/Euro's (Body only). As I recall the D MZ-S was
supposed to cost about 6000-8000 USD/Euros, which means the new one must be
very much different - since it costs about 1/4.
I'll probably buy one instead of the MZ-S I never got.

Faktor 1.5 focal means a 29mm will be like a 43mm, the normal lens.
Basicly this doesn't mean very much in every day photography, but probably
that Pentax will make some new widelangles, rectiliniar and fish-eye's, in
the near future - and some new standard zooms, like a 2.8/16-60mm (24-90mm).
Or maybe a SMC FA 2.8/19mm-47mm (28-70mm). It might be great fun to use
theese on a 35mm body? I'll certainly like the latter.





-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Heiko Hamann [mailto:list.heiko;mycroft.de]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 10:49
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR


Hi Steve,

on 26 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list:

I do have a question, however.  How difficult is it to  use the MZ-S
shape but recast it in polycarbonate?   I realize that it would require
new mfg lines that cast plastic instead of bend metal, screw fittings
would be needed, etc., etc., but the final product would be much cheaper
and I think a few hundred bucks cheaper would make a big difference..

Interesting question. I can't answer it but I was thinking in the same
direction. For me the MZ-S was never a real MZ as it has a unique
design. Pal has said, that the Pentax reps sometimes are quite
misunderstandig. So what if the MZ-S was the developing basis for new
products and now will be the basis for the new chassis? I could imagine
a new chassis line as follows:

- a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6
- the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera
- the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip
- a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and
more pro-features

For me this sounds sensible (altough it is pure speculation), especially
as this would amortize Pentax's investments in rd. On the other hand
there is missing a replacement for the cheap consumer bodies (MZ-60
etc.). So maybe these will still be produced in their present shape. And
another argument against a new MZ-S-line: The LX was a similar product
but it remained unique - there were no further developments into other
bodies.


Regards, Heiko




Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Dr E D F Williams
Absolutely! In Richmond, near the bridge, I've seen some of that foam on my
Sunday morning strolls. It certainly looks like stupid. Very unpalatable.

D

Dr E D F Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


 Hi,

 perhaps they threw him into part of the creek where stuff accumulates.
 The Thames close to my house usually flows quite quickly but there
 are parts where all the crap that people throw in upstream, often
 including pairs of short planks, gathers sometimes for days at a time.
 There are a couple of barges that skim it off the top every now and then.
 The stuff even includes a sort of dirty foam - perhaps that's 'stupid',
 although it's not as dense as the planks. I should get the public health
 people to test it sometime.

 ---

  Bob

 Sunday, October 27, 2002, 7:09:32 AM, you wrote:

  So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But
creeks
  flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the
'stupid'
  would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all.

  Still thick as two planks.

  Argh!

  Dr E D F Williams

  http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
  Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
  Updated: March 30, 2002


  - Original Message -
  From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM
  Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


  The way I read it was that the person was so stupid
  that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface,
  which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks.
  Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it,
  thanks a lot buddies
 
  Feroze
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM
  Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
 
 
   Rob,
  
   You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a
  typing
   error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for
me
  at
   least) to 'throw them'.
  
   But I am also thick as two planks!
  
   Don
  
   Dr E D F Williams
  
   http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
   Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
   Updated: March 30, 2002
  
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM
   Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
  
  
On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote:
   
 That is one of the funniest I have ever heard
 feroze

 - Original Message -
 Treena Harp wrote in part.
 
  And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid,
  you
   could
  throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three
  weeks.
   
I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-(
   
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
   
  
  
  
 






Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Heiko Hamann
Hi Brad,

on 27 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list:

Of course we all are speculating, but I can see 2 of your points makes
sense to me, but the description of a new MZ flagship or whatever one
may call it, seems to be looking like a Nikon or Canon clone.  Correct
me here if I am wrong, but that would be breaking a long-standing
tradition?  I can't see it because of that and the cost to make it
happen, especially since the MZ-S was a sales flop.  I love it though,
it's professional enough for me, and really, Pentax isn't in the
professional business concerning 35mm, right?

You're right - why should Pentax build a pro body? I was assuming that  
they will build a pro body as flagship. If this assumtion was right,  
then an MZ-XXL would make sense IMO.

If a Pentax pro body would make sense is another question. I agree, that  
it wouldn't make sense to compete wih Canon and Nikon in their pro  
segments. I don't think that Pentax would be successfull to earn  
sufficient market shares. OTO I am not sure if the MZ-S is really such a  
flop as generally assumed. In my eyes the MZ-S is a niche product for a  
small number of photo enthusiastst. And it is really unique in this  
niche - there is no competitive product. I don't know the actual  
figures, but I could imagine that this niche strategy is more successful  
as generally assumed. Compare it to Leica - they don't sell large  
numbers but are very successful in a small, expensive niche. AFAIR  
Pentax never tried to offer quite expensive and exclusive products, but  
maybe they try to identify or build new niche markets for a pro body.  
The MZ-S was the first ans - maybe successful - attempt for a new semi- 
pro niche. Would be interesting to know its profit contribution.

BTW - I'm owning a MZ-5n and a 28-105 as you do. And I'm considering to  
buy a MZ-S (regardless of our DSLR/flagship speculations). Is it really  
a big step forward from the MZ-5n regarding AF speed and accuracy? Do  
you like the viewfinder? As I'm wearing glasses, the I don't like the  
viewfinder of my MZ-5n (as most other actual viewfinders)...

Regards, Heiko




Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Herb Chong
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debra,

No flames from me.  I use PaintShop Pro and Picture Window rather than
Photoshop.  I tried Elements and didn't really care for the interface.
Since all I am doing is correcting scanning problems (Like Wheatfield,
I prefer to fix things in the camera, rather than later), I find that
some tools in PaintShop Pro work best and some tools in Picture Window
work best.  I am very happy with those particular editors.

Bruce

once you start working with digital more, especially to produce larger
prints or files you have to start sending to other people expressly for
printing, you will need to move to Photoshop Elements, Photoshop,
Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint.
PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable
results when sending files to other people for their printing. with
Photoshop, i load my image, apply the precomputed color profile for my
input device (scanner or digital camera) and print with no adjustments and
get very good results. if i want the best results, i may tweak contrast,
gamma, and saturation. these are the things that finish an image and
require an accurately color-color calibrated monitor and printer to get
consistent results. consistency means predictably good results every time i
print and saves time and money. i can print once with confidence that i
will get what i want, even when i send the file to a service bureau for
large format or archival printing. the times when i have to retouch defects
like dust that is too large for Digital ICE to handle or paint (graffiti)
on a rock that i can't compose around, i use a pressure sensitive tablet.
PaintShop Pro's support of pressure-sensitive tablet's isn't adequate to
give the level of control of a good tablet. Photoshop's is much better and
the stylus handles like a paintbrush with more control and an undo. for
ultimate tablet feel and control, procreate Painter 7 is the best, but it
is more difficult to learn.

Herb




Re: A good argument for buying a film scanner

2002-10-27 Thread Herb Chong
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another supposedly dedicated photofinishing lab (fuji recommended) 
near to where I live blew it when they did me some 8x10s. One had pink snow

and the other had a green dog. They couldn't see anything wrong.
I don't ask much, really I don't.

they ask less. can you recognize that it is a dog and there is snow in the
picture. accurate color is another level of demand. i've seen written that
a person in the street survey of what makes a good picture is that you
can recognize the subject. you appear to have higher standards than that.

Herb...




Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Pål Jensen
Brad wrote:

I can't see it
 because of that and the cost to make it happen, especially since the MZ-S
 was a sales flop.  

I've been told it has sold more than expected. 


I love it though, it's professional enough for me, and
 really, Pentax isn't in the professional business concerning 35mm, right?


Pentax isn't in the business of professional anything. They sell to whoever buys it. 
There's a common misconception that MF is Pentax professional line. It isn't.

Pål





Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Pål Jensen
Bruce wrote:

 For low volume production items the cost is in the tooling and setting up 
production, and not the materials. 


Thats why the story provided by Pentax UK, all new slr's from the same chassis, makes 
sense.
I'm not convinced the MZ-S as building block for the whole Pentax slr line-up makes 
sense. The MZ-S was designed as a digital slr from ground up and later engineered into 
a film slr. This cannot be ideal. A new chassis that is engineered from ground up for 
both film and digital seem to make more sense.

Pål





Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Pål Jensen
Brad wrote:


 Ok, here is my preference.  The screen that came on the MZ-S because of the
 focus spots.  I know little about screens, but I looked at the other one for
 the MZ-S with grid, and would take it in a second, if it also had the AF
 points, and it doesn't.


Not true. The MZ-S grid screen has AF points.

Pål 




Re: Pack Shot advice

2002-10-27 Thread Steve Desjardins
First Prize - Most interesting combination of questions in one posting
category

With nothing useful to say,

Steve




TEST DO NOT READ

2002-10-27 Thread J. C. O'Connell
TEST DO NOT READ

J.C. O'Connell  mailto:hifisapi;gate.net 
My Business references  Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/




RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR (Expected streetprice US$1200)

2002-10-27 Thread Steve Desjardins
I admit that I've decided to put other major purchases on hold and start
squirreling away spare money for a bigger purchase. If this thing is
really between 1200-1500 USD, then I might very well buy one.  I
currently enjoy using the E-10 I have access to; this idea of a having
Pentax DSLR is starting to move from theoretical speculation to
potential acquisition in my mind.  Besides, the way these things go,
I'll probably have a whole year to save up before they ar actually
available.


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




Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10

2002-10-27 Thread Steve Desjardins
Just a question.  I use Micrografx  Picture Publisher Pro 10, which I
really like.  Anoyone else use this product?


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




Re: Prints from slides questions

2002-10-27 Thread Christian
I get prints from my slides in one of two ways:

1. Scan it myself on the old HP PhotoSmart at
2400dpi, tweak it for contrast, etc and then print
it (max 8x10) on my epson 880.  For this cheap
equipment I get some pretty fantastic results.

2. Bring it to the custom lab that has a Nikon
8000 scanner and high-end epson printer.  Amazing
results at a price for prints up to 24x36.

The problem with scanning slides is that most
consumer labs probably just batch scan without
paying attention to the results.  When I bring in
a slide that I want printed I talk to the lab guy
and tell him how the final print should look with
regards to color, contrast, etc.

I'm totally hooked on digital printing.  I
wouldn't think of printing my slides any other
way.

sigh one day i'll have the Nikon 8000 and
mega-epson in my office..

Christian
- Original Message -
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: Prints from slides questions


 I've been shooting a lot of slides lately and
took a few to a local digital
 print place for some quick enlargements. I
didn't expect them to measure up
 to a custom print but I didn't expect them to be
trash either. I thought I'd
 get something usable from a commercial lab but
they were awful. No contrast,
 colors were off, highlights were washed out.
Just terrible. Now to my
 questions:

 The slides had to be scanned somehow. Are
scanners that bad at reading color
 slides? If what I got is the best a film scanner
can do then I've lost all
 interest in buying one.

 What process do you recommend for printing from
slides? Is the consensus
 that Ilfochrome is better or does the Kodak
Ektachrome paper yield a better
 print? Any differences that I should be aware
of?

 Thanks for any info you can provide.







pROBLEMS WITH LIST

2002-10-27 Thread J. C. O'Connell
I've gotten unsubscribed 3 time in the last month.
What is going on?
JCO




Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Feroze Kistan
Thats all well and good, spin doctors are really worth
the money. But its been what 4 years since they started
this project, if time is money in business than
the 5 year girl on the corner selling lemonade
seems to have more sense. How long does
it possibly take to bring the DSLR on the market
when they had an almost working sample about a
year ago. The only other explanation is that the
first non working demo's were just that, I don't
think they had anything concrete at that time
and just hobbled something together to keep
their image and have since been working on the real thing.

My 2 bits

Feroze




- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR


 No problems, Brad.  We (or at least I) knew what you meant first time
around
 g.

 I know I've mentioned this before, but I just help commenting again:  Man,
 you've got the strangest sleep patterns!

 I wake up and check my e-mails before I got to work in the morning, and
you're
 posting at, like 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning.

 And, here it is, 10:30 on a Saturday night, and your waking up, and
looking
 for coffee?  I wonder why you're awake in the wee hours?  vbg

 But, on to the topic of this thread:  I don't think Pentax is jerking us
 around;  no more than any other corporation teases its market with leaks
and
 such.  They want us to think they're really working on something (and they
 probably are).  They know there are those that really want a dslr from
them,
 and they want to keep up interest.  It may be nothing more than a
marketing
 ploy, but I don't think it's unusual in the corporate world.

 I wouldn't feel too hard done by due to any of this.  Now, if someone
wants to
 be PO'ed by the fact that there is still no Pentax dslr on the market,
that
 would be understandable...

 cheers,
 frank

 Brad Dobo wrote:

  Argh audible swearing
 
  Should read is it just me.blah
 
   Sound read is it just meI just woke up...need coffee
  
Gang, is it just be or does it sound like Pentax is *beeping* us
over?
   Ever
get that used, dirty feeling? ;-)
   
Brad Dobo

 --
 The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist
 fears it is true. -J. Robert
 Oppenheimer







Re: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Feroze Kistan
Not if you kept skimming it off the top The creeks I know
sort of meander like sludge, don't rivers flow And be careful
water makes planks swell and then your cap wont fit you anymore

Feroze


- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:09 AM
Subject: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


 So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But
creeks
 flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid'
 would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all.

 Still thick as two planks.

 Argh!

 Dr E D F Williams

 http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
 Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
 Updated: March 30, 2002


 - Original Message -
 From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM
 Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


  The way I read it was that the person was so stupid
  that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface,
  which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks.
  Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it,
  thanks a lot buddies
 
  Feroze
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM
  Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
 
 
   Rob,
  
   You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a
 typing
   error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for
me
 at
   least) to 'throw them'.
  
   But I am also thick as two planks!
  
   Don
  
   Dr E D F Williams
  
   http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
   Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
   Updated: March 30, 2002
  
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM
   Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
  
  
On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote:
   
 That is one of the funniest I have ever heard
 feroze

 - Original Message -
 Treena Harp wrote in part.
 
  And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid,
 you
   could
  throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three
  weeks.
   
I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-(
   
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
   
  
  
  
 








Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Feroze Kistan
Prefer grid screens, and as soon as my MZS is here its the
first thing I'll buy after the grip. I suppose it depends a
lot on what you shooting, I  think grid screens
work well with landscape photographers for eg.

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:15 AM
Subject: Focus screen preferences?


 Hi Team,

 I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess
that
  there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split
image,
 full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens
recently
 and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid
screens
 were so popular.

 So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference
(based on
 the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so?

 My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the
screen
 distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast
lenses
 mounted.

 How about you?

 Cheers,


 Rob Studdert
 HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
 Tel +61-2-9554-4110
 UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html







Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Feroze Kistan

- Original Message - 
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training


 Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint.
 PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable
 results when sending files to other people for their printing.  




Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Feroze Kistan

- Original Message - 
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training


 printing, you will need to move to Photoshop Elements, Photoshop,
 Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint.
 PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable
results when sending files to other people for their printing.




Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Feroze Kistan
Please tell me how you came to this conclusion,
do you mean if you scan a pic in photopaint and 
and in the same one in photoshop and print
it out on the same machine you get 2 diffirent results?

Feroze
- Original Message - 
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training



 Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint.
 PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable
 results when sending files to other people for their printing. 




Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Doug Brewer
Well...sure.


At 3:14 AM +100010/27/02, Rob Studdert  wrote, or at least typed:

After a quick whip-around to cover the air fare :-)

Rob Studdert
-- 
Douglas Forrest Brewer
Ashwood Lake Photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alphoto.com




RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Doug Brewer
Of course it does. I've never had a single problem with Pentax service.

DB


At 9:22 PM -040010/26/02, Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)  wrote, or at least typed:
They don't need any fancy bugs, since Pentax service doesn't exist in North America.

BR
-- 
Douglas Forrest Brewer
Ashwood Lake Photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alphoto.com




Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Doug Brewer
Don't tell anyone I was taking a break from working on the list. Some people think I'm 
not allowed.

You can call volume portraiture a lot of things, but boring it ain't. You do learn a 
lot about lighting and posing, and you learn to make quick decisions. Don't take this 
the wrong way, but I don't know if you have the temperament for that kind of work.

Hard to answer you on the other part of your message. Been a long time since I had a 
dud roll, but I'm a guy who edits as he shoots, so I don't have many frames I didn't 
intend to have. That said, you should really, at this point, wait until after you get 
the rolls back before deciding if they're duds. Even then, it's really difficult to 
read negatives, so you may want to investigate slides as a way to judge your progress.


At 11:51 AM -040010/26/02, Brad Dobo  wrote, or at least typed:
Weighing in a little late Doug! g But good to see you posting, and not
having to fiddle with the list (which to me has been working perfectly)!

Interesting you brought up the 'volume portrait biz'.   I was looking at
looking into..heh...doing that.  Personally, I would find it boring, but one
would learn quite a lot about lighting and such, in the least eh?  As well
as positioning your subject too.  I could use that help!  Heck, I'd be
willing to be an assistant for free. (Truth, people pictures scare me, I
like just about everything else)

One other thing that sort of applies to your message.  I've shot a lot, and
want to shoot much more.  I've found that with certain rolls or trips or
events, I think, 'They aren't going to be good' so I take the roll to
someplace cheap.  When I think I've got something good, I take it to a good
photofinisher.  Is anyone else like that?  I'll admit that some of the shots
on the 'bad' roll, actually are quite good.  I've never had any problems
with the cheap ones, except the Price Club (Costco), where I tried twice to
get some Fuji HG 1600 film processed and they were more like test rolls, and
both times, their dumb machine ripped my negatives to shreds.  So I guess
what I'm going after is, do any of you get the feeling you have a 'dud' roll
and don't want to pay top dollar to have it processed?  Or should I, despite
the cost, always go to my trusted photofinisher?

Regards,

Brad Dobo



At 11:51 AM -040010/26/02, Brad Dobo  wrote, or at least typed:
Weighing in a little late Doug! g But good to see you posting, and not
having to fiddle with the list (which to me has been working perfectly)!

Interesting you brought up the 'volume portrait biz'.   I was looking at
looking into..heh...doing that.  Personally, I would find it boring, but one
would learn quite a lot about lighting and such, in the least eh?  As well
as positioning your subject too.  I could use that help!  Heck, I'd be
willing to be an assistant for free. (Truth, people pictures scare me, I
like just about everything else)

One other thing that sort of applies to your message.  I've shot a lot, and
want to shoot much more.  I've found that with certain rolls or trips or
events, I think, 'They aren't going to be good' so I take the roll to
someplace cheap.  When I think I've got something good, I take it to a good
photofinisher.  Is anyone else like that?  I'll admit that some of the shots
on the 'bad' roll, actually are quite good.  I've never had any problems
with the cheap ones, except the Price Club (Costco), where I tried twice to
get some Fuji HG 1600 film processed and they were more like test rolls, and
both times, their dumb machine ripped my negatives to shreds.  So I guess
what I'm going after is, do any of you get the feeling you have a 'dud' roll
and don't want to pay top dollar to have it processed?  Or should I, despite
the cost, always go to my trusted photofinisher?

Regards,

Brad Dobo
-- 
Douglas Forrest Brewer
Ashwood Lake Photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alphoto.com




Re: Pack Shot advice

2002-10-27 Thread Feroze Kistan
Oh wait I have another one, and this is for the 
grand prize, winner takes all - 

Can you have a proctoscope CLA'd and who would
you recommeded?

Feroze
- Original Message - 
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Pack Shot advice


 First Prize - Most interesting combination of questions in one posting
 category
 
 With nothing useful to say,
 
 Steve
 
 




Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Lon Williamson


Rob Studdert wrote:
snip-
 So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on
 the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so?
-

I like the KX microprism and KX split screen the best.




Strange Pentax posting

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
Hi list
Did any of you get a mail like this (It's strange since I'm not subscibing
to any yahoo list/group):

You cannot reply to this message via email because you have chosen not
to disclose your email address to the group.

To reply:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentaxxstarforum/post?act=replymessageNum=887

Hi group,

photography is an anytime changing, exciting thing that has found
numerous places and discussion forums in the web. These are changing
as photography in general is changing. This cannot be without
consequences for forums like these.

What can be observed in the last year was a fast growing website and
forum community with unmatched competence in the digital photography
area. Especially dpreview became a place, where informations and
discussions became available much faster and reliable than in the
classic brand related forums. Recently, e.g. the article and pictures
on a new MZ-S Digital on photosharp.com.tw appeared there 2 days
earlier than on the usually fast PDML.

Since high end SLR photography in future will be digital photography,
it is just consequent to shift a forum like this one over to a place
like dpreview if time is ready for this. In my mind, it's ready now.

So I invite all the 200+ friendly, humble, knowledgable and relaxed
members I have seen here plus the numerous passive readers to switch
over to

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

in order to strengthen the Pentax crowd there. In case you have no
interest in digital, I have two things on offer. First the two big
Pentax yahoo groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Spotmatic/ and the
pdml offspring http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PentaxUsers/. Second,
this group will not be deleted, but it will become a passive archive.
So members will have access to the postings and image archive aytime
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentaxxstarforum/. However, this
archive will be a so called hidden group without new messages. The
change will happen at the end of October.

See you,

Ralf



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/hZCslB/TM
-~-

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:HerbChong;compuserve.com]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 12:33




What light baffle thickness for MX?

2002-10-27 Thread hijdenj
Dear group,
The foam at the rear door and close to the focusing screen of my MX is
getting sticky. I want to try to replace it.
Searching the internet, I find different thicknesses are available.
Any sugestions what thickness is needed?
Next sunday I intend to visit the Fotografic fair in Houten (Holland) and I
expect I will be able to buy the foam there.
Any suggestions about the procedure to follow to get a good result without
spending too much time? (I believe in the 80/20 rule)

Regards, Jos from Holland





Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR (Expected streetprice US$1200)

2002-10-27 Thread James Fellows
I agree.  I may not buy a new Pentax auto focus film camera, but wait 6
months to a year to see what Pentax comes out with.  I have plenty of film
cameras already and would be more than happy to thin out that collection to
help pay for a new DSLR.  My wife and I currently own the EI-200 and have a
lot of fun with it.  A APS sized DSLR would be more than adequate for us.

Jim
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR (Expected streetprice
US$1200)


 I admit that I've decided to put other major purchases on hold and start
 squirreling away spare money for a bigger purchase. If this thing is
 really between 1200-1500 USD, then I might very well buy one.  I
 currently enjoy using the E-10 I have access to; this idea of a having
 Pentax DSLR is starting to move from theoretical speculation to
 potential acquisition in my mind.  Besides, the way these things go,
 I'll probably have a whole year to save up before they ar actually
 available.


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





Re: THE PENTAX SONG: PENTAX FOREVER!

2002-10-27 Thread Lon Williamson
Not a bad plug for Kodak, either.

Of course Pentax has a sexier mention in Popsickle Toes -
Why do you always load your Pentax when I'm in the nude?

frank theriault wrote:
 
 Good one, Bill! vbg
 
 He shoots, he scores!
 
 -frank
 
 William Robb wrote:
 
  Kodachrome. As good a Nikon song as there ever was.
 
  William Robb
 
 --
 The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
 pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert
 Oppenheimer




RE: rec.photo.equipment.35mm

2002-10-27 Thread Malcolm Smith
Frank theriault wrote:

 I have no idea whether Pentax is # 4, 5 or 15.  And quite frankly, I don't
 care.  I don't buy Pentax stuff as a status symbol.

I agree with that, I bought Pentax because I liked their cameras.

 I care more about quality of images, and whether what I own fits
 my needs and
 my budget.

I wouldn't have bought more Pentax equipment if I was disappointed with the
results, I would have bought into another brand. I like the cameras, lenses
and if Pentax does not give much back up, PDML does.

Malcolm




SV: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
Hi Henry
Well, I guess the csots of developing the MZ-S body has allready been paid
for by the MS-S sales. I's might probably be cheaper to reuse the MZ-S
framework, rather than starting all over again. The MZ-S sell for appr.
700-800 USD, leaving a little economic space for implementing the
electronics...
Jens


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Iren  Henry Chu [mailto:irenhenry;hotmail.com]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 14:18
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR


Hi all
This is a very long thread based on the fact, that one Taiwaneese magasine
didn't have a picture of the future/new Pentax DSLR, that is going to
replace the abandoned (MZ-S-like) one, and used a two year old picture.

We seem to know, it's going to have a 16x24mm 5 megapix CCD (?), a
KAF-mount
and will cost appr. 1500 USD/Euro's (Body only). As I recall the D MZ-S was
supposed to cost about 6000-8000 USD/Euros, which means the new one must be
very much different - since it costs about 1/4.
I'll probably buy one instead of the MZ-S I never got.

Although the photos are old, the message is that the new D-SLR will not be
quite different to the old one.

There is another important point from the Taiwanese report:  Pentax aims at
pricing the new D-SLR's to about half of the existing D-SLRs like D100 and
D60 (list price = 330,000yen).  It's planned price competitor is Sigma SD-9.
  The list price is the same at 200,000yen. Pentax Taiwan expected a street
price of about USD1,200.

Regards

Henry Chu
27/10/2002

_
Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp





SV: Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
Hi
I use Picture publisher 7 and 8. I allways loved it. Even thoug I have
Photoshop 5.1, I like PP much better.
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:DesJardinS;wlu.edu]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 16:00
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10


Just a question.  I use Micrografx  Picture Publisher Pro 10, which I
really like.  Anoyone else use this product?


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





Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training

2002-10-27 Thread Dr E D F Williams
Very different results. Sometimes so different that you wouldn't believe it.
But its possible - by careful setting up and calibration - to get results
that are similar.

But even when using the same program and printer all the time its vital that
all settings be standardised, the correct colour space chosen and many other
things too. All you need do, to make an incredible mess, is check the wrong
box, or leave a choice unmade. List members who are Epson Printer experts
can tell us much more about this. These mistakes can become very expensive.

The new Samsung 17 I have just acquired has a Program called Natural Color
that sets up both monitor and printer. This may be useful, but since the
printer no longer works I can't try that feature out. In any case I always
set up the monitor with the Adobe routine, even when using PSP7.

Don

Dr E D F Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training


 Please tell me how you came to this conclusion,
 do you mean if you scan a pic in photopaint and
 and in the same one in photoshop and print
 it out on the same machine you get 2 diffirent results?

 Feroze
 - Original Message -
 From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM
 Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training



  Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint.
  PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable
  results when sending files to other people for their printing.






RE: rec.photo.equipment.35mm

2002-10-27 Thread Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)
In NA Pentax is 4th among the big 3.

BR

-Original Message-
From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com]

I knew Pentax wasn't top dog, but I thought number 4 out of the big four
wasn't so bad.  Is Pentax on the way out, or is the sales guy just a
yo-yo?




RE: Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10

2002-10-27 Thread Lukasz Kacperczyk
 Hi
I use Picture publisher 7 and 8. I allways loved it. Even thoug I have
Photoshop 5.1, I like PP much better.
Jens 

Me too. 

Lukasz





RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)
When it comes to a common chassis for film and digital, I there's less here than meets 
the eye. Some of the major camera structures are going to be very different between 
the two types of cameras. There's no film transport mechanism or film plane in a 
digital camera, but lots more electronics. There will be commonality of subsystems 
between the cameras, i.e., AF, AE, switches, knobs, lens mount, shutter, etc.

BR

-Original Message-
From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com]

Thats why the story provided by Pentax UK, all new slr's from the same chassis, makes 
sense.
I'm not convinced the MZ-S as building block for the whole Pentax slr line-up makes 
sense. The MZ-S was designed as a digital slr from ground up and later engineered into 
a film slr. This cannot be ideal. A new chassis that is engineered from ground up for 
both film and digital seem to make more sense.

Pål




Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Wendy Beard
At 01:14 PM 27/10/2002 +0100, you wrote:

Pentax isn't in the business of professional anything. They sell to 
whoever buys it. There's a common misconception that MF is Pentax 
professional line. It isn't.

Pål

Yes, and Fuji Canada back up Pål's statement.
I finally found which of the three registration forms you had to fill in on 
the Fuji website that Cameron posted about to get free film. It was the 
Fuji Professional challenge. You had to state what make of equipment you 
used in your profession. Pentax wasn't in the list for either 35mm or MF.


Wendy Beard,
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.beard-redfern.com




RE: (2): Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
Hi Dave

Even though I use Super A, I'm not familiar with the AF280T. But an easy way
to cheat the automatics could be NOT to use TTL-mode but Automatic mode
and then cheat the ASA setting (only on the flash)? It can be done with my
Metz flashes.

By the way - I'd use fill flash, not to add contrast on a dull day, but
quite the opposite - to reduce contrast (soften shadows) on a sunny day.

Regards
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: David Brooks [mailto:brooks_dee;canoemail.com]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 14:33
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: (2): Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know
better (ie HELP NEEDED)


In a related quiry as Brads.I have the Super Program and 280T
flash.I was experimenting with fill on my last BW roll with poor
results.If i set the flash to TTL or any other mode other than
manual,the camera automaticly sets up at 125 shutter(sync speed for
camera)What would be the best way to add a bit of fill flash on a
dull day.Set flash to manual,meter ambient light and close down
 1, 1 1/2 stops to compansate for flash.I see no way to adjust flash
output in manual mode, other that using the Cotty plastic bouncy
thing(patent pending)

Dave

 Begin Original Message 

From: Gatis Visnevskis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:43:56 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should
know better (ie HELP NEEDED)



Wow, that's advanced, huh.
I have very little flash experience, because i'm shooting landscapes
mostly.
It is still true for older F-lens and older bodys like ZX-7 ?

Gasha

Bruce Dayton wrote:
...

 somewhat blacked out.  In more recent years, Pentax, among others,
has
 changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand
 holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens
 attached.  By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as
possible
 and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed
image.





 End Original Message 




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail





RE: Strange Pentax posting

2002-10-27 Thread Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)
Yes. Ralf Englemann was an active member of the group several years ago, and then 
started hiw own on Yahoo. There are a number of people here who are on both groups. He 
would seem to just be letting people here know what's going on there.

BR

-Original Message-
From: arkibladt [mailto:arkibladt;get2net.dk]

Hi list
Did any of you get a mail like this (It's strange since I'm not subscibing
to any yahoo list/group):






Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Jeff
My Minolta Dimage 7 does the same. It keeps the shutter speed (when zooming)
just fast enough for handheld shots.

Jeff.

- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML (Pentax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:55 AM
Subject: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better
(ie HELP NEEDED)


 Ok,

 Time to spill my guts to you fine folks.  I need some help.  It's a silly
 matter that I've had since starting shooting.  Ok, here's the equipment
 first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens
 example, my 28-105mm zoom.   Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras
 however you like.  Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ.  Normal
 indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the
 P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal.  Camera is set on program.  This all
 cool so far?  Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and
a
 shutter speed of 1/30sec.  Does that make sense?  Is that correct?  I
would
 have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher.
 Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec
 shutter.  What's going on?  I always bypass this and sometimes set the
 aperture, most times, I don't.  I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the
shutter
 to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync.  With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180.

 I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know.
 Is what is happening correct?  Am I doing the right thing by setting the
 shutter higher?  Btw, the pictures turn out just fine.  I just don't
 understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open.

 Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a
 fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on.

 BD
 **
 Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ICQ#: 1658





Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread Artur Ledchowski
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What lenses do you have? (poll)


 What lenses do you have?

SMC FA 28-105mm f/4-5,6 Power Zoom
SMC F 70-210mm f/4-5,6
SMC A 50mm f/1,7
SMC A 28mm f/2,8
20-M Mir 20mm f/3,5
Zenitar-K 16mm f/2,8 Fisheye

and my wish list contains:
SMC F or FA 50mm f/1,4 or 1,7 or even beter FA 43mm f/1,9 Ltd
Arsat 35mm f/3,5 Shift
Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6,3 RF
SMC A 135mm f/2,8
some 50mm prime in the m42 mount for my recently bought bellows
Regards
Artur




Re: Prints from slides questions

2002-10-27 Thread Wendy Beard
At 08:20 AM 27/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:

I've been shooting a lot of slides lately and took a few to a local digital
print place for some quick enlargements. I didn't expect them to measure up
to a custom print but I didn't expect them to be trash either. I thought I'd
get something usable from a commercial lab but they were awful. No contrast,
colors were off, highlights were washed out. Just terrible.


My experience too. I took a 67 velvia slide in to Blacks to get an 
enlargement made. I'd tried scanning the slide on my HP flatbed without 
much success (unmounted, I couldn't keep it flat enough).
Terrible print.
I've now taken it somewhere else to see if the results are any better.
(of course it could just be that my slide's rubbish!)


Wendy Beard,
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.beard-redfern.com




Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Jeff
It does.

Jeff.

- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know
better (ie HELP NEEDED)


 Brad,

 Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor.  The reason
 was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the
 camera's program setting.  This generally meant that your flash
 pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background
 somewhat blacked out.  In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has
 changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand
 holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens
 attached.  By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible
 and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image.
 The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear
 more natural and less like a flash picture.  This is a good thing. You
 had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because
 it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a
 fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30.

 Hope this makes sense.


 Bruce



 Saturday, October 26, 2002, 11:55:51 PM, you wrote:

 BD Ok,

 BD Time to spill my guts to you fine folks.  I need some help.  It's a
silly
 BD matter that I've had since starting shooting.  Ok, here's the
equipment
 BD first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens
 BD example, my 28-105mm zoom.   Ok, mix and match the flashes to the
cameras
 BD however you like.  Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ.
Normal
 BD indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on
the
 BD P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal.  Camera is set on program.  This
all
 BD cool so far?  Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4
and a
 BD shutter speed of 1/30sec.  Does that make sense?  Is that correct?  I
would
 BD have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed
higher.
 BD Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6,
1/90sec
 BD shutter.  What's going on?  I always bypass this and sometimes set the
 BD aperture, most times, I don't.  I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the
shutter
 BD to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync.  With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180.

 BD I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to
know.
 BD Is what is happening correct?  Am I doing the right thing by setting
the
 BD shutter higher?  Btw, the pictures turn out just fine.  I just don't
 BD understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide
open.

 BD Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling
like a
 BD fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on.

 BD BD
 BD **
 BD Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
 BD Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 BD ICQ#: 1658





Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread David S.


Rob Studdert wrote:
 
 Hi Team,
 
 I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that
  there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image,
 full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently
 and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens
 were so popular.
 
 So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on
 the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so?
 
 My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen
 distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses
 mounted.
 
 How about you?
 
 Cheers,
 
 Rob Studdert

I have 3 35mm bodies  have grid screens in all 3 bodies.  I prefer grid
screens more than any other screen type that I have seen.  Grid screens
are a good aid for composition and subject alignment.

-- 
David S.
Nature and wildlife photography http://www.sheppardphotos.com




OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Robert Soames Wetmore
When I was crossing a stream once with my dog by hopping rock to rock, he 
jumped right into a stagnant area of coagulated foam, thinking it was solid 
earth.  He was quite surprised (and angry) to find himself underwater.  Now, 
THAT's stupid.  (Even smart dogs like my Cardigan Welsh Corgi are pretty 
dumb.)

Incidentally, I found the original metaphor about skimming stupid extremely 
easy to understand and somewhat funny - I don't know what the problem is.  
You guys seem pretty dumb.

RSW



Absolutely! In Richmond, near the bridge, I've seen some of that foam on my
Sunday morning strolls. It certainly looks like stupid. Very unpalatable.

D

Dr E D F Williams







_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



Re 2: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Robert Soames Wetmore
So what if the MZ-S was the developing basis for new  products and now will 
be the basis for the new chassis? I could imagine a new chassis line as 
follows:

- a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6
- the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera
- the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip
- a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and
more pro-features

For me this sounds sensible (altough it is pure speculation), Heiko Hamann

This sounds utterly sensible to me, too (with the possible exception of the 
polycarbonate in the first one being maybe impossible as indicated in other 
threads).  This would make a fine line of cameras with consistency and yet 
variety appealing to various users and yet sufficiently condensed to 
eliminate overlapping and too-similar models.  I suppose they'd have to hang 
onto some sort of MZ-30 type thing for a while at the bottom end and maybe 
use that sort of chassis for the problematic scaled-back polycarbonate 
cheaper MZ-S you mention.

Interesting speculation - thanks for the post.

RSW




_
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp



Re: A good argument for buying a film scanner

2002-10-27 Thread Dan Scott

On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 08:34  AM, William Robb wrote:


We have the same problem with our 2102. Ineex prints are coming
off a Crt printer, which is squishing the image gamma down to
fit the photo paper, and is also setting the white point
automatically. The prints get made with an optical printer.
The two will never match, as the printing technology is too
different.

William Robb



Ahh. Two machines that work differently. I had no idea. Our Walmart has 
a big machine in the center of the lab and I thought film went into one 
end and prints came out the other, all by the same magic.

Thanks,

Dan Scott



Re: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Robert Soames Wetmore
Bruce wrote:


For low volume production items the cost is in the tooling and setting up 
production, and not the materials.


Thats why the story provided by Pentax UK, all new slr's from the same 
chassis, makes sense.
I'm not convinced the MZ-S as building block for the whole Pentax slr 
line-up makes sense. The MZ-S was designed as a digital slr from ground up 
and later engineered into a film slr. This cannot be ideal. A new chassis 
that is engineered from ground up for both film and digital seem to make 
more sense.

Pål

Man, this is what I've been arguing all along.  I mentioned long ago that 
the MZ-S was a derivative and therefore possibly compromised camera and most 
found that possibility silly.  I'm not complaining about any MZ-S specifics 
but simply questioning whether certain of the choices would have been made 
if it hadn't been first designed as a digital.

RSW






_
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp



Re: Re 2: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Kevin Waterson
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:31:36 -0500
Robert Soames Wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 Interesting speculation - thanks for the post.

How many 'frames' per second can a digital do?
I would have thought with the ability to do small 
mpeg movies the frame rate could be up to 40 fps.

Kind regards
Kevin

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Kevin Waterson
Byron Bay, Australia




Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Dan Scott

On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 05:13  AM, arkibladt wrote:


Faktor 1.5 focal means a 29mm will be like a 43mm, the normal lens.
Basicly this doesn't mean very much in every day photography, but 
probably
that Pentax will make some new widelangles, rectiliniar and 
fish-eye's, in
the near future - and some new standard zooms, like a 2.8/16-60mm 
(24-90mm).
Or maybe a SMC FA 2.8/19mm-47mm (28-70mm). It might be great fun to use
theese on a 35mm body? I'll certainly like the latter.

But only if designed for film as well. It seems like this 1.5 is a 
godsend to film lenses that are mushy in the corners but sharp in the 
center. Former dogs become star performers until you stick them on a 
film body and once again they become dogs.

Dan Scott



Re: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Treena Harp
Something tells me some of ya'll are putting waay too much thought into
this ... :) It's merely a Deep-South expression about someone's intellect,
which just might be pushing maximum density, put in a very coloful manner.

- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:09 AM
Subject: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


 So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But
creeks
 flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid'
 would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all.

 Still thick as two planks.

 Argh!

 Dr E D F Williams

 http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
 Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
 Updated: March 30, 2002


 - Original Message -
 From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM
 Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


  The way I read it was that the person was so stupid
  that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface,
  which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks.
  Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it,
  thanks a lot buddies
 
  Feroze
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM
  Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
 
 
   Rob,
  
   You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a
 typing
   error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for
me
 at
   least) to 'throw them'.
  
   But I am also thick as two planks!
  
   Don
  
   Dr E D F Williams
  
   http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
   Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
   Updated: March 30, 2002
  
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM
   Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
  
  
On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote:
   
 That is one of the funniest I have ever heard
 feroze

 - Original Message -
 Treena Harp wrote in part.
 
  And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid,
 you
   could
  throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three
  weeks.
   
I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-(
   
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
   
  
  
  
 






Simple K1000 Lens Question

2002-10-27 Thread John Gill
After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost where I left 
off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000.
I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2 will be 
passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5 from the 100/2.8 for 
pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest in doing portraits at this 
time-just more reach for candids.
Best,
John
-- 
__
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup




Don't forget: folks are dumb (Was: Re: law and image)

2002-10-27 Thread Robert Soames Wetmore
Hi, Alan,

What people buy and why they buy it is a pretty darned complex issue.
[...]
frank theriault



And never discount stupidity.  Folks are pretty dumb on average.  When I was 
selling cameras and audio I watched a training film which shared some market 
research indicating that 75% of people made their choices of which speakers 
to buy based on the exterior appearance of the speakers.

I'd hate to be responsible for the marketing success or failure of a 
product.  If the MZ-D doesn't look just right - for instance, maybe if the 
LCD screen is the wrong color - it may sell terribly.

RSW





_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.  
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp



Re: Re 2: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR

2002-10-27 Thread Heiko Hamann
Hi Robert,

on 27 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list:

- a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6
- the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera
- the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip
- a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and

This sounds utterly sensible to me, too (with the possible exception of the
polycarbonate in the first one being maybe impossible as indicated in other
threads).

Yes, I've read those threads, too. Maybe the MZ-S platform is oriented  
upwards only.

This would make a fine line of cameras with consistency and yet
variety appealing to various users and yet sufficiently condensed to
eliminate overlapping and too-similar models.  I suppose they'd have to hang
onto some sort of MZ-30 type thing for a while at the bottom end and maybe
use that sort of chassis for the problematic scaled-back polycarbonate
cheaper MZ-S you mention.

I can't judge the technical possibilities and hurdles to build an MZ-S  
made of plastics. On the other hand I wonder if this might not be  
necessary to build a competitive - i.e. cheap - MZ-D.

Interesting speculation - thanks for the post.

You're welcome. Nice to see, that some of my thoughts being translated  
form German to English seem to make sense...;-)

Regards, Heiko




Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)

2002-10-27 Thread Treena Harp
Thanks a lot, Bob. You just threw me into an existential quandary ...

- Original Message -
From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert Soames Wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)


 Hi,

  When I was crossing a stream once with my dog by hopping rock to rock,
he
  jumped right into a stagnant area of coagulated foam, thinking it was
solid
  earth.  He was quite surprised (and angry) to find himself underwater.
Now,
  THAT's stupid.  (Even smart dogs like my Cardigan Welsh Corgi are pretty
  dumb.)

  Incidentally, I found the original metaphor about skimming stupid
extremely
  easy to understand and somewhat funny - I don't know what the problem
is.
  You guys seem pretty dumb.

 is that the same as stupid? Can you skim it? If smart dogs are dumb,
 are dumb dogs smart? All dogs are mammals. Nietzsche is a mammal.
Therefore
 all mammals are smart. And dumb. Are dumb people smart? Are dumb bells
smart?
 What about blonde belles? Are dumb belles blonde, or are dumb blondes
 belle? What about beau belles? or Belle's baubles? Is Belle the Beast, and
if
 so is she a dumb beast? Is your corgi a dumb beast? Is it blonde?
Nietzsche liked
 blondes. Did that make him dumb? Did the damned dog drop in the skim scum
because
 it was dumb, or was it dumb luck? Chaso de Chaso's a philosopher - blond?
dumb?
 dim? skim? scum? - whatever, he has pretentions to be a smart one, and
philosphers
 (well known for their Sartre-orial elegance) wear cardigans remarkably
like your
 dog (I hope he doesn't resemble that. Or he may be smarting over it).
Perhaps he
 can help with these mysterical sophistries. Besides, your dumb corgi
should know
 there's no such thing as solid earth - it's all in The Mind, but maybe
he'd have
 still slid on the slippery solipsism and skimmed that scum. Dog gone.

 ---

  Bob





Re: Simple K1000 Lens Question

2002-10-27 Thread Rfsindg
John,
 You're right the 135mm has more reach, but it is also a bit slower.  The 
M-100mm f2.8 is a bit smaller and faster, so it's easier to focus and hold 
steady.  There is a bigger K-100mm f2.8 but they are more rare.  
 The M-135/3.5 is an old favorite and dirt cheap for the quality it 
provides.  You won't go wrong with it!
Regards,  Bob S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost 
where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000.
 I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2 
will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5 
from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest 
in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids.
 Best,
 John 




SV: Simple K1000 Lens Question

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
Well, the 135mm pulls in more - graeter magnification. But the 100mm is
faster=brighter screen/vievfinder=easier focusing/better in low light -
about half a stop. Which one you prefere really depends on what you are
shooting. I find the 100mm better for indoor shooting and protraits - the
135mm often gets you too close. Outdoor I'd prefere the 135mm.
Regards
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: John Gill [mailto:johngill;email.com]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 18:45
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Simple K1000 Lens Question


After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost
where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000.
I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2
will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5
from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest
in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids.
Best,
John
--
__
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup





RE: Simple K1000 Lens Question

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
...and there's a rare 2.8/105mm - quite nice!
Regards
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Rfsindg;aol.com]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 19:48
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Simple K1000 Lens Question


John,
 You're right the 135mm has more reach, but it is also a bit slower.
The
M-100mm f2.8 is a bit smaller and faster, so it's easier to focus and hold
steady.  There is a bigger K-100mm f2.8 but they are more rare.
 The M-135/3.5 is an old favorite and dirt cheap for the quality it
provides.  You won't go wrong with it!
Regards,  Bob S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost
where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000.
 I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my
50/2
will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5
from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest
in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids.
 Best,
 John 




SV: Simple K1000 Lens Question

2002-10-27 Thread arkibladt
...and a 2.5/135mm (qiute rare) whoich is great! (unfortunately I let mine
go...)
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: John Gill [mailto:johngill;email.com]
Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 18:45
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Simple K1000 Lens Question


After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost
where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000.
I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2
will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5
from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest
in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids.
Best,
John
--
__
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup





Re: Prints from slides questions

2002-10-27 Thread harald_nancy
I had the same experience with prints from slides, disappointing results,
dull colors, no comparison to the slides. It was the same with every local
lab I tried, digital or conventional process. 
Then I got this tip to try Overlake Photo in Bellevue.
http://www.overlakephoto.com/main.html
I had a few 5 x 7 test prints made from slides recently.
The results were awesome. The high gloss prints are as vibrant as 
the slides themselves. Totally professional results. 
The prints were on Agfa paper, but don't know if they use the 
same Agfa D-lab that Bruce mentioned previously.
One complaint that I have was the edges of the slides were 
cropped all the way around, which unfortunately affected the composition
in a couple cases. Haven't dealt with that yet.
Guess I'll have to contact them about that sometime to make sure
it doesn't happen on a larger more costly enlargement.
Or is that common that slides to prints process crop the edges?
Harald




DSLR, and other things...

2002-10-27 Thread Cameron Hood
Is it OK to say that now? Sheesh!

I hope the DSLR based on the MZ-S chassis is true; they would be the first
company to bring out a companion DSLR at a reasonable price. Up to now the
price disparity between digital and film has been rediculous; look at the
difference in price between the Nikon D100 and the camera it is based on,
the N80. The D100 felt very cheap and plasticky IMHO, and the embossed
numerical stuff on the dials were obviously done as cheaply and as fast as
possible. The whole camera felt quite fragile and cheap.

As for the flagship rumour, it has been restated so often and with no result
that I don't currently believe it; but if you do, feel free.

The rumours or leaking of a new ultrawide zoom sound interesting; I wonder
if it will have corner angles of incidence reduced to reduce the light
falloff when the light hits the sensors at a sharp angle, (man, that was
awkard to say), and if so, what effect will this have on the lens when
mounted on a film camera?

Also, what about a new flash? Nothing happening on that front.

As for focussing screens, I have and use several in my PZ1-P; the standard
one, with panorama lines, I don't use very often anymore. I also have the
'Golden Section' screen, with a large gridded X across the frame, which I
love and use the most (very handy for offset subjects and scaling in
thirds), and 'the grid', with evenly placed squares all over the screen,
which is excellent for product shots or shots where you need very specific
placement of subject (i.e. double exposures of tele-moon and WA landscapes).
I hope they come out with some screens for the MZ-S/D, as well as
interchangeable finders for the 'alleged' flagship. It would be nice to use
a refconverter for macros, etc. Any rumours of an alleged companion DSLR to
match the alleged flagship and an alleged high-end flash?

Nice to have the list working again; had it only failed for me, or what?


Cameron Hood


Free! 5 rolls of 120 or 3 roll of 35mm Fuji NPH at


http://www.fujifilm.ca/ProCommunity/default.asp?sectionID=32parentID=4




Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELPNEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Paul Eriksson
Good question, I've been wondering about it to.







From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML \(Pentax\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better 
(ie HELP NEEDED)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:55:51 -0500

Ok,

Time to spill my guts to you fine folks.  I need some help.  It's a silly
matter that I've had since starting shooting.  Ok, here's the equipment
first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens
example, my 28-105mm zoom.   Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras
however you like.  Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ.  Normal
indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the
P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal.  Camera is set on program.  This all
cool so far?  Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and 
a
shutter speed of 1/30sec.  Does that make sense?  Is that correct?  I would
have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher.
Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec
shutter.  What's going on?  I always bypass this and sometimes set the
aperture, most times, I don't.  I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter
to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync.  With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180.

I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know.
Is what is happening correct?  Am I doing the right thing by setting the
shutter higher?  Btw, the pictures turn out just fine.  I just don't
understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open.

Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a
fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on.

BD
**
Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ#: 1658


_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread Paul Eriksson
Now I feel like a complete idiot!







From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:02:47 -0500 (CDT)

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote:

 What lenses do you have?
[snip]
 I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the
 archive.

Actually try just a week or two ago.  Very recently.  :)

chris



_
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp



Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread Paul Eriksson
I missed the second part, I could not find this thread in the archives.  Can 
someone please point in the right direction.






From: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:25:38 -0800

Now I feel like a complete idiot!







From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:02:47 -0500 (CDT)

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote:

 What lenses do you have?
[snip]
 I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the
 archive.

Actually try just a week or two ago.  Very recently.  :)

chris



_
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp


_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.  
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp



Vs: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELPNEEDED)

2002-10-27 Thread Raimo Korhonen
IIRC only MZ-S does this and my MZ-5n did not. This takes into account as much 
available light as possible - IMO a Good Thing because it results in flash pictures 
with available light feeling. If you do not like it, select your favourite 
aperture/shutter speed manually.. 
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 27. lokakuuta 2002 20:08
Aihe: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie 
HELPNEEDED)



Ok,

Time to spill my guts to you fine folks.  I need some help.  It's a silly
matter that I've had since starting shooting.  Ok, here's the equipment
first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens
example, my 28-105mm zoom.   Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras
however you like.  Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ.  Normal
indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the
P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal.  Camera is set on program.  This all
cool so far?  Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and 
a
shutter speed of 1/30sec.  Does that make sense?  Is that correct?  I would
have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher.
Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec
shutter.  What's going on?  I always bypass this and sometimes set the
aperture, most times, I don't.  I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter
to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync.  With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180.

I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know.
Is what is happening correct?  Am I doing the right thing by setting the
shutter higher?  Btw, the pictures turn out just fine.  I just don't
understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open.

Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a
fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on.

BD
**
Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ#: 1658


_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963





A Great Save

2002-10-27 Thread Paul Stenquist
I shot a car this morning. It's a lot of work. Ten rolls of 120, two
rolls of 35mm. (I used Provia F for a change. I want to see if all you
Fuji lovers are right.) But the best part of the morning was that I
saved a camera and lens. I was working out of the back of my PT Crusier,
which is a lot like a minivan. The rear hatch was open. I had a bunch of
equipment stacked inside. I was switching my flash over from the
stroboframe to the compact Pentax bracket, because I was going to shoot
from under the rear bumper. From the corner of my eye I saw something
moving. I didn't have time to think about what it was, but I reacted and
reached out with my left hand. Milliseconds later I watched the lens
hood on my 55/4, which was mounted on my 6x7, just nick the ground. The
camera strap was hanging from one finger. Apparently, my camera had slid
off the case that it was resting on and was heading toward the ground.
It never made it. I think I'm going to be more careful from now on.
Paul Stenquist




RE: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread Glen O'Neal
Lenses   . hm?

35mm

A 50 f/1.4
F 50 f/2.8 Macro
FA 28-105 f/4-5.6
FA 80-320 f/4-5.6
2.0x TC

645n
---
645  FA  45-85  f/4.5
645  FA  80-160 F/4.5
1.4x TC
2.0x TC
Helicoid Extension Tube


Wish List

A 85 f/1.4  I would give anything for this lens if anyone has one for sale
A 135 f/3.5
FA 80-200 f/2.8

Glen O'Neal




Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread Chris Brogden

Actually, I can't find them in the recent archives, either.  Maybe I just
imagined it.

Anyway...

35mm K-mount:

Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
M 20/4
M 24-35/3.5
A 50/1.4
K 85/1.8
M 100/4 macro
FA 80-320/4-5.6
50mm ext. tube
Rear Converter-A 2X-S (still looking to sell)

chris


On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote:

 Now I feel like a complete idiot!

 From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:02:47 -0500 (CDT)
 
 On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote:
 
   What lenses do you have?
 [snip]
   I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the
   archive.
 
 Actually try just a week or two ago.  Very recently.  :)
 
 chris


 _
 Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now!
 http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp






Re: What lenses do you have?

2002-10-27 Thread Robert Soames Wetmore
Many or all of those messages never made it to the archives - or, if they 
did make it, they didn't stay there.  (The internet isn't exactly the 
repository of the definite.)


Actually, I can't find them in the recent archives, either.  Maybe I just
imagined it.
Chris Brogden








_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.  
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp



Re: Focus screen preferences?

2002-10-27 Thread Dan Scott

Rob Studdert wrote:


My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on 
the screen
distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have 
fast lenses
mounted.

How about you?

Cheers,

Rob Studdert

Matt. If lining up the edges of things is important, I can do it on the 
matt. The circular thing in the center is distracting. I wouldn't mind 
trying the grid or preferably a golden section, but they aren't 
available for my camera.

Dan Scott



Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)

2002-10-27 Thread James Fellows
Sigma 28 f5.8 AF
M 28 f2.8
M 28 f3.5
M 35 f3.5
A 50 F1.7
A 50 f2
A 135 f2.8
M 135 f3.5
FA28-105 f4-5.6 powerzoom
F 100-300 f4-5.6
A 35-105 f3.5  (my favorite lens)
A 70-210 f4
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:01 PM
Subject: What lenses do you have? (poll)


 What lenses do you have?
 
 I'll start..
 24mm FA* f2.0
 35mm FA f2.0
 50mm FA 1.4
 Tamron 28-80mm f3.5-5.6
 Tamron 80-210mm f4-5.6
 
 the latter two will in time be replaced by
 100mm macro F or FA f2.8
 200mm FA* f2.8
 and a good Pentax zoom
 
 I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the 
 archive.
 Paul
 
 
 
 
 
 _
 Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. 
 http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
 
 




  1   2   >