FA 35/2 and K 35/3.5
I already have the K 28/3.5 and F 50/1.4. I am thinking to get a walk-around lens. So K 35/3.5 and FA 35/2 would be my choices. I would like to seek opinion on the followings: Any difference in optical performance provided that the speed and auto focus are not essential? The durability of plastic FA 35/2 for travel photography? Thanks. _ Weight Loss products, Herbal Viagra, and much more!http://www.VitaDepot.com _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 04:39 PM, Ken Archer wrote: Does it need to go to the hospital? -- Kenneth Archer, San Antonio, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Ken, I don't know. I snatched it up and put it on a shelf and I'm trying not to think about it. Nothing I can do about it tonight, anyway. Dan Scott
OT: Crap from Canada
I notice, from replies to Dobo, that he's at it again. Oh dear me! But I see people are snipping his rubbish and making it unnecessary for me to make more filters. Great! We have snow now. Not very much. I hope we have more soon; in time for new pictures for this year's Christmas card. 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: Norman Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:07 AM Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro Why are you subscribed to a list of crap hobbyists? Pentax Guy wrote: snip a load of crap
AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan
Straight from this weeks Amateur Photographer 'THISWEEK' section; PENTAX UK HAS CONFIRMED plans for the launch of a new flagship digital SLR next spring. It has also pledged to continue making film-based SLR camera bodies and medium-format bodies. Responding to rumours on the internet about an upcoming launch, Pentax UK's marketing manager John Dickens told AP: 'We cannot deny that we are launching a digital SLR in spring 2003. All information concerning this model will be released in its final form nearer the time. There is enough time to make modifications between now and the launch in spring. Commenting on suggestions that the company is to cut its range of cameras, Dickens said Pentax's move to reduce the number of 35mm compacts already reflects the growing consumer demand for digital models. 'This also allows us to free up RD for digital that people really want, ' he said. He confirmed that the company's MZ-series of film-based SLRs will continue. 'SLR camera bodies will carry on being developed and a brand-new SLR chassis will form the basis of the digital SLR and other SLRs. We will also continue with medium format cameras.' Last year Pentax shelved plans to launch a six-million-pixel flagship digital SLR, saying that it wanted to move away from the 'cost no object' must-have, best possible quality' area of the digital arena. The camera had been code-named MR-52 and was first unveiled at the Photokina trade show two years ago. It was due to be based on Pentax's 35mm SLRs and was to be compatible with Pentax K-mount lenses and use a digital chip which was jointly developed with Philips. Nothing that we didn't know but it is now in print, so roll on Spring 2003..
Re: Let's Help Greywolf - Update.
Me too. But, we (I) need an address, please. keith whaley Dan Scott wrote: On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 08:59 PM, Ed Matthew wrote: I'm in discussions with another list member about the possibility of setting up a PayPal thing, so donations can happen that way (I can't do PayPal - no credit cards - don't ask! vbg). I'm going to contact Tom tonight, to let him know what we're up to, and to confirm a mailing address that I got from another list member. I don't use PayPal, so know nearly nothing about it. Count me in for $25 (check or US$ as you prefer - more if want to make a nice round figure). Jus tell me where to send it. Knowing my own tendency to procrastinate, I will suggest that we should move quickly. Regards, Ed Matthew Rather send cash or check, too, and it'd probably be better to get it while I've got it. Dan Scott
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Norm Bruce, Anybody who has two email accounts subscribed to the pdml, and uses one to respond to his comments from the other is way over the top for me. ...and cabin fever hasn't even started yet in the great white north. g Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce, you're right, damn it you're right... Maybe I was hoping for a response along the lines of after I consult my fellow knights of the round table, etc. etc. .the tennis balls coming out of the TV will tell us what to doetc. etc.. Bruce Rubenstein wrote: Norm, And you are responding from some ignorant, psychotic kid from Pavement Narrows Ontario, because? I'm crushed, crushed by my bitter disappointment in you. BR From: Norman Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why are you subscribed to a list of crap hobbyists? Pentax Guy wrote: snip a load of crap
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
It was the lens gallery. Thanks for the posts. OK, good, Bruce. (Although I didn't think that there were any 77/1.8 Ltd images in the Lens Gallery - however, there are several of the 85's represented there.) By the way, ordinarily the mirror ( http://phred.org/pentax/lensgal/lensgal.html ) has been identical to the Lens Gallery proper ( http://gemma.geo.uaic.ro/~vdonisa/lensgal.html ), but I noticed that the current mirror doesn't seem to be in complete agreement with the Gallery proper - it probably hasn't been updated in a while, I guess. Fred
Re: Dust in Lenses
It is my hypothesis that telephotos (except IF ones, of course) tend to exchange more air while focusing back and forth (with their usually longer helicoids) than do most wide angles, and so they end up sucking in more dust. ;-) Unfortunately, FA135/2.8 FA*200/2.8 are IF, and they still suck more dust than my other lenses. :( Oh well, so much for that theory... (Actually it was just a hypothesis - elevating it to a theory would definitely be stretching the point - g.) OK, here's another thought: Perhaps at least some of the IF lenses still suck air in (and blow air out) while focusing. Although the total air volume inside an IF lens may not change during focusing, it is still possible that, as the moving optical group shuttles forward and backward inside the lens, air could be alternately pushed out the back while being sucked in the front, and then pushed out the front while being sucked in the back. (???) ;-) Fred
Re: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
i came across this lens in mint condition i mean not a scratch for $120 australian so i bought it 3. was that a good price 0- i think so the last two on ebay went for around 180-200 us or 320-350 australian I'd say that is an ~excellent~ price. (The prices on this lens tend to vary widely, depending upon whether the seller realizes it's such a cult classic or not - g.) In her review of this old lens in a 1998 (yes, 1998) issue of Shutterbug magazine, Frances Schultz says: Some lenses are legendary: the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar, the Zeiss Biogon, the Leitz Thambar, and so on. Usually, their prices reflect their legendary status. There are others which deserve to be legends and are really appreciated by those who own them, but which can still be found surprisingly inexpensive. Part of the attractiveness of some of the cult classic lenses has always been their price-to-performance ratio. Fred
RE: Agfa Portrait 160 XPS
Ooo.. I'd be interested too Albano as I've got a roll of 120 itching to be put into my MF camera. I know Jeff in Toronto here has used this film in the past (and I've seen the results - outstanding!) so I think he'll be one of the people with input on it. Oh Jeff ? :-) Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Albano Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 06:37:05 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Agfa Portrait 160 XPS I know we have some Agfa fans in the list (I'm between them). I've bought two rolls of this film in 120 format to try it. I wanted to know what EI do you suggest, 160, 125 or 100? Comments on film grain, colors, etc? All experiences welcome Regards = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
1. flare- how do i control it-it flares worse than smc lens No surprises here - it's not a Pentax SMC lens, and Vivitar's VMC is not as good as Pentax. (Hypothesis: Part of the popularity of a lot of the 3rd-party cult classic lenses may be due to the fact that many of their biggest fans also use Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, and Konica, etc., lenses, so that the difference in flare resistance between the 3rd-party lenses and the name-branded lenses may be smaller than the difference between the 3rd-party lenses and SMC Pentax lenses.) In Frances Schultz's review of this lens in a 1998 issue of Shutterbug magazine, she says: Despite all the glass, and 18 air glass surfaces, flare is surprisingly low for such a complex lens of this age. Well, it's worth remembering that Schultz shoots with Nikon gear, so her comparison is likely being made against Nikon glass (which is not SMC Pentax glass, right?). On the other hand, in the Modern Photo review of this lens, flare was mentioned as a problem: Without [the hood], reflections from the inside of the front-element circumference produce pronounced lens flare. The hood eliminates this, so you must think of it as an integral part of the lens for nearly all your shooting. I think the truth lies somewhere between these two reviews. I have noticed flare occasionally with this lens (and, due to the benefits of SMC on my Pentax lenses, I sometimes have gotten pretty casual about worrying about hoods and flare, so part of this may be the result my own laziness). However, when I've remembered to pop the hood on the lens, it does not seem to be bothered by flare all that much (depending upon the actual shooting conditions at the time, of course). The lens's own hood (not a built-in hood, but a removable one) is, naturally, not fully useful at many focal lengths. It's not a tuliped hood, and, as with most zoom lens hoods, a hood that might be useful at the wide end of the zoom range becomes much less useful at the longer end of the range. Sometimes, you can provide a shadow on the front of the lens using your hand or some other blind - however, you do have to be careful to keep the blind out of the image field (unless you plan on cropping it substantially). Fred
Re: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
2. optically how does it compare to zooms of today It actually stands up quite well. Else, why would Frances Schultz still be raving about it in Shutterbug in 1998, almost 25 years after its introduction. Schultz said: Even by modern standards it is fast; it is still remarkably sharp; [...] It was introduced in the mid-1970s, over 20 years ago; [...] Very few zooms of that period were any good, but the performance of this one is impressive, even by the standards of the late 1990s. [...] It is fast and easy to use and delivers excellent results at all focal lengths. A synopsis (only) of this review is available online ( http://www.shutterbug.net/archives/story.cfm?StoryID=377 ), but I did post the entire contents of the review previously here on the PDML (check the archives, or I could send a copy by email). Schultz and Roger Hicks also specifically (and positively) mention this lens in their 1994 book, The Lens Book, which is the one book recommended by Robert Monaghan on his famous Cult Classic Megasite ( http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/cult.html ). However, don't forget that part of the attraction of cult classic lenses sometimes derives from such things as their historical significance, their uniqueness of design, their rarity, etc., and these factors don't necessarily result in better images on film - g. Furthermore, there is a cost factor often involved, where some cult classics often performed close to (and not always necessarily better than) their much more expensive name-branded counterparts. Fred
Re: vivitar 35-85mm 2.8 lens
5. finally it doesx not mount my autofocus bodies - how do i cooreect this? The problem is that, way back in the 1970's, Vivitar provided a very generous semi-circular baffle on the K-mount flange of this lens (and I have no idea as to whether such a baffle exists on other lens mounts). While this baffle caused absolutely no problems on the contemporaneous K bodies for which it was designed, and does not cause any problems on many of the newer K-mount bodies (I have found it to be OK with the ME Super, the MEF, the Super Program/A, and the Program Plus/A), it can intrude too much on some of the newer bodies (my experience is that the flange just makes contact with the upper baffle in the LX, for example, and others have mentioned newer autofocus bodies having a problem with this lens). The solution is simply to remove the excess baffle by carefully cutting it or grinding it away. Of course, some might question whether it is worth doing this to such an old lens simply in order to use it on a newer body, but I personally think it is, although tastes vary considerably amongst us - g. I'll put up a few photos of the problem and the solution shortly (along with a few scans of some of the VS1 35-85/2.8's ads and brochure images, while I'm at it) shortly. Fred
Re: OT: Disposable Cameras and Ilford
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: Nope, not sure at all. Now that you mention it, being a C41 would make sense considering who they are selling to. Bing! I'm surprised we haven't seen disposables loaded with Kodak BW Plus (or Select, or whatever its called), which is a C41 BW optimized for regular colour channels on minilabs. When you get a BW back, it actually looks black and white, not sepia, green, or other... -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: sliding away?
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: And, for the 1/10th of 1% that you actually use and enjoy, you're going thru all that sweat and tears? Nah, not me, thanks... I'm a longstanding computer geek, and every computer I've owned for the last 10 years or so has had a copy of Photoshop on it..Not because I needed it, but because it was expected. I've never bother to do anything of note in it, until recently.. The last few times I've turned the PC on, I've learned how to use curves and levels to make a nicer looking image, and how to clone out dust. Then I learned how to correctly resize images and DPI for printing. Is there more to photoshop? Oh yeah. Do I need to learn it? Nope. I can do everything I need to, and it was actually pretty easy to learn. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Fred wrote: The FA* 85/1.4 also has a much nicer focus feel (due to the clutch), than the 77 Ltd, in my opinion. Not in my opinion. The 77 Limited has a more weighty feel closer to older manual focus lenses. I think I see what you are saying, Paal. The 77/1.8 does have a firmer feel (i.e., more resistance), and I generally prefer that, too. However, as I have pointed out before (and I know that I am in the minority on this one), I strongly dislike the whirring feel that many autofocus lenses (including the 77/1.8 and the 43/1.9) produce when being focused manually, due to the gear train that is being forced to move within the lens (unless there is a clutch to take the gear train out for manual focusing). I can tolerate the whirring feel on the F* 300/4.5, but I really don't like it on most of the other clutchless autofocus lenses I've tried. Fred
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Seems like I lost half my Pentax mail volume when I applied those two filters. Well, it's maybe not quite ~half~ - g. However, my Nuisance folder for those two accounts has 139 posts in it from November alone. Fred
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Nov 2002 at 12:39, gfen wrote: It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) Now don't you wish you had a DSLR :-) Not really.. I find myself wanting to use my 645 and large format rigs more than 35 just because I find them more of a pleasure to use... a DSLR will just take away from them further, because of the convieneces. Seriously I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about lenses that we don't own as soon as a DSLR becomes available. I for one would be far happier to do (more) lens testing. Troo.. I don't mind blowing the time and film and whatnot, its just I have so many other things to do, and there's such little daylight. I'd actualyl like to do the tests with my large format lenses, as well. I've also wanted to do a film comparision to each other, as well. Perhaps the time for all these things is now.. Hmm.. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: The all new PDML FAQ..
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lon Williamson wrote: I'm glad you are doing this. I'm personally less concerned with techical stuff as much as list protocol. Hell, Boz Its a little bit of both, but there's no way I could hope to compete with a site like Boz's... Nor would I want to, but I am semi-tempted to do a 645 version. has enough techinical stuff to stifle you for a year, if my poor brain is any judge. I HEARBY FORMALLY NOMINATE GFEN AS (sucker of the year) THE NEXT PDML FAQ AUTHOR. All in favor, Uhm.. go me! clap. And please, this time, make your palms meet each other. No, its very zen the other way. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or films) you feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality testing, please. Try a normal contrast slide film. Is EPN still being made? William Robb
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
- Original Message - From: Rob Brigham Subject: RE: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited I would never accuse Velvia of being 'outside the mainstream', nor would just about most people who take landscapes IMHO. It may be an extreme, but its one of the most used slide films in the world and is pretty much the definition of mainstream to me. Funny you should say that. I shoot a lot of landscapes, a lot on 4x5. I tried Velvia when it came out, and found it to be too contrasty and too saturated. The stuff doesn't look real to me, and has too short a tonal range to be useable IMO. Now I do use very contrasty lenses, which I am sure makes a difference. William Robb
Re: OT: sliding away?
Your comments understood and agreed with... That's about what I'd need/want to do, as well. Other comments within the text below... gfen wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: And, for the 1/10th of 1% that you actually use and enjoy, you're going thru all that sweat and tears? Nah, not me, thanks... I'm a longstanding computer geek, and every computer I've owned for the last 10 years or so has had a copy of Photoshop on it.. How did it GET There? Not because I needed it, but because it was expected. Expected to BE there, by you? Did you ask for it to be loaded by the seller of the CPU? I've never bother to do anything of note in it, until recently.. The last few times I've turned the PC on, I've learned how to use curves and levels to make a nicer looking image, and how to clone out dust. Then I learned how to correctly resize images and DPI for printing. Is there more to photoshop? Oh yeah. Do I need to learn it? Nope. I can do everything I need to, and it was actually pretty easy to learn. Okay, points taken. Thanks for the words... keiht whaley
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Rob Studdert wrote: Cosina makes Voightlander? Sure do and they've done so since 1997 see: Is this the same hated and reviled Cosina that's muttered in the same breath as Vivitar and Phoenix? I thought the new Voightlanders were respected cameras and quality lenses? If this is the case, then why-oh-why can't all Cosina lenses be as respected? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I opened that site, Rod, and there were no pictures (!) so I bookmarked it for later viewing! big grin Thanks for posting it! keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: On 11 Nov 2002 at 5:06, Keith Whaley wrote: Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or films) you feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality testing, please. The following is a good lens testing reference page: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/lenstesting.html 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: Agfa Portrait 160 XPS
Hi Albano Dave, I shot 4 rolls of AP 160 at the rated speed with my then pinholed GS645. The ones that turned out, had a nice and soft skintone reproduction. I didn't much cared about the (grainy, muddy) background. For portraits I liked it better than the NPS, but not as much as the NPC. A couple of weeks ago I shot 2 rolls of NPH 220 with my 690 Texas Leica. I found it's performance every bit as good as the Agfa for portraits, with the speed advantage (400 vs. 160). HTH, Jeff. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:46 AM Subject: RE: Agfa Portrait 160 XPS Ooo.. I'd be interested too Albano as I've got a roll of 120 itching to be put into my MF camera. I know Jeff in Toronto here has used this film in the past (and I've seen the results - outstanding!) so I think he'll be one of the people with input on it. Oh Jeff ? :-) Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Albano Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 06:37:05 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Agfa Portrait 160 XPS I know we have some Agfa fans in the list (I'm between them). I've bought two rolls of this film in 120 format to try it. I wanted to know what EI do you suggest, 160, 125 or 100? Comments on film grain, colors, etc? All experiences welcome Regards = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
RE: Just a quick jump in...
César, referring to his snakeskin LX bodies (I assume) posted: ***Awww, c'mon, they are not that alarming are they? Yes. They are. ;)
Re: The all new PDML FAQ..
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 09:09 AM, gfen wrote: Uhm.. go me! clap. And please, this time, make your palms meet each other. No, its very zen the other way. Is this one of those measurbating references? Dan Scott
Re: OT: sliding away?
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: How did it GET There? -cough- That would be TELLING. Anyways, I was a 13 year old geek when I got my first PC (from a trash bin in the very industrial park I now work), before that I had my share of PCs. At the time, we all pirated software to our heart's content. It was expected of us. To say nothing of the old warez boards I frequented, sysop'd on, and the short lived glory days of being in our very own group (for the record, we had one release, we trumped the big guys, and I still have the .nfo file somewhere). So, anyway, yeah.. Not because I needed it, but because it was expected. Expected to BE there, by you? Did you ask for it to be loaded by the seller of the CPU? Again, computer geeks are expected to have computers glutted to the gills with all sorts of fanciful software they didn't use except to make the occasional bas relief filtered image. ;) Okay, points taken. Thanks for the words... Seriously, its pretty easy to do teh basics.. I'm still figuring out the indepth parts of curves and levels, but cloning to spot is a godsend. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
VS1 35-85/2.8 Lens Images
Prompted by a recent thread involving the Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 lens and its modification for newer K-mount bodies, I'm providing some images involving this lens: Here are two VS1 35-85/2.8's, the left one of which shows the extra baffle, while the right one has been modified: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\1ofeach.jpg; It is important, of course, to mask off completely the rest of the lens when the extra baffle is being removed: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\lensmod.jpg; It is also possible to remove the K-mount flange and then remove the extra baffle after masking off only the flange: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\flangmod.jpg; A description of the VS1 35-85/2.8 in a 1976 Vivitar Series 1 brochure: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\brchdscr.jpg; Specifications for and a photo of the VS1 35-85/2.8 in the same Vivitar Series 1 brochure:: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\brchspcs.jpg; An ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1975: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\ad7510mp.jpg; An ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1976: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\ad7607po.jpg; An ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1979: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\ad7904mp.jpg; Another ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1979: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\ad7907mp.jpg; Fred
Re: The all new PDML FAQ..
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Dan Scott wrote: Is this one of those measurbating references? Keep it up, and I'll ask about bokeh on the lenses when mounted to the DSLR.. ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: sliding away?
When I see a sky with nice clouds I make a few exposures. Now I have a library of beautiful skies. I use them from time to time to put clouds onto images that have few or none. I used to do this in the darkroom, in my youth, and later found it possible to do a creditable job in Photoshop. Use the magic wand to select the sky and after that its like falling off a log. Using a layer to change the contrast in some areas - say to improve shadow detail is also very easy. Perhaps a few days studying the tutorials would be profitable? I too remove spots, drying marks and dust with the rubber stamp (cloning tool) - I've found it better than any of the other methods. 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: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: Re: OT: sliding away? On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: And, for the 1/10th of 1% that you actually use and enjoy, you're going thru all that sweat and tears? Nah, not me, thanks... I'm a longstanding computer geek, and every computer I've owned for the last 10 years or so has had a copy of Photoshop on it..Not because I needed it, but because it was expected. I've never bother to do anything of note in it, until recently.. The last few times I've turned the PC on, I've learned how to use curves and levels to make a nicer looking image, and how to clone out dust. Then I learned how to correctly resize images and DPI for printing. Is there more to photoshop? Oh yeah. Do I need to learn it? Nope. I can do everything I need to, and it was actually pretty easy to learn. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan
Before we get our hopes up again, let's remember that we had a confirmed plan to release a DSLR last year, which never escaped from the vapor. zoomshot wrote: Straight from this weeks Amateur Photographer 'THISWEEK' section; PENTAX UK HAS CONFIRMED plans for the launch of a new flagship digital SLR next spring.
Re: Six feet under? (US TV)
Yeah. It's on either HBO or Showtime (I don't get either). It's some ensemble cast type drama about a family that owns a funeral home. Never seen it, but the critics have been kind ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/11/02 09:03AM Six feet under? Is that a new commercial TV program? -- keith whaley Ryan K. Brooks wrote: So was that a K1000 on screen this evening when whatshername quipped about buying a camera on ebay? R
Re: VS1 35-85/2.8 Lens Images
Hi Fred, I think my browser hates your slashes. Best, Dan Scott
RE: AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan
Did we? I know there are often rumours, but was one actually confirmed by Pentax themselves? I realise the MZ-D/MD-S/MR-52 was confirmed and vanished, but that was 2 years ago, wasn't it? Was there another one? -Original Message- From: Daniel J. Matyola [mailto:djm;stanleypmlaw.com] Sent: 11 November 2002 16:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan Before we get our hopes up again, let's remember that we had a confirmed plan to release a DSLR last year, which never escaped from the vapor. zoomshot wrote: Straight from this weeks Amateur Photographer 'THISWEEK' section; PENTAX UK HAS CONFIRMED plans for the launch of a new flagship digital SLR next spring.
Re: VS1 35-85/2.8 Lens Images
I think my browser hates your slashes. Oops - Sorry, Dan (and I also apologize to anyone else who tried those links - g). I've posted a pretty good mixture of forward slashes and backslashes (the result of not totally transposing some hard disk locations to the corresponding www URL's - g). The corrected URL's are appended below. sheepish grin Fred + Prompted by a recent thread involving the Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 lens and its modification for newer K-mount bodies, I'm providing some images involving this lens: Here are two VS1 35-85/2.8's, the left one of which shows the extra baffle, while the right one has been modified: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/1ofeach.jpg; It is important, of course, to mask off completely the rest of the lens when the extra baffle is being removed: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/lensmod.jpg; It is also possible to remove the K-mount flange and then remove the extra baffle after masking off only the flange: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/flangmod.jpg; A description of the VS1 35-85/2.8 in a 1976 Vivitar Series 1 brochure: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/brchdscr.jpg; Specifications for and a photo of the VS1 35-85/2.8 in the same Vivitar Series 1 brochure:: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/brchspcs.jpg; An ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1975: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/ad7510mp.jpg; An ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1976: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/ad7607po.jpg; An ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1979: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/ad7904mp.jpg; Another ad for the VS1 35-85/2.8 from 1979: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/ad7907mp.jpg; +
Re: OT: sliding away?
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: Huh? [C]loning to spot is outside my understanding. Please elucidate! Using the clone tool to spot your prints for dust, hair, fingerprints, etc. To say nothing of the ability to use the clone tool to remove power lines, facial blemishes, your ex-girlfriend, etc. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: VS1 35-85/2.8 Lens Images
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Fred wrote: I think my browser hates your slashes. Oops - Sorry, Dan (and I also apologize to anyone else who tried those links - g). I've posted a pretty good mixture of forward slashes and backslashes (the result of not totally transposing some hard disk locations to the corresponding www URL's - g). The corrected URL's are appended below. sheepish grin Fred S'ok. I needed to practice my typing anyway. :-) What tool did you use to modify your baffles? It looks pretty clean. Did you repaint the newly exposed metal? Dan Scott
Re: OT: sliding away?
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 10:42 AM, gfen wrote: On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: Huh? [C]loning to spot is outside my understanding. Please elucidate! Using the clone tool to spot your prints for dust, hair, fingerprints, etc. To say nothing of the ability to use the clone tool to remove power lines, facial blemishes, your ex-girlfriend, etc. :) Try the new bandaid brush in v.7, delightful. Doesn't do everything of course, but it goes to town on dust spots, fine scratches and loose fibers. Takes care of most of what I used the cloning stamp for. Dan Scott
Re: Six feet under? (US TV)
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 10:18 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote: Yeah. It's on either HBO or Showtime (I don't get either). It's some ensemble cast type drama about a family that owns a funeral home. Never seen it, but the critics have been kind ;-) Steven Desjardins They really dig it. Dan Scott
FS: MZ-5n body w/ box, manual, etc.
I'm considering selling this body because I find I use my manual focus stuff all the time. If anyone is interested, make me an offer off-list for an MZ-5n body with the AA Battery Grip Fg, the original strap, eyepiece cover, body cover, manual and box. Condition is EXC+. There are a couple very small marks on it that prevent it from being LNIB, but it's functionally perfect and a very clean body. Anyway, I'll consider the offers and decide then if I'm going to sell it. Thanks, chris
Re: OT - Photography Tour -- Ever Gone?
Thanks everyone for your replies (wish there'd been a few more even). I've read them all with a great deal of interest. Certainly sounds like if I can find the right workshop/tour (in my price range) I would definitely get something out of it. Thanks again, Doe aka Marnie Parker
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Any film of normal saturation and contrast is fine for lens testing. I would probably use Fuji Provia 100F or Kodak Ektachrome 100S. Paul Stenquist Keith Whaley wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: I would think that Velvia is not a good test for any lens. It has it's applications, and it is a worthy film in that it serves certain purposes very well. But it is so outside the mainstream in terms of contrast and saturation that it should not be used to benchmark lens performance. Paul Stenquist Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or films) you feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality testing, please. keith whaley Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: According to comparative tests made by AOHC member Carlo Lastrucci, the 77 Limited is not as good as FA* 85/1.4, since contrast is excessive, at least for Velvia film (shades are almost always deep blacks) and color rendition is cold, too much different from all other Pentax glass, including other Limited lenses. Resolution of the 77mm is rather close to that of the 85/1.4, but the 85mm is better at most apertures. The only true advantage of the 77mm vs. the 85/1.4 FA* is its size. Cheers, Dario Bonazza http://www.dariobonazza.com Wayne wrote: for general portaiture and landscapes which of these is the better lens which is better optically what is a good used price just curious cos they are both on ebay at the moment
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Perhaps outside the mainstream is a poor choice of words. But I would think that for lens testing, one would want a film of average contrast and saturation, so that differences are more readily apparent. Paul Rob Brigham wrote: I would never accuse Velvia of being 'outside the mainstream', nor would just about most people who take landscapes IMHO. It may be an extreme, but its one of the most used slide films in the world and is pretty much the definition of mainstream to me. -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:keith_w;dslextreme.com] Paul Stenquist wrote: I would think that Velvia is not a good test for any lens. It has it's applications, and it is a worthy film in that it serves certain purposes very well. But it is so outside the mainstream in terms of contrast and saturation that it should not be used to benchmark lens performance. Paul Stenquist Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or films) you feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality testing, please. keith whaley
Re: VS1 35-85/2.8 Lens Images
Dan: What tool did you use to modify your baffles? Well, the best way to do it would be with a bench grinder. However, due to the tools available to me (or lack thereof), my mods were made using just a hacksaw and a fine-toothed file (to finish it off). It looks pretty clean. ...due to the beauty of a low-res scan - g. Seriously, both mods came out OK, considering the skill (g) of the modifier. Did you repaint the newly exposed metal? I just went over the bare metal (from the cut itself, and from any nicks in the black paint that I made with the hacksaw or file) with a black magic marker. (Touching it up with flat black paint would have been the proper way to go, but using a black magic marker worked OK for me.) By the way, I did not remove 100% of the extra generous baffle that the Vivitar engineers provided back in 1975 - I did leave a short length near the aperture coupling lever. This is similar to the way there is a short baffle (I think it's really a mechanical protection for the aperture coupling lever) on jen-you-wine Pentax K-mounts. Doing this also simplified the cutting, since I didn't have to hacksaw so close to the aperture coupling lever - g. Fred
Re: Agfa Portrait 160 XPS
Albano, I shot some a while back and was not that happy with it. I shot it at 160. More recently, I was talking to an Agfa rep (complaining) and he told me to rate it at 125. I did so and was much more pleased with it. So based on my test and the Agfa rep, you should rate it at 125. My PUG entry this month was one of those test shots at 125: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/bkd0211a.html Bruce Monday, November 11, 2002, 6:37:05 AM, you wrote: AG I know we have some Agfa fans in the list (I'm between AG them). AG I've bought two rolls of this film in 120 format to AG try it. AG I wanted to know what EI do you suggest, 160, 125 or AG 100? Comments on film grain, colors, etc? AG All experiences welcome AG Regards AG = AG Albano Garcia AG El Pibe Asahi AG __ AG Do you Yahoo!? AG U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos AG http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Paul wrote: Any film of normal saturation and contrast is fine for lens testing. I would probably use Fuji Provia 100F or Kodak Ektachrome 100S. Paul Stenquist I wouldn't use any 100ISO film. Particuarly not Provia 100F; a film that trade sharpness for fine grain. Pål
LX for sale in UK AP
Spotted for sale in AP 'Pentax LX plus FA/1W prism finder, grip, perfect working order, used regularly. 150 GBP 01429 422058 (UK phone number)
Re: OT: sliding away?
Aha! I'd like that, I just intuit! g Thanks for the explanation. keith gfen wrote: On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Keith Whaley wrote: Huh? [C]loning to spot is outside my understanding. Please elucidate! Using the clone tool to spot your prints for dust, hair, fingerprints, etc. To say nothing of the ability to use the clone tool to remove power lines, facial blemishes, your ex-girlfriend, etc. :)
Re: LX for sale in UK AP
how much in euro ? thierry Cotty a écrit: Spotted for sale in AP 'Pentax LX plus FA/1W prism finder, grip, perfect working order, used regularly. 150 GBP 01429 422058 (UK phone number)
Re: LX for sale in UK AP
Welcome back, Cotty. :-) Wish I could have grabbed that one... Jostein - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: LX for sale in UK AP Spotted for sale in AP 'Pentax LX plus FA/1W prism finder, grip, perfect working order, used regularly. 150 GBP 01429 422058 (UK phone number)
Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
Because they are not made the same way - Cosina lenses are cheap, Voigtländer lenses are expensive, although cheaper than Leica glass. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 11. marraskuuta 2002 16:06 Aihe: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . . snip I thought the new Voightlanders were respected cameras and quality lenses? If this is the case, then why-oh-why can't all Cosina lenses be as respected?
Re: Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick onelens. . .
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Raimo Korhonen wrote: Because they are not made the same way - Cosina lenses are cheap, Voigtländer lenses are expensive, although cheaper than Leica glass. Someday I'd like to own a rangefinder, although truthfully, I don't think I'd find much advantage in one... -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Odp: LX for sale in UK AP
You sure about the price? That's about $225 and that would make it a steal. Now, if only I had tese $225 in my pocket... sigh Lukasz - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: LX for sale in UK AP Spotted for sale in AP 'Pentax LX plus FA/1W prism finder, grip, perfect working order, used regularly. 150 GBP 01429 422058 (UK phone number)
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
I sort of miss Mafud, but Kirkland Ramsey is another story. Much more belligerent I'd say. I'm still not sure they were one and the same, although some evidence seemed to suggest that. Paul Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, Anybody who has two email accounts subscribed to the pdml, and uses one to respond to his comments from the other is way over the top for me. young Brad has a long way to go before he can be elevated to the Pantheon. Suda Mafud, you may recall, had more avatars than Vishnu and would use them all to support his outlandish arguments. So Mafud would get involved in an argument, then Kirkland Ramsey III (Presbyterian) would join in support but - presumably to fool everybody - would disagree on some minor point, then a 3rd incarnation - whose name I've forgotten, unfortunately - would chastise Kirkland for joining in the Mafud bashing. It was magnificent at times. Imagine, to steal an image from P.G. Wodehouse, an ancient mastodon bellowing at its own reflection across the primordial swamp, and you get the general drift. Mafud was a force of nature. --- Bob
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On 11 Nov 2002 at 17:08, gfen wrote: Is it too much to ask that Vivitar buys Leitz just so I can hear the collective howl of a million leicaphiles? It's Leica Camera AG now, there was a little yelp when the French Hermes International bought a great chunk a year or so back. http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/data/01907/index_e.html Not for distribution in the United States of America, Canada, Australia or Japan. :-) The current boss of Cosina has apparently taken a very personal interest in the Voigtlander name and product range development and photographers feedback. He has allowed a lot of development and production to occur that a less involved boss may not have, fortunately it's all been of great benefit to the company. Great foresight, not like Pentax. 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: [OT] I'm back :)
Hmmm, My computer doesn't appear to HAVE a J drive . .. Bill William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: [OT] I'm back :) Does this mean you slam any cute lil' kitty pix posted on PUG? Grin. Find me a kitty picture cuter than this.. file:///J:/photo/puppies/leica_tmax.html Pentax content: Shot on a Zoom 105 Super William Robb -- William Kane http://www.KaneScience.com IABT Advisory Board Member http://www.iabt.net Tinley Park High School 6111 W. 175th Street Tinley Park, IL 60477 V: 708/532-1900 ext 3909 http://www.bhsd228.com
Re[2]: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Hi, I sort of miss Mafud, but Kirkland Ramsey is another story. Much more belligerent I'd say. I'm still not sure they were one and the same, although some evidence seemed to suggest that. we could put some of their emails through a stylistic analyzer - the type of thing they use to decide that Shakespeare was really Queen Elizabeth I. That should sort it out. Or perhaps it would tell us that Mafud wrote Shakespeare - that seems to be the usual result of these things. --- Bob
RE: [OT] I'm back :)
URL no good William. Shaun Canning Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. Phone: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:w_robb;accesscomm.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2002 9:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT] I'm back :) - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: [OT] I'm back :) Does this mean you slam any cute lil' kitty pix posted on PUG? Grin. Find me a kitty picture cuter than this.. file:///J:/photo/puppies/leica_tmax.html Pentax content: Shot on a Zoom 105 Super William Robb
Re: OT: sliding away?
Guys if you have limited experience with photoshop, I highly recommend photodeluxe which is also made by adobe and comes free with many decent Epson printers and various scanners. It really is simple to use and guides you through most steps with ease. It can do most of what photoshop can do (including layers) and generally do it easier (at least for beginners) Once you get good at it, set it on advanced mode and it's even closer to photoshop. Vic In a message dated 11/11/02 11:39:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: gfen wrote, re Photoshop: = snipped = Seriously, its pretty easy to do the basics.. I'm still figuring out the in depth parts of curves and levels, but cloning to spot is a godsend. Huh? [C]loning to spot is outside my understanding. Please elucidate! keith whaley
Greywolf Update II
Hi, I just sent out an e-mail to everyone who contacted me on or off-list, who's interested in contributing a few dollars to send to Tom. If you didn't get an off-list e-mail from me with the subject line Greywolf Test e-Mail, and you want to contribute, please contact me so I can add your name. If you've already contacted me, and didn't get the above-mentioned e-mail, then I've missed you, so definitely contact me! So far (including me), there are 19 potential contributors, so that should be a tidy little sum to help out Tom, but I hope more people come on board. If you do contact me off-list, please put the word Greywolf in the subject line, as I'm filtering this stuff into a separate folder, to keep things straight. BTW, a full accounting will be provided, of course... cheers, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Paul wrote: Interesting. I wasn't aware of any lack of sharpness in Provia 100F, but I've only recently tried it to any great extent. Its a controversial issue but many apart from me also find the film somewhat fuzzy. Like someone has been applying a softening filter. It has high resolution though. I suspect the film has low accutance and thats whats makes it soft. I've been an Ektachrome user for many years, but in my reply I was trying to be even handed and mentioned both Ektachme and Fuji variants. Which transparency film provides the most apparent sharpness? Kodachrome offer the most apparent sharpness follwed by Velvia. Pål
Re: OT: sliding away?
In a message dated 11/11/02 10:05:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've never bother to do anything of note in it, until recently.. The last few times I've turned the PC on, I've learned how to use curves and levels to make a nicer looking image, and how to clone out dust. Then I learned how to correctly resize images and DPI for printing. Is there more to photoshop? Oh yeah. Do I need to learn it? Nope. I can do everything I need to, and it was actually pretty easy to learn. You really should do yourself a favour and learn to do more with photoshop. It is an incredible tool. In fact, I would say it is one of my most valuable pieces of photographic equipment I have.I spend a lot of time just playing with it and learning various techniques etc. If you are lucky enough to have a version you may as well get the most out of it... Vic
Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
Might be an idea to do a whole month of our pets Vic
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Maybe more. I have a catalogue dated 2000 that lists a SMC FA* Macro 200mm f/4.0 ED(IF) and a SMC A* Macro 200mm f/4.0 but no 24-90 or 31mm limited and thats the most recent one I have Feroze - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:37 AM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I actually do remember us having this conversation. What a mind! Anyhow, I'm just looking now and I don't see a date at all. Since it's missing a Macro and the FA 24-90mm we know it isn't up to date. Nice to have one that was though eh? Brad. sounds like it is the same as the one i have. there is no 31mm Limited either, right? it's close to 2 years out of date. Herb...
Re: [OT] I'm back :)
- Original Message - From: William Kane Subject: Re: [OT] I'm back :) Hmmm, My computer doesn't appear to HAVE a J drive . .. HAR!! http://www.reginakennelclub.ca/photo/puppies/leica_tmax.html Teach me to send a URL out from a website I am working on. William Robb
Re: [OT] I'm back :)
- Original Message - From: Shaun Canning Subject: RE: [OT] I'm back :) URL no good William. Ya, I know... http://www.reginakennelclub.ca/photo/puppies/leica_tmax.html DOH!! William Robb
Re: VS1 35-85/2.8 Lens Images
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:42:21 -0500, you wrote: Prompted by a recent thread involving the Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 lens and its modification for newer K-mount bodies, I'm providing some images involving this lens: Here are two VS1 35-85/2.8's, the left one of which shows the extra baffle, while the right one has been modified: http://www.cetussoft.com\pentax\v358528\1ofeach.jpg; I modified the baffle on my Vivitar Series 1 90-180/4.5 macro much the same way you did the VS1 35-85. I used a thin file as the cutting tool, and also left the hump at the aperture lever. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: What do you carry with you
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 01:21 AM, Brad Dobo wrote: Is this directed to me or the person that typee the I keep a tripod in the trunk.? It was directed at Eleanor. Dan Scott
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
- Original Message - From: Vic Subject: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG? Might be an idea to do a whole month of our pets This is only meant to be a semi serious objection, but The PUG, as I understand it is to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of it being a Pentax equipment website. I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. William Robb
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
William Robb wrote: Matt Grene. Publisher of Bio-Agrinetics, or some such. INSERT THEME FROM MISSION IMPOSSIBLE HERE
Re: Help! M42 to K adapter-get it off my ZX-5n, please
Well, dude, since yer in Texas, I can give you my ultra-hick solutions. Pitch the little tool and find a pipe wrench. Return the adapter and tell the shop it's too tight. Or, take a steel file to the adapter until it does fit. Deb in TX (booger-free) --- Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My screwmount to kmount adapter just came from BH. Screwed it on to the Jupiter-9, no problem. Put that on the ZX-5n, pretty iffy, can't tell if it's on all the way or not cause the focus scale isn't really lined up where it should be. Go to take the lens off and try again, the lens comes off alright, but the adapter is fast on the ZX-5n. The tool that comes with the adpater turns it a little, but not enough. Anyone have this happen before? Tell me you didn't have to take it to a service center to get it off, please... Dan Scott (boogered in Texas) __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Hey Mishka!
I got your e-mail re: wanting to contribute something towards Tom. I just sent a couple of e-mails out to the list of those interested, but yours keeps getting bounced. Could you send me another e-mail off-list so I can update my address book? thanks, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
In a message dated 11/11/02 6:05:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is only meant to be a semi serious objection, but The PUG, as I understand it is to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of it being a Pentax equipment website. I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. William Robb Yes this is true...sad but true... Vic
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
We have allowed everyone to interpret the theme for themselves in the past. If one truely doesn't have a pet, a little imagination might lead them to a more interesting subject than a lot of beautiful dogs and vile cats. Dan William Robb wrote: This is only meant to be a semi serious objection, but The PUG, as I understand it is to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of it being a Pentax equipment website. I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. William Robb
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
I hear ya, but it doesn't have to be the photographer's pet. I don't know about other places, but around here, you can't walk down the street without seeing someone walking a dog, cat (really!), ferret, parrot or whatever. Surely that would give rise to plenty of photo ops for those who don't wait hand and foot on an animal in their home. You could do your pet (how bad does that sound? vbg) or someone else's... regards, frank William Robb wrote: This is only meant to be a semi serious objection, but The PUG, as I understand it is to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of it being a Pentax equipment website. I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. William Robb -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
RE: [OT] I'm back :)
Erm, how do we get to your J: drive? Len --- -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:w_robb;accesscomm.ca] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT] I'm back :) - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: [OT] I'm back :) Does this mean you slam any cute lil' kitty pix posted on PUG? Grin. Find me a kitty picture cuter than this.. file:///J:/photo/puppies/leica_tmax.html Pentax content: Shot on a Zoom 105 Super William Robb
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
On 11 Nov 2002 at 17:08, William Robb wrote: I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. I could train a cockroach for a few days, would he qualify :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
Hey, Dan, Didn't you mean interPET? Sorry, I know that was a bad one... vbg -frank Daniel J. Matyola wrote: We have allowed everyone to interpret the theme for themselves in the past. If one truely doesn't have a pet, a little imagination might lead them to a more interesting subject than a lot of beautiful dogs and vile cats. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Way OT (MPG video capture)
Hi All, Sorry for the off topic, but I can`t seem to get a real answer from anyone, and the PDML has some pretty smart cookies onboard. Anyone know if I can take a video camera tape and convert it to an MPeg? Also, from that MPeg can you save a still photo from it? Are there programs out there that can do these things? Reply to stevenlarsonadelphia,net so the list doesn`t get clogged up. Many thanks, Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California
RE: Help! M42 to K adapter-get it off my ZX-5n, please
If all else fails, hit everything within arms reach with said pipe-wrench :):):):) Cheers Shaun Canning Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. Phone: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Debra Wilborn [mailto:mechadebzilla;yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2002 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Help! M42 to K adapter-get it off my ZX-5n, please Well, dude, since yer in Texas, I can give you my ultra-hick solutions. Pitch the little tool and find a pipe wrench. Return the adapter and tell the shop it's too tight. Or, take a steel file to the adapter until it does fit. Deb in TX (booger-free) --- Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My screwmount to kmount adapter just came from BH. Screwed it on to the Jupiter-9, no problem. Put that on the ZX-5n, pretty iffy, can't tell if it's on all the way or not cause the focus scale isn't really lined up where it should be. Go to take the lens off and try again, the lens comes off alright, but the adapter is fast on the ZX-5n. The tool that comes with the adpater turns it a little, but not enough. Anyone have this happen before? Tell me you didn't have to take it to a service center to get it off, please... Dan Scott (boogered in Texas) __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
RE: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
I'm happy to share my dog with anyone who wants himanywhere, anytime, anyplace for any reason... all 125 pounds of him Cheers Shaun Canning Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. Phone: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Pentxuser;aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2002 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG? In a message dated 11/11/02 6:05:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is only meant to be a semi serious objection, but The PUG, as I understand it is to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of it being a Pentax equipment website. I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. William Robb Yes this is true...sad but true... Vic
RE: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
How about two-legged pets? Len --- -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:knarf.theriault;sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG? I hear ya, but it doesn't have to be the photographer's pet. I don't know about other places, but around here, you can't walk down the street without seeing someone walking a dog, cat (really!), ferret, parrot or whatever. Surely that would give rise to plenty of photo ops for those who don't wait hand and foot on an animal in their home. You could do your pet (how bad does that sound? vbg) or someone else's... regards, frank William Robb wrote: This is only meant to be a semi serious objection, but The PUG, as I understand it is to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of it being a Pentax equipment website. I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. William Robb -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
Daniel J. Matyola wrote: We have allowed everyone to interpret the theme for themselves in the past. If one truely doesn't have a pet, a little imagination might lead them to a more interesting subject than a lot of beautiful dogs and vile cats. My imagination leads me into some interesting ideas for the term pet Christian
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
Or legless, if ya likes fishies or snakes... Len Paris wrote: How about two-legged pets? -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re[2]: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
Hi, like this, you mean? http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/hopkins/hopkins_pic02.html --- Bob Monday, November 11, 2002, 11:14:28 PM, you wrote: We have allowed everyone to interpret the theme for themselves in the past. If one truely doesn't have a pet, a little imagination might lead them to a more interesting subject than a lot of beautiful dogs and vile cats. Dan
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
Well let's see. There are four-legged pets and two-legged (bird-like) pets. There are two-legged human pets and don't forget pet rocks and Everybody has to have some kind of pet even if it's just a pet peeve. On Monday 11 November 2002 11:08 pm, William Robb wrote: This is only meant to be a semi serious objection, but The PUG, as I understand it is to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of it being a Pentax equipment website. I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. William Robb -- Kenneth Archer, San Antonio, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Way OT (MPG video capture)
Yes you can. That subject was covered fairly thoroughly on TechTV very recently. Check their web site at: http://www.techtv.com Look in the archives of the Screensavers or Call For Help programs. Involves having a video capture card and a program that will convert the capture to MPEG format. Len --- -Original Message- From: Steve Larson [mailto:stevenlarson;adelphia.net] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Way OT (MPG video capture) Hi All, Sorry for the off topic, but I can`t seem to get a real answer from anyone, and the PDML has some pretty smart cookies onboard. Anyone know if I can take a video camera tape and convert it to an MPeg? Also, from that MPeg can you save a still photo from it? Are there programs out there that can do these things? Reply to stevenlarson@adelphia,net so the list doesn`t get clogged up. Many thanks, Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California
Re: OT: sliding away?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You really should do yourself a favour and learn to do more with photoshop. It is an incredible tool. In fact, I would say it is one of my most valuable pieces of photographic equipment I have.I spend a lot of time just playing with it and learning various techniques etc. If you are lucky enough to have a version you may as well get the most out of it... Vic look online at Amazon. there are at least two books only on photo retouching using Photoshop and almost all of the rest have something to say about it. Herb
Re: OT: sliding away?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Guys if you have limited experience with photoshop, I highly recommend photodeluxe which is also made by adobe and comes free with many decent Epson printers and various scanners. It really is simple to use and guides you through most steps with ease. It can do most of what photoshop can do (including layers) and generally do it easier (at least for beginners) Once you get good at it, set it on advanced mode and it's even closer to photoshop. Vic although not discontinued yet, Photodeluxe is pretty close to being. Photoshop Elements is the replacement. Herb
Re: Way OT (MPG video capture)
Hi Len, Thanks for the info, will check it out now. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 3:50 PM Subject: RE: Way OT (MPG video capture) Yes you can. That subject was covered fairly thoroughly on TechTV very recently. Check their web site at: http://www.techtv.com Look in the archives of the Screensavers or Call For Help programs. Involves having a video capture card and a program that will convert the capture to MPEG format. Len --- -Original Message- From: Steve Larson [mailto:stevenlarson;adelphia.net] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Way OT (MPG video capture) Hi All, Sorry for the off topic, but I can`t seem to get a real answer from anyone, and the PDML has some pretty smart cookies onboard. Anyone know if I can take a video camera tape and convert it to an MPeg? Also, from that MPeg can you save a still photo from it? Are there programs out there that can do these things? Reply to stevenlarson@adelphia,net so the list doesn`t get clogged up. Many thanks, Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California
DC PDML Outing #4 (was RE: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro)
-Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:pnstenquist;comcast.net] I sort of miss Mafud, but Kirkland Ramsey is another story. Much more belligerent I'd say. Just a little note supporting the argument that the *vast* majority of PDMLers are decent folks...yesterday the DC chapter of the PDML got together down at the Smithsonian for Kennerly's Photo du Jour exhibit. Geoff Moes, Wendy, Mark Lindamood and myself showed up. I've already stated that Geoff and Wendy are pretty good folks (I really meant it in Wendy's case, HAR!), and it turns out, not surprisingly, that Mark's a good guy too. I had a good time hanging out with them. While some of us weren't blown away by the Kennerly photos, everyone seemed to enjoy the L.A. shots, and agreed that the print quality was outstanding. All the prints (except maybe the giant 60x70's) were printed on warm toned fiber. They weren't dry-mounted, so some were a bit wavy, which bothers me. Afterwards we walked to Chinatown, took a few pics here and there and found some dim sum. So, for those anti-socialites who failed to show up, you missed a good time. tv
Christmas cards
Hi All, I noticed that Don mentioned taking pictures for a Christmas card. I've been thinking of making some this year. Do other PDMLer do this? If so, any hints or tips? Cheers, Simon Dr E D F Williams wrote: in time for new pictures for this year's Christmas card.
FS: 135/1.8 85/1.4
135/1.8 A* near mint$1200 85/1.4 A*Ex+ $850 200/2.8 A* near mint$600 Please contact me off list for more info. Thanks. Jay
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
here are some of mine. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Random/Fish.htm Herb...
Re: DC PDML Outing #4 (was RE: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro)
So, for those anti-socialites who failed to show up, you missed a good time. tv OUCH! I did see Geoff and Wendy this afternoon at ACE dropping off a truckload of film. Tom, I'm surprised you didn't scare him away from there! ;-) Christian
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
On Monday 11 November 2002 19:13, Herb Chong wrote: here are some of mine. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Random/Fish.htm Herb... Those are nice shots! What technique do you use. My Oscars are a bit bigger than your fish and I've had issues (lots of issues) trying to photograph them. Christian
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I can tolerate the whirring feel on the F* 300/4.5, but I really don't like it on most of the other clutchless autofocus lenses I've tried. Since you brought up this issue, my Limited lenses have been becoming noiser, so to my F*300/4.5. This is entirely you fault. ;-) regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 06:18 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 11 Nov 2002 at 17:08, William Robb wrote: I recall a few ideas being shot down for the PUG due to the lack of inclusivity. A pets gallery may fall under that umbrella. We don't all have a pet. I could train a cockroach for a few days, would he qualify :-) Rob Studdert You'd have to cuddle. Pets and pet owners cuddle. What would you train him to do? Dan Scott
RE: Have we ever done people's pets on PUG?
-Original Message- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:nbaugher;earthlink.net] I personally have never done anyone's pet. Livestock? tv
