Elements
Ok, I have started to play with this tool. The very first simple thing seems clumsier than using Picture Window. All I want to do is crop the image to a paper size ratio. In Picture Window all I do is select crop and pick the paper size (4X5, 8X10, 4X6) and then the crop rectangle keeps the rectangle proportions for me. I can adjust to my hearts content until I am ready to commit it and it will keep the crop rectangle to that ratio. In Paintshop Pro I had to memorize the ratio (.354, .) and then keep watching the bottom indicators as I dragged a side of the rectangle - far clumsier. In Elements it seems even clumsier. Tell me how to quickly and easily crop to a given ratio. Thanks, Bruce
Re[2]: MZ-M viewfinder inside MZ-5n
From an older thread I came across digging here and there in the huge pile of diluted info that pdml turned into... Alan wrote: AC> I have never been sure on this matter. My opinion is, if the spot meter AC> sensor is below the mirror, the split image has no effect to the spot meter. AC> If it is near the eyepiece, it won't be accurate. Anyone knows? Except for the LX and some Spotmatics, all meters are located in the pentaprism housing and measure from the focusing screen. Therefore, a split prism on the focusing screen covers the spot meter area and will affect its reading. What's worse, the reading error will be erratic due to prism refracting light at precise angles instead of uniformly dispersing the light as a matte glass does. gfen wrote: g> No more spot meter if you do so. However, a ZX-5 (not the -5n) has no spot g> meter, so perhaps a used ZX-5 might be the way to go.. The ZX-5 does have spotmeter. Versus ZX-5N, it only lacks memory lock and exposure bracketing. Servus, Alin
Re: Mac Blat
> But I would not trade my > Mac for an IBM for anything. That's my choice. Others will not agree. But > then again they have probably never spent any real time on a Mac.. A Mac is > like an LX, once you GET IT you love it... Yay, Vic. This is all I was ever really saying. As usual it took someone else to say it better. --Mike
Re: Way off Topic --- sorry --- Hi Fi
Unfortunately, my tonarm got badly bent when a CD tower fell on it (irony, or what?). Fortunately, my turntable and cartridge appear unscathed. Haven't been able to listen to my vinyl for about a year. But, as good as CD's are (and my system isn't a bad one), there's a punchiness and presence to vinyl that's hard to beat. Were I not spending so damn much on camera stuff, I could've bought a pretty decent tonearm by now . -frank Mat Maessen wrote: > I am jealous. My "special" cartridge is a Stanton 881mkIIs. > Homebrew preamp, Hafler amp, B&W speakers. > > h... maybe I should dig out some vinyl... > > -Mat > > Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > > If any one on the list is interested let me know. Its a Shure V15 Type II > > SuperTrack and the stylus is in perfect condition - I've checked it under > > the microscope. I can't do a test since I have no HiFi equipment now. But > > there is no reason why it should not be in perfect working condition. These > > things are quite rare I've been told. -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: More Bargoons on Ebay
I'm not that familiar with the m 4.0 50mm macro, but my guess is that the lens alone makes that a good price, even if the meter works "most of the time". Geez, Dave, you could have bought it at that price, and funded the CLA and meter repair by selling the lens! -frank David Chang-Sang wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1950155750 > > I did actually bid.. but in haste.. and then I noted the meter was only > working "most of the time".. still a deal though considering it's got the > 50mm F4.0 Macro on the body. > > I just want the body though.. don't need the 50mm F4.0 macro lens :-) > I'll keep my eyes open for a good deal on an ME Super or another MX :) > > Cheers, > Dave -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
OT ... and more
19 propacks of Fujichrome Velvia daylight, iso 50, 120 dated 10/2001 $5 per pack. (That's $1 per roll) + shpg. Collin
Re: OT: Apparent Miscategorized Bargain
Hi, Ken, Didn't notice that. I think it was scheduled to end today. I guess (s)he pulled it the last day, since with no bids, they were afraid that one bid would get it at the starting price. They could have ended it it early even had there been a bid, according to eBay rules. Maybe that's their way of avoiding a reserve... I'm still suspicious of that auction, though. -frank Ken Archer wrote: > Taking a second look, I noticed that the seller withdrew the article > because "it is no longer available for sale." > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Way off Topic --- sorry --- Hi Fi
I am jealous. My "special" cartridge is a Stanton 881mkIIs. Homebrew preamp, Hafler amp, B&W speakers. h... maybe I should dig out some vinyl... -Mat Dr E D F Williams wrote: If any one on the list is interested let me know. Its a Shure V15 Type II SuperTrack and the stylus is in perfect condition - I've checked it under the microscope. I can't do a test since I have no HiFi equipment now. But there is no reason why it should not be in perfect working condition. These things are quite rare I've been told.
RE: ME super and flash weirdness
I believe it is a design feature in the ME super. I tried to drag the shutter with the flash and it always would default to 1/125. Used to p*** me off. Now I have a K1000 and can drag shutter to my hearts content. Mat wrote; I have an ME Super body, and a Vivitar 283 flash unit. This is an older 283, with about 280 volts on the hotshoe terminal, as measured with my digital voltmeter. When the flash is plugged in, turned on, and charged, the camera defaults to a shutter speed of 1/125 in manual mode, no matter what speed the camera is set to. BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian)
More Bargoons on Ebay
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1950155750 I did actually bid.. but in haste.. and then I noted the meter was only working "most of the time".. still a deal though considering it's got the 50mm F4.0 Macro on the body. I just want the body though.. don't need the 50mm F4.0 macro lens :-) I'll keep my eyes open for a good deal on an ME Super or another MX :) Cheers, Dave
Re: bargain night on ebay
Seems like on the world economy, everything is going at half-price on ebay these days. Wish I wasn't broke from buying bargains. ;-) On Sunday 12 January 2003 09:46 pm, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Here's a 67 that went for just a bit more than $300. I clicked in a > bid of $321.11 with 8 seconds to go, but it wasn't quite enough. Paul > Stenquist -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re: ME super and flash weirdness
Older or newer version of the 283? At some point in the production life, they changed it to only have about 5 volts or so on the firing terminal, so that it wouldn't fry the trigger electronics on newer cameras. It'd be interesting to find out if this is unique to my camera or not... -Mat T Rittenhouse wrote: I have that combination, I recall no such problem with mine. Maybe I should check it out and see.
Re: OT: Apparent Miscategorized Bargain
Taking a second look, I noticed that the seller withdrew the article because "it is no longer available for sale." On Monday 13 January 2003 01:42 am, frank theriault wrote: > Here's another one. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=21165&item=195 >0917169&rd=1 > > I was watching, and was sorely tempted! Not one bidder. If this > guy's on the up and up, $100 (no reserve) for a 67 with 2.8 90mm? It > would ~almost~ be worth the chance (if I had the money to burn, which > I don't). > > But with 0 feedbacks, "sunglasses", and a picture that's likely not > the item up for auction, I guess I wasn't alone in my suspicions... -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re: Results from Uploaded Online Printing
Mark, I can only tell you that from my lab (Agfa D-Labs) that the quality seems to be on par with a well printed inkjet. That is based on Herb Chong's test comparing it to an Epson 1270. The software they use is www.fotowire.com. You choose the lab you want (in this case Snap Photo Imaging), and then upload the photos. They send them back printed on the D-Lab. I don't know what kind of equipment some of these other labs use, so can't really comment on them. HTH, Bruce Sunday, January 12, 2003, 6:46:24 PM, you wrote: MD> Hey Folks, MD> I was wondering if anyone has utilized some of the MD> online print ordering companies such Ofoto or MD> PrintatWolf (I'm sure there are others). What were the MD> results like? How did they compare to inkjet prints? MD> Mark MD> __ MD> Do you Yahoo!? MD> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. MD> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
bargain night on ebay
Here's a 67 that went for just a bit more than $300. I clicked in a bid of $321.11 with 8 seconds to go, but it wasn't quite enough. Paul Stenquist
Results from Uploaded Online Printing
Hey Folks, I was wondering if anyone has utilized some of the online print ordering companies such Ofoto or PrintatWolf (I'm sure there are others). What were the results like? How did they compare to inkjet prints? Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: OT: web page quetsions
I have no idea. Nick On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 01:29 PM, Dan Scott wrote: Nick, Thanks so much for posting the link to that app. I love it! I actually launched OS 9 just to use it (which says a lot). Any idea if he's going to make an OS X version? Dan Scott
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Well, as they used to say in the old Certs ads, "you're both right!" I really don't think these two pieces of advice are mutually exclusive. Of course you take your time, look from many angles, compose as best you can, get the exposure right, and take your best shot. That's assuming you have the luxury of time. And if you can do that, after you've gotten your best shot, look some more. Maybe bracket the exposure. I really don't think it's a waste to take a few more shots from different angles, maybe change the focus if you're working with a narrow dof. Despite our (at least my ) best efforts, many times we miss something, or catch something on subsequent shots that isn't apparent the first time. Other than our time (at least for us amateurs), the cheapest thing we consume is film. Sometimes it's worth burning, imho, to get the best result. Just my two cents (Cdn). -frank John Whicker wrote: > Bob Blakely wrote: > > > I say, "Don't be stingy with the film." > > > > Walk around, up and down and waste > > the whole roll on that subject. I say > > it increases the odds. > > Hi Bob, > > Thirty years ago I was taught the exact > opposite: "Treat every frame as though > it is the only one you've got". Nothing I > have seen, heard, read or done in the last > 30 years has caused me to doubt the > quality of that advice. > > Wasting film is wasting your time. Take > a little time with one shot, get it right, > and you won't need to waste the rest of > the film in the hope of achieving something > that is merely acceptable. > > Just my Euro 0.02. > > John -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Pentax and Casio to merge?
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Only a fool would take that bet! The lower cost of CMOS and the >> ever-improving quality has made it almost universal, even in very high-end >> DSLRs. > > >Huh? I thought only Canon (well, and Foveon, if they count) currently had >CMOS sensors. New Kodak 14-megapixel DSLR uses CMOS. EOS-1Ds is CMOS. (As are D-60 and D-30) I'll bet upcoming Nikons use CMOS as well. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000553578 > > >Mark, >The only problem with this as it stands is that somebody is going to want >you to send them the CD for a penny. Nah, I'm charging $6.00 for "Shipping, handling, postage, packaging, mental anguish, etc." specifically to cover that :) I considered adding more to the "shipping, handling..." list too: "unsightly blemishes, waxy yellow buildup, dry skin, etc., etc." >Put the price of your CD version at $10,000 and then it would work. It would >draw more gawkers, too. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: OT: Apparent Miscategorized Bargain
heh.. Ya.. that's one nice system for $100 bones ($160 CDN) It would be a hard price to pay.. but Ebay does cover you up to $300 I think.. or something like that. But for sure - $100 and that 67 with the 90mm 2.8 could have been yours :) Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Apparent Miscategorized Bargain Here's another one. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=21165&item=1950917169 &rd=1 I was watching, and was sorely tempted! Not one bidder. If this guy's on the up and up, $100 (no reserve) for a 67 with 2.8 90mm? It would ~almost~ be worth the chance (if I had the money to burn, which I don't). But with 0 feedbacks, "sunglasses", and a picture that's likely not the item up for auction, I guess I wasn't alone in my suspicions... cheers, frank Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30076&item=1950085685 > &rd=1 > > I was watching it, but not my clock. > > Collin -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
This one time, at band camp, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000553578 Well done Kevin -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
I think the path to great photos is a combination of these two seemingly disparate suggestions. Simply put: Shoot every frame as though it was the only one you have ... but shoot a lot of frames. If you think things through thoroughly, work hard, and keep shooting, you can optimize your photography. Paul Stenquist John Whicker wrote: > > Bob Blakely wrote: > > > I say, "Don't be stingy with the film." > > > > Walk around, up and down and waste > > the whole roll on that subject. I say > > it increases the odds. > > Hi Bob, > > Thirty years ago I was taught the exact > opposite: "Treat every frame as though > it is the only one you've got". Nothing I > have seen, heard, read or done in the last > 30 years has caused me to doubt the > quality of that advice. > > Wasting film is wasting your time. Take > a little time with one shot, get it right, > and you won't need to waste the rest of > the film in the hope of achieving something > that is merely acceptable. > > Just my Euro 0.02. > > John
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Bob Blakely wrote: > I say, "Don't be stingy with the film." > > Walk around, up and down and waste > the whole roll on that subject. I say > it increases the odds. Hi Bob, Thirty years ago I was taught the exact opposite: "Treat every frame as though it is the only one you've got". Nothing I have seen, heard, read or done in the last 30 years has caused me to doubt the quality of that advice. Wasting film is wasting your time. Take a little time with one shot, get it right, and you won't need to waste the rest of the film in the hope of achieving something that is merely acceptable. Just my Euro 0.02. John
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Sounds like the riddle of Schrodinger's Camera... Mike Johnston wrote: > How good are you at logic? Viewed from a logical perspective, the argument > above is specious on its face. > > I'll give you the proof: I use Macs, and I use Pentaxes. If your premises > and reasoning as presented above were sound, then both those things couldn't > be true at once. > > Gotcha, Brucie. ;-) > > --Mike -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
Don't you read anything? Or did you fall off the wagon? "Shipping: Buyer pays $6.00 for postage, handling, packaging, mental anguish, etc." BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000553578 Mark, The only problem with this as it stands is that somebody is going to want you to send them the CD for a penny. Put the price of your CD version at $10,000 and then it would work. It would draw more gawkers, too. --Mike
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Back up to my original post. It said, "virtually no professional photographers use 35mm Pentax SLRs". I never stated that it was impossible to use both. You have proved nothing. Stick to being an Artiste. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How good are you at logic? Viewed from a logical perspective, the argument above is specious on its face. I'll give you the proof: I use Macs, and I use Pentaxes. If your premises and reasoning as presented above were sound, then both those things couldn't be true at once. Gotcha, Brucie. ;-) --Mike -- Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Ed Tyler wrote: > I would be very interested in learning > from this group what you feel is your > simple tip or trick for a better picture. Single best tip: "Always carry a camera." John (plus I have many, many more!)
Re: OT: Apparent Miscategorized Bargain
Here's another one. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=21165&item=1950917169&rd=1 I was watching, and was sorely tempted! Not one bidder. If this guy's on the up and up, $100 (no reserve) for a 67 with 2.8 90mm? It would ~almost~ be worth the chance (if I had the money to burn, which I don't). But with 0 feedbacks, "sunglasses", and a picture that's likely not the item up for auction, I guess I wasn't alone in my suspicions... cheers, frank Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30076&item=1950085685 > &rd=1 > > I was watching it, but not my clock. > > Collin -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Photoshop vs. Picture Window
> That horse isn't dead yet. :) I have tried Elements twice and > actually have a copy installed on my system (came with my Epson 2450 > scanner). I still don't like it as well as Picture Window Pro. > > From my experience (as a photographer only - no graphic artist > tendencies) I started with Paint Shop Pro after dabbling with all the > beginner programs. I used that for quite awhile. Then tried the > trial versions of both Elements and Picture Window Pro. I found that > the style and interface of Picture Window Pro was far closer to my > style and mind as a photographer. (simple things like crop ratios > based on print sizes, etc.) > > But on your suggestion (always willing to learn new things), I'll give > Elements one more try and let you know what I think. > > BTW, I don't feel that all aspects of Picture Window are better than > any other program. I have found that each one does a few things > better than the others and others worse. Bruce, Okay, fair enough. Don't feel obliged to try it again on my account. I was really just saying that it's not fair to characterize all the alternative programs as being a small fraction of the cost of Photoshop, since Elements 2 costs $90. I didn't mean to say that you can't like Picture Windows better (although I dislike the second word of its name! ) --Mike
Re: Pentax DSLR: e-mail from Pentax USA
I would guess he is refering to drum scans. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 7:15 AM Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR: e-mail from Pentax USA > Hi Herb > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:25:40 -0500, Herb Chong wrote: > > > > >i took a one day photo workshop today. the guy shoots large format 4x5 and > >scans his slides at 8000 dpi, the optical resolution of his scanner. > >anything less, he says, and he loses quality that he can tell on his > >exhibition prints, now of which are less than 8x10 inches. > > If the first sentence are about the same subject, so you actually mean > 4x5 (inches) slides scanned at 8000 dpi, this guy must have quite > a large computersystem. > > In my calculations this would result in files between 1Gb and 4Gb each > depending on color-depth ... > > Hard to swallow for imaging-programs and eating diskspace like mad ... > > Or do you actually mean 35mm slides ? > > Regards, JvW > -- > Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery > >
Sunday Morning Photographer - preview of Pentax D-SLR?
Dear all, Mike has announced that next week's Sunday Morning Photographer will be about Pentax's D-SLR: "Next Week: "Pentax Under Glass." The venerable cameramaker Pentax has announced that its first DSLR will be unveiled at PMA. Why a Pentax DSLR, and what will it be like? What should it be like?" Can PDML members have a preview of the article? Next Sunday please come earlier! Regards, Henry Chu 13/1/2003 _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Pentax and Casio to merge?
> Only a fool would take that bet! The lower cost of CMOS and the > ever-improving quality has made it almost universal, even in very high-end > DSLRs. Huh? I thought only Canon (well, and Foveon, if they count) currently had CMOS sensors. --Mike
RE: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Hi Ed: I hope this isn't over simplistic but my tip would be "think before you shoot". In this era of auto everything it is too easy to pick up the camera with the zoom lens and matrix metering, go this looks good, trip the shutter, end of process. I know that when I take the time to study the situation, try different focal lengths, move my position slightly, etc. I usually get better results. Obviously this won't work in all situations like shooting sports though even there a little pre thought can go a long ways. BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian)
RE: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
I too have been following with interest, and either agree with or am glad to have heard these tips. The one I read very early on I have always liked and tried to stick by. "Don't be lazy". A précis of the suggestion was... "Most people who take photos don't put much mental or physical effort into it. Always make the effort, look for the best position or angle, wait ill the lighting's right, scale a ladder or dig a trench to get the best shot you can." Simon -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 13 January 2003 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures? I've been reading this thread with interest, and all the tips have been wonderful ones, but I haven't really come across "the one" (for me, at least). Then I read yours, Bob, and it clicked. I'd say, "always have a camera with you". If you don't have one, get a tiny 35mm - even a p&s - and keep it in your pocket at all times. I pretty much always have a camera around my neck when I leave the house, but if it's really inconvenient to do that, I'll put my little Minolta HiMatic F (about the size of a Rollei 35) in a pocket. I just got sick of being without a camera, and seeing a shot, but having no camera with me. Some days (not many ) I won't take a shot, but I like having a body with me at all times "just in case". I guess a corollary to that would be "take lots of pictures". It's the only way one will get good - it won't guarantee it, but it'll help... cheers, frank Bob Blakely wrote: > Not necessarily the best, but I say, "Don't be stingy with the film." > Walk around, up and down and waste the whole roll on that subject. I > say it increases the odds. > > Regards, > Bob > > "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" >- Benjamin Franklin > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
> Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred > platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you > want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer > is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most > basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way > that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. > If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is > also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than > the other. How good are you at logic? Viewed from a logical perspective, the argument above is specious on its face. I'll give you the proof: I use Macs, and I use Pentaxes. If your premises and reasoning as presented above were sound, then both those things couldn't be true at once. Gotcha, Brucie. ;-) --Mike
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000553578 Mark, The only problem with this as it stands is that somebody is going to want you to send them the CD for a penny. Put the price of your CD version at $10,000 and then it would work. It would draw more gawkers, too. --Mike
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Damn right. And they ought to get rid of all that color BS too. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 2:47 PM Subject: Re: OT: Mac Blat > > Whine, whine, whine, Mac mac mac.. versus whine whine whine, PC PC PC. > > > > I hearby nominate this sort of useless argument to the same field as gun > > talk. Stupid. pointless, and bound to aggravate everyone involved. > > > > So, you disagree with the firearm discussions, and I'm going to vehemently > > disagree with this thread. Matter of fact, if this is what's going ot > > start upo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start threads on firearms. > > > You could always do what I did during the firearms discussion and simply > leave the list for the duration. The other alternative is censorship, > unfortunately. > > I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I > think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic > designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that > people should be reminded of once in a while. It serves as a corrective to > the constant propaganda that "all serious computer users use PCs." Macs are > not a fringe product in my world. The magazine publishers I've worked for in > my life have collectively published 56 different newsstand magazines. All > were put together exclusively on Macs. I don't have the widest experience in > the world, but I've been around some, and I have yet to see a single > "creatives" shop--graphics design, advertising, or professional photography > studio--that was running PCs. I'm sure the exceptions exist, but that > doesn't change the prevailing norms. > > Some people might be interested in these facts. And, unfortunately, it is > far more germane to a photography discussion site than most topics relating > to firearms. I wish it weren't so--I'd personally be happier if digital > never existed, and the days of film photography were never going to end. But > that's not the reality. Hey, man, replacing the darkroom with computers > wasn't *my* choice! > > --Mike >
Re: OT: Apparent Miscategorized Bargain
I missed it too while I was buying a Vivitar 2X macro teleconverter for $29.00. I think I should have been watching the 17/3.5! On Monday 13 January 2003 01:06 am, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30076&item=195 >0085685 &rd=1 > > I was watching it, but not my clock. -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
I imagine he built the cost into his shipping charge. A buck for the CD, a buck for postage, and 4 bucks fro his time and effort. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "David P. Chernicoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-) > At 06:25 PM 1/12/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300055357 > > > 8 > > You do realize that despite what you say in the text of your auction, you > will get people bidding on your CD for .01 > > eBay is not the bastion of the best and the brightest. > > >
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
BRAVO! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-) > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000553578 > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: ME super and flash weirdness
I have that combination, I recall no such problem with mine. Maybe I should check it out and see. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Mat Maessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 2:29 PM Subject: ME super and flash weirdness > Situation: > > I have an ME Super body, and a Vivitar 283 flash unit. This is an older > 283, with about 280 volts on the hotshoe terminal, as measured with my > digital voltmeter. > When the flash is plugged in, turned on, and charged, the camera > defaults to a shutter speed of 1/125 in manual mode, no matter what > speed the camera is set to. If I turn off the flash, and keep firing, > the shutter speed stays at 1/125 until the voltage at the hotshoe > terminal drops below 50 volts or so. Not that this is NOT a dedicated > flash, and there is only one terminal on flash's hotshoe. > > What I'm wondering is whether a newer flash, with a lower voltage on the > hotshoe, will let me flash-sync at speeds slower than 1/125. So does > anyone out there have an ME super, and a newer non-dedicated flash unit > that they could test with? > > thanks in advance > > -Mat >
Re: Mac Blat
As far as I can recall MS was required to remove the Trash Can as it was an Apple idea. That is all Apple got from a multimillion dollar legal battle. I think it almost put them out of business. Understand that I have no love for the evil empire of gates, but as I recall the court basically said Apple had no leg to stand on as they had not developed the technology and Xerox had pretty much tossed it in the trash can (pun intended). Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 4:18 AM Subject: Vs: Mac Blat > What´s this? There was a law suit which Apple won and Microsoft lost. > The interface was indeed originally developed by Xerox Palo Alto Research Center but there´s nothing to indicate that Apple got it free. > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -Alkuperäinen viesti- > Lähettäjä: T Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Päivä: 12. tammikuuta 2003 2:31 > Aihe: Re: Mac Blat > > > >Why Mike, you didn't ask my opinion, so how can it be best? > > > >BTW, the reason Apple could not keep Gates from using the interface is > >because they didn't invent it, Xerox did. > > > >Ciao, > >Graywolf > >http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 2:29 PM > >Subject: OT: Mac Blat > > > > > >> >> how hard it is to use a Mac > >> > > >> > This is a classic oxymoron! > >> > >> > >> Cotty, > >> Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac interface that > >> Gate's lawyers somehow weaseled him out of paying for, the ease of use of > >> _all_ computers is directly related to the ease of use of Macs. Even > >though > >> Windows is still inferior in every way. > >> > >> In virtually every creative field, there are true innovators, then there > >are > >> the often rapacious, often more energetic and less principled imitators > >that > >> follow on their heels and opportunistically appropriate the market. > >Windows > >> PCs are second-rate consumer products. The Microsoft OS is third-rate. The > >> real personal computers are Macs. > >> > >> Macs are superior products. They work better, they are more elegant, they > >> are more pleasant to work with, they're designed better. The OS is much > >more > >> stable and elegant and the interface is far better. Even as objects they > >are > >> much more aesthetically pleasing to have in the home. Now that so many > >> outside companies are writing software for them and Apple is no longer > >> controlling the compatibility standards, I'm finally experiencing crashes > >on > >> my Mac. But I worked with a Mac Quadra for _six years_ at the magazine, > >nine > >> hours a day, five days a week, and guess how many crashes or freezes I > >ever > >> experienced? None. Zero. It never happened. No downtime, ever, period, > >> except one time when the starter battery on the motherboard ran dry. Try > >> that with a PC. As soon as I go 100% OSX native, I hope to reclaim that. > >> > >> I understand that many people have to use PCs because their work demands > >it, > >> their computers are provided by their employers or their workplaces are > >> standardized on PCs, they need certain software that is only available for > >> PCs, or simply because they've always used PCs and it's difficult to > >switch > >> platforms. There are lots of good reasons for being stuck with PCs. But > >> "stuck" is the word. To me, PCs are just appliances. They betray poor > >taste > >> and a lack of aesthetic sense in their makers, if not their owners. > >They're > >> crass. I thank my lucky stars I started with Macs and I will never switch > >> unless I am absolutely forced to do so, and then I'll wait until the > >> absolute last possible moment. > >> > >> --Mike > >> > >> P.S. My "Sunday Morning Photographer" column two weeks from now is called > >> "The Best of 2002," in which I name a bunch of products as the best of the > >> year and discuss them--best photography book, best digital camera, best > >> enlarger, that sort of thing. Can you guess what won "Best Digital > >> Photography Computer Workstation"? I'll give you a hint--it's not a dang > >PC. > >> > >> > >> > > >
OT: Apparent Miscategorized Bargain
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30076&item=1950085685 &rd=1 I was watching it, but not my clock. Collin
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Minimize camera shake. All right, I've cheated, because this is a catch-all rule whose ramifications are: 1. When possible, use a tripod, a cable release, and mirror lockup (or a timer). 2. When you can't use a tripod, use a monopod. 3. When you can't use a monopod, try to find a makeshift support. Last December, when shooting my daughter's snowman, I grabbed a rectangular lid from a trash can, set it on edge (while holding it), and rested my camera on the edge. I'd love to see what one piece of advice photography journalist Herb Keppler would offer. I suspect it would be, "Focus manually" or "Use higher-speed film to allow faster shutter speeds." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Hi, Mark, When you consider that the price difference between good film and generic crap is only a few dollars, your advice makes abundant good sense... cheers, frank Mark Roberts wrote: > My serious tip is "Always use good film" > You don't want to come across that once-in-a-lifetime, > shot-waiting-to-happen and have low quality, outdated film in your camera. > For that matter, you don't want to do an casual shoot with cheap film > because there's the possibility that you might find a use for those shots > later that requires higher quality. Happened to me :( > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Lens Flare and French Flags
HA! Esoteric knowledge indeed. However! The American Indians of the North East had a bit of trouble with english pronounciation and called the English something like Yankeesh. The white man picked it up and dropped the sh sound. So, you Brits ignorantly call Americans English while we have have a bunch of names for you . Limmy is a friendly one. The English, our brother, our enemy, our friend. Times do change. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 4:30 AM Subject: Re: Lens Flare and French Flags > >Never head it called anything but a flag here in the states. Must be another > >of those inexplicable Limmy things. > > For those with a questioning look on their non-US faces, Americans have > often referred to Brits as 'Limeys' due to the fact that Her Majesty's > sailing ships of olde used to carry plenty of citrus fruit to ward off > scurvy. > > If I hadn't lived there I would probably never have discovered this. What > most Anericans don't know is that Brits refer to them as Yanks. A > slightly affectionate term, it has nothing to do with north / south > battles gone by. > > Actually I prefer oranges :-) > > Cotty > > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > >
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
I've been reading this thread with interest, and all the tips have been wonderful ones, but I haven't really come across "the one" (for me, at least). Then I read yours, Bob, and it clicked. I'd say, "always have a camera with you". If you don't have one, get a tiny 35mm - even a p&s - and keep it in your pocket at all times. I pretty much always have a camera around my neck when I leave the house, but if it's really inconvenient to do that, I'll put my little Minolta HiMatic F (about the size of a Rollei 35) in a pocket. I just got sick of being without a camera, and seeing a shot, but having no camera with me. Some days (not many ) I won't take a shot, but I like having a body with me at all times "just in case". I guess a corollary to that would be "take lots of pictures". It's the only way one will get good - it won't guarantee it, but it'll help... cheers, frank Bob Blakely wrote: > Not necessarily the best, but I say, "Don't be stingy with the film." Walk > around, up and down and waste the whole roll on that subject. I say it > increases the odds. > > Regards, > Bob > > "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" >- Benjamin Franklin > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Hey, with a rangefinder, that's not as funny as one might think! Mark Roberts wrote: > "remove lens cap" > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Or it could be called "Take your time." I sort of prefer "Slow down". A little mental flag that I can raise that grabs my attention. HTH, Doe aka Marnie
Re: Way off Topic --- sorry --- Hi Fi
on 1/12/03 3:42 PM, Dr E D F Williams at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Dr. Williams but I already have one mounted on a Pioneer turntable. Ed > > If any one on the list is interested let me know. Its a Shure V15 Type II > SuperTrack and the stylus is in perfect condition - I've checked it under > the microscope. I can't do a test since I have no HiFi equipment now. But > there is no reason why it should not be in perfect working condition. These > things are quite rare I've been told. > > Don > > Don Williams > ___ > > Dr E D F Williams > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > > > Ed Tyler
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Rob, I agree. Bruce Sunday, January 12, 2003, 3:30:38 PM, you wrote: RS> On 12 Jan 2003 at 17:24, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: >> Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred >> platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you >> want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer >> is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most >> basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way >> that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. >> If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is >> also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than >> the other. RS> I've got to back Bruce up on these points, the "Mac Blat" thread was crammed RS> full of brand based fallacies.. RS> Rob Studdert RS> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA RS> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 RS> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours RS> [EMAIL PROTECTED] RS> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
Slow down. Not always applicable when the subject is moving, but it's applicable, for me, probably 80-90% of the time. Little tip I've evolved for myself, but evidentially tons have already said the same thing, one way or another. Doe aka Marnie
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
At 06:25 PM 1/12/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300055357 > 8 You do realize that despite what you say in the text of your auction, you will get people bidding on your CD for .01 eBay is not the bastion of the best and the brightest.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Mike, Just interesting food for thought - I found out that the underlying OS for the Agfa D-Labs is Windows 2000. One wonders why they made that decision. One angle could be connectivity. Bruce Sunday, January 12, 2003, 11:47:25 AM, you wrote: >> Whine, whine, whine, Mac mac mac.. versus whine whine whine, PC PC PC. >> >> I hearby nominate this sort of useless argument to the same field as gun >> talk. Stupid. pointless, and bound to aggravate everyone involved. >> >> So, you disagree with the firearm discussions, and I'm going to vehemently >> disagree with this thread. Matter of fact, if this is what's going ot >> start upo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start threads on firearms. MJ> You could always do what I did during the firearms discussion and simply MJ> leave the list for the duration. The other alternative is censorship, MJ> unfortunately. MJ> I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I MJ> think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic MJ> designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that MJ> people should be reminded of once in a while. It serves as a corrective to MJ> the constant propaganda that "all serious computer users use PCs." Macs are MJ> not a fringe product in my world. The magazine publishers I've worked for in MJ> my life have collectively published 56 different newsstand magazines. All MJ> were put together exclusively on Macs. I don't have the widest experience in MJ> the world, but I've been around some, and I have yet to see a single MJ> "creatives" shop--graphics design, advertising, or professional photography MJ> studio--that was running PCs. I'm sure the exceptions exist, but that MJ> doesn't change the prevailing norms. MJ> Some people might be interested in these facts. And, unfortunately, it is MJ> far more germane to a photography discussion site than most topics relating MJ> to firearms. I wish it weren't so--I'd personally be happier if digital MJ> never existed, and the days of film photography were never going to end. But MJ> that's not the reality. Hey, man, replacing the darkroom with computers MJ> wasn't *my* choice! MJ> --Mike
Re: Photo Book Collecting
> 2. '40 Years of Photography' - Jeanloup Sieff > 3. 'Faites Commes si Je n'Aitais pas La' - Jeanloup Sieff > 4. 'Arnold Newman' - Philip Brookman > 5. 'One Mind's Eye' - Arnold Newman > 6. 'Faces' - Jane Bown I'm familiar with this one. It showed up at a local bookstore and I _almost_ bought it, but I'd never heard of Bown. So I went home and did a bit o' research. Came back a few days later and the book was gone. > 7. 'California' - Ansel Adams > 8. 'Portraits' - Bruce Davidson Augh! Another great book I let get away. Isn't that picture of Samuel Beckett FANTASTIC? I think there's a picture of Antonioni at work in that book that I really liked as well. > 9. 'Portraits' - Peter Weiermair > 10. 'Famed' - Michael Birt > 11. 'Fruits' - Shoichi Aoki > 12. 'Photographers and Their Images' - Fi McGhee > 13. 'Pipe Dreams' - John Thornton > 14. 'Diners' - Gerd Kittel Finally, one I own. Actually I don't have _Diners_, but I have two of his larger books, _Southwest USA_ and _A New England Autumn_. > 15. 'Portraits' - Steve McCurry > 16. 'Slightly Out of Focus' - Robert Capa That's another I should have. I have a fair number of great war photography books. The one I need now is the new Larry Burrows book. That will be an important one. > 17. 'Seeing he Light: Wilderness and Salvation: A Photographer's Tale' - > Tom Shroder and John Barry (photos by Clyde Butcher) So I guess actually I don't have ANY of your list. Can we still talk? --Mike
Re: Photoshop vs. Picture Window
Mike, That horse isn't dead yet. :) I have tried Elements twice and actually have a copy installed on my system (came with my Epson 2450 scanner). I still don't like it as well as Picture Window Pro. >From my experience (as a photographer only - no graphic artist tendencies) I started with Paint Shop Pro after dabbling with all the beginner programs. I used that for quite awhile. Then tried the trial versions of both Elements and Picture Window Pro. I found that the style and interface of Picture Window Pro was far closer to my style and mind as a photographer. (simple things like crop ratios based on print sizes, etc.) But on your suggestion (always willing to learn new things), I'll give Elements one more try and let you know what I think. BTW, I don't feel that all aspects of Picture Window are better than any other program. I have found that each one does a few things better than the others and others worse. Bruce Sunday, January 12, 2003, 11:24:14 AM, you wrote: >> Many reviewers now consider it the best low-cost alternative to PhotoShop MJ> [...] I picked up my copy at about $70 on the Web. MJ> Paul, MJ> I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but again, Photoshop Elements v. 2 is MJ> more or less comparably priced. I just went to price.com and did a quick MJ> check, and the prices for Elements 2 ranged from $77 to $99.99, with the MJ> average vendor selling it for $79.95. B&H Photo sells it for $89.95 and MJ> CompUSA sells it for $99.99. MJ> So I think it's fair to say it costs $80-100, with $90 being a reasonable MJ> average. >>Cotty raised >>some excellent points about the "common interface" and "common community" >>advantages of using PhotoShop. MJ> Especially without the traditional price disparity of the full retail MJ> version. MJ> --Mike
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
In a message dated 1/12/2003 5:35:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300055357 > 8 > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com Hey, I want that Captain Pentax magic decoder ring! Unfortunately, I don't have any gold bullion. :-( Doe aka Marnie Hehehe.
Re: Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
The single best tip I ever heard in the last 45 years of taking pictures came from Robert Capa. If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough. On Sunday 12 January 2003 11:10 pm, Ed Tyler wrote: > I would be very interested in learning from this group what you feel > is your simple tip or trick for a better picture. All of these tips > and tricks are open to criticism and may not apply to all pictures. > Please let the responders provide their tips without debating or > criticizing their suggestions. The point is to gather input, not to > gather criticism for those who provide input. -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
OT: Technical resources
> Can anybody point me to websites containing serious informations about > various technological aspects of the photographic equipment construction? > I'm looking for some serious stuff, not the popular one which can be found > on an average site for beginners. Artur, I can't help with a website, but a great book on the subject is _Camera Technology: The Dark Side of the Lens_ by Norman Goldberg. --Mike
Re: OT: Mac Blat
> A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. It happens. When I joined a group studio around 1988 I switched from Contax to Nikon. All three of the other photographers used Nikon, and between us we had 11 bodies and 30 lenses. Not only could I not borrow the communal equipment, but I couldn't _contribute_ to it, either. So I switched. Bought an N8008 and an F4s and a few lenses the other folks didn't have. I had a pretty close relationship to Bronica in the 1980s, because I wrote some positive articles about them that they purchased for reprint. A not-too-well-kept secret back then was that studio photographers had a hard time using Bronica because most A.D.s only knew Hasselblad. In their eyes, if you shot Hassie, you were a serious photographer and they (the A.D.s) had covered their a**es. If you shot something else, you were going to lose work. What the client wants, ya better give 'em. There have been an awful lot of studio photographers over the past three decades who went into Hasselblad just because it was the thing they had to have. --Mike
Single best tip or trick for better pictures?
I have been working on an addendum for a photo class and have started compiling a list of tips and tricks for better pictures. An Example: "The largest portion of most pictures as described by percentage of picture area normally turns out to be the background. It should surprise no one that the background is also the home of most of the distractions. Make your subject larger and eliminate much of the background. Less background usually equals fewer distractions and better pictures." I would be very interested in learning from this group what you feel is your simple tip or trick for a better picture. All of these tips and tricks are open to criticism and may not apply to all pictures. Please let the responders provide their tips without debating or criticizing their suggestions. The point is to gather input, not to gather criticism for those who provide input. Ed Tyler
Re: Pentax and Casio to merge?
> I'll bet anyone in this list a pint of Fiddler's Elbow that it will be a > CMOS in the Pentax DSLR. You're on. But I want a real British Ginger beer, okay? I'll buy you a Leinenkugel's (local Wisconsin brew) if I lose. :-) --Mike
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Sorry Bruce, I was not responding to your particular contention under the Mac Blat thread, hence changing the subject line. But I thought you never failed to grab the opportunity to poison the list to the point it became so predictable when and how you show up with equally predictable posts. I suppose a lot of people would think the same way but they are too nice to say things here. I am just a lurker and it would be less harmful if I said things many people wanted to say. BTW, I am getting a wealth of info from this list and I am grateful for it, thank you folks. Cheers, Ken On 1/12/03 5:24 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred > platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you > want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer > is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most > basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way > that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. > If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is > also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than > the other. > > BR > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that people should be reminded of once in a while. >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> O >> >> I have many Japanese friends who also frequent PDML. You are well known to >> them :-). >> Sometimes, you spread misleading info :-). >> > >
Re: Pentax DSLR: e-mail from Pentax USA
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >I wouldn't be surprised if Canon had similar ratings on some of their newest printers. Although Epson is the leader, the others are working hard to catch up. Bruce< competition is good, in this case. the 2200 is in my sights for an upgrade to my 1280, but i have no clue as to when i can make it a reality. Herb
Re: Print life
> Not that I really expect anyone to keep my prints around for 70-80 years. It's > just the thought of enduring. I've written extensively on this topic too. The nutshell version: nobody knows what posterity will value. Therefore the *typical* LE of the *prevailing* materials is very important--more important than the limits of the best technology at any given time. IOW, the more prints that survive, the more likely that the prints that the future will want will survive. (Hope I said that right. :-\ ) --Mike
Re: ULead PhotoExplorer Pro
i see on their web site that they just released PhotoExplorer 8. i'll see what is involved for upgrading and if it is worth it. the stuff on the web site doesn't describe anything i need, but the things i am interested in are faster thumbnails and preview. don't see an upgrade cost either. Herb...
Re: Way off Topic --- sorry --- Hi Fi
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >If any one on the list is interested let me know. Its a Shure V15 Type II SuperTrack and the stylus is in perfect condition - I've checked it under the microscope. I can't do a test since I have no HiFi equipment now. But there is no reason why it should not be in perfect working condition. These things are quite rare I've been told. Don Don Williams< the damper might have hardened and increased resonance above 20K. that can lead to mistracking at lower frequencies just below 20K and a bit lower. Herb
Re: OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/12/03 at 05:35 PM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: |>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000553578 best ever use of Ebay. magnificent! Bran -- --- Futility is futile. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: Aaron R.--new stuff
> You are probably right Mike,that you would want to enlarge these > puppies big,but i had Aaron enlarge 4, 6x6 negs this past summer to > 8"x8" with a border.They looked great.I'm going to stick with 6x6 > format(plus 35mm) for a little while longer anyway:) Oh, gee, Dave, no, there's no right and wrong here. It's just a matter of taste. I'm sure a LOT of people would agree with you on this (maybe more than would agree with me). --Mike
Re: OT computer speed (was Mac Blat)
I'm glad someone found it useful. I wish that he had an Athlon based system in there. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce: Thanks for the link to the Rob Galbraith link. I plan to replace my PII 350 this winter and the Dell 8200 is one of the computers I'm looking at. For my use (non-production) it looks like plenty, though I probably will cram all the RAM in it that I can.
Re: Pentax and Casio to merge?
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'll bet anyone in this list a pint of Fiddler's Elbow that it will be a >CMOS in the Pentax DSLR. Only a fool would take that bet! The lower cost of CMOS and the ever-improving quality has made it almost universal, even in very high-end DSLRs. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
OK, check out MY Pentax service manual auction on eBay ;-)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000553578 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
On 12 Jan 2003 at 17:24, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred > platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you > want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer > is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most > basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way > that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. > If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is > also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than > the other. I've got to back Bruce up on these points, the "Mac Blat" thread was crammed full of brand based fallacies.. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than the other. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I >think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic >designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that >people should be reminded of once in a while. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O I have many Japanese friends who also frequent PDML. You are well known to them :-). Sometimes, you spread misleading info :-).
OT computer speed (was Mac Blat)
Bruce: Thanks for the link to the Rob Galbraith link. I plan to replace my PII 350 this winter and the Dell 8200 is one of the computers I'm looking at. For my use (non-production) it looks like plenty, though I probably will cram all the RAM in it that I can. BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Print life
Hi Marnie: I would be very surprised if Epson doesn't introduce an A4 size 7 ink ultra-chrome printer in the sub $300 range in the next year or so. The 2200 at $699 is right on the border line for being affordable to the casual hobbyist. I'm thinking of getting one after I replace my old computer. BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: I have just joined the list
Cotty wrote: > > >I know exactly where that is! > >I was up there the other day. > >My daughter lives in Ben Lomond. > >From your old place, drive east to 17, head south, then up Rt. 9 to > >Ben Lomond. Middle of the redwoods. > > Amazingly small world :-) I find it so, more and more! > We used to go down there - is it near Santa Cruz? Just before you get to the south end of Rt. 17, where it meets up with Rt. 1, you get off at Mt. Herman road, thru the small town of Scotts Valley and then head north up Rt. 9, along the San Lorenzo River. That junction is several miles north of Santa Cruz, but indeed in the vicinity! Daughter's house backs up on the west bank of that river. She's got a nice patio 1/2 way down the semi-wooded slope, room for 6 or 8 chairs, cool and shady in the summer, great view of the river slowly heading by... > I so desperately want > to photograph the California coast - gotta do the Ansel bit before I die. > > It'll happen. > > Cot Sure it will! I'll send you some maps... keith whaley
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
On 1/12/03 3:03 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. I have many Japanese friends who also frequent PDML. You are well known to them :-). Sometimes, you spread misleading info :-). You are certainly a knowledgeable person but frankly you can contribute to PDML in better ways without trying to satisfy your sadistic mind. Much of your info come from Nikon list and Pentax-hating NYC camera dealers, at least that's what people say. Perhaps. I do not pretend to be knowledgeable on photography but I just wish to say that the bad thing about your post (not al of them) is essentially making Pentax owners dumb and stupid in their selection of Pentax gear. Moreover, my Japanese colleagues agree that you must be on some kind of mission for "switch campaign" :-). I hope you are not benefiting by doing so. As in any part of the world, Pentax owners are not just the bargain hunting cheap crowd. They are determined Pentax users, finding the merits in Pentax. Many of them appreciates the Pentax glasses, and conscientious design of bodies which are distinct Pentax tradition. Also, many Pentax users also have Nikon and Canon as I do. If Pentax won't do a job in certain sports shooting etc which require higher FPS, you just buy a suitable set of Nikon or Canon (or Minolta or whatever) equipment for that purpose. But PDMLers predominantly use Pentax. Many Pentax users also choose Pentax because they do not want to be regarded in the same mould of crowd. They may wish to be Maverick, as I do ;-). Anyone can buy C/N if they so wish. It is even easier to do so. But it is indeed difficult to stay with Pentax in the sea of N/C unless you do appreciate their gears. While we all make sarcastic comments on N/C etc, they are all excellent makers and equip. Everybody knows it. Just take it easy. You should respect other people's choice and decision. I seldom saw severe critique by PDMLers of your choice of Nikon. If there were any, it was just teasing. You are obviously a disgruntled Pentax user and your input would be invaluable in a way. But you do not have to insult people who use Pentax. PDML, as I like to understand, is to exchange info on good as well as bad on our beloved equip. But frankly, your attitude here is extremely un-gentleman like. One of the very prominent virtues of this list is the remarkable resiliency and the decency of people who participate in this list, in spite of occasional flame wars. The culture of this list apparently has been built up over the years by various participants. It is this unique culture of this list, in my opinion, that attracts people to this list, besides the wealth of info you can get from it. So, I would respectfully request that you stop making silly and poisonous posting only in an attempt to make Pentax owners feel bad. In fact, very few people are affected by your such postings. They are wise enough to ignore or kill your posts (am I the only fool making comments on this? :-), and you should realize that you are embarrassing yourself. Don't be a naked emperor. Your bad posts are tolerated only because this is none other than PDML. You know it and you are taking advantage of it. The remarkable resiliency of PDMLers as a whole is allowing you to stay in this list. If you did the same thing in any other list, you know too well what's going to happen. So, your harsh critique on Pentax gear is always welcome, but please keep the minimum etiquette. Sorry for giving you a lecture, but let's keep the list somewhat more decent. Bye for now Cheers, Ken
Way off Topic --- sorry --- Hi Fi
Hi all, I'm off the list so will need to be contacted directly. I found, in a trunk of stuff that's been stored for twenty years, a Shure pickup head in an SME Ultralight head. It has been used a few times, but was kept for use on very special recordings of which I had only a dozen or so. I used a less expensive Shure cartridge for everyday music. That was sold with the HiFi equipment long ago. If any one on the list is interested let me know. Its a Shure V15 Type II SuperTrack and the stylus is in perfect condition - I've checked it under the microscope. I can't do a test since I have no HiFi equipment now. But there is no reason why it should not be in perfect working condition. These things are quite rare I've been told. Don Don Williams ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. > > BR That's not at all logical. It's merely an extension of your inaccurate presumption. One has nothing to do with the other, in any way imaginable. Totally Apples and Pentaxii... keith whaley > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I > >think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic > >designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that > >people should be reminded of once in a while. > >
Re: Print life
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 01:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought (reading a photographic magazine that I can't seem to find right now) that Epson had released a small home inkjet in the last six month that would use ultra-chrome or archival inks -- plugged as lasting 70 years. I will see if I can find the mag or do more > research. I guess I was thinking of these -- wide format Epson printers. And I guess for a lot they would not be considered "home printers" since they aren't small and aren't cheap. Many use ultra-chrome or archival inks. I looked into them awhile back because I was thinking of printing art work (done digitally on the computer -- thinking of them for down the road if I can ever afford one). Not sure how well they do photos. I would have to research that too. The printer you are thinking about is the Epson 2200 which uses the ultrachrome inks. Runs about $700 when you can find someone with stock. Right now demand seems to be slightly exceeding production. Dan Scott
Re: OT: Mac Blat
"Bruce R" posted: > A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. > And you never miss an opportunity to make this argument, do you?
Re: Pentax and Casio to merge?
On 1/12/03 11:33 AM, "Rick Diaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a perception that Pentax can't design a > computer system in any of their cameras. The reality > is that, they can and they did. Hi folks, Above is true. In the current digital development, Pentax are putting more emphasis on the software side (they can design any level of hardware), and hiring more software engineers now. They also formed a JV called "Gear Neuve" with Altech & Sanyo to promote the direct digital image transmission thru PHS, mainly targeted for commercial use (construction industry etc). This will also trickle into consumer market eventually. Pentax is certainly not sleeping. All they are doing is to measure the most profitable and timely entry into the lucrative market. BTW, one of the largest camera franchise published their best 10 sales ranking of digital cameras for the last fiscal half of 2002. Just for your entertainment. Surprise, surprise! >From the gadget freak land of Japan, trend is still the compact P&S. Advanced amateurs, like everywhere else, are basically taking a "wait & see" attitude for DSLR. No rush, unless you really need them, such as for product shots etc. Today's digital P&S satisfy most consumers. This particular franchise predicts the popularity of 5mp P&S and DSLR at $1,000 level in 2003. We shall see. Other large camera franchise would soon release their latest ranking. 1st Pentax Optio 330GS Explosive sales. Very Pentax-like compactness. Swivelling monitor is excellent. 2nd Nikon D100 Excellent body construction. Reduction of price by less initial options worked well. Good constant sales. 3rd Minolta DiMage Xi Shot up to 3rd ranking despite it was released only in Nov. Thin & stylish body. Switch campaign (X to Xi) also worked. 4th Canon IXY digital 200a Excellent ranking despite the full model change to IXY320 in Oct. 5th Canon EOS D-60 Behind D100 mainly because of product shortage in July/Aug. It comes with more initial options, as opposing to D100. 6th Pentax Optio 430RS Pioneer in 4mp P&S digital. Very Pentax-like, such as compact metal body and user friendly button controls. 7th Fuji FinePix F401 Square body with blue illumination, high res honeycomb CCD. 8th Nikon CoolPix 5000 Despite over 1 year old model, overwhelming support from wide angle lovers. With the free firmware update, both new and used ones are selling constantly. 9th Minolta DiMage 7i 28-200mm equiv. Of versatile zoom. Manual zoom is the key to the success. Very easy to frame the picture. 10th Olympus Camedia 5050 Excellent ranking despite the release in Nov. and the price is not that cheap. Can use XD, SmartMedia & CF. 5mp with F1.8 lens. Sales is expected to rise.
RE: Service manual scumbag
Hi Mark, How are you sure they are "your manuals"? Did you "Mark" them in a way? Some of the manuals I bought in a normal shop, I could scan and sell, I guess? Anyhow I'm glad with your service on your web! Your scan quality is so much better than the poor quality of a professional(?) company like Pentax does with the User Manuals on their USA website! Greetings, Jos -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Verzonden: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:28 PM Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Service manual scumbag The guy who was selling my service manuals on eBay didn't get any bidders on his first auction. He re-listed last night (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000207451&ssPageName=AD ME:B:SS:US:1) but the auction comes up as invalid this morning. Looks like someone tipped off eBay. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
OT: Technical resources
Hi, Can anybody point me to websites containing serious informations about various technological aspects of the photographic equipment construction? I'm looking for some serious stuff, not the popular one which can be found on an average site for beginners. TIA Regards Artur ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczedzic na kosztach obslugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: PUG comments
Maciej, Thanks for your Pug comments, and mentioning my entry. I always enjoy reading listmember Pug comments. This month I've been out trying to get some snowy winter shots, but it's mostly been raining around these parts. Harald Rust Washington state Maciej wrote: "Pacific Twilight" by Harald Rust Simply great. The colors of sunset, the shapes of rocks with the sun shining between them, the oval shape of this little gulf in the foreground which looks very good contrasted with the pointy rock in the middle of it. And the reflections in the water that give that final touch. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: chem jugs
David Brooks wrote: > All i need is some jugs(prograstinating on spending $8.99 each at > Henrys)and some distilled H2O and i,m off.Second darkroom/developing > classes atart Jan 29 Whoo Hooo any plastic jugs will do fine for b&w chems. I use the gallon & half-gallon "Sunny Delight" ones as they are of a fairly stout plastic. their contents are rather tasty, as well :^) just keep them in a dark cabinet. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Photo Book Collecting
>> Oh dear, I only have one book from that list: 'The Americans'. > > >That's a good start. > >--Mike Okay, here's the rest (photographic work only, ie no how-to books)... 2. '40 Years of Photography' - Jeanloup Sieff 3. 'Faites Commes si Je n'Aitais pas La' - Jeanloup Sieff 4. 'Arnold Newman' - Philip Brookman 5. 'One Mind's Eye' - Arnold Newman 6. 'Faces' - Jane Bown 7. 'California' - Ansel Adams 8. 'Portraits' - Bruce Davidson 9. 'Portraits' - Peter Weiermair 10. 'Famed' - Michael Birt 11. 'Fruits' - Shoichi Aoki 12. 'Photographers and Their Images' - Fi McGhee 13. 'Pipe Dreams' - John Thornton 14. 'Diners' - Gerd Kittel 15. 'Portraits' - Steve McCurry 16. 'Slightly Out of Focus' - Robert Capa 17. 'Seeing he Light: Wilderness and Salvation: A Photographer's Tale' - Tom Shroder and John Barry (photos by Clyde Butcher) ...and a few compendiums like World Press Photo, National Portrait Gallery collections etc etc. :-) Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: OT: Mac Blat
A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm gear. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that people should be reminded of once in a while.
Re: Pentax and Casio to merge?
>A Pentax rep tech had told me that they will not treat >a CCD chip like some holy grail that some CCD chip >manufacturers like to portray themselves in the >consumer magazines. A CCD chip is just one part of >the many hundreds to thousands of parts in a digital >camera. The consumer will past judgement on how good >the pictures are from a Pentax digital. And so far, >the Optios are doing great and have very few returns >and I have every confidence that their DSLR will do >the same. I'll bet anyone in this list a pint of Fiddler's Elbow that it will be a CMOS in the Pentax DSLR. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: I have just joined the list
>I know exactly where that is! >I was up there the other day. >My daughter lives in Ben Lomond. >From your old place, drive east to 17, head south, then up Rt. 9 to >Ben Lomond. Middle of the redwoods. Amazingly small world :-) We used to go down there - is it near Santa Cruz? I so desperatekly want to photograph the California coast - gotta do the Ansel bit before I die. It'll happen. Cot Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Meetings, WAS: Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:37:39 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: > One of the things my last employer did right was that they had > a corporate rule limiting all meetings to no more than 1 hour. One of my former bosses said "no chairs makes for shorter meetings", and he enforced the rule that chairs were not allowed in meeting rooms unless customers were present in the meeting. It did, in fact, make for shorter meetings. On top of that, people seemed less inclined to screw around while standing. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Digital printing
Herb, Interesting... Sounds like each system is calibrated slightly different. Bruce Sunday, January 12, 2003, 5:29:46 AM, you wrote: >Snip< HC> incidentally, Bruce Dayton, if you are reading this, he took the same file HC> i sent you and, without seeing your or my prints as references, adjusted HC> the print to be in between what i chose and what your D-Labs operator chose HC> as color balance, slightly closer to my color rendition. he kept the sRGB HC> color profile that i came in with. mine is a slightly cooler and redder HC> rendition than his, while the D-labs output is on the yellow green side. HC> Herb
Re: OT: HTML Editors
tom wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Arachnophilia -- http://www.arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/ > > > > Freeware which the author has been supporting/updating for years. > > This is what I use, though I like the older version more than the new > java version. > > I used to use VI back in the day... > > tv VI Yuck! I used Kedit. yum. but neither of them are code, we might point out to youngsters.. just a way of getting your code on virtual paper. They are just line editors. annsan the old spec writer
For Sale
I have the below for sale to the group before placing them on eBay. Please contact me off-list if interested or would like pictures: P30t - EX+ condition. Includes strap and original manual - $75.00 Pentax FA 28-80 f/3.5 - f/5.6 (This is the black body) New in box - $60.00 Tokina MF 28-70 f/3.5 - f4.5 - EX+ with caps - $40.00 Sigma MF 28mm f/2.8 - EX+ with hood - $35.00 Sears MF 135mm f/2.8 EX condition with caps - $25.00 Later, Gary
Re: Pentax DSLR: e-mail from Pentax USA
Hi Boris, On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:51:00 +0200, Boris Liberman wrote: > Both you and Doug scan at 4000 dpi resulting in roughly 24 MP files. > So no matter which DSLR you were to choose from available today, you > will be getting at most half of the pixels you usually get. Well, that's true, but digital capture could very well give me a better image to work with, even at half the number of pixels. I don't know, because I haven't messed with high-end (6+ MP) digital cameras yet. Don't overlook the string of messages between me and Herb and Paul about graininess and speckles and all of the other stuff that goes along with scanning at 4k dpi. The thing that concerns me about starting with less resolution is getting big prints. If the image starts out with less crap in it, though, stuff like that fractal scaling program (?Fractal Dimensions?) might work a lot better. > As for 1500x1000 scans from the lab. Well, I printed few of them on my > Epson 790 Photo Stylus. I asked for half A4 size which would be > roughly 15x21 cm - about 6" x 8". It looked reasonable for putting > some of the educational shots onto the wall of our daughter's room... That's pretty much the way I see those images. I print them 20-up on 8.5" x 11" paper to use as pseudo contact sheets. I use them to put stuff on the Web, too. But they're not useful for largish prints, above maybe 6" x 4". TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Digital Print LE, WAS: Re: Pentax DSLR: e-mail from Pentax USA
> Is that true, that digital prints made using those type of printers can now > outlast regular prints made at a photo lab? Pretty much. There are a number of variables and unknowns: 1. Digital print LE (life expectancy) is a function of the ink/paper combination, not just one or the other. 2. Print degradation must be defined: usually it is a certain percentage of color fade in the weakest dye or pigment. 3. Accelerated aging tests can't test for effects that are not known or accepted. 4. Different labs' and companies' standard for LE shouldn't be cross-compared. That is, if a company says ink-paper combination A lasts "25 years" and Wilhelm Research says combination B lasts 30 years, you haven't really learned that B lasts longer than A. All this got started because Kodak seems to have made a unilateral Corporate decision in the late '40s that good LE was too expensive and until the 1980s turned away from processes that had good LE and followed a course of producing cheaper color materials that had poor LE. Ektacolor prints from the 1970s have perhaps the worst LE of any widely used photographic materials. The reason Henry Wilhelm hates Kodak so much is that it is rather cynical to BOTH ignore print LE in AND run comprehensive advertising campaigns to the effect that photographs preserve memories! (We can easily forget, today, how much advertising presence Kodak had back then.) There's more to the story, but believe me I watch what I say in public when it comes to some of the uglier legal incidents of those days. I've editorialized in the past that I think we were damned lucky that early digital inkjet prints had such execrably poor LE. What it did was to bring LE to the forefront as a consumer issue. Now the manufacturers can't sweep it under the rug as they did with conventional color materials--it's become well accepted as a technical feature to be considered when purchasing a printer. This is very lucky for us. It forces the manufacturers to address the issue in their R&D. If early digital inkjet prints had had a print LE of, say, ten years, the issue might never even have come up. --Mike
Re: Photoshop vs. Picture Window
Herb wrote: What version of PhotoExplorer is included and can it be installed standalone? i like using it for thumbnail viewing and file organization (but not cataloging). i have 7.02 Pro. 7.03--not the freebie version 6 that won't read GIFs and burdens you with popup reminders to buy the real thing. Yes, it can be used in standalone mode. This "bundled" 7.03 differs from the standalone 7.03 by letting you see files that you've saved in PhotoImpact's layered UFO format and integrating with PhotoImpact 8 as a sort-of module. The standalone 7.03 cannot be upgraded, but then, you wouldn't need to if you get the bundled 7.03. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Print life
Hi Marnie: Yes, print life from color prints leave something to be desired. The best right now would be Fuji Crystal Archive, and Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) at about 60 years each, followed by Konica at 30-40 years. Kodak has a notorious reputation for fading and is listed around 15-20 years though it also seems to fade faster under display condition then the Fuji or Konica media. I don't know how Agfa or some of the secondary manufacturers like Mitsubishi are. I would think they are at least as good as the Kodak, probably somewhere between Kodak and Konica. Kodak has come out with a new paper, Duralife, that is supposed to be longer lived, but I've seen no figures on it. Epson dye based printers have a life of 5-15 years depending on the media it's printed on. The printers using ultra-chrome inks have a 40-80 year life depending on media and the full archival inks have over 100 year life, though they have a reduced gamut. I'm not sure about the 2200, but the wide format 7600 and 9600 printers can be configured for either ultra-chrome or archival inks, though you can not switch back and forth. For reference, an archivally processed fiber based B&W print can have a 100-200 year lifespan if properly stored of course. BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian)
