Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
In a message dated 1/23/2003 1:40:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Well, anyway. There are always going to be people around who claim that > basic correctness in verbal expression is just an annoying distraction that > we would all gratefully dispense with if we could just let our hair down and > act naturally. They just don't know any better. We're probably all this way > with something or other--some people might be bad at math, some people bad > with social skills, some people see nothing but details and can't see the > big picture (or see only the big picture and pay no attention to > details)--whatever it is. But when we're bad at something we also can't see > that we are, because the very deficiencies that make us bad at it also make > us blind to realistic self-appraisal. (The corollary is that you're probably > best in those areas where to tend to be "your own worst critic.") I wish the > concept had a name, because I think it's important in trying to understand > how different people relate to a whole welter of the less tangible, less > concrete skills--such as written expression, or what makes a good picture, > or what have you. > > Sorry this got so long. (This post is what my father would > call "longer than > it is interesting" ). > > --Mike I, on the other hand, do not write well and know it. If I am going to "publish" something, then I have someone proof read it. If I make posts on the Internet I do it very quickly, and consider it a form of speech, not prose. If I had to consider each post a "published paper," then I would probably never speak at all. It would take me too long to compose a post. By the time it was done, the topic would have moved on. Besides I don't have the time in my busy life for that. I would prefer the Internet be speech-based for those who get annoyed by my grammatical, punctuation, and sentence structure errors. But in actually, *I* would not prefer it, because then we would interrupt and overtalk each other. At least with writing each has their own say in their own way (yes, I know the real exact would prefer his/her rather than their, but their is an evolving non-gender-specific single pronoun). Yes, we all have different skills and different skill levels in those things that we do and those things that we attempt. I don't think I am getting your point. At all. Doe aka Marnie
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Their, there, and they're. ...and the belief some seem to hold that the poor apostrophe is a character used to warn the reader that he's about to observe the letter "s" at the end of a word. Here's a cute little quotation I came across a few years ago: It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901
RE: Elemental Watson!
I bet it's not a telephoto, but rather it's a long focus design. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Elemental Watson! > > > > There is a superb Leica telephoto with only three elements! > > Are you referring to the 560/6.8 Telyt, perhaps, Bill? (I've had > meaningless, totally-unlikely-to-be-fulfilled daydreams about > replacing my follow-focus Novoflex 600/8 lens head with that one - > .) > > Fred >
Re: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD
"Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I hear so many people complain of computer failures and corrupt > discs and even upgrading and sometime later finding their new > computer doesn't support retrieval of older software - but is that > the reality of computers in 2003? Yes, it is. Expect media to deteriorate, expect new software to refuse to read old data formats, and to fail to run at all under new versions of operating systems. Think long term: store images using common industry standards such as JPEG, not proprietary application formats. Remember that those CDs are going to be physically unreadable at some time in the future (20 years? 10? 5?), and plan to copy the images on them to new media periodically. > Every upgrade I have made has made the system more stable and > reliable. You're probably using Microsoft systems, right? They sure have improved the stability and reliability of their software a lot in recent years, but that doesn't mean a thing as far as long term storage of data goes. Windows 2020 may run great, but that won't help if your images are stored on physically deteriorated CDs, and in a format that can only be read by a software package that was never upgraded after 2005, and won't run on anything post Windows 2008! -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901
Idle black-and-white question
I don't suppose many of you read my column in the English magazine _Black & White Photography_, but if you're into B&W (even as a beginner), a question for you--are there any particular topics you personally might like to see covered in such a column? I was putting together ideas for the Editor today and have been trying to think up good topics for future columns. --Mike
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
ok - how about phrases like "I literally could not believe my eyes!" Or, as a significant variation on the theme, "I literally died when I saw that!" Most often if not always the speaker/writer intends "virtual" when they say "literal". I just had to advantage this thread to get that off my chest. stan
Members in Latvia?
Hi, Are there any members in latvia? if so could you contact me off list. Thanks, Paul
Re: K to MD mount conversion
Only one I've ever heard of is a Screw mount to MC/MD adapter. At 04:02 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: At 03:12 PM 22/01/2003 -0500, you wrote: From: "Evan Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Has anyone ever heard of modifying a K mount lens to fit the Minolta md mount. Evan There is a converter you can buy. Or is that K to MAF or maybe I'm dreaming and it's the other way round. There certainly something available to convert between minolta and pentax one way or another! Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: K to MD mount conversion
I was thinking of the mechanical coupling. (Although why anyone would go to the effort I don't know). Who want's to photograph infinity anyway... :) At 03:31 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It would probably be easier to go the other way. MD --> K. The Minolta Film-Plane to Lens-Flange Dist. is only 43.5mm, vs. 45.5mm for Pentax, so a Minolta lens on a Pentax camera wouldn't be able to achieve infinity focus. >At 02:19 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: >>Has anyone ever heard of modifying a K mount lens to fit the Minolta md >>mount. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:51:14 -0500, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Scary, eh? Some people are born without a brain, others have it removed later. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: How big is 6 Mp
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:28:37 -0600, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: > JPG is 8bits/pixel, not color. (4:2:2) Sorry, but that's not true. JPG can represent UP TO 24 bits per pixel, 8 bits per primary color per pixel. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:51:43 -0600, Ed Matthew wrote: > "Gotta" ain't right neither . Yeah, well, what can I say. I'm a slacker. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: HELP!!
The same thing happened to my MZ-5n a couple of years ago. Luckily, Pentax fixed it for free, under the extended warranty. For now, maybe you could run a short rubber band between the eyepiece and the flash to hold it up (no, I didn't watch Macgyver that often). Pat White
Re: Cool Tiny Takumar
>> It reminds me (hood and all) of the time I mounted a 1955-vintage >> Asahi-Togaku 58/2.4 (with tiny 40.5mm filter threads) on an LX - >> >> http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/5824lx2.jpg > Ahh.. the new Limited... so who wins the pool? Heh-heh. Well, I originally had (the URL to) this photo on the PDML quite a few months (perhaps a year) ago, as a "spoof" of the one of the latest conjecture threads, with a subject something like "New Limited Lens Announced !!!" - . It was a cruel hoax at best... ;-) Fred
Re: Cool Tiny Takumar
> Wow... I'm trying to do the same (although with an german slip-on > hood) but I cannot find a 37mm to 42mm adapter. Anybody with a > spare one? Not I - sorry. I sold mine along with the rest of my Asahiflex gear - I billed the whole package as an "Asahiflex Collector's Kit". I think I may possibly hold the eBay record for the most photos used in any one auction - 44 !!! Here's a shot of the ingredients to my "LX with the new Limited lens" photo (from earlier in this thread) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/aflex66.jpg > How does this lens perform? My copy did a decent job, although (to be honest) it was never really put to much of a test. I did notice some flare a few times - the lens was ~way~ before the SMC era - . I took only occasional shots with my Asahiflex IIA, and historical curiosity had a higher priority than either creativity or lens testing - . How do you say "sunny-16"... Fred
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Mike Johnston wrote: > > My pet peeve is people who use the phrase "begs the question" when > > they don't know what it means (they think it means "raises the > > question"). > > A couple of pet peeves: > > "one of the only" (it's either "the only" or "one of the few") > > (snp) > > Anybody got any other favorites? > > --Mike > Well the "less" "fewer" thing always annoys me. Especially so when I see it on a questionnaire asking your income or how many miles you have traveled...etc., etc., where the flaw is compounded by the writer using "over" and "less than" together. Recently I received an email from someone on ebay who hope I could find a particular item for her. She wrote the entire email in CAPS. She was - um - about my age and on AOL. So I try to help by saying it is considered shouting to type in CAPS. She then quoted her son-in-law to me who considered that anyone who would be concerned about such stuff was living "in the 70's" (never mind that I didn't learn about it until getting on the internet in 1994.) Her son-in-law wrote to her and she shared this with me - not at all in a petulant manner, but because she thought she had gathered interesting information. Anyway Son-in-law wrote to her: > IRC got started, where people could type to each other >live, just like a conversation, so the geeks started describing typing in >caps as shouting, and a lot of bull about being rude. it used to matter >(before there were translators), now it doesn't, and no one gets to make the >rules. frankly anyone that has this concern is living in the seventies. >there is no correct format for anything anymore---that's what universal >communication is all about... Scary, eh? annsan
Re: OT: Carl Zeiss Newsletter
9>>> How you can achieve the cleanest lens surfaces in the world > With the "Lens Cleaning Set" a user, collector, or friend of fine > optics can achieve lens surfaces as clean as the ones produced at > the Zeiss factory. In the light of some recent threads on the cleanliness of some new FA lenses, perhaps we should send a kit to the Pentax factory - . Fred
Re: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
> and compare the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 macro against the Vivitar > Series One 90/2.5 macro. The Tokina is no slouch in the saturation > department; it has that Nikon-like warmth that makes everyone look > as though they've been out in the sun. Fred, you own both macros; > is the coloring the same? Sorry, Paul, I don't own the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 (with its 1:1 Macro Extender) anymore (although I do still have an extra copy of the Extender on hand for future experiments - ). I do still have the VS1 90/2.5 Macro (with its 1:1 Macro Adapter). But, I do have some comparative shots of the (one) same subject, taken with both lenses, though. And, there are indeed a few colors in the subject, which is a homebrew macro test target. So, if there is anything to be gleaned from them, here they are: VS1 @ 4:1 @ f/8 (without 1:1 Macro Adapter) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v9025/v9025-41-8.jpg AT-X @ 4:1 @ f/8 (without 1:1 Macro Extender) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x9025/x9025-41-8.jpg VS1 @ 2:1 @ f/8 (without 1:1 Macro Adapter) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v9025/v9025-21-8.jpg AT-X @ 2:1 @ f/8 (without 1:1 Macro Extender) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x9025/x9025-21-8.jpg VS1 @ 1:1 @ f/8 (with 1:1 Macro Adapter) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v9025/v9025-11-8.jpg AT-X @ 1:1 @ f/8 (with 1:1 Macro Extender) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x9025/x9025-11-8.jpg Does anybody see any significant difference in them? Fred
Re: Elemental Watson!
> There is a superb Leica telephoto with only three elements! Are you referring to the 560/6.8 Telyt, perhaps, Bill? (I've had meaningless, totally-unlikely-to-be-fulfilled daydreams about replacing my follow-focus Novoflex 600/8 lens head with that one - .) Fred
Re: Frank's fulla surprises
Well I guessed the second part. At 08:45 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: Why do you think I know big words like impecunious? More to the point, why do you think I don't know ~exactly~ what it means? -frank Mike Johnston wrote: > You were a LAWYER?!? > > --Mike -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: On camera obsolescence and 35mm lenses
Long live the Spoties and Takumar lenses. Say... how about a digital camera with m42. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:12 PM Subject: On camera obsolescence and 35mm lenses > For those who might be interested the current edition of Popular > Photography has feature called "Shoot into the Sun." Which features > a series of beautifully exposed with good color saturation razor sharp > and surprisingly flare free photographs. What camera and lenses made > these photographs? The latest Cannon, or Nikon wonder camera with their > renowned lenses? Perhaps some DSLR replete with digital magic? > No not at all. All of these photographs were produced on good old Kodachrome, > (OK not so old Kodachrome II, but still...), loaded into a Spotmatic II using > various SMC Takumar lenses. Yes a 35 year old camera with 30 year old lenses. > > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx >
Re: Idea for a PUG (in honor of the Canon EOS 1Ds)
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Thibault GROUAS wrote: Here is a sample autoportrait shot with a 20x25cm pinhole box : http://photofr.ath.cx/files/stenopees/pages/Balcon.htm Nice, too. I was also wondering maybe you could be charged to take people's garbage away so if you use this garbage to build a pinhole camera you can get more than a free camera, you get a camera that gives you money even if you don't sell any prints from it. ___ |Thibault Grouas| Perhaps you could irritate a garbage man enough to have garbage hurled at you. Then it would be a gift. Dan Scott
Re: How big is 6 Mp
Mishka wrote: 600*sizeofpixel. and pixels are 3 bytes in 8 bit/color, or 6 bytes in "more than 8 bit/color" mode. which comes down to either 18MB or 36MB. that is, if it's uncompressed format. for jpegs, it's only 8bit/color, and should be about 2MB (but it *really* depends on how far you are compressing it ) JPG is 8bits/pixel, not color. (4:2:2) Ryan Best, Mishka
Re: Idea for a PUG (in honor of the Canon EOS 1Ds)
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 12:11 PM, Altaf Shaikh wrote: Here is mine http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=228 A few others are in my portfolio below. Al Shaikh http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=1 Very nice! Dan Scott
: Re: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD
It should work on your new computer it might have trouble being read by older cd-ROM drives. At 10:55 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: John: That was on CD-RW's, not CD-R's? I currently have the same set up on a computer I will be replacing shortly. Everything I've burned, however has been in CD-R clicking the compatible with most equipment button. Not that I've burned a whole lot but I would like access to it on the new computer. BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian) Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
On camera obsolescence and 35mm lenses
For those who might be interested the current edition of Popular Photography has feature called "Shoot into the Sun." Which features a series of beautifully exposed with good color saturation razor sharp and surprisingly flare free photographs. What camera and lenses made these photographs? The latest Cannon, or Nikon wonder camera with their renowned lenses? Perhaps some DSLR replete with digital magic? No not at all. All of these photographs were produced on good old Kodachrome, (OK not so old Kodachrome II, but still...), loaded into a Spotmatic II using various SMC Takumar lenses. Yes a 35 year old camera with 30 year old lenses. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 06:46 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: Mike, you need a better dictionary. Definitions 8 & 9 are not positional. "OVER a hundred years " is fine. See definition 3 for LESS. Ah, yes, well, dictionaries have been going to hell ever since that damned liberal subversive Webster's Third came out. AHED is actually one of the better ones, but did you know that the allowable uses of words in AHED were literally decided upon by committee? No kidding. They convened a usage panel, and permitted permissive definitions if they happened to be acceptable to some predetermined percentage of the panel members. How odddoesn't AHED know that American English was declared dead when the plates for Webster's Second Autopsy were released? If those damned liberal lexicographers go around changing accepted usage to reflect actual usage by the people who speak and write the language on a daily basis (subversives, every damned one of them!), American English will never become stable like Latin or any other really good and really dead language. Dan Scott
Re: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
You know, Sometimes I think we underestimate how good some of these older, third party lenses really are. Some of my favourite lenses are third party lenses Vic
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
> Weapons of mass destruction. now, this is a good one !!!
Re: FS: Vivitar Series One 90-180/4.5 P/K Flat-Field 2-touch Macro Zoom, $250
> I don't shoot enough macro shots to hold on to this, and now that > I have a Tokina ATX 90/2.5 with 1:1 adapter, this "cult classic" > belongs to someone who will use it regularly as a superb closeup > lens. This sounds like a good move for somebody. The only "bad" news is that you'll pay a lot for the shipping - it's built like a tank and weighs as much - . Fred
Re: That darned handstrap
> Am I the only one that feels Pentax neck straps, while the > pockets are nice, are not the most comfortable thing? I hate those MZ straps, they are very uncomfortable. Go buy a domke or lowepro strap instead.
Re: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
On 22 Jan 2003 at 15:40, Keith Whaley wrote: > Andre Langevin wrote: > > > > But it's always surprising to read in many tests that even expensive > > lenses are not perfectly centered. Does it mean that a (good) > > repairman could do better (afterwards) than the original lens maker > > did at the factory? > > > > Andre > > -- > > Absolutely not. > The only person who can do that, regardless of title, is the person > grinding the lenses to fit the various places in the lens body. > Just like, if your optician grinds your prescription lens incorrectly, > to fit your frames, your glasses will drive you nuts. > So will a decent lens. Sure they can Keith, the lens elements may be perfectly formed (stamped, ground, polished, laminated, coated etc) and still be de-centred. The lens elements (including glued pairs or groups) most often float slightly in the mount, the assembly (or re-assembly) is the point at which centring is accomplished in most designs. As far as I recall there is some blurb on the Leica or Schneider web sites with details. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Vivitar K-mount 135 mm f/2.8 experiences?
I had one for a number of years. I think that price is a bit high, for about that you can probably get the SMC M 135/3.5 which is a superior lens... however the Vivitar isn't bad. Here is a link to a PUG submission made with this lens. http://pug.komkon.org/01mar/cameo.html William in Utah - Original Message - From: "Foto Syb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:27 PM Subject: Vivitar K-mount 135 mm f/2.8 experiences? > > Hi all, > > Since there are so many mails in this newsgroup, I will keep my questions > short: > > * Do you have comments on the Vivitar K-mount 135 mm f/2.8 lense? > * Will it be worth about $45 second hand & in good shape? > > Thanks for sharing your knowledge with this greenie! > > Syb > > _ > Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/ >
: Re: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD
John: That was on CD-RW's, not CD-R's? I currently have the same set up on a computer I will be replacing shortly. Everything I've burned, however has been in CD-R clicking the compatible with most equipment button. Not that I've burned a whole lot but I would like access to it on the new computer. BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Vivitar K-mount 135 mm f/2.8 experiences?
Vivitar made at least two 135/2.8s. The only one that comes close to Series One quality was their 1:2 Close-Focus model, made by Komine. The 20-inch close focus was achieved strictly by a l-o-n-g helicoid. It uses a 62mm filter and is said to be very good. It was also sold as Maginon and probably Panagor. The Close Focus 135 weighed about 17 oz., was 3.4 inches long, was multicoated, and was made approximately from 1975 to 1981. Vivitar's other 135/2.8s were undistinguished. Here's what Gary Schloss, the Olympus list's resident thhird-party lens expert, had to say in 1998: "Vivitar introduced a family of 3 macros: 55mm f/2.8 (1:1), 90mm f/2.8 (1:1), and 135mm f/2.8 (1:2). All three shared very similar mechanics (all take a 62mm filter), and were made by Komine. These are plain Vivitars, not 'Series 1.' All have brushed metal finish. My personal impressions of the 90 and 135 are very positive." Gary or someone else wrote: "This lens is pre-Series I and went out of production about twenty years ago, but turns up on eBay in K-mount from time to time. I paid $75 for mine a year ago, but this spring two went for about $25, as most people do not recognize it for what it is. Note that this lens is *not* a "macro" lens, merely a medium f.l. telephoto with a very long focussing helicoid." Rodger Whitlock (or maybe "Wei") wrote: "I have one (made for pentax), it's a decent lens, which allows you to focus a lot closer than other 135mm lens, but it gets a lot longer when you shoot stuff up close". >From the third-party lens site: "Another later entry in our cult classic lens list is this Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 close focusing lens. Surprise! This lens can produce a remarkably close reproduction ratio of 1:2 from a distance of 20 inches! Usually, we think of true macro lenses when we deal with a 1:2 close focusing range, such as the Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 classic described herein. The lens weighs just over a pound, is 3-3/8ths inch long, and uses 62mm filters. For macrophotography of critters and bugs, this lens is probably a lot cheaper and even more useful than many 100mm range macro lenses. I need hardly add that it is a lot cheaper, when you can find one! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How big is 6 Mp
On 23 Jan 2003 at 13:52, Kevin Waterson wrote: > How 'big' is a 6 Mega pixel image? > > eg, 20 Meg? > > I ask for storage reasons File size depends upon the file type and bit depth and compression. The bit-map size for a 6MP image at 8 bits per pixel is 18M bytes so consider that size the worst case. There are no universal parameters so take the following as a rough guide only. Most good digital cameras offer several output formats, RAW which would be around 12MB (and allows access to the full colour depth of the image), TIFF which may or may not be compressed and JPEG at several compression rates. Most digital SLR cameras provide TIFF and JPEG images at 8 bits per pixel, a compressed JPEG image may be from 4.5 to 2.5MB in file size. You might learn a little if you check out the specifications for the D60 or similar cameras. 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: Mike, Frank, and Cognitive Pollyanna therapy
> God, in his infinite wisdom, granted the man's wish here's an (old) joke: there was a righteous man, who spent most of his life studying scriptures and stuff... and so God saw it, and came down to talk to him. "o, the most righteous one" -- he said, "i had seen you from above, and had been so impressed that i decided to grant you one power: you can become the wisest man on earth, or the richest man on earth, or the most loved man on earth. say what you prefer?" "the wisest one" answered the man. so God granted him the infinite wisedom, and then asked: "and now, o, the wisest one, what can you say?" "i say, i should have taken the money" -- answered the wisest one. ;)
Re: How big is 6 Mp
It varies a lot depending on the compression you use. I have a Minolta Dimage 7, which is 5 MP, and pictures can range all the way from 12 megabytes uncompressed to 1.5 megs at medium jpeg compression. You lose a little bit of texture with the smaller files, but the difference in appearance is quite subtle, so even the smaller files give quite reasonable results. The smaller files are not only cheaper to store, but the camera can save them faster. Some of my pictures can be viewed at http://www1.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=89533 _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Cool Tiny Takumar
Fred wrote: Just got yesterday what is the smallest M42 Takumar I've ever owned ( & I own ALOT). The 1959 vintage 35mm F3.5 Auto-Takumar. This has a semi-automatic aperture and is so small the filter size is 46mm! Way cool. http://jcoconnell.com/temp/spotat3535.jpg It reminds me (hood and all) of the time I mounted a 1955-vintage Asahi-Togaku 58/2.4 (with tiny 40.5mm filter threads) on an LX - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/5824lx2.jpg ;-) Fred Ahh.. the new Limited... so who wins the pool? R
Re: How big is 6 Mp
600*sizeofpixel. and pixels are 3 bytes in 8 bit/color, or 6 bytes in "more than 8 bit/color" mode. which comes down to either 18MB or 36MB. that is, if it's uncompressed format. for jpegs, it's only 8bit/color, and should be about 2MB (but it *really* depends on how far you are compressing it ) Best, Mishka
RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
yes for 4 to 6 element designs, no for 12 to 15 element desings. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:07 PM > To: 'Pentax-Discuss' > Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > > > "J. C. O'Connell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There is a trade off to adding elements: > > A. on one hand they reduced abberations IF precisely ground and placed > > B. BUT on the other hand, the extra air glass surfaces REDUCE > contrast (and > apparent resolution). > > Didn't Super Multicoating (SMC) all-but-eliminate that tradeoff by making > loss of contrast nearly inconsequential? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Language is like a river. It wears a bit here and there and changes its course. What was correct yesterday may seem unwieldy tomorrow. Yet, I must admit that some contemporary usage bothers me. Chief among these is "I've got." I've got the answer. I've got to get another lens. When of course al the writer meant "I have the answer. I need another lens." "Got" is a curse. Paul
Re: B&W with the Vivitar Series 1 28mm F1.9
Christian wrote: Gotcha. I am not the smartest person in the world when it comes to interpreting distortion. I thought barrel and pincushion distortions were varieties of perspective distortion. Search on the web has explained a lot to me. Ignore my previous post. I, too, withdraw my criticism of my second-favorite lens. JCO and Fred, now I feel much less sick that I parted with my SMC 28/2. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That darned handstrap
Greetings list! No one seems to have knowledge of this. Is that lug on the grip there for another purpose? Am I the only one that feels Pentax neck straps, while the pockets are nice, are not the most comfortable thing? Two stores in Chicago offered me that Canon one. I can't imagine they'd be the only makers. I tried B&H with no success. Cheers, EvilRegis
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LESS is an amount or volume word. FEWER is a number word. Mike is correct. In English, "less" modifies a "mass noun" (like Jell-o); "fewer" modifies a "count noun". A word is a count noun if it can be preceded by "a" or "an". [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Tried to send this earlier, but was having mail problems. Who the hell coined the word "preventative"? I always thought it should be "preventive" - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:47 PM Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > Webster's Second > > > I found this brief little web-soundbite about Webster's Second. It lays out > the story fairly well: > > http://www.inu.org/bieyi/cruises/webster.htm > > --Mike > > >
Re:Fuji's new chip
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a guy who sells a Photoshop action that does this, but I forget his name. It "blends" two separate exposures to create effectively ideal dynamic range. PhotoImpact 8 (for Windows only) does this. PhotoImpact can use PhotoShop plug-ins. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
All I care about is that they can understand me, and I can understand them. Was it Thomas Jefferson who said it was a poor mind indeed that could only think of one way to spell a word. I think that was in response to the use of "inalienable" instead of "unalienable" in some paper he authored. I can write well, but it takes an immense effort. If we all took that effort, there would be far fewer e-mails on this list. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 6:21 PM Subject: Re: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > My favorite is "preventative" Where in hell did this word come from. I > always thought the proper word was "preventive". > > Bill > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:51 PM > Subject: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > > > Also, I'm so sorry about this, but I'm about to ramp up into schoolmaster > > mode. I do this every now and then, and I *know* it's obnoxious. I'm fully > > aware that *most* of you are smarter and better educated than I am and > just > > as capable and accomplished in your own fields as I am in mine. But the > > thing is, see, I'm an editor, and in my field we work with words, and, > well, > > certain things that may be invisible to you are like fingernails on a > > blackboard to me. > > > > So here goes, I'm lettin' this rip. Please ignore me at will. > > > > LESS is an amount or volume word. FEWER is a number word. > > > > You can have less water in a bucket, less brains in your head, and you > could > > care less. But you have FEWER elements in a lens, ten items or FEWER in > the > > Express Lane at the supermarket, FEWER than 50 ways to leave your lover. > > > > Similarly, OVER is a position word. A bridge can be over a brook, a joke > can > > go right over your head, but it hasn't been OVER a hundred years since the > > Tessar was invented; it's been MORE THAN a hundred years since then. > > > > Nodoby ever get these things right (even network news anchors used "over" > > incorrectly), but it drives me crazy anyway. > > > > You may return to your regular programming...sorry again. (Most of the > time, > > I'm really getting pretty good at holding my tongue.) > > > > --Mike > > > >
RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
"J. C. O'Connell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a trade off to adding elements: A. on one hand they reduced abberations IF precisely ground and placed B. BUT on the other hand, the extra air glass surfaces REDUCE contrast (and apparent resolution). Didn't Super Multicoating (SMC) all-but-eliminate that tradeoff by making loss of contrast nearly inconsequential? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
> >that's [...] > Add improper use of contractions to your list. Example: that's. Gotta keep grist in the mill. Intentionally or not. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ "Gotta" ain't right neither . Ed _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: How big is 6 Mp
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" Subject: How big is 6 Mp > How 'big' is a 6 Mega pixel image? Yer close, I think around 18mb if tou are saving as a tiff or PSD. William Robb
RE: B&W with the Vivitar Series 1 28mm F1.9
JCO wrote: While i agree that this lens isnt distortion free, I dont think this shot in particular reveals that. Where are you noticing obvious disortion in the shot? Like Christian, I noticed it, but it wasn't obvious. You can see it in the sloping walls of the buildings at the far left and right. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
My favorite is "preventative" Where in hell did this word come from. I always thought the proper word was "preventive". Bill - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:51 PM Subject: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > Also, I'm so sorry about this, but I'm about to ramp up into schoolmaster > mode. I do this every now and then, and I *know* it's obnoxious. I'm fully > aware that *most* of you are smarter and better educated than I am and just > as capable and accomplished in your own fields as I am in mine. But the > thing is, see, I'm an editor, and in my field we work with words, and, well, > certain things that may be invisible to you are like fingernails on a > blackboard to me. > > So here goes, I'm lettin' this rip. Please ignore me at will. > > LESS is an amount or volume word. FEWER is a number word. > > You can have less water in a bucket, less brains in your head, and you could > care less. But you have FEWER elements in a lens, ten items or FEWER in the > Express Lane at the supermarket, FEWER than 50 ways to leave your lover. > > Similarly, OVER is a position word. A bridge can be over a brook, a joke can > go right over your head, but it hasn't been OVER a hundred years since the > Tessar was invented; it's been MORE THAN a hundred years since then. > > Nodoby ever get these things right (even network news anchors used "over" > incorrectly), but it drives me crazy anyway. > > You may return to your regular programming...sorry again. (Most of the time, > I'm really getting pretty good at holding my tongue.) > > --Mike >
Re: Pentax K-primes
Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... the Pancolar for sure... a screw mount lens more expensive than SMCT 85/1.8.. But much easier to find, often for less than $200. I can't recall when I last saw an SMC Takumar 85/1.8T for that little. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Frank's fulla surprises
Why do you think I know big words like impecunious? More to the point, why do you think I don't know ~exactly~ what it means? -frank Mike Johnston wrote: > You were a LAWYER?!? > > --Mike -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Ricoh winder help needed
Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I once had XR-P with PG-4 grip, but so long ago I don't remember much. http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ricoh_pg-4/ricoh_pg-4.htm OK, I cleaned the contacts (on winder and camera), as Fred suggested. But the winder still seemed to take at least 2 shots. I say "at least two" because I came to the end of a roll. But I then tried using the winder without its two AAA cells. Guess what? It works as a power release button; it just doesn't advance the film. That's exactly what I want! I've now removed the AAAs so that I don't inadvertently turn it on, an act that seems to cause the shutter to fire. I also have the tiny clip-on power grip, but I'm always nervous that it wil pull out of the attachment holes if I swing the camera while a really large lens is mounted. The Power Grip-4, alas, has an equally small grip. But because the AAA cells go in the grip--not below the camera--Ricoh was able to design the tripod socket very close to the camera's center of gravity. I still long for a beefier grip, like that of the Pentax ME-II winder. Ricoh apparently made a PG-3 power winder that had the same shape as the beautiful and functional PG-1 that I use on the XR-1 and XR-2. It provides a great, confidence-inspiring grip. But I hate the way-off-center tripod hole, especially when shooting verticals. I nearly bid on the rare, 3.5 fps Motor 3 at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3001722067&category=15241 just to get a better grip. When introduced in 1984, it sold for (well, listed for) $266. The Motor 3 even has a side release for shooting verticals. But I can use my XR-P's intervelometer button for that; and now that I can use the PG-4 sans batteries, I have a setup that suits my quiet shooting style just fine. If anyone else wants (or needs) the Motor 3, write to me; I know of two other sources, both in Europe, both over $100. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:30:01 +1000, jcoyle wrote: > If I sat down and thought about it, I could probably go on all day! To, too, and two. Their, there, and they're. Dangling prepositions. Subject/verb agreement. Improper pronoun choice (me instead of I, etc.). Word misuse, a la Mike's rant. Especially prepositions, adjectives, and adverbs. Impossibly complex and long winded sentences, e.g., an entire paragraph that's one sentence. This rarely happens in spoken English, but is the bane of written English. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
In a message dated 1/22/2003 5:51:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > You may return to your regular programming...sorry again. > (Most of the time, > I'm really getting pretty good at holding my tongue.) > > --Mike Good thing, since my grammar and sentence structure often stink (even when I am trying). Which is why, btw, I find posting here such a joy. Versus the programmer/writer newsgroups that I am also in, in which I have made fewer and fewer posts over the years because all the writers think that correcting me is their beholden duty. So I find the way this list comments on someone's content instead of their written presentation its biggest selling point. Course this list *is* supposed to focused on the visual, not the verbal. Doe aka Marnie ;-) Which is great for this dsylexic.
RE: what a great place! - Can we help Brother Francis?
Hey Steve, I think Frank's called off the "Let's Help Frank" fund :) All those who've replied can stand easy :) and "Thank You". It seems that he's got enough stuff to tide him over for now. Frank, I'm sure we'll have other things to discuss come Feb 1. Cheers to all, Dave -Original Message- From: Steve Larson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what a great place! - Can we help Brother Francis? Hi Dave, I would be the first to chip in, but I am going to rectify this situation. If Franks 24-48 cannot be fixed, I will take the shims from his, put them in mine and give it to him. Then at least one of us has a perfect specimen. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film." - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 6:48 AM Subject: RE: what a great place! - Can we help Brother Francis? > Folks, > > I know Frank's going to read this but I thought, seeing as how times are > tough for him (equipment wise) and he's offered help to so many others on > the list maybe we could do him a favor in return. > > Anyone willing to join me in chipping in to perhaps get him what he needs - > something equivalent to his beloved Vivitar S1 24-48 lens - I'm not sure > what could replace it or if anyone has a comparable "user" that they are > willing to let go for a song. > > You can reply to me off list if you think you'd like to help out or if you > think I'm being a goofball for asking about this. :-) > > Cheers, > Dave > > > Original Message: > - > From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:16:58 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: what a great place! > > > Last night I whined that I'm having some equipment problems. I may > have exaggerated some, but in fact, over the last week or two, I've had > one body and one lens go down. It was my favourite body, and my > favourite lens. > > Several on this list, thinking that I may be completely without > photographic equipment, wrote to me last night, offering to loan me some > bodies and lenses for a period of time. > > That won't be necessary, and I've written each of them individually to > thank them, but I continue to be amazed at what a wonderful community > this is. > > thanks again, > frank > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer > > > > > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > >
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Been through this loop before, but here's one which is at least photography related - 'aperature' instead of 'aperture'. You'd think those who do this would have come across the correct spelling so many times it would have raised a question in their minds when typing it. Probably from people with a non-English speaking background, 'gears' instead of 'gear' - as in 'I'm going to sell my Canon gears'. Not related - 'loose' instead of 'lose', as in 'loosing frames with frame overlap' If I sat down and thought about it, I could probably go on all day! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > My pet peeve is people who use the phrase "begs the question" when > > they don't know what it means (they think it means "raises the > > question"). > > > A couple of pet peeves: > > "one of the only" (it's either "the only" or "one of the few") > > "that" for "who," as in "the woman that was doing her nails" or "the > salesman that sold us our car" (and again, this idiocy is actually accepted > by many dictionaries these days) > > Anybody got any other favorites? > > --Mike
Re: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon D60 discontinuation
Something always goes wrong with my plans Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:43 PM Subject: Re: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon D60 discontinuation > > I have given your post some serious thought, and find I agree with you, I > > should buy now. Please send me $10,000 so I can buy a EOS-1Ds with lenses > > and microdrives + PS 7.0. And thank you for making me realize that I can use > > your money to do this with. > > > As I said, Tom, it was VINCENT OLIVER who said those things, not me. > > Sorry. I know you were looking forward to your first DSLR. > > --Mike >
Re: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD
Yes, it was Direct CD - sorry. It took a little while to sort it out, but in the end I got there and it was 99% reliable - just the occasional buffering problem. Incidentally, I had to drop the write speed on the CD burner to 2x instead of 4x under XP, using the inbuilt Cd software, otherwise I got an error message - but only after some weeks of use. Weird, inn'it? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:06 AM Subject: Re: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD > Are you referring to Adaptec's "Direct CD" software? Reading plain > CD-RW discs (which is what "Easy CD Creator" makes) is just a hardware > issue, but the pseudo-hard-drive CD-RWs made with "Direct CD" would > indeed depend on special software. I could never get that software to > work at all for me and heard of a lot of people having much trouble > with it. Adaptec's tech support was so bad I vowed never to buy > anything from them EVER. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > >
Re: HELP!!
>From my experience its off to the repair person for this, the top plate has to be removed to repair it. It can be one of two problems that i know off. The spring is broken or the a little plastic clip inside is broken. I've seen this on quite a few MZ series bodies. Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:45 AM Subject: HELP!! > the pop up flash on the MZ-3 is broken, it pops up but > it doesn't stay up, where is the spring in there? do I > have to send it to Pentax to fix? > > __ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca >
Re: what a great place! - Can we help Brother Francis?
trade ya for the 19mm > Jeff. > > frank theriault wrote: > > No worries, Brendan, > > > > I've got that old Soligor 35-105 m42, and another > Soligor 35-70 k-mount, > > along with some wide-ish primes (Super Tak 3.5 > 35mm, the Vivitar 2.8 28mm > > you sold me, the Vivitar 3.8 19mm Dave sold me). > I'll survive . > > > > But, thanks anyway! > > > > cheers, > > frank > > > > Brendan wrote: > > > > > >>there is that gumby 28-105 he can borrow. > >> > > > > > > -- > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all > possible worlds. The > > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert > > Oppenheimer > > > > > > > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: How often and how long do you read the list?
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:28:19 -0500, Evan Hanson wrote: > I read all day long. The list is the only thing that saves me from the > drudgery of my job. I skim the titles at work during the day, and scan or read almost every message when I get home in the evening. I do have filters on some topics, though, that knock out maybe half a dozen posts a day, on average. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
FS: Vivitar Series One 90-180/4.5 P/K Flat-Field 2-touch Macro Zoom, $250
I don't shoot enough macro shots to hold on to this, and now that I have a Tokina ATX 90/2.5 with 1:1 adapter, this "cult classic" belongs to someone who will use it regularly as a superb closeup lens. Magnifies 1:2 at 180mm, 1:4 at 90mm. See discussion and photos at http://www.cameraquest.com/viv90180.htm I also have photos of my specimen. The VMC-multicoated glass is clean, as is the barrel. Focusing is smooth, with no rough spots. The zoom ring has a slight bit of "wiggle" but it zooms smoothly. The tripod ring works. Minor wear on the focusing ring. $250 for the lens, Series One press-on metal front cap, and generic rear cap. Add $15 for a threaded black metal 72mm hood, 1.7 inches (43 mm) long (photo available). It appears to be a Nikon HN-20 but is unmarked. Add $20 for 72mm Contax multicoated UV filter. Add $5 for a 77mm snap-in cap to cover the hood. Free square Cullmann quick-release shoe on request. Insured shipping by U.S. Postal Priority Mail: $12 within the USA, $18 to Canada, at cost elsewhere. Buyer can pay over three equal monthly payments; I'll ship Saturday. PayPal, BidPay, U.S. personal check, U.S. or international money order. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Sorry. In Webster's Second College Edition (1970) OVER, prep: #11 - during; through [over the past ten years]. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt very much that Webster's Second (of sainted memory) would approve of "In business for over 25 years" (which phrase I happened to just read on the B&H home page) and I don't either. "Over" for "more than" is of course in such widespread use that any resistance is futile; that battle is lost. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be able to stop wincing when I hear it.
Re: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD
"jcoyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There can be a problem with changes of OS. I used Adaptec's Easy CD creator >on Win98 with great success: now, having changed to XP, the old CD-RW's are >not readable! Adaptec does not have an XP driver for the version of the >program I have, so I have to fork out for a new version, on which I cannot >necessarily rely to be compatible with the original, or install the burner >and Adaptec on another computer and go through the business of re-burning. > >Not too chuffed with this Are you referring to Adaptec's "Direct CD" software? Reading plain CD-RW discs (which is what "Easy CD Creator" makes) is just a hardware issue, but the pseudo-hard-drive CD-RWs made with "Direct CD" would indeed depend on special software. I could never get that software to work at all for me and heard of a lot of people having much trouble with it. Adaptec's tech support was so bad I vowed never to buy anything from them EVER. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: HELP!!
Just rip the darn thing off and use you shoe mount flash. Jeff. Brendan wrote: the pop up flash on the MZ-3 is broken, it pops up but it doesn't stay up, where is the spring in there? do I have to send it to Pentax to fix? __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
> BTW: Shouldn't it have been "What the hell brought on THAT?" > > (Insert Winston Churchill quotation here.) Mark, You do know why American split infinities, don't you? It's because Fowler* actually approved of the practice--he thought it was pedantic to disallow it categorically. We promptly stopped teaching grammar in grammar schools and have been happily splitting our infinitives ever since. --Mike *p. 558 ff.
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Ok, time for my mini-rant. On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: > You can have less water in a bucket, less brains in your head, and you could > care less. Why do people always use "I could care less" to indicate that they don't care at all? If they could care less than they currently do, then obviously they do care to some degree. The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less." I wouldn't normally point this out, but it sticks out like a in a post correcting the grammar of others. chris
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
> My pet peeve is people who use the phrase "begs the question" when > they don't know what it means (they think it means "raises the > question"). A couple of pet peeves: "one of the only" (it's either "the only" or "one of the few") "that" for "who," as in "the woman that was doing her nails" or "the salesman that sold us our car" (and again, this idiocy is actually accepted by many dictionaries these days) Anybody got any other favorites? --Mike P.S. See, I'm actually enjoying this, God help me.
Re: Vs: The little world of Dominga
Collin, I read your post in the MF group about the performance of the Schneider lens. I guess the Fujinon you mentioned is a more modern lens. If it has the EBC coating, then it's probably an awesome lens. Jeff. Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Likewise. I'm looking @ replacing my 150/5.6 Schneider with a 180/9 Fujinon-A. Immediate 25% resolution improvement. Acros with that will be, to say the least, nice. Collin (no Nikkors in my bag) Brendemuehl *** I'll stick with the G690 & GSW690III. Love the proof sized negs/trannies. El pibe Fuji, Jeff. ***
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Yeah, Mike I know what you mean when you say that "Nodoby (sic) ever get (sic) these things right..." However, I recall someone posting once that we shouldn't correct other folks' grammar and spelling on the list, since for many, English is not their first language. You can't always be sure whether the person is a native English speaker with bad habits, or a struggling "furriner" (whose postings we welcome, I might add). Pat White
Re: Long ramble to Cotty
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hands up: who will be looking 'very closely' at the Pentax DSLR (assume > 6MP at less than 1500 bucks) in the following categories: > > 3/ Need to see it first, see if I really want one. I think John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: K to MD mount conversion
Hi Evan, On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:19:26 -0500, Evan Hanson wrote: > Has anyone ever heard of modifying a K mount lens to fit the Minolta md > mount. I found a converter on ebay that allowed K mount lenses to work on Minolta MD bodies. I think I only paid about US$ 50 for it, a couple of years ago. Works fine, according to the person I gave it to. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
FONG: Lenses, for those interested
http://www.news2web.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=article&group=rec.photo.mar ketplace&item=305883&utag= http://www.news2web.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=article&group=rec.photo.mar ketplace&item=305881&utag=
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
> Mike, you need a better dictionary. > > Definitions 8 & 9 are not positional. "OVER a hundred years " is fine. > See definition 3 for LESS. Ah, yes, well, dictionaries have been going to hell ever since that damned liberal subversive Webster's Third came out. AHED is actually one of the better ones, but did you know that the allowable uses of words in AHED were literally decided upon by committee? No kidding. They convened a usage panel, and permitted permissive definitions if they happened to be acceptable to some predetermined percentage of the panel members. I doubt very much that Webster's Second (of sainted memory) would approve of "In business for over 25 years" (which phrase I happened to just read on the B&H home page) and I don't either. "Over" for "more than" is of course in such widespread use that any resistance is futile; that battle is lost. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be able to stop wincing when I hear it. --Mike P.S. As Bill from IL says, less words, more Pentax. Sorry again for all this, everyone.
HELP!!
the pop up flash on the MZ-3 is broken, it pops up but it doesn't stay up, where is the spring in there? do I have to send it to Pentax to fix? __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Does teleconverters improve image quality in some way?
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:04:07 +0100, W. Krasowski wrote: > What is quality of this 1.7x Converter? Does it belong to those cheap > "softeners" or it will provide good quality/small loss in sharpness? NO! It does hurt image quality a little bit, but I have to look fairly hard to notice it. And it gives me AF lenses in focal lengths where I currently have only MF lenses. :-) That's worth the small cost in image quality. Or, it is to me, anyway. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Cool Tiny Takumar
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Andre Langevin wrote: > Wow... I'm trying to do the same (although with an german slip-on > hood) but I cannot find a 37mm to 42mm adapter. Anybody with a spare > one? These are very hard to find, going beyond scarce into downright rare. If you ever find one consider yourself very lucky. chris
Re: How often and how long do you read the list?
Marnie: Every day, twice a day, but only the threads I am interested in. But then, I just spent two days away, and had 663 messages unread when I logged in this morning! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:25 PM Subject: OT: How often and how long do you read the list? > > So, just curious. > > How often and how long (at a time) do you read the list? > > Maybe I can impose some personal method on this madness. > > Doe aka Marnie ;-) > >
Re: Good Deal! (I Think)
I had one of those. It's OK. Jeff. Gary L. Murphy wrote: Just snagged a FA 70-200 f/4 ~ f/5.6 PZ on eBay this morning. Comes complete with box and all for $95 US! Good deal? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4688&item=3002637394&rd=1 Later, Gary
Re: help recovering files in an image after burning a CD
There can be a problem with changes of OS. I used Adaptec's Easy CD creator on Win98 with great success: now, having changed to XP, the old CD-RW's are not readable! Adaptec does not have an XP driver for the version of the program I have, so I have to fork out for a new version, on which I cannot necessarily rely to be compatible with the original, or install the burner and Adaptec on another computer and go through the business of re-burning. Not too chuffed with this John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:26 AM I hear so many people complain of computer failures and corrupt > discs and even upgrading and sometime later finding their new computer > doesn't support retrieval of older software - but is that the reality of > computers in 2003? Every upgrade I have made has made the system more stable and reliable. > Malcolm > > >
Re: what a great place! - Can we help Brother Francis?
Hey Frank, You've got more lenses than me. Can you lend me one? ;-) Jeff. frank theriault wrote: No worries, Brendan, I've got that old Soligor 35-105 m42, and another Soligor 35-70 k-mount, along with some wide-ish primes (Super Tak 3.5 35mm, the Vivitar 2.8 28mm you sold me, the Vivitar 3.8 19mm Dave sold me). I'll survive . But, thanks anyway! cheers, frank Brendan wrote: there is that gumby 28-105 he can borrow. -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
> Bob (similarly tooth-grated despite background as linguist, especially about > split-infinitives, a particular habit of our transatlantic cousins) Split is a bad way to have one's infinitives, all right. And while I may split infinitives with Yankee abandon, at least we know the difference between a comma and a period. Have you noticed that your countrymen are preferring commas these days where periods go? Check out Phil Askey at dpreview.com. He does it all the time. Drives me bats. --Mike
Re: what a great place!
> Lensbians. I'll say it: HAR! --Mike
Re: Vs: The little world of Dominga
Likewise. I'm looking @ replacing my 150/5.6 Schneider with a 180/9 Fujinon-A. Immediate 25% resolution improvement. Acros with that will be, to say the least, nice. Collin (no Nikkors in my bag) Brendemuehl *** I'll stick with the G690 & GSW690III. Love the proof sized negs/trannies. El pibe Fuji, Jeff. ***
Mike, Frank, and Cognitive Pollyanna therapy
> I was pretty pissed yesterday when I found out that the lens may be > irrepairable (but a second tech is going to give it a shot), but after > ruminating overnight, I awoke this morning, and realized "hell, it's > ~just~ a lens!" > > People are starving in the third world, we seem to be slowly lurching > towards a war, the homeless are literally freezing to death on the > sidewalks and alleys of our city as we are heading into the second week > of the coldest spell of weather we've seen in a couple of years. > >And, I sit here in my warm apartment, with all the comforts I need, > including loads of cameras and lenses, and I'm pissed? Nah, it's just a > lens. Frank, You know, I hate to sound all trite and sentimental, but this sort of thinking really changed my life. I was in a supermarket one day a number of years ago. I was a single parent, trying to raise a small child alone, hold down a job, pay all the bills, do all the shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry and so forth all by myself, and man, let me tell you, I was in a foul mood. I did _not_ want to be in the supermarket, I did _not_ want to have to shop, I did _not_ want to have to cook when I got home--I was feeling sorry for myself, put-upon, and resentful as hell. I was feeling foul and mean. Well, for no reason that I can fathom, it suddenly occurred to me that only a very small proportion of the world's total population has the luxury of walking into a fully-stocked modern supermarket and walking out with essentially anything that strikes their fancy, as I could do. I swear I looked around that supermarket like I was seeing it for the first time--seeing it the way an unemployed worker from Ukraine would see it, or a Pakistani peasant, or an Egyptian slumdweller, or whatever. It would be wealth, riches, plenty. Over the next weeks and months, I just started to think more and more about how most of the world lives, and how ridiculous it is for me to be unsatisfied, resentful, envious, greedy, acquisitive, jealous, and bad-tempered. Hell, medieval _kings_ lived in drafty, cold stone palaces and had to shit in buckets in the corner, and they had such poor medical care that they died in what we call middle age. I live better than those kings. Well, more comfortably, in any event. (It's true I can't have my enemies beheaded.) I don't know what it is, but I think of stuff like this all the time now. It's totally changed my attitude. I think this is the idea behind cognitive therapy... --Mike
Re: UKPDML 2003?
>As I recall, I went to high school with Doona Nook. (And she gave me >Cleethorpes) Was that with the Full English? 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: Lens Elements, WAS: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > > > > > >> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less > > >> elements will be better. > > > > > > I absolutely believe that statement... > > > > > > Well it seems bizarre to me. How can one be better if they're equally > > corrected?!? Either they're equally corrected, or one is better. > > Both things > > can't be true at once. > > Less elements mean more contrast... Yes, fewer elements do. Indeed. keith whaley
RE: UKPDML2003?
>What's the date on this thing? I might be enticed to fly over if the >scenery is right. Resistance is futile. Mike Wilson started it, he's back at work at 0900 GMT on the 23rd. Poor lad lives 'Up North' where they still light the streets with gas, bless. Can't imagine you coming all this way to shelter from the Har* in a bus-stop on the Promenade at Grimsby. But the fish and chips would be worth it ;-) Hey Rob, what about Alton Towers! Stately home, nice countryside, roller coasters! Cotty * Har = north east Britain suffers from occasional foul weather straight off the north sea, emptied from the bowels of Norway ;-) and believe it or not, it's called 'the Har'. Actually I think it's fog rather than rain, and my spelling may be loose, but true! 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: what a great place!
- Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" Subject: Re: what a great place! > What do they call those folks? Lensitians? Lensologists? Lensmiths? Lensbians. WW
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Hi, Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 11:15:09 PM, you wrote: > Dare I ask? What the hell brought THAT on? probably: >> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less >> elements will be better. Bob (similarly tooth-grated despite background as linguist, especially about split-infinitives, a particular habit of our transatlantic cousins)
Vivitar K-mount 135 mm f/2.8 experiences?
Hi all, Since there are so many mails in this newsgroup, I will keep my questions short: * Do you have comments on the Vivitar K-mount 135 mm f/2.8 lense? * Will it be worth about $45 second hand & in good shape? Thanks for sharing your knowledge with this greenie! Syb _ Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/
Re: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
And...we've not even mentioned centering or collimation problems. Where did that come from? Not me... That sort of thing belongs to the lens maker (grinder/polisher), so s/he doesn't introduce such... keith whaley But it's always surprising to read in many tests that even expensive lenses are not perfectly centered. Does it mean that a (good) repairman could do better (afterwards) than the original lens maker did at the factory? Andre --
Doona was a hot little number
> (Mike, was your Humber esutary affected?) Great Grimsby, no! I can still father children, happy to say. --Mike
Re:Fuji's new chip
>> Yeah. There's a guy who sells a Photoshop action that does this, but I >> forget his name. It "blends" two separate exposures to create effectively >> ideal dynamic range. His plugin is just for PCs so I didn't pay too enough >> attention. Plus of course it can't be used for anything that moves, since >> you need to expose two pictures. >> >> --Mike >> > > That would be Fred Miranda, you can get it at his website > ($$) at: www.fredmiranda.com That's the guy. Thanks, Chris. BTW anyone who's interested in digital should check out his website. It's pretty cool. --Mike
Re: Lens Elements, WAS: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
Aha! You mean "...fewer" elements. Yes, I now understand... Mike Johnston wrote: Somebody said: > > >> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less > >> elements will be better. To which I replied: > > > I absolutely believe that statement... So, Mike countered: > Well it seems bizarre to me. How can one be better if they're equally > corrected?!? Either they're equally corrected, or one is better. Both things > can't be true at once. > > But if you want to stick to Tessars, Dagors, and triplets, it's no skin off > my nose > > --Mike
Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
Dare I ask? What the hell brought THAT on? Mike Johnston wrote: > > Also, I'm so sorry about this, but I'm about to ramp up into schoolmaster > mode. I do this every now and then, and I *know* it's obnoxious. I'm fully > aware that *most* of you are smarter and better educated than I am and just > as capable and accomplished in your own fields as I am in mine. But the > thing is, see, I'm an editor, and in my field we work with words, and, well, > certain things that may be invisible to you are like fingernails on a > blackboard to me. > > So here goes, I'm lettin' this rip. Please ignore me at will. > > LESS is an amount or volume word. FEWER is a number word. > > You can have less water in a bucket, less brains in your head, and you could > care less. But you have FEWER elements in a lens, ten items or FEWER in the > Express Lane at the supermarket, FEWER than 50 ways to leave your lover. > > Similarly, OVER is a position word. A bridge can be over a brook, a joke can > go right over your head, but it hasn't been OVER a hundred years since the > Tessar was invented; it's been MORE THAN a hundred years since then. > > Nodoby ever get these things right (even network news anchors used "over" > incorrectly), but it drives me crazy anyway. > > You may return to your regular programming...sorry again. (Most of the time, > I'm really getting pretty good at holding my tongue.) > > --Mike
