FS Vivitar 100mm/3.5 Macro on Ebay
Hi, I just put up my Vivitar 100mm f:3.5 auto-focus macro lens for sale on Ebay. Here's the link if you are interested. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2953740831 Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ You know you're having a bad day when Elton John rewrites the lyrics to "Candle in the Wind" for you.
RE: Favorite light meter?
Unless the light is changing, this could be done beforehand. If the light is changing the results are going to be iffy anyway even if the exposure happens to be correct. Lighting is paramount IMHO. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Favorite light meter? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Favorite light meter? > why not put it in manual and set shutter speed > approx what you think you will need. > Then fire test shots adjusting fstop until image > looks right on LCD? So much for the concept of decisive moment. William Robb
Re: Pop Photo reviews the film *ist
Doesn't it have flash confirmation? the lil flash thing blinks alot to confirm it worked? right? --- Johan Uiterwijk Winkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill Owens wrote: > > >The latest issue arrived yesterday with a very > thorough review of the film > >*ist. According to them, it's a very nice camera > for the money. Biggest > >gripe was no flash confirmation. > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > > > Has anybody scanned this article, I would be glad to > read it . > > Johan Uiterwijk Winkel. > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Pop Photo reviews the film *ist
Bill Owens wrote: The latest issue arrived yesterday with a very thorough review of the film *ist. According to them, it's a very nice camera for the money. Biggest gripe was no flash confirmation. Bill Has anybody scanned this article, I would be glad to read it . Johan Uiterwijk Winkel.
Re: OT - My Big Move
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: Re: OT - My Big Move > Indeed. We in Toronto know what the West thinks of us, and we really > don't care. In fact, we don't really care what the West thinks about > anything. But you guys already know that, don't you? We just figure if you were smart enough to think, you wouldn't be living there. WW
Re: Favorite light meter?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Favorite light meter? > why not put it in manual and set shutter speed > approx what you think you will need. > Then fire test shots adjusting fstop until image > looks right on LCD? So much for the concept of decisive moment. William Robb
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Wow, that would be cool. I've been wanting to try one out to see if I can justify buying one to use over my 1.4's. What would you like in exchange? William in Utah. - Original Message - From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Re: M 1.4 50mm question > > If you want to try mine out for a couple of weeks, let me know and I'll > send it down to you. > > chris > > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Johnson wrote: > > > I'd sure like a K50/1.2 to evaluate though! > >
RE: Portrait Lens Question
DOF is related to absolute magnification (reproduction ratio) and aperture only. The answer to you final paragraph question is no they will not have same DOF because the image with the 28mm lens has less magnification and therefore will have better DOF J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Portrait Lens Question The big problem is finding a reputable site to look this up. Internet searches bring up so many conflicting answers, even from the so-called authoritative sites, that optical physics seems based more on opinion and limited experience than optical laws. So I wasn't questioning the validity of your answer; I was trying to see how my observations could be accounted for by the answer. This topic has come up on PDML several times before, and there are always at least two people, with two conflicting answers, who both insist that they are right. I'll hit the books sometime later and see what actual published works have to say about it, as I suspected edited materials will tend to be more accurate than most websites. So, just to clarify, if I take two photos--one with a 28mm lens and one with a 100mm lens--while standing in the same spot and shooting at the same aperture, and then enlarge a segment of the 28mm photo until it has the same coverage as the 100mm shot, the perspective will remain the same, but the DOF will be different? That's what I'm trying to understand... I thought that the DOF would be the same as well. Thanks, chris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > You make it sound like some sort of optical physics that I made up and have > to defend. I just try to keep track of what does what. Beyond that I would > suggest some independent research on the topic. Not to be snide, but I see > endless discussions and arguments over things here that can be looked up. > > BR > > From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur > the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm > or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it?
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
At 10:29 PM 24/09/2003 -0400, you wrote: > > Saw one of these for sale at a reduced price at a local camera shop. > They were selling it for about $127 Cdn, which the Bank of Canada Quick > Currency Convertor tells me is $93.78 US. > > Is that anywhere near a decent price (considering this is a reputable > shop, so I'll get a warranty and all)? What about if I go offer them > like $100Cdn (that would be about $74US? If you want one, you can have one of mine for $100CDN. I won't charge you tax either ;-) Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Introducing the remarkable new Pentax *Ist D
On 24 Sep 2003 at 17:58, Rob Brigham wrote: > I expect much more cursing and swearing at Pentax over the next 6-12 > months!! ..after I finish kicking myself for not jumping ship sooner :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
This is an amazing community. Someone off list has made a similar offer to me WRT his M 1.4 50mm, to the one you make to William WRT the 1.2. Lenses flying all over the place! cheers, frank Chris Brogden wrote: > If you want to try mine out for a couple of weeks, let me know and I'll > send it down to you. > > chris > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Johnson wrote: > > > I'd sure like a K50/1.2 to evaluate though! -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
If you want to try mine out for a couple of weeks, let me know and I'll send it down to you. chris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Johnson wrote: > I'd sure like a K50/1.2 to evaluate though!
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Yeah, $15US is about $20Cdn. Mind you, when I said I got the MV and the M 2.0 50 mm for $20, I meant $20US. It was an eBay purchase, and they're all in US dollars, since I log into eBay.com rather than eBay.ca. Mind you, our dollar has been creeping up on yours lately! They're talking about an 80 cent Canadian dollar within a year. regards, frank William Johnson wrote: > Ha! That's funny! I picked up my latest M50/2 attached to an MV for 15 > bucks US. That's about the same as yours in Canadian money, right? It > lives in my car with some chromogenic b&w film "just in case". > > I didn't intend to denigrate the M50/2, it is a decent lens. > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Ha! That's funny! I picked up my latest M50/2 attached to an MV for 15 bucks US. That's about the same as yours in Canadian money, right? It lives in my car with some chromogenic b&w film "just in case". I didn't intend to denigrate the M50/2, it is a decent lens. William in Utah. - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:26 PM Subject: Re: M 1.4 50mm question > BTW, > > My M 2.0 50mm is indeed the cheapest lens I've ever bought. I paid $20 for it - > including an MV as a rear lens cap! I know they generally go for under > $20 (lens alone) on eBay. > > Really, though, I think it's a pretty good lens! Sharp enough for my > undiscriminating standards. Nice bokeh. Relatively compact. Feels nice. I've > got no complaints. > > OTOH, the rear lens cap only lasted me about 6 months before it crapped out on > me... > > cheers, > frank
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Ease of focusing for one. Fast lens = brighter viewfinder. Not to mention the coolness factor. I probably won't shoot my K50/1.2 at 1.2 *that* often, but focusing is super easy and I get to carry around a big honkin' piece of glass. Please, no jokes about compensating... :) Somehow I have found the f1.7 was easier to focus than the f1.4 when split image was not available. Perhaps it has to do with the contrast or sharpness of the lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
BTW, My M 2.0 50mm is indeed the cheapest lens I've ever bought. I paid $20 for it - including an MV as a rear lens cap! I know they generally go for under $20 (lens alone) on eBay. Really, though, I think it's a pretty good lens! Sharp enough for my undiscriminating standards. Nice bokeh. Relatively compact. Feels nice. I've got no complaints. OTOH, the rear lens cap only lasted me about 6 months before it crapped out on me... cheers, frank William Johnson wrote: > Hi Frank, > > That said, I think the M50/1.4 is considerably better at f/2 than the > M50/2 > is at f/2 (yeah I have a couple of those "optical body caps" too) so I think > you would be happy with the M50/1.4 > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Portrait Lens Question
> > Depth of field is not focal length dependent. > >William Robb > No, but with the low reproduction ratio and small fstops most P&S digitals have, >there is going to be far more DOF than when using a typical 35mm film camera >JCO what the man said. all 4x6 prints of exactly the same scene (same magnification, to be precise) and the same aperture will be identical as far as DOF is concerned. regardless of format, focallength or whatever else. assuming perfect film/sensor, no diffraction, and so on. see the "Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses" from this July best, mishka
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
No, William, You said it right. I read it wrong. Thanks for your patience in explaining it to me again. cheers, frank William Johnson wrote: > Hi Frank, > > Thanks for the kind comment. I kinda like her too > > Um.. that said I think I must have a communication problem. I said "I > rarely use a 50mm lens stopped down past about f/5.6" which I mean as I > rarely use smaller (physically) apertures like 8, 11, 16, and so forth. I > probably don't have the correct usage down to explain what I mean... what > else is new ;-) So yes, I almost always use it wide open or at least no > more than 3 stops from it. > > That said, I think the M50/1.4 is considerably better at f/2 than the M50/2 > is at f/2 (yeah I have a couple of those "optical body caps" too) so I think > you would be happy with the M50/1.4 FWIW, I prefer the M50/1.4 to the M or > A 50/1.7's also. I'd sure like a K50/1.2 to evaluate though! > > Thanks, > > William in Utah > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Hi Frank, Thanks for the kind comment. I kinda like her too Um.. that said I think I must have a communication problem. I said "I rarely use a 50mm lens stopped down past about f/5.6" which I mean as I rarely use smaller (physically) apertures like 8, 11, 16, and so forth. I probably don't have the correct usage down to explain what I mean... what else is new ;-) So yes, I almost always use it wide open or at least no more than 3 stops from it. That said, I think the M50/1.4 is considerably better at f/2 than the M50/2 is at f/2 (yeah I have a couple of those "optical body caps" too) so I think you would be happy with the M50/1.4 FWIW, I prefer the M50/1.4 to the M or A 50/1.7's also. I'd sure like a K50/1.2 to evaluate though! Thanks, William in Utah - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:24 PM Subject: Re: M 1.4 50mm question > Hey, I remember that shot, W in U! She's a real cutie, and that's one terrific > photo of her. > > Funny (and I don't mean this as a criticism of your post), but I'm always amused > when I hear, "I rarely use the lens wider than [insert an aperture here]". Why > buy a fast lens if you aren't going to use it wide open a lot? I have an M 2.0 > 50mm. If I was happy shooting at 5.6, I'd stick with that lens. > > That being said, I guess I know what you mean. You rarely use your M 1.4 wider > than 5.6, but you have the option to do so, if need be. > > Still, it always strikes me as odd... > > Having gotten that off my chest, I do appreciate your comments, really > > cheers, > frank > > William Johnson wrote: > > > Hi Frank, > > > > I think it's a very good lens. I have two of them and as far as I can tell, > > they perform identical to each other. Both a bit worse wide open than > > either the K50/1.4 or FA50/1.4 that I also own, but I prefer the bokeh of > > the M50/1.4 and I think that it is quite sharp for impromptu portraits from > > about f/2 and below. I rarely use a 50mm lens stopped down past about f/5.6 > > but when I have it seems to perform well at those apertures also. > > > > I actually prefer the M50/1.4 to the K or FA. Here is an example of a PUG > > submission with the M50/1.4 stopped down to either f/2 or f/2.5 > > > > http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/sbanana.html > > > > The price is maybe kind of high, but probably only compared to buying online > > with the associated risks. You only live once, if you want it, buy it! > > > > William in Utah. > > > > PS. How's that for enablement? ;-) > > > > -- > "What a senseless waste of human life" > -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch > > >
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
If I want the coolness factor from a big honkin' hunk o' glass, I'll throw the Viv S1 24-48 on my MX (the small body makes the glass look even bigger. 77mm filter ring. Big hunk o' glass and metal. A manly lens, to be sure. But, seriously, Chris, your comments are well-taken. I wouldn't have thought that the difference to the eye between a 2.0 and a 1.4 would be that noticeable in terms of viewfinder brightness. I certainly don't notice it too much on my Spots (I have a Super Tak 1.4 and a couple of 2.0 55mm's), but then the Spotties don't have as bright a viewfinder as my MX. cheers, frank Chris Brogden wrote: > Ease of focusing for one. Fast lens = brighter viewfinder. Not to > mention the coolness factor. I probably won't shoot my K50/1.2 at 1.2 > *that* often, but focusing is super easy and I get to carry around a big > honkin' piece of glass. Please, no jokes about compensating... :) > > chris > > (P.S. Ok, I lied. I actually shoot at 1.2 pretty often. DOF is > small... so small.) > > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Ease of focusing for one. Fast lens = brighter viewfinder. Not to mention the coolness factor. I probably won't shoot my K50/1.2 at 1.2 *that* often, but focusing is super easy and I get to carry around a big honkin' piece of glass. Please, no jokes about compensating... :) chris (P.S. Ok, I lied. I actually shoot at 1.2 pretty often. DOF is small... so small.) On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, frank theriault wrote: > Funny (and I don't mean this as a criticism of your post), but I'm > always amused when I hear, "I rarely use the lens wider than [insert an > aperture here]". Why buy a fast lens if you aren't going to use it wide > open a lot? I have an M 2.0 50mm. If I was happy shooting at 5.6, I'd > stick with that lens.
Re: On Topic:Finally got one
Woo hoo indeed. Nice lens for a good price. Now all you need is a 45mm and you're set to go. :) chris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2952229482&category=30075&rd=1 > > After months of sniped frustration,i got something i wanted.Now i can get a bit > closer to > the fall colours > when i head up north for our ThanksGiving weekend. > > They were going for $499 Can and up locally,so i think i got a half decent deal,and > its a > real brick and > mortar store too. > > Whoo Hoo > > Brother Dave > >
Re: Portrait Lens Question
The big problem is finding a reputable site to look this up. Internet searches bring up so many conflicting answers, even from the so-called authoritative sites, that optical physics seems based more on opinion and limited experience than optical laws. So I wasn't questioning the validity of your answer; I was trying to see how my observations could be accounted for by the answer. This topic has come up on PDML several times before, and there are always at least two people, with two conflicting answers, who both insist that they are right. I'll hit the books sometime later and see what actual published works have to say about it, as I suspected edited materials will tend to be more accurate than most websites. So, just to clarify, if I take two photos--one with a 28mm lens and one with a 100mm lens--while standing in the same spot and shooting at the same aperture, and then enlarge a segment of the 28mm photo until it has the same coverage as the 100mm shot, the perspective will remain the same, but the DOF will be different? That's what I'm trying to understand... I thought that the DOF would be the same as well. Thanks, chris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > You make it sound like some sort of optical physics that I made up and have > to defend. I just try to keep track of what does what. Beyond that I would > suggest some independent research on the topic. Not to be snide, but I see > endless discussions and arguments over things here that can be looked up. > > BR > > From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur > the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm > or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it?
Re: Complete Sept PUG Comments - loooooong
hi. thanks for commenting on my sept pug photograph. (thanks for another thing - I had to check up on the word 'triptych') :-) Sridhar >G. Sridar, Terrace >Great idea, I like the lines and the repetitions in the windows, as >well as the picture in the middle. This is a natural triptych.
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Hey, I remember that shot, W in U! She's a real cutie, and that's one terrific photo of her. Funny (and I don't mean this as a criticism of your post), but I'm always amused when I hear, "I rarely use the lens wider than [insert an aperture here]". Why buy a fast lens if you aren't going to use it wide open a lot? I have an M 2.0 50mm. If I was happy shooting at 5.6, I'd stick with that lens. That being said, I guess I know what you mean. You rarely use your M 1.4 wider than 5.6, but you have the option to do so, if need be. Still, it always strikes me as odd... Having gotten that off my chest, I do appreciate your comments, really cheers, frank William Johnson wrote: > Hi Frank, > > I think it's a very good lens. I have two of them and as far as I can tell, > they perform identical to each other. Both a bit worse wide open than > either the K50/1.4 or FA50/1.4 that I also own, but I prefer the bokeh of > the M50/1.4 and I think that it is quite sharp for impromptu portraits from > about f/2 and below. I rarely use a 50mm lens stopped down past about f/5.6 > but when I have it seems to perform well at those apertures also. > > I actually prefer the M50/1.4 to the K or FA. Here is an example of a PUG > submission with the M50/1.4 stopped down to either f/2 or f/2.5 > > http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/sbanana.html > > The price is maybe kind of high, but probably only compared to buying online > with the associated risks. You only live once, if you want it, buy it! > > William in Utah. > > PS. How's that for enablement? ;-) > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: OT - My Big Move
Indeed. We in Toronto know what the West thinks of us, and we really don't care. In fact, we don't really care what the West thinks about anything. But you guys already know that, don't you? Soon I'll be in Nova Scotia, and I'll get to go back to hating Toronto, just like I did when I lived in Montreal. cheers, frank William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "frank theriault" > Subject: OT - My Big Move > > Hogtown (as Toronto is > > sometimes derisively referred to) > > We have a few more derisive names out here, let me tell you. > > William Robb -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
RE: Favorite light meter?
why not put it in manual and set shutter speed approx what you think you will need. Then fire test shots adjusting fstop until image looks right on LCD? JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Favorite light meter? >How about if you meter wide open in aperture priority and then adjust the >settings in manual? If you know one "correct" aperture/shutter-speed/iso >combination, you know them all and can adjust for over/under exposure as >needed for a particular subject/lighting situation. It's probably faster >than a light meter and you don't have to take your eye away from the >viewfinder. > >Christian Skofteland >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Right! The most practical meter is in the camera... But will there be a lot of fiddling to go from this meter reading to the picture taking, like changing mode etc.? I'm not familiar with the D as I have not followed much of the discussions about its virtues and flaws. Andre --
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Hi Frank, I think it's a very good lens. I have two of them and as far as I can tell, they perform identical to each other. Both a bit worse wide open than either the K50/1.4 or FA50/1.4 that I also own, but I prefer the bokeh of the M50/1.4 and I think that it is quite sharp for impromptu portraits from about f/2 and below. I rarely use a 50mm lens stopped down past about f/5.6 but when I have it seems to perform well at those apertures also. I actually prefer the M50/1.4 to the K or FA. Here is an example of a PUG submission with the M50/1.4 stopped down to either f/2 or f/2.5 http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/sbanana.html The price is maybe kind of high, but probably only compared to buying online with the associated risks. You only live once, if you want it, buy it! William in Utah. PS. How's that for enablement? ;-) - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: M 1.4 50mm question > Hi, > > Saw one of these for sale at a reduced price at a local camera shop. > They were selling it for about $127 Cdn, which the Bank of Canada Quick > Currency Convertor tells me is $93.78 US. > > Is that anywhere near a decent price (considering this is a reputable > shop, so I'll get a warranty and all)? What about if I go offer them > like $100Cdn (that would be about $74US? > > Anyone have any comments and/or thoughts on this lens? It seems fairly > well built and smooth to use. > > thanks, > frank > > -- > "What a senseless waste of human life" > -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch > > >
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
Thanks Bill, and everyone else who answered/commented on my post. The concensus seems that it's a nice lens, but the price is a bit steepish. I'll see if I can get them down a bit. If they won't, I know they're not a rare lens, so I can wait. thanks again, frank William Robb wrote: > I think thats a bit high, especially since Pentax is no longer supporting > the mount (you can use this as a bargaining tool, perhaps. > Of all the 50mm lenses I have, I like the M f/1.4 just about the best. I do > like the K better overall, but the M is a really nice little optic. > > William Robb -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: M 1.4 50mm question
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: M 1.4 50mm question > Hi, > > Saw one of these for sale at a reduced price at a local camera shop. > They were selling it for about $127 Cdn, which the Bank of Canada Quick > Currency Convertor tells me is $93.78 US. > > Is that anywhere near a decent price (considering this is a reputable > shop, so I'll get a warranty and all)? What about if I go offer them > like $100Cdn (that would be about $74US? > > Anyone have any comments and/or thoughts on this lens? It seems fairly > well built and smooth to use. I think thats a bit high, especially since Pentax is no longer supporting the mount (you can use this as a bargaining tool, perhaps. Of all the 50mm lenses I have, I like the M f/1.4 just about the best. I do like the K better overall, but the M is a really nice little optic. William Robb
Re: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >That being said, I find it inexplicably stupid for Pentax to remove the >aperture ring at this point in time. They're turning their great AF >lenses into crippled tools designed for people who can't be bothered to >use an aperture ring. Out of context by itself [the above], so apologies for that Chris. However, if I may put a pair of pennies into the pot here - I have now been using lenses with no aperture ring for nearly one year. I knew after about one month that it was the right thing, for me. I find it much quicker and easier to use a lens without an aperture ring - and yet I have only been using lenses *with* aperture rings since 1978 or so. One month - that's all it took. Personally I prefer no aperture ring on the lens because I don't have to move my hand from focus ring to aperture ring and back (constantly - depending on subject / lighting), and even if using AF (which I don't very often), balancing a camera / lens combo on my left hand by having to grasp the aperture ring is both awkward and slow. Yet on my MX, I wouldn't have it any other way. The aperture ring is dead. Long live the aperture ring! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Favorite light meter?
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Now the the *istD is making its way through the sales process, those of >us with K and M lenses are going to have to make a choice: use a light >meter or modify the mount. Surely an option exists to modify the camera? Seriously! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Introducing the remarkable new Pentax *Ist D
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >So why the hell can I only find a hands on in an obscure digital >photography mag, but no mention anywhere of this day? AP are reviewing this week and will publish this coming Saturday. I'll precis when it arrives. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
M 1.4 50mm question
Hi, Saw one of these for sale at a reduced price at a local camera shop. They were selling it for about $127 Cdn, which the Bank of Canada Quick Currency Convertor tells me is $93.78 US. Is that anywhere near a decent price (considering this is a reputable shop, so I'll get a warranty and all)? What about if I go offer them like $100Cdn (that would be about $74US? Anyone have any comments and/or thoughts on this lens? It seems fairly well built and smooth to use. thanks, frank -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Is it Art?
LOL. Great shot. Looks exactly like one of those "artistes" standing next to their work at a show. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/24/03 06:00PM >>> Following the previous thread on this subject, I put the question to my 17 month old son upon the completion of his latest masterpiece. Here's him pondering the question. http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/art.htm Maybe it would be art if he was weeing in his nappy... Simon PS No comments on the photograph please, it's a family snapshot, not art. :-)
Re: Photography Exhibit
Thanks Bill. Also for anyone in the area, a local art center (Meadowbrook Art Center, Novi, Michigan) has a small exhibition of Monte Nagler's work. Monte is one of the better B+W photographer in the area if not the country. I believe it runs through October 11th. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Bill Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kenneth R. Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:45 PM Subject: Photography Exhibit > For anyone planning on being in the Detroit, Michigan (USA) area in the next > few months, the Detroit Zoo is once again hosting a travelling exhibit of > the BG Wildlife Photographer of the Year. This is the contest put on by BBC > Wildlife Magazine, displayed at the London Museum of Natural History, and > underwritten by the BG Group. > > http://flood.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wildwin/2002/ > > In the past, the 90 or so finalists were displayed at the Zoo as mounted > prints, in sizes averaging about 16" x 20", with the winners being shown at > 24 x 30 or thereabouts. This year, they are displaying the photos as they > are seen at the host museum, as large transparencies mounted in light boxes. > The two winning photos are displayed at around 3 ft x 5 ft. > > This is truly a stunning exhibit if you have any interest in Nature > Photography, or just photography in general. It's well worth the admission > price of US$9. It will be here until January 18, 2004. > > >
Re: Is it Art?
As I understand it, Simon, There's nothing to ponder. As the creator of the piece, your son need only pronounce it to be art for it to be so. As a consequence of that pronouncement, he will become an artist. It's that simple! As far as the "weeing in his nappy" part, well, that won't affect the status of the work that has been displayed. The soaked nappy, OTOH, will be art, if he considers it so. That's a quick distillation of what I've learned over the last couple of days (just teasing, Marnie et al) BTW, wonderful shot, Simon. Now ~that's~ art!! cheers, frank Simon King wrote: > Following the previous thread on this subject, I put the question to my 17 > month old son upon the completion of his latest masterpiece. > Here's him pondering the question. > http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/art.htm > Maybe it would be art if he was weeing in his nappy... > Simon > > PS No comments on the photograph please, it's a family snapshot, not art. > :-) -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
On Topic:Finally got one
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2952229482&category=30075&rd=1 After months of sniped frustration,i got something i wanted.Now i can get a bit closer to the fall colours when i head up north for our ThanksGiving weekend. They were going for $499 Can and up locally,so i think i got a half decent deal,and its a real brick and mortar store too. Whoo Hoo Brother Dave
Re: Sept PUG Comments
A favorite pro Outdoor Photographer friend of mine takes photo critiquing very seriously and will almost always say something positive about an image no matter what. He then goes on and comments on the hows and whys of an aspect of the image that could improve the image. He never has said he dislikes an image, but he does let you know when he likes it. I personally enjoy hearing others comment on my images (pro & con) and have actively solicited it in the PUG and elsewhere. A simply "I like it because..." or "I don't like it because ..." is appreciated. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:25 PM Subject: Re: Sept PUG Comments > Quoth Marnie aka Doe snip > My photography professor had a firm rule for class critiques. You HAD to start > with a positive comment. Having made the positive comment you could go on to > say what you might want to change about the work. This rule was designed to > keep things civil and it worked very well. > > I actually find it easier to put into words what bothers me about something > than why I like it. I realize that doesn't exactly contradict what you said. I > guess the hierarchy of difficulty to analyze my reaction in words would be, for > me: > Easiest: "I like that." > Next: "I don't really like that." > Next: "I don't like that because the colours are muddy and it smells like burnt > hair." > Hardest: "I like that because its texture reminds me of fluffy clouds on a lazy > day and is therefore restful, and it has a slight trace of the scent of roses, > which are my favourite flower."
Re: Complete Sept PUG Comments - loooooong
Hi, Kostas, Thanks for taking the time to comment on my photograph. Yup, I was at the demo, as a participant. That was back in my days as a radical. Then I realized that there will be no revolution, and if there is one, it will inevitably fail. But here I am, going off on a tangent. As I said in another post, some months I just 'know" what's going to work. No thought as to what I want to submit. Other months, I dither, I can't decide what I want to put in, and at the last minute I throw something in that usually just doesn't quite work. This was one of those months. At the time I submitted it, for some reason, I thought it was a winner. I was wrong. That's why I like people doing critiques, though. I'm gradually learning that taking photographs is only a small part of this endeavor. Choosing what to show is just as important. thanks again, frank Kostas Kavoussanakis hijacked: > > Frank Theriault, The Demonstration > > Determined, but not too angry. OK PJ shot from a demostration. The > > white jacket against all the dark ones helps a lot to the composition. > > This looks to me more like a souvenir from the demonstration, rather > than a picture of it. The impression I get about the demonstration was > that it was rather sparse and too well behaved. It's a fine picture, > with an "I was there" feeling. It's just the title I am wondering > about (and thus the interpretation). > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
RE: New York photo stuff
I plan on going, Probably on Thursday with a photographer buddy. Will post when things are confirmed. Possibly a NYCPDML meeting? Lunch? Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: New to the list
Welcome aboard, Andre, Your English is way better than my Portuguese! (That's because I don't speak Portuguese at all) :-) Besides, some of the worst English written here is from our members in England. Try reading some of Cotty's posts some time... You'll have fun, and learn a lot too. Nice to have you here. cheers, frank from Toronto, Canada Andre Albano wrote: > Hi there, I'm new in the list. > > My name is André, I'm brazilian and I own a MZ-M (ZX-M) and a K1000 (that I > use most of the time). Besides it's weight I worship that camera. > I hope I can learn a lot here. > > P.S.: Sorry about my english, sometimes I think it sounds terrible. > > André -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Is it Art?
no, it's Bob. 8-) Herb - Original Message - From: "Simon King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:00 PM Subject: Is it Art? > Following the previous thread on this subject, I put the question to my 17 > month old son upon the completion of his latest masterpiece. > Here's him pondering the question. > http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/art.htm > Maybe it would be art if he was weeing in his nappy... > Simon
Is it Art?
Following the previous thread on this subject, I put the question to my 17 month old son upon the completion of his latest masterpiece. Here's him pondering the question. http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/art.htm Maybe it would be art if he was weeing in his nappy... Simon PS No comments on the photograph please, it's a family snapshot, not art. :-)
Photography Exhibit
For anyone planning on being in the Detroit, Michigan (USA) area in the next few months, the Detroit Zoo is once again hosting a travelling exhibit of the BG Wildlife Photographer of the Year. This is the contest put on by BBC Wildlife Magazine, displayed at the London Museum of Natural History, and underwritten by the BG Group. http://flood.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wildwin/2002/ In the past, the 90 or so finalists were displayed at the Zoo as mounted prints, in sizes averaging about 16" x 20", with the winners being shown at 24 x 30 or thereabouts. This year, they are displaying the photos as they are seen at the host museum, as large transparencies mounted in light boxes. The two winning photos are displayed at around 3 ft x 5 ft. This is truly a stunning exhibit if you have any interest in Nature Photography, or just photography in general. It's well worth the admission price of US$9. It will be here until January 18, 2004.
Photos w/ Mamiya/Sekor-SX 21mm F4 (M42) lens
There has been some interest in the 20/21mm SLR lenses here lately so I took& posted a few shots using the MAMIYA/SEKOR-SX 21mm F4 (M42) lens on this page: http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/ms21mm/ms21mm.htm Later, JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
Re: Portrait Lens Question
P&S cameras and lenses can blur anything. > > How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur > the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm > or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it? -- -- Collin Brendemuehl KC8TKA "Ron Santo deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown." -- Me --
Re: Favorite light meter?
Modern: Sekonic L308B-II Takes one common battery. Does flash as well. Everything but a spot. Can be had used for way < $100. Classic: Brockway-labelled old Sekonic. Commonly < $25. Really nice reflected/incident. -- -- Collin Brendemuehl KC8TKA "Ron Santo deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown." -- Me --
Re: Portrait Lens Question
My E-10 has a 9-36 zoom, which for this sensor acts like a (roughly) 38-150 zoom in 35 mm. So at 9, it has the same perspective as a 38 and so on, at least as far as I can tell.
RE: Portrait Lens Question
From: "Chris Brogden" Subject: Re: Portrait Lens Question > > How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur > the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm > or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it? Depth of field is not focal length dependent. William Robb No, but with the low reproduction ratio and small fstops most P&S digitals have, there is going to be far more DOF than when using a typical 35mm film camera JCO
Re: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
I'm sure they are not selling that well at the price they are listed... (in Italy >2500 euro, something like $2800...) I too am hoping for a replacement, if they can make it lighter and less expensive, and, better for me, for a FA* 70-200/4. I saw that also the FA 85/2.8 Soft, the A 15/3.5 and the 28/3.5 Shift are listed with a limited availability... Well, what about a FA* 14/2.8 AL? Or a FA 13/3.2 AL Limited... :-) Gianfranco PS: I really cannot understand why there's a bodycap for the *Ist D listed on its own... is it any different from the usual K mount one?? - Original Message - From: Rüdiger Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:22 PM Subject: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200 > Hallo > on > http://www.pentax.de/pentaxeurope/pentaxeurope_prod/pentaxeurope/v2/de/photo > /pricelist.html > is a new Pentax Preislist (starting from 15.9.2003) > > In the list is a footnote that the FA*2.8/80-200 will not be available for > long anymore. > This is the same with the FA 35-80, which has already a replacement with the > FAJ 28-80. > > Will there be a replacement of the 2.8/80-200 ??? hopefully a FA* 4/70-200 > which is not so heavy and cheeper. = __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: Portrait Lens Question
> > How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur > > the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm > > or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it? > > Depth of field is not focal length dependent. > > William Robb Isn't it a combination of focal length and aperture? Maybe a silly question, but that's my impression. Bill
Re: Duplicate messages?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:42 PM Subject: OT: Duplicate messages? > Anyone else getting duplicate messages, delayed messages -- i.e. repeated > messages? Weird never had the list do this to me before. Happens from time to time. Right now my PDML messages return to me immediately (I hit send/recieve, and what is in my outbox is in my PDML folder on the same cycle). William Robb
Re: Portrait Lens Question
- Original Message - From: "Chris Brogden" Subject: Re: Portrait Lens Question > > How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur > the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm > or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it? Depth of field is not focal length dependent. William Robb
OT: Duplicate messages?
Anyone else getting duplicate messages, delayed messages -- i.e. repeated messages? Weird never had the list do this to me before. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Complete Sept PUG Comments - loooooong
På onsdag, 24. september 2003, kl. 15:42, skrev Kostas Kavoussanakis: Can I hijack? I have taken about 5 pictures in my entire life but can I? Why not? On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Dag T wrote: Thomas Moraitis, Sunset with Drying octopusses Sunsets are popularIt is not a bad one, but in this case I miss something in the other end of the line. The composition is too heavily concentrated on the left. Also, I would have preferred to have the horizon clear below the octopuses. One radical suggestion: crop until only the line the sun, perhaps the horizon and a few octopuses remain. When I saw it I thought "fill-in flash on the post" (hopefully deflected to keep it soft). What would you make of this suggestion? I don't want the detail of the octopus, but feel I am missing something from the lamp. In my view, the picture is not well balanced, more details in the post will not help, on the contrary I think a fill in flash would draw more attention away from the octopuses. Being a fellow ex-pat com-pat, this picture says a few things to me :-) Joseph Tainter, Notre Dame From Upstream I like the light in the lower part of the building, but don´t like the way the towers are cut. I´d prefer either more or less. I always have this problem when I take buildings. Assuming you go for less, won't you lose the top of the round roof at the front? Would you go even lower? Dag Thrane, Stone Hey, that´s me, OK, revenge is yours :-) As I have no picture I perhaps shouldn't, but here goes: I would like perhaps something more at the bottom to frame the foot. That's what I hate most about my upright pictures. I am also pondering on the possible merits of a bit more DOF to expose the hand fully (is it motion that makes it blurred?). I get the morbid feeling here that perhaps the stone is *behind* the hand (and perhaps the child) and going towards it! I agree that it may be too tightly cropped at the bottom. Regarding the hand it is motion blurred, so more DOF would not help. I have seen the weird illusion that the stone might as well be behind him, actually it a kind of thing that I enjoy. It adds something, I think... Thanks for the comments! Ann Sanfedele, Yellow chairs Yellow? Nice colours ;-) The fuzzy circle at the right bothers me, besides that I like these skinny chairs. Would you align the floor with the frame of the picture? Would a straight shot from the front be boring? It didn´t bother me. In fact, I think I liked the slight disorder (as well as the colours ;-) The tulip was my favourite. Right now I agree, but there were several good pictures there, so I may change my mind tomorrow :-) Kostas (trying to learn-thanks for the commentary) DagT (trying to learn by commenting :-)
Re: Portrait Lens Question
high depth of field is not infinite depth of field. no, it shouldn'd all be in focus. Herb - Original Message - From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:10 PM Subject: Re: Portrait Lens Question > How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur > the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm > or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it?
Re: Favorite light meter?
Cosina/Voigtlander makes a tiny averaging meter that will fit in the accessory shoe of a camera. It's about an inch and a half square and an inch tall. I use one with my screwmount Leica, and it's quite good. Paul Robert Gonzalez wrote: > Now the the *istD is making its way through the sales process, those of > us with K and M lenses are going to have to make a choice: use a light > meter or modify the mount. Given that many of us, including myself, > will probably opt for the former, what light meter would be nice to have > in a kit and why? I've basically used my camera's spot meter to do > anything involving metering, but this might be clumsy to do on the *istD > with having to switch modes to use the K/M lenses. I.e., i've heard > that it wont meter at all in manual mode when using non A lenses. > > Cheers > > rg
Re: Portrait Lens Question
How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it? chris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > DOF is dependent on the set aperture and focal length of the lens only. This > is why a 50mm lens has the same DOF, for a given f-stop, on a film or partial > frame DSLR. > > BR > > > > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > FOV at the same magnification scale should be equal with 35mm and *istD when > > > using the sme lens. *istD will have greater DOF than 35mm at equal distance > > to subject. But then you will see just a part of image seen on 35mm frame, > > thus you will have to make the distance between you and the subject greater > > to maintain equal magnification scale. Am I right? >
Re: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
I'd be willing to bet money that Pentax leaves off the aperture ring on the new f2.8 tele zoom. The AF cameras that people would use this lens on either have crippled mounts or can set the aperture via the body, so why encourage people to use old bodies when they could spend money upgrading to the latest and greatest? This explains why they didn't upgrade the sorely out-of-date 80-200/2.8 earlier. Now that the DSLR is out, they have a good excuse for leaving off the aperture ring. If they had to make something in the mount electronic, why couldn't it be the focusing? At least then they'd only be 5 years behind Canon's AF technology instead of 10. :) To give Pentax credit, they held off making fundamental changes to their bayonet mount when other companies like Canon and Minolta radically altered theirs with the introduction of AF cameras. And even now, while we can't stop FAJ lenses down manually, they at least can be mounted on crippled AF cameras and used wide open if you need to. And at least we can still mount all Pentax lenses on the new crippled cameras, even if we lose functionality with the M-series and earlier lenses. It's not much, but it's something. That being said, I find it inexplicably stupid for Pentax to remove the aperture ring at this point in time. They're turning their great AF lenses into crippled tools designed for people who can't be bothered to use an aperture ring. In doing so, they're alienating the people who use Pentax because of its body/lens compatibility, and who like using MF bodies or lenses with new equipment. The big problem is that Pentax is also alienating those people who like using good AF equipment, since they don't seem to be in any hurry to introduce USM/AF-S/HSM, or IS/VR, or useful things like lock-on focus tracking, etc. So if Pentax can't attract the technology lovers, and is alienating the people who like using older technology, who do they have left? Beginners looking for an easy-to-use SLR, I guess. While I'm whining about Pentax, I should also point out that they don't make an ultra-wide f2.8 zoom like Canon's 16-35/2.8 L USM or Nikon's AF-S 17-35/2.8 ED-IF. Should be fun trying to sell a DSLR priced the same as (or slighter higher than) a D100/10D with fewer good lenses available for it. Just so I don't come across as a total Pentax basher, I still think they make some of the best MF and MedF stuff out there, and I like their unique approach to AF cameras (Z-1p, MZ-5n/3, etc.). However, they do manage to piss me off a lot, so think of this like a photo critique... pointing out the bad as well as the good. chris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] Rüdiger Neumann wrote: > Will there be a replacement of the 2.8/80-200 ??? hopefully a FA* 4/70-200 > which is not so heavy and cheeper.
RE: Favorite light meter?
RE: Favorite light meter? First favorive : My brain. Second favorite : Gossen Multi-Pro digital Third favorite : Pentax Digital Spot Fourth favorite : SL clip-on analog Fifth favorite : Polaroids on my 4X5 LEAST FAVORITE : exposed and developed conventional film That about does it JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Favorite light meter? Now the the *istD is making its way through the sales process, those of us with K and M lenses are going to have to make a choice: use a light meter or modify the mount. Given that many of us, including myself, will probably opt for the former, what light meter would be nice to have in a kit and why? I've basically used my camera's spot meter to do anything involving metering, but this might be clumsy to do on the *istD with having to switch modes to use the K/M lenses. I.e., i've heard that it wont meter at all in manual mode when using non A lenses. Cheers rg
Favorite light meter?
Now the the *istD is making its way through the sales process, those of us with K and M lenses are going to have to make a choice: use a light meter or modify the mount. Given that many of us, including myself, will probably opt for the former, what light meter would be nice to have in a kit and why? I've basically used my camera's spot meter to do anything involving metering, but this might be clumsy to do on the *istD with having to switch modes to use the K/M lenses. I.e., i've heard that it wont meter at all in manual mode when using non A lenses. Cheers rg
Re: Help me record the shots
>Take notes on whatever you find most convenient, there's no definite standard. To subsequently free yourself from the note-taking, look for patterns in the way you do different subjects. Judging from my own experience, I'd say that for similar subjects, you will find that you will tend to use the same settings most of the time. Once recognised, it becomes easy to remember. >hth, Jostein I find this very good advice. I actually bought a tiny tape recorder, thinking to record aperture/shutter speed (especially for positive film) so I could learn from it (since I do those manually). Well, I've only used it about twice -- when first starting. (I'll have to have something else to do with the recorder.) Just carrying a camera and lenses was enough, having to carry a recorder also was too much. Also it was not helpful for spontaneous shots, and tedious when doing more planned shots. And often I was repeatedly using the same aperture and shutter speed in similar situations. So when I reviewed what I had recorded, I found it wasn't really telling me anything I wasn't noticing for myself. Though I wouldn't mind that aspect of a DSLR, having the info. for each pic recorded. I recently took some shots using an IS lens (Canon) at the beach shooting some at both 1/60 and 1/30 handheld. I wanted to see if I could shoot 1/30 handheld with an IS. A lot of the shots have come out blurry, being able to see which were 1/30 would be helpful -- i.e. as with digital recording. However, OTOH, I can pretty much guess which of the ones *are* the 1/30s -- the blurry ones. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Portrait Lens Question
DOF is dependent on the set aperture and focal length of the lens only. This is why a 50mm lens has the same DOF, for a given f-stop, on a film or partial frame DSLR. BR > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > FOV at the same magnification scale should be equal with 35mm and *istD when > using the sme lens. *istD will have greater DOF than 35mm at equal distance > to subject. But then you will see just a part of image seen on 35mm frame, > thus you will have to make the distance between you and the subject greater > to maintain equal magnification scale. Am I right?
Re: Help me record the shots
Kostas, I had a period of noting down technical details of every shot I took. I stopped doing that later, but it was (and in periods still is) a very useful exercise. A small notebook and a pencil is robust, convenient battery-independent, and does not erase it's memory even if it gets wet. :-) If your notebook is lot at hand when you shoot, how likely are you to keep a PDA or a dictaphone at ready? Take notes on whatever you find most convenient, there's no definite standard. To subsequently free yourself from the note-taking, look for patterns in the way you do different subjects. Judging from my own experience, I'd say that for similar subjects, you will find that you will tend to use the same settings most of the time. Once recognised, it becomes easy to remember. hth, Jostein - Pictures at: http://oksne.net - - Original Message - From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:51 PM Subject: Help me record the shots > > I was going through the PUG and remembered the question I have had for > quite a while: is there a standard or easy way to record the details > of the shots taken? I am trying with a bit of scrap-paper, but it just > so happens that when I take the shot I don't have it with me, or there > is no time to note it down for I will lose the next shot or sth. > > What do you people use? > > Thanks, > Kostas > >
Re: New to the list
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Hi there, I'm new in the list. > >My name is André, I'm brazilian and I own a MZ-M (ZX-M) and a K1000 (that I >use most of the time). Besides it's weight I worship that camera. >I hope I can learn a lot here. Hi André, Welcome to the list. > >P.S.: Sorry about my english, sometimes I think it sounds terrible. No worries, nobody here can hear you. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: 300D first impressions
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >your self destruct mechanism is obviously as faulty as the AF then! ;-) Personally I have never had a problem with the AF - maybe I'm doing something wrong? AFAIK, the AF is working fine. I only us it shooting sporty things which is not often. I use manual focus for most everything. Landscapes - AF is of no consequence. Street - I pre-focus and shoot quickly. Portraits - manual on the eyes every time. I am just a manual focus kinda guy. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 09:49, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > on 24.09.03 18:35, Alin Flaider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > FAJ* 80-200/2.8 ? :oT > Or worse DA 80-200/2.8 - suitable only for APS DSLR... > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek > > Or even Worse: FAJ* 80-200/2.8 IS DA To really spite those of us who like to use film. -Scott
Re: New York photo stuff
i plan to be there, but can only make Saturday. Herb - Original Message - From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:18 PM Subject: New York photo stuff > Hey, is anyone else going to Photo Plus Expo October 30-Nov. 1? > http://www.photoplusexpo.com/
Vs: sometimes it just weighs too much
Sigma - especially the 4-5.6/70-300 DL macro is quite good, the APO is only slightly better and more expensive. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 24. syyskuuta 2003 5:15 Aihe: sometimes it just weighs too much >i am considering the FA 80-320 lens as a lightweight alternative to carrying >around my FA* 80-200 f2.8. how much will i be losing? i think that my FA >24-90 is about as low quality as i want to go. are there other auto focus >80-200 or somewhat longer lenses worth considering? > >Herb > >
New York photo stuff
Hey, is anyone else going to Photo Plus Expo October 30-Nov. 1? http://www.photoplusexpo.com/ Free code, for the exhibitor's floor, good until October 3: EDK10A0 Also, the Ansel Adams exhibit at MOMA ends on November 3... Amita
Re: New to the list
Hi! Welcome. Your English is just fine, at least from my (Israeli born in Russia) point of view. You're bound to have much fun with these fellows. Boris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:13:44 -0700 "Andre Albano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi there, I'm new in the list. My name is André, I'm brazilian and I own a MZ-M (ZX-M) and a K1000 (that I use most of the time). Besides it's weight I worship that camera. I hope I can learn a lot here. P.S.: Sorry about my english, sometimes I think it sounds terrible. André
Re: Sept PUG, comments
Thanks for your comments. I agree it would have been better if centered more. This flower was, however, four inches off the ground in the middle of a patch of prickly pear cactus. I did get some shots that were composed better, but did not as clearly portray the detail I was looking for, such as the grains of pollen. My main objective was to show how "cool" the Optio S is, as you put it, and that is why I picked this shot and submitted it without any fixing up in PhotoShop. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > " Cactus Flower "by Dan Matyola > I'm also reeealll partial to flowers. Though I think I would've been tempted to > centre this one. Handheld in macro mode? Aren't those Optios cool?!
Re: Message from NY Institute of Photography
>I wonder if Pentax is big enough to absorb the inevitable losses that a price war would necessitate? They need market share with the *ist D, and they need it now. >I'd be worried. >cheers, frank Yeah, but we're talking digicams here, not DSLRs, right? Although that probably affects the market for DSLRs. Interesting. Marnie aka Doe I welcome a price war.
Introducing the remarkable new Pentax *Ist D
Pentax.co.uk is back up. "Pentax officially launched its highly anticipated *ist D digital SLR at Sandown races on the 29th August 2003. A number of the UK's leading photographic editors attended the launch and put the *ist D through its paces (although time was also taken by many to have a flutter or two on the series of Pentax sponsored races that took place on the day!). The *ist D was received warmly by all those attending, with many pointing to a number of key features that truly distinguishes it from its competitors. Housed in the world's smallest, lightest SLR body, the *ist D comes equipped with an array of advanced functions and use-friendly features. These include: a large CCD with an impressive 6.1 effective megapixels; a responsive SAFOX VIII autofocus system with 11-point AF sensor; a 16-segment multi-pattern metering system; a bright viewfinder with a newly developed compact glass pentaprism; and, significantly, compatibility with Pentax's existing 35mm-format interchangeable lenses and accessories." So why the hell can I only find a hands on in an obscure digital photography mag, but no mention anywhere of this day? Also press release on new DA lens SERIES!! "PENTAX Corporation is proud to announce that it is currently in the final stage of development of the compact, high-performance smc PENTAX-DA series of interchangeable lenses, exclusively designed for use with PENTAX digital SLR cameras." > sounds like quite a few new DA lenses... "The image circle in the DA-series lenses is designed to perfectly match the size of the CCD (23.5mm x 15.7mm) incorporated in PENTAX's digital SLRs, optimizing the performance of these cameras. The new design also contributes to a drastic reduction in size, weight and production cost, compared to 35mm-format counterparts with similar specifications." > So more than one DSLR using the small sensor is confirmed - sounds like they will all use this size for now... "As the first model of the new DA series, PENTAX plans to market the smc PENTAX-DA Zoom 16mm~45mm F4 ED AL (tentative name, equivalent to 24.5mm~69mm in the 35mm format; marketing date to be announced), which features a three-times zoom ratio with focal lengths covering ultra-wide to moderate-telephoto ranges when mounted on the new PENTAX *ist D digital SLR camera. It also incorporates an Extra-low Dispersion (ED) glass lens element and two aspherical lens elements for true-to-life image reproduction and size reduction. Its simple, functional design, coupled with the elimination of an aperture ring, considerably improves the camera's operability." So the elimination of the aperture lens actually improves operation? Sounds like it would be hard to justify why more expensive glass doesn't take advantage of this 'improved operability', so higher end glass without the aperture ring in the future? Or is this just a marketing person talking through their rear end. I expect much more cursing and swearing at Pentax over the next 6-12 months!!
Re: P30 and AF201SA
In programmed AE mode the camera will be set to 1/100 and the aperture will also be set according to where you have the switch - Red, Green or Yellow . But this information applies to the AF200SA since the 201 was probably not yet on the market at the time the P30 manual was written. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages "The Cement Company from HELL!" Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:00 PM Subject: P30 and AF201SA > > Hi, > > Does anybody have the above combination? I just bought the AF201SA > (thanks Eric) and I expected it to set the aperture and speed > automatically in the P mode; I tried it in near-darkness and, while > the flash worked, the mirror stayed open for a second, so... I don't > have a manual for the P30 (the Pentax site only has a manual for the > P30t), can anybody check for me please? The flash works fine on the > MZ-50. > > TIA, > Kostas > >
Re: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
This makes a 80-200mm IS (or whatever) more plausable? Wishful thinking, i know. /Paul From: "Rüdiger Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:22:19 +0200 Hallo on http://www.pentax.de/pentaxeurope/pentaxeurope_prod/pentaxeurope/v2/de/photo /pricelist.html is a new Pentax Preislist (starting from 15.9.2003) In the list is a footnote that the FA*2.8/80-200 will not be available for long anymore. This is the same with the FA 35-80, which has already a replacement with the FAJ 28-80. Will there be a replacement of the 2.8/80-200 ??? hopefully a FA* 4/70-200 which is not so heavy and cheeper. The MZ-3 is not in the list anymore. The list has also the S4, 555 and 33WR and the *istD The official price of the *istD is 1800 und mit FA18-35 2100 The 18-35 alone is 499 Euro, far to expensive. regards Rüdiger _ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
Re: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
on 24.09.03 18:35, Alin Flaider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > FAJ* 80-200/2.8 ? :oT Or worse DA 80-200/2.8 - suitable only for APS DSLR... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses
Actually, f-stop varies with focal length at all aperture settings. So you only know the approximate f-stop at intermediate focal lengths. These lenses are pretty worthless with manual exposure, and manual, or on-the-strob-sensor flash. If you are using slide film. The varience is only 1 stop so negative film does pretty well regardless. Not having extensive experience with digital I am not sure how well it will work with them in manual mode. Once again you probably will not even notice it in automatic modes. Donald A. Morrison wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Donald A. Morrison" Subject: Max. aperture labelling on FAJ lenses Hello all, I notice that the max. aperture label printed on the barrel of the FAJ lenses contains more numbers than is usual, eg. the aperture of the FAJ 18-35 is indicated as 1:4(22) - 5.6(32). Can anyone tell me what the significance is of the bracketed 22 and 32? Minimum aperture at 35mm. William Robb So the minimum aperture varies with focal length as well as the maximum aperture? Sounds nasty. Many thanks, DAM. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Sept PUG Comments
På onsdag, 24. september 2003, kl. 18:25, skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoth Marnie aka Doe Although it is easier to say that one likes something, than to say *why* one isn't wild about something. More socially correct, too :-) My photography professor had a firm rule for class critiques. You HAD to start with a positive comment. Having made the positive comment you could go on to say what you might want to change about the work. This rule was designed to keep things civil and it worked very well. That´s a nice rule. I try to do something like that. I actually find it easier to put into words what bothers me about something than why I like it. I realize that doesn't exactly contradict what you said. I guess the hierarchy of difficulty to analyze my reaction in words would be, for me: Easiest: "I like that." Next: "I don't really like that." Next: "I don't like that because the colours are muddy and it smells like burnt hair." Hardest: "I like that because its texture reminds me of fluffy clouds on a lazy day and is therefore restful, and it has a slight trace of the scent of roses, which are my favourite flower." On the receiving side the hierarchy of comments is: worst: "bad photo" better. "Nice photo" even better: " I like it because." best: "I don´t like it, because" ...simply because there is more to learn from the latter, it may point out something you have overlooked, and you get a chance to decide if you agree with the reasons or not. DagT
Re: New to the list
Hi, and welcome to the list. Don't worry about your English. It sounds fine to me, and as long we can understand what you're saying it doesn't matter how you say it. The K1000 is a great simple camera, though I have to admit that I *like* its heaviness. Feels more sturdy to me. chris On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Andre Albano wrote: > Hi there, I'm new in the list. > > My name is André, I'm brazilian and I own a MZ-M (ZX-M) and a K1000 (that I > use most of the time). Besides it's weight I worship that camera. > I hope I can learn a lot here. > > P.S.: Sorry about my english, sometimes I think it sounds terrible. > > > André >
Re: Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
Rüdiger wrote: RN> Will there be a replacement of the 2.8/80-200 ??? FAJ* 80-200/2.8 ? :oT Servus, Alin
Only of interest to UK folks and sl OT again hookey stuff
Stolen Fuji Digital apparently all from local burglaries although the police report also notes that the majority of these things are not yet available in the UK.and stranger still all boxed in perfect condition. How odd. F401 # 2HL06032 # 23L04336 #23L04360 F402 #24L09689 #24L09684 F410s with UW housing x2 #32A60149 F601 # 2ML06153 F700 # 33A10396 S5000 # 33L06092/5/6/7 F700 # 33L03574/6/9 A203 # 24A00653/659
Re: Sept PUG Comments
På onsdag, 24. september 2003, kl. 17:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Glad you found "review" all right, when I saw Dag's I kicked myself. Why? Your suggestion was good. Now why I can give responses/critiques/whatever in one or two lines? LOL. Too wordy by half. :-) I had to, I was determined to comment them all, but some of the photos would have deserved more words. DagT (man of too few words ;-) When talking about kicking myself, I was just referring to the length of my comments. In a very concise way you zeroed in on picture highlights and weaknesses, while I fumbled around trying to verbalize my reactions. OK, thanks, but keep up the good work :-) DagT
Re: Sept PUG Comments
Quoth Marnie aka Doe > Although it is easier to say that one likes something, than > to say *why* one isn't wild about something. > More socially correct, too :-) My photography professor had a firm rule for class critiques. You HAD to start with a positive comment. Having made the positive comment you could go on to say what you might want to change about the work. This rule was designed to keep things civil and it worked very well. I actually find it easier to put into words what bothers me about something than why I like it. I realize that doesn't exactly contradict what you said. I guess the hierarchy of difficulty to analyze my reaction in words would be, for me: Easiest: "I like that." Next: "I don't really like that." Next: "I don't like that because the colours are muddy and it smells like burnt hair." Hardest: "I like that because its texture reminds me of fluffy clouds on a lazy day and is therefore restful, and it has a slight trace of the scent of roses, which are my favourite flower." Hmm?
Re: Top eBay photo searches OT
<< Interesting. I see that "Sonly" made it into the top brands. Must be an up-and-coming company... :) >> Aah yes, that would be the search under '" it sonly a Praktica but golly does it take nice pictures - the last time I used it" Peter
Discontinue of the FA* 2.8/80-200
Hallo on http://www.pentax.de/pentaxeurope/pentaxeurope_prod/pentaxeurope/v2/de/photo /pricelist.html is a new Pentax Preislist (starting from 15.9.2003) In the list is a footnote that the FA*2.8/80-200 will not be available for long anymore. This is the same with the FA 35-80, which has already a replacement with the FAJ 28-80. Will there be a replacement of the 2.8/80-200 ??? hopefully a FA* 4/70-200 which is not so heavy and cheeper. The MZ-3 is not in the list anymore. The list has also the S4, 555 and 33WR and the *istD The official price of the *istD is 1800 und mit FA18-35 2100 The 18-35 alone is 499 Euro, far to expensive. regards Rüdiger
New to the list
Hi there, I'm new in the list. My name is André, I'm brazilian and I own a MZ-M (ZX-M) and a K1000 (that I use most of the time). Besides it's weight I worship that camera. I hope I can learn a lot here. P.S.: Sorry about my english, sometimes I think it sounds terrible. André
Re: Pentax RAW file format
> er but did it take a nice shot? But of course - yet another wonderful photo of the inside of a camera store. It's amazing how many of those seem to accumulate over the years. :) Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software
P30 and AF201SA
Hi, Does anybody have the above combination? I just bought the AF201SA (thanks Eric) and I expected it to set the aperture and speed automatically in the P mode; I tried it in near-darkness and, while the flash worked, the mirror stayed open for a second, so... I don't have a manual for the P30 (the Pentax site only has a manual for the P30t), can anybody check for me please? The flash works fine on the MZ-50. TIA, Kostas
Re: 300D first impressions
>Nearly one year on here with a D60 and my God It's still working!!! Yup - right out of the box!!! I thought it would instantly stop at 6 months + one day, for it would be entirely obsolete. But no, I can - do - still shoot with it. Unbelievable. >Cheers, Cotty Well, of course it isn't set to expire when the 300D comes out -- only when something priced higher when than the D60 comes out. Say in a month or two. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Sept PUG Comments
> >Glad you found "review" all right, when I saw Dag's I kicked myself. >Why? Your suggestion was good. >> Now why I can give responses/critiques/whatever in one or two lines? LOL. Too >>wordy by half. >:-) I had to, I was determined to comment them all, but some of the photos would have deserved more words. >DagT (man of too few words ;-) When talking about kicking myself, I was just referring to the length of my comments. In a very concise way you zeroed in on picture highlights and weaknesses, while I fumbled around trying to verbalize my reactions. And I completely missed the zebra joke. Do'h! Oh, well, I suppose one can get better at critiquing, just as one can get better at photography. But somehow I think being an experienced and good photographer probably helps a tad. ;-) Marnie aka Doe Although it is easier to say that one likes something, than to say *why* one isn't wild about something.
RE: 300D first impressions
your self destruct mechanism is obviously as faulty as the AF then! ;-) > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 September 2003 15:35 > To: pentax list > Subject: Re: 300D first impressions > > > On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >I'll be more interested in everybody's (and hopefully my) > impressions > >after living with their new camera for 6 months. > > Nearly one year on here with a D60 and my God It's still > working!!! Yup - right out of the box!!! I thought it would > instantly stop at 6 months + one day, for it would be > entirely obsolete. But no, I can - do - still shoot with it. > Unbelievable. > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > >
Re: Portrait Lens Question
All perspective is set by the camera to subject distance. Period. Irrespective of the image format. If perspective is the driving factor (natural noses, ears, etc. or a specific exaggeration), then the length of the lens is selected for framing - to get the most out of the small 35mm or digital sensor frame. Sometimes perfection in perspective isn't necessary, and the lens is selected to give or accommodate a convenient photographer to subject distance. It's still all about making the most out of the available film/sensor real estate. Regards, Bob... "Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?" -Martin Luther From: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've not done much portrait work, and I have a question about portrait > lenses. > > Is the 'desirable' focal length of ~85mm to get a slightly flattened > perspective, in order to de-emphasise features on peoples faces etc? Or is > it to allow a good photographer to subject distance? Or both? > > Just curious about the ideal portrait lens on a *istD. Obviously the FOV > crop factor of 1.5 means that a 50mm lens has the same field of view as a > 75mm lens, but, still being 50mm focal length has the same perspective on > any camera. If the perspective was the main concern here, then still having > an 85mm lens would be ideal, but then the FOV would be a lot tighter and > might necessitate a lot larger distance to the subject.
Re: Complete Sept PUG Comments - loooooong
The real question for me on the balloon ride shot was to what degree to make the balloon a silhouette, and you and W. Robb have both commented on that aspect of the picture. Ideally, I wanted most of the balloon to be a silhouette but some of the faces to be visible by the light of flame. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pentax RAW file format
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Had a play with a *istD in a local camera store today. I'd have to say I >was impressed. > >I took along my CF card to grab some shots, and took a few RAW files to have >a peek at. For anyone who is interested in technical details, these are in >fact TIFF files with a .PEF extension. > >Most TIFF loading someware won't directly work with them, as they are >12bit/channel, and have only a single channel. The Photometric identifier >is also something I don't recognise, and isn't documented in the TIFF >headers... no doubt some GRGB bayer photometric. Hopefully Pentax will make >documentation of custom photometric IDs and tiff tags available. > >In any case, this makes the files trivial to parse and load for us third >party types, well done again Pentax. > >My only complaint is that the 12 bit data is padded to 16 bit. This makes >the raw file bigger than it needs to be; they are over 12MB, where they >should only need to be 9MB or so. This reduces storage on CF, and slows >write times, seemingly unnecesarily. If anyone at Pentax is listening, >please could we have non-padded PEF files? > >It may also be of interest that the PEF file seems to be 3040x2024 >resolution, with all pixels seemingly active. Various other RAW files I've >used have the entire sensor area (which Pentax quote as 3110x2030), but have >black (masked) areas present. > >I am not sure yet if the PEF contains the appropriate ICC profile to >correctly convert the file. er but did it take a nice shot? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: 300D first impressions
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I'll be more interested in everybody's (and hopefully my) impressions after >living with their new camera for 6 months. Nearly one year on here with a D60 and my God It's still working!!! Yup - right out of the box!!! I thought it would instantly stop at 6 months + one day, for it would be entirely obsolete. But no, I can - do - still shoot with it. Unbelievable. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Evaluating Photographs
I like to hear both pro and con of the pictures i send in.This helps me in deciding if i need to change a framing or lightinng for that particular style of subject matter,or keep things the way they are for the time being.I have pretty thick skin.although Shel came close to breaking it on ocassion. I think the general comments stopped coming at the level they did after one submitter was ripped apart (by the above)and a pretty long flame came out of that IMSMC. Dave > > Me too! > > Well said. > > chris > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > That's silly. There are no qualifications needed to comment on photographs. > > All you have to do is write down how you felt or experienced looking at it, > > and maybe why. This isn't judging a photo competition where you have to look > > for all sorts of arcane details. > > > > BR > > > > > > > From: "Kathleen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > I love looking at all of the PUG monthly photos, but I do not feel qualified > > > to comment on the photos insofar as offering praise, criticism, or > > > suggestions for improvement. > > >
Re: PUG Comments
Well, they're really guidelines more than anything, but I don't mind writing something a little clearer for a webpage. I don't have one of my own, but if someone wants to host it, let me know. chris On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Chris, > > Could you put your critique suggestions up on a web page? Maybe with John > Francis' additions? I've printed them out. And I'll keep them, but who knows how > long that will last? I mislay papers all the time. And knowing how I handle my > email (no real handling), eventually the originals will be lost in my file > cabinet (archived email). > > I gather you don't want to be "official" and sort an authority or > critiquemaster (critimeister :-)) or anything, but I don't think throwing them on a > web > page would necessarily lay that mantle on you. Anyway, on a web page they could > be available for reference for scattered people like myself and others who > may come along later, like newbies. > > Just an idea. Take with salt. > > Marnie aka Doe >
Re: Complete Sept PUG Comments - loooooong
Can I hijack? I have taken about 5 pictures in my entire life but can I? On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Dag T wrote: > Thomas Moraitis, Sunset with Drying octopusses > Sunsets are popularIt is not a bad one, but in this case I miss > something in the other end of the line. The composition is too heavily > concentrated on the left. Also, I would have preferred to have the > horizon clear below the octopuses. One radical suggestion: crop until > only the line the sun, perhaps the horizon and a few octopuses remain. When I saw it I thought "fill-in flash on the post" (hopefully deflected to keep it soft). What would you make of this suggestion? I don't want the detail of the octopus, but feel I am missing something from the lamp. Being a fellow ex-pat com-pat, this picture says a few things to me :-) > Joseph Tainter, Notre Dame From Upstream > I like the light in the lower part of the building, but don´t like the > way the towers are cut. I´d prefer either more or less. I always have this problem when I take buildings. Assuming you go for less, won't you lose the top of the round roof at the front? Would you go even lower? > Dag Thrane, Stone > Hey, that´s me, OK, revenge is yours :-) As I have no picture I perhaps shouldn't, but here goes: I would like perhaps something more at the bottom to frame the foot. That's what I hate most about my upright pictures. I am also pondering on the possible merits of a bit more DOF to expose the hand fully (is it motion that makes it blurred?). I get the morbid feeling here that perhaps the stone is *behind* the hand (and perhaps the child) and going towards it! > Frank Theriault, The Demonstration > Determined, but not too angry. OK PJ shot from a demostration. The > white jacket against all the dark ones helps a lot to the composition. This looks to me more like a souvenir from the demonstration, rather than a picture of it. The impression I get about the demonstration was that it was rather sparse and too well behaved. It's a fine picture, with an "I was there" feeling. It's just the title I am wondering about (and thus the interpretation). > Ann Sanfedele, Yellow chairs > Yellow? Nice colours ;-) The fuzzy circle at the right bothers me, > besides that I like these skinny chairs. Would you align the floor with the frame of the picture? Would a straight shot from the front be boring? The tulip was my favourite. Kostas (trying to learn-thanks for the commentary)
