Re: I have seen the istD...
How many Mpixel is the G1? 3.3? Maximum resolution is 2048 x 1536 pixels of imaging area. That's either 3 or 3.3 depending on how (and what) you count. Pro: It uses CF cards (and can accept microdrives) Con: It uses proprietary batteries (511/512). They're the same batteries most Canon digitals use, but if you want the external charger be prepared to pay through the nose.
RE: I have seen the istD...
It doesnt come with batteries and an external charger? J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 1:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I have seen the istD... How many Mpixel is the G1? 3.3? Maximum resolution is 2048 x 1536 pixels of imaging area. That's either 3 or 3.3 depending on how (and what) you count. Pro: It uses CF cards (and can accept microdrives) Con: It uses proprietary batteries (511/512). They're the same batteries most Canon digitals use, but if you want the external charger be prepared to pay through the nose.
Re: slide exposure
Question is, why is underexposure easier to handle? Presumably white is represented by some number, say 255, and black by 0. You'd think exposure would fall off either end just as easily. Does it have to do with an exponential response curve of some sort like film has? Sort of Tri-X like in the toe and T-max like at the top... Yes, pretty much. Think of a CCD sensor as a device for counting photons. If you double the exposure time (increasing exposure by one stop) you'll get twice as many photons in the bucket. Halve the exposure time and you only get half as many photons. This means that an image overexposed by one stop would have counts that (after scaling) would range from 0 to 511. This is clipped to the range 0 to 255, with everything above 255 ending up mapped to 255. The visual effect is that the bright areas of the image are all washed out to white. An underexposed image, on the other hand, simply has values in the range 0 to 127. You can get back to the 0 to 255 range by simply multiplying all the values by two, although you lose one bit of precision.
Re: I have seen the istD...
It [the G1] doesnt come with batteries and an external charger? Battery (one), yes. External charger, no - you charge the battery in-camera. I found that far too restrictive, so I purchased a second battery (around $60) and the external charger ($160, including car adapter). I suspect prices have come down a bit since then, but that's what I had to pay at the time (nobody except Canon USA had the charger in stock, so I had to pay list price, not discount street price). Best-quality JPEG images tend to be around 1.25 - 1.5MB, so I get 180 or so on a 256MB card. With fairly heavy use of the LCD I can use up a battery before I fill up the card; leave the LCD off most of the time and I can easily fill two 256MB cards on a single charge (in each case shooting over a two to three hour period).
Re: SAFOX VIII working range
on 30.10.03 21:30, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was curious - how good is the new SAFOX VIII (on *ist*istD) in low light? In the Phil's review, it looks dissapointing; 0,1EV with a 1.4 lens, as opposed to -1EV for the 10D. I made some dirt quick tests of SAFOX VIII last weekend, comparing it to SAFOX VII in MZ-S. And while in good light, *istD was able to lock faster on very low-contrast subjects, but in poor lighting it was hunting and getting very slow. It needed about two times more hunting that MZ-S did and thus was two times slower. Also it seems, that it had more problems with strongly defocused image (with long lenses), than SAFOX VII did - it spinned first in the wrong direction, then in the right to obtain proper focus. MZ-S had less problems with it, but a winner was... Z-20 and SAFOX II with one wide AF sensor, which followed in the right direction even with very defocused image from my Sigma 180/3.5 almost all the time. Otherwise, SAFOX VIII proved to be very fast and sure, but it simply needed more light. I hope Pentax will solve these small problems with SAFOX IX or anything to come. Mentioned problems are not important for me, and as a matter of fact, AF slowed down at light levels that made even iso3200 hardly useable, and you could use in these conditions flash, which provides AF assist lamp anyway, but people who use long telephoto lenses with AF would like probably to have more effective SAFOX. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: SAFOX VIII working range
Sylwester, how precise is the SAFOX VIII in the light of previous reports on how SAFOX IV and even VII produce slightly defocused results with certain lenses (notably FA 50/1.4 not achieving infinity). Did you feel you can improve the focus manually? Servus, Alin Sylwester wrote: SP I made some dirt quick tests of SAFOX VIII last weekend, comparing it to SP SAFOX VII in MZ-S. And while in good light, *istD was able to lock faster SP on very low-contrast subjects, but in poor lighting it was hunting and SP getting very slow. It needed about two times more hunting that MZ-S did SP and thus was two times slower. Also it seems, that it had more problems with SP strongly defocused image (with long lenses), than SAFOX VII did - it spinned SP first in the wrong direction, then in the right to obtain proper focus. MZ-S SP had less problems with it, but a winner was... Z-20 and SAFOX II with one SP wide AF sensor, which followed in the right direction even with very SP defocused image from my Sigma 180/3.5 almost all the time. Otherwise, SAFOX SP VIII proved to be very fast and sure, but it simply needed more light. I SP hope Pentax will solve these small problems with SAFOX IX or anything to SP come. Mentioned problems are not important for me, and as a matter of fact, SP AF slowed down at light levels that made even iso3200 hardly useable, and SP you could use in these conditions flash, which provides AF assist lamp SP anyway, but people who use long telephoto lenses with AF would like probably SP to have more effective SAFOX.
Re: OT:- Scanning for Dummies
I've finally started to scan some of my 35mm trannies, and quickly come to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm doing. I can make scans and some of them look OK, but I have 1001 questions to ask around, how to prepare the trannies, the optimum dpi, final image size, best format to hold the scan files in etc. Is there a book or a site along the lines of Scanning 101 that will help me understand the basics. Yeah, Scanning 101 at http://www.scantips.com/ More scanning stuff than you'll ever want to know. Marnie aka Doe
Re: slide exposure
John Francis wrote: This means that an image overexposed by one stop would have counts that (after scaling) would range from 0 to 511. This is clipped to the range 0 to 255, with everything above 255 ending up mapped to 255. The visual effect is that the bright areas of the image are all washed out to white. An underexposed image, on the other hand, simply has values in the range 0 to 127. You can get back to the 0 to 255 range by simply multiplying all the values by two, although you lose one bit of precision. Egad, that almost makes sense and math is not my strong suit (also still resting my brain from informational overload). And it's easier to lighten (successfully) in photo editing programs than it is to darken (successfully). Darkening tends to gray things out. Marnie aka Doe Well, in my experience. And that a nontechnical answer as well. :-)
Re: SAFOX VIII working range
on 31.10.03 9:10, Alin Flaider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sylwester, how precise is the SAFOX VIII in the light of previous reports on how SAFOX IV and even VII produce slightly defocused results with certain lenses (notably FA 50/1.4 not achieving infinity). Did you feel you can improve the focus manually? Alin, I didn't make these particular tests. And althought I have some shots with focus slightly in the front of subject, it can't be judged by that, because they were made hanheld with very shallow DOF (180mm at f3.5 and 100mm at f2.8), so it could be just my and/or my subject's movement. Fortunately I have never had these problems with MZ-S and my lenses (FA 35/2, FA 24-90 and Sigma 180/3.5 macro), so I hope the examples made with *istD were sllightly out of focus just by my mistake. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: PhotoShop - memory requirements
Elements is probably good enough. I am using it and I am familiar with PaintShop Pro 5-7, so even though I don't know PhotoShop, I am pretty familiar with digital editing. Most programs of that type have tons more menu selections and options than the average person needs. It also means that complete digital editing programs can have the highest learning curve of any type of program out there. So, if it was me, I'd start with the cheaper program. Elements does the basics and a bit more than the basics sometimes. I've found it just fine for scanning in, doing some basic editing, then printing. It also makes some web page galleries if you want to share stuff on the Net. And it is easy to pick up. Low learning curve. However, I found even it a memory hog (where PaintShop Pro 7 is not). So I added 128 (I think it was) and now it is fine. Screen redraws took too long. I'd suggest trying it out first without new memory and seeing how you do. I also added in the Kodak dust remover plug-in. Had to lie and say I had a Kodak camera -- you can get it free online. I really, really like it. Sorry, don't have the URL handy, but it's a nice plug-in. Have fun. That's the main thing. And they even have Elements for Dummy type books if you get stuck. Marnie aka Doe HTH.
Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: The 11 print was then compared to a 11 print I made from scanned 4X5 ektachrome 100. The ist image has remarkable lack of grain/noise and looks virtually as good as the 4x5 print in that respect. The resolution however is clearly not at the same level when examining with a loupe. This is exactly as I expected. But, how many people view an 11 print through a loupe. Most folks hang one that size on the wall and view it from several feet away. This raises a very interesting point. I have been re-reading Photoshop for Photographers by Martin Evening and I came across a section on printing resolution that I didn't recall. In it, the author says that 'the optimum pixel resolution [of the printed image] should ideally be the printer dpi divisible by a whole number. The following pixel resolutions should be used [for a 1440/2880 printer] : 144, 160, 180, 240, 288, 320, 360. To make large inkjets for viewing at a greater distance, use a low pixel resolution. For smaller sized portfolio prints I normally use a 240 ppi resolution. I doubt very much you will notice any improvement in print quality if you choose a resolution that is higher than this.' This subject has been discussed on the list before, but what with the recent arrival of the *ist D into many eager Pentax user's hands, it may be of interest again now. Off the starting blocks I have always been printing at 300 dpi and always been very happy with the results. I think I tried 200 dpi once and noticed the difference. My image size out of the (light-tight) box is 3072 pixels by 2048 pixels with a file size in Photoshop of 18 MB (from a large/fine jpeg). If I change the resolution to 300 ppi (without changing the dimensions - file size - that is without getting Photoshop to interpolate extra info into the image) then my physical size of print will be 26cm by 17cm or thereabouts. That's roughly 10X 6 1/2. So at 300 ppi, if I want to fill a nice A3 print, I would normally increase the size to (say) 40cmX26cm, also increasing the pixel count from 3072X2048 to 4724X3150, and bumping up the file size from 18 MB to a whopping 42 MB. Photoshop interpolates very well and the prints are really nice. But now if I change things slightly and select a resolution of 240ppi as Mr Evening suggests, the size increase is much less in terms of added Photoshop interpolation. 3072X2048 goes up to 3780X2520, and file size jumps from 18MB to only 26MB. I don't really have a question in starting this thread, rather just the above observations. It's my last day off sick (I'm feeling much better after being attacked by a flu bug) so I'll be using a bit of ink up doing some tests. Any thoughts / comments / pointers ? How do you do it ? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Hi, Friday, October 31, 2003, 12:35:59 AM, you wrote: I think I am the one who started using MXen as the plural for MX, based on German usage, in response to all the English grammer critics on rec.phot.* who claimed that it was improper to use MX's. I have since discovered they are full of it. Using an apostrophe when making the plural of an acronym is proper usage according to my style manual. Which style manual is that? It disagrees with the Oxford Style Manual, which says Do not use the apostrophe when creating plurals. This includes names, abbreviations (with or without full points), numbers and words not usually used as nouns [a list follows]. Do not employ what is sometimes known as 'the greengrocer's apostrophe', such as lettuce's for lettuces and cauli's for cauliflowers.. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LXist
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: For the cause I will gladly let my name be known for the mentioned collective noun. Umm, someone has to ask this. Would a person buying several LXes then be doing a Cesar Metamorphosis? And surely if it can rain cats and dogs it can hale Cesars? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)
Epson printer drivers will not go above 360 dpi. send higher resolution (i.e. 6Kx4K for a 4x6 print) and it will downsample. i suspect Canon ones are the same with a different number, probably 300dpi since their quoted printer resolutions are multiples of 300. Herb... - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:33 AM Subject: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples) Off the starting blocks I have always been printing at 300 dpi and always been very happy with the results. I think I tried 200 dpi once and noticed the difference. My image size out of the (light-tight) box is 3072 pixels by 2048 pixels with a file size in Photoshop of 18 MB (from a large/fine jpeg). If I change the resolution to 300 ppi (without changing the dimensions - file size - that is without getting Photoshop to interpolate extra info into the image) then my physical size of print will be 26cm by 17cm or thereabouts. That's roughly 10X 6 1/2. So at 300 ppi, if I want to fill a nice A3 print, I would normally increase the size to (say) 40cmX26cm, also increasing the pixel count from 3072X2048 to 4724X3150, and bumping up the file size from 18 MB to a whopping 42 MB. Photoshop interpolates very well and the prints are really nice. But now if I change things slightly and select a resolution of 240ppi as Mr Evening suggests, the size increase is much less in terms of added Photoshop interpolation. 3072X2048 goes up to 3780X2520, and file size jumps from 18MB to only 26MB.
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Look here for more info: http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm Check the section: Plurals and Apostrophes
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
graywolf wrote: [. . .] (For anyone who cares the Oxford American Dictionary says a's or as, the New Heritage Dictionary says a's) --- And my Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition, 1997, says the plural of an a is either As, or A's or a's. It does not list as because that would be ambiguous, and indistinguishable from the adverb... keith
Wide Angle on Sexist D
One thing I would miss on an APS-sized sensor is full use of my F17-28, with which I have taken some favorite shots. So I wonder if these sensors might mean that, finally, there is a use for circular fisheyes. Here're the numbers: Sexist D sensor: 23.5 x 15.7 mm. Sigma 8 mm. circular fisheye image circle: 22 mm. So there would be a clip at the corners. It might still be useable, though. I look forward to a report when someone tries this. Joe
Re: SAFOX VIII working range
on 30.10.03 21:30, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was curious - how good is the new SAFOX VIII (on *ist*istD) in low light? In the Phil's review, it looks dissapointing; 0,1EV with a 1.4 lens, as opposed to -1EV for the 10D. I made some dirt quick tests of SAFOX VIII last weekend, comparing it to SAFOX VII in MZ-S. . . . but a winner was... Z-20 and SAFOX II with one wide AF sensor, which followed in the right direction ... That (SAFOX II) is the same AF system as in the PZ-1p, right? In that case your experience is exactly the opposite of mine. I find that the MZ-S almost always guesses right on how to focus, while the PZ-1p is far more prone to guessing wrong, spinning the lens all the way to the stop, and only achieving focus in the return directon (this is particularly true when the lens is currently focussed a little closer than the object). I'll probably be checking the *ist-D AF tonight at a Halloween party.
digital viewfinders
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera this today). It strikes me that it would be handy to have a digital camera with a waist level finder and shade that consisted of a horizontal LCD screen. The screen on the E-10 can fold out, but it's awkward to use the camera this way. I'm thinking of a horizontal top-mounted LCD. It is just me or does this sound like something useful? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: digital viewfinders
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote: A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera this today). It strikes me that it would be handy to have a digital camera with a waist level finder and shade that consisted of a horizontal LCD screen. The screen on the E-10 can fold out, but it's awkward to use the camera this way. I'm thinking of a horizontal top-mounted LCD. It is just me or does this sound like something useful? It is very useful. My digital camera before the *ist D was a Sony DSC-F717 which has a rotating viewfinder (the whole back of the camera rotates). I used this all the time. A few times that I liked it: * tripod usage -- I can carry a shorter/lighter tripod for travelling * macros and ground level shots -- don't have to kneel in the mud. * discrete shooting -- people don't think that you are taking photographs when the camera is in your lap (the nearly silent shutter helps too). alex
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Hi, Two nations divided by a common language, I think. I'm certainly aware of the use of the apostrophe to indicate contractions. What we are taught is that there are 2 main uses for the apostrophe: to indicate possession, and to replace missing letters in contractions. There are one or 2 exceptions, and other fairly minor uses. The Oxford Guide to Style gives OK'ing, KO'd, OD's, SOS'ing as examples. For the record, I don't 'insist upon concrete rules of usage', and I'm in no way 'kind of ignorant of the multitudes of variation in such usage'. Issues like this are a matter of degree, and to some extent of culture. We already see the influence of text messaging on the way people write and spell. There are people who defend -'s as a plural using exactly your arguments who will get hot under the collar about CUL8R etc. Nobody can be 100% consistent in this. LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE WRITE ALL IN CAPITALS. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE BEFORE OTHERWISE MILD-MANNERED PEOPLE GET ANNOYED AT THAT and consider also all those people whove given up on punctuation and speling altogether and defend themselves with the claim that hey their getting thr msg across so fuck off dude its all about comunicatn anyway and you know what im saying without me having to follow all your rules whydoweevenbotherwithspacesbetweenwordsitworkedjustfinefortheromansitcanworkjustfineforussogetoffofmycase The important thing is to know when it is and isn't suitable to use something in different circumstances. One thing I think we can be fairly sure about is that you cannot go wrong if you stick to 'the rules'. But you can go wrong if you adopt the 'anything goes' approach. Imagine an undertaker addressing a grieving widow with Yo, bitch! Where's the stiff?. Perhaps there are some cultures where this would be acceptable, but an undertaker would be ill-advised to use it in all circumstances. Bob Friday, October 31, 2003, 3:47:04 PM, you wrote: Argh*, see why I started using MXen. Bob was there on rec.photo.equipment.35mm back in 1992-93. :) The problem with that thinking, Bob, is that the apostrophe is also used when leaving out letters: don't, o'clock, and MX's instead of MXes. Further the New Heritage Dictionary indicates that it is proper to form plurals of acronyms by adding 's to them. That makes two common usages that say MX's is proper. My experience with those who insist upon concrete rules of usage is that they are kind of ignorant of the multitudes of variation in such usage. There are no concrete rules, only generally accepted usage. The Oxford references always seems to try and be too rigid in their definitions. I usually use Strunk and White as my style manual as I like their simplified style. What I seldom use is what my school teachers taught me as I have discovered that they basically didn't have a clue and thus tried to reduce communications to stupid and conflicting rules. The only real rule in writing english is clear communication. If my readers understand what I meant then my style is good, if they do not then my style is bad. Since I am not a college professor nor a lawyer, impressing the reader with my erudition is quite far down on my writing style list. * Did I get the right number of a's? Or is that as, or aes, or... Oh, never mind! ;) (For anyone who cares the Oxford American Dictionary says a's or as, the New Heritage Dictionary says a's) ---
FS Friday
I have a RED Pentax PC35AF with winder and case. Can't get it to work. Anyone want it for a shelf collectible? $5 + shpg.
Re: PhotoShop - memory requirements
Elements is probably good enough. I am using it and I am familiar with PaintShop Pro 5-7, so even though I don't know PhotoShop, I am pretty familiar with digital editing. Most programs of that type have tons more menu selections and options than the average person needs. Hi, There's a bit of truth to what you say, although, IMO, Elements is lacking some important tools, such as the healing brush, the patch tool, curves, color balance, and channel mixer, and there's also no access to channels, all of which I've found a use for on more than one occasion and some of which are used with every photograph processed. Frankly, there's a nice little free program called Irfan that's a joy to use, and while it lacks many features of PS and Elements, it's super for proofing work and for minor touch ups. Kind regards, Tyrone -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Comincia a correre! Tapis roulant, cyclette, spin bike e tanto altro ti attendono! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2041d=31-10
Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)
In it, the author says that 'the optimum pixel resolution [of the printed image] should ideally be the printer dpi divisible by a whole number. The following pixel resolutions should be used [for a 1440/2880 printer] : 144, 160, 180, 240, 288, 320, 360. The reason for this is fairly simple. The printer driver software uses dithering to get the various shades of colour. The dithering is done for each input pixel, which corresponds to a rectangular array of inkdot sites. For example, a 360ppi image on that 1440/2880 printer has a 4x8 array of possible inkdot sites. If the printer also has two different drop sizes this means the printer can manage something like 64 different levels of each colour at each pixel location. Dithering is much, *much* simpler if the number of input pixels divides the resolution exactly. As most printers embed the dithering in hardware this means that source images at resolutions other than those submultiples will usually be resampled by the printer driver software before being sent on to the device. It's unlikely that the resampling code in the driver will be as good as the image resizing code in your favourite image editing application, and you certainy won't have any control over the amount of extra sharpening (if any) that might need to be applied after this resampling. If you resize the image yourself, though, you retain full control over everything except the final microdrop dithering stage; something the printer manufacturer probably *does* implement as well as they know how. (Incidentally, the quoted example is wrong. While 320 is a factor of 2880, it is not a factor of 1440, and thus is not an optimal resolution).
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Hi, Bob Walkden wrote: Here's how sad I am. snip I'm sadder than you. I am intrigued to find fedex in that list. Only comes out as a company name on Google. Quite a few Latin taxonomic terms in that list. I work at an academic institution that boasts in print of being a VI form College. Not a VI_th_ form How sad that we have so few students - or such large classes, as we have about 26,000 of the darlings. mike
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, Leonard Paris wrote: Movie theaters used to be a money laundering mechanism for much of organized crime in the U.S. And just what sort of crime do you think most of the muck that comes out of Hollywood nowadays is? 8-) (But not much of one) mike
Re: Anybody shooting auroras?
Hi, Stephen Moore wrote: O Pentaxians -- Saw the aurora borealis last night for the first time in my 57-year life. Wow! With the recent solar flares and CMEs, have any of you Pentaxians had your cameras poited skyward? It's been cloud as anything here (NE England) for the last three days, so no joy. Looking good for tonight, so, for sure, there will be nothing. mike
PUG November is open
Hi *, the November PUG is ready to go. A huge PUG this month. Cheers Adelheid URL: http://pug.komkon.org/ -- About resizing your pics: To make the procedure easier I am going to resize them without further notice - but if somebody is unhappy with the result, please send me one you like better in the proper size and I'll swap it on the server. I hope this is a fair deal.
Re: Anybody shooting auroras?
mike wilson wrote: It's been cloud as anything here (NE England) for the last three days, so no joy. Looking good for tonight, so, for sure, there will be nothing. mike I hate to say this Mike, but in Durham (about 15 miles away from you?) we've had two fantastic nights of aurora - Wednesday night from 7pm to 8pm had aurora over the whole Northern half of the sky, while last night, despite the forecasts, the cloud suddenly cleared at 10pm to give an utterly amazing display for over an hour, and all in the Southern half of the sky! Many photos taken, but on the downside my Z-1 fatally malfunctioned while shooting. I'll get the films developed tomorrow. As you say, tonight has been relatively clear, but no signs of a repeat performance (check out http://www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk/iono/aurorawatch/ for a good predictor for current likelihood of aurora). David
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Hi, Friday, October 31, 2003, 5:50:23 PM, you wrote: I'm sadder than you. I am intrigued to find fedex in that list. Only comes out as a company name on Google. I saw that too. It's ok because people use fedex as a verb (Fedex it over to me for tomorrow) just as people use hoover (and google!) as a verb. I guess that means it's not a noun, so I should've taken it out. But of course, nominalization is my get out - What about yesterday's fedex? Where is it?. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slide exposure
Graywolf wrote In both cases the limit on density is the thinest part of the image (clear film base). Now with a negative that is the shadows (clear film prints black). With a positive that is the highlights (clear film views white). If you do not have and image there you do not have an image. That make sense? Yes, lots. So actually both cases are exactly the same: No Density, No Detail. However they are usually expressed in terms of the media. Negatives: Expose for the Shadows. Positives: Expose for the Highlights. But you will always get it right if you remember, No Density, No Detail. Interesting. So a sensor, since it is using numbers, because it is digital, has no density in the highlights? (Like what John said before about the numbers above a certain number going to white -- I'll have to go back and reread that.) Cool. Good explanation. Marnie aka Doe I've just noticed that darker changes existing colors more than lighter does. I.E. Late day shooting. And shadows that have more than black, all kinds of colors get darker and more complex in lengthening shadows. While areas hit directly by the sun just tend to get lighter, not more complex in color range. But maybe that's me.
Re: PUG November is open
And absolutely spiffing it is, too. Thanks, Adelheid. m Adelheid v. K. wrote: Hi *, the November PUG is ready to go. A huge PUG this month. Cheers Adelheid URL: http://pug.komkon.org/ -- About resizing your pics: To make the procedure easier I am going to resize them without further notice - but if somebody is unhappy with the result, please send me one you like better in the proper size and I'll swap it on the server. I hope this is a fair deal.
Re: Anybody shooting auroras?
Hi, David Dixon wrote: I hate to say this Mike, but in Durham (about 15 miles away from you?) we've had two fantastic nights of aurora - Wednesday night from 7pm to 8pm had aurora over the whole Northern half of the sky, while last night, despite the forecasts, the cloud suddenly cleared at 10pm to give an utterly amazing display for over an hour, and all in the Southern half of the sky! Many photos taken, but on the downside my Z-1 fatally malfunctioned while shooting. I'll get the films developed tomorrow. As you say, tonight has been relatively clear, but no signs of a repeat performance (check out http://www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk/iono/aurorawatch/ for a good predictor for current likelihood of aurora). Argh! More like five miles in a straight line. The joys of living near the coast... It was cloudy up to about 9.30 when I last looked and, as it looked like staying and I had to be up early, I didn't look again. Now to stay up all night 8-) Sorry to hear about your camera. mike
Re: Contract for rights to use images
The magazine or book publisher usually provides the contract and they're pretty standard. You can tell them that you only wish to sell first rights and retain your copyright. They probably will do that and should have the correct paperwork. Paul Leon Altoff wrote: I know this has been talked about here before, but I'm too lazy to look through the archives. Does anyone have any sample contracts for selling images for use in books and magazines? I have the chance to get a picture published in a book but want to ensure that I don't give away too many rights when I let them use it. Any and all suggestions will be appreciated. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Paraphrased (plagiarized) from another source... Rare plural forms like oxen are left over from that period, with -en used for a very few words that fought off the encroachment of -s. The only other common plural in -en that survives in our modern language is brethren. This came from an older spelling of brother as brether, and lost the middle e. For a while both brothers and brethren meant the same thing, but the latter gradually shifted sense to refer to a spiritual relationship. At one time it was also used for professional relationships, and survives, for example, in Masonic usage. Photographers who love their LXen are brethren, both professionally and at heart. Regards, Bob... From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Look here for more info: http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm Check the section: Plurals and Apostrophes
Re: digital viewfinders
Don't one of the newer Optios have a swivel mounted LCD screen that can do what you describe? I have a 35mm Yashica T4 that has the waist level Super Scope that has helped me make some photos at a lower level. Jim A. From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:14 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: digital viewfinders Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:32 -0500 A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera this today). It strikes me that it would be handy to have a digital camera with a waist level finder and shade that consisted of a horizontal LCD screen. The screen on the E-10 can fold out, but it's awkward to use the camera this way. I'm thinking of a horizontal top-mounted LCD. It is just me or does this sound like something useful? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: digital viewfinders
How about the Canon G1, G2, G3, and G5. As well as some of the Nikon CoolPix models. Len --- * There's room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: digital viewfinders Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:00:14 -0500 A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera this today). It strikes me that it would be handy to have a digital camera with a waist level finder and shade that consisted of a horizontal LCD screen. The screen on the E-10 can fold out, but it's awkward to use the camera this way. I'm thinking of a horizontal top-mounted LCD. It is just me or does this sound like something useful? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Never get a busy signal because you are always connected with high-speed Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers. https://broadband.msn.com
Lens Tripod Mount?
Been eyeing used Sigma 170-500mm APOs. For wildlife, not sports, though a bit slow for wildlife. They come with tripod mounts. How does this work, BTW? I haven't bought a tripod yet, so wondering. You mount the lens directly on the tripod, not the camera? Is anything else, part-wise, needed? Like a tripod addition or something? Is there something one should look for in a tripod if one is going to do a fair amount lens mounting? Discovered I have still quite a few newbie questions still in me. TIA, Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Bob W said: [...] So I made a list of words from some web dictionaries, stripped out everything except the nouns, took out compounds like 'tuckerbox', leaving 'box', and removed those which I know to be already plural (gateaux etc.). Although it's far from complete as a list of words it does seem to suggest that ox/oxen is unique. http://www.web-options.com/x-nouns.html Now let's have a discussion about more than one 'fellatrix'. Fellatrices for the latin inclined; alternatively, something that doesn't belong in a family list like this ;-) In a similar anatomical area, it's good to see that well-known term of endearment bollix on the list, but banjax doesn't belong: it's a verb. Okay, maybe I should go back to talking about camerae now ;-) -- Kristian
Re: Scratches on film
Should I blame the camera or the lab? I have not had problems with Ilfords before, it has to be said, but I have not developed that many BWs. Kostas; I had some BW prints developed at local camera shop. Came back with scratches. Instead of going back and complaining I ended up going to a lab (not a camera shop). Shop was more expensive anyway. I looked at the negatives and couldn't find scratches. Never had this happen with color film or slides. Made me think BW developing uses another system. And their other system needed an overhaul. Or their technician needed to cut her fingernails. Run another roll of film through the camera too. Well, everyone's responded to you already and probably told you that already. Didn't need my post, but feeling chatty. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Lens Tripod Mount?
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mount the lens directly on the tripod, not the camera? Is anything else, part-wise, needed? Like a tripod addition or something? Is there something one should look for in a tripod if one is going to do a fair amount lens mounting? Yes (or, at least, on the head of your choice); no; no; no more than you would normally look for in a tripod. Discovered I have still quite a few newbie questions still in me. newbie mode me too /newbie mode mike
Re: Lens Tripod Mount?
Yes, the lens is mounted directly to the tripod head and the camera just sort of hangs on the end. Depending on the tripod head that you have (or are looking at) you may need a quick-release plate for the lens that matches the head. The 170-500 is probably a big lens. you want a sturdy tripod with a sturdy head. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:42 PM Subject: Lens Tripod Mount? Been eyeing used Sigma 170-500mm APOs. For wildlife, not sports, though a bit slow for wildlife. They come with tripod mounts. How does this work, BTW? I haven't bought a tripod yet, so wondering. You mount the lens directly on the tripod, not the camera? Is anything else, part-wise, needed? Like a tripod addition or something? Is there something one should look for in a tripod if one is going to do a fair amount lens mounting? Discovered I have still quite a few newbie questions still in me. TIA, Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
Hi, Friday, October 31, 2003, 7:18:44 PM, you wrote: Paraphrased (plagiarized) from another source... Rare plural forms like oxen are left over from that period, with -en used for a very few words that fought off the encroachment of -s. The only other common plural in -en that survives in our modern language is brethren. This came from an older spelling of brother as brether, and lost the middle e. For a while both brothers and brethren meant the same thing, but the latter gradually shifted sense to refer to a spiritual relationship. At one time it was also used for professional relationships, and survives, for example, in Masonic usage. Photographers who love their LXen are brethren, both professionally and at heart. or possibly children...g -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LXist
Joe asked: A flock of LXs? A herd of LXs? A gaggle of LXs? An exaltation of LXs? Grammarians on the list, please help. From my being a member of this list for only a relatively short time, the answer is evident: A pride of LXes Larry
Re: PhotoShop - memory requirements
Frankly, there's a nice little free program called Irfan that's a joy to use, and while it lacks many features of PS and Elements, it's super for proofing work and for minor touch ups. Kind regards, Tyrone I have used Ifran View in the past and recently downloaded the newest version. I have found it good enough for me to do batch resizing and copy righted test additions for adding pictures to my website.Pretty fast on the XP machine too. Dave
Re: PUG November is open
My favourites are http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/dreamypug.html http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/kikipug.html http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/d4.html http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/bug_600.html http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/nupsstad.html http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/stairpug.html http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/e0002pug.html http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/father.html Thanks Ramesh --- mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And absolutely spiffing it is, too. Thanks, Adelheid. m Adelheid v. K. wrote: Hi *, the November PUG is ready to go. A huge PUG this month. Cheers Adelheid URL: http://pug.komkon.org/ -- About resizing your pics: To make the procedure easier I am going to resize them without further notice - but if somebody is unhappy with the result, please send me one you like better in the proper size and I'll swap it on the server. I hope this is a fair deal. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: digital viewfinders
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film camera this today). It strikes me that it would be handy to have a digital camera with a waist level finder and shade that consisted of a horizontal LCD screen. The screen on the E-10 can fold out, but it's awkward to use the camera this way. I'm thinking of a horizontal top-mounted LCD. It is just me or does this sound like something useful? Sounds great. You'd have to have the image horizontally reversed though, or all the MF boys buying it would get really confused Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Anybody shooting auroras?
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: O Pentaxians -- Saw the aurora borealis last night for the first time in my 57-year life. Wow! With the recent solar flares and CMEs, have any of you Pentaxians had your cameras poited skyward? It's been cloud as anything here (NE England) for the last three days, so no joy. Looking good for tonight, so, for sure, there will be nothing. My sister and her bloke live on the Isle of Coll in the Inner Hebrides (islands of western Scotland) and he tells me that the aurora is AMAZING. I'm green with envy. He's a snapper too: http://www.colldigital.co.uk/ Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: PUG November is open
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: And absolutely spiffing it is, too. Thanks, Adelheid. Nice shot of Elin there Mike. She looks like she's just about to open the batting - good game was it? ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Photo plus show
On Friday, Oct 31, 2003, at 21:34 America/New_York, tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The person I spoke to listed a half dozen other cameras that would get it first, and doubted that Pentax would have enough market share to make it worthwhile for them. That sucks. C1 rocks. That's true, but they're probably also thinking that at $495, not many *ist-D owners would buy it. Now if we all marched on their booth tomorrow and put down our payment in cash, maybe they'd support it. :-) --jc
Re: Lens Tripod Mount?
if you intend to get that lens, you will need a good sturdy tripod. figure that into the cost. i got the Sigma 50-500 and then had to upgrade my tripod. Herb Kind of what I thought. Heavy tripod. Since Cameron thinks the 170-500mm stinks, what do you think of the 50-500mm? Marnie aka Doe
Re: Photo plus show
Really? Those that can afford $1699 for the *istD shouldn't have to complain about that small amount of $495. Jim A. From: Juey Chong Ong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:08:42 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Photo plus show Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:09:17 -0500 On Friday, Oct 31, 2003, at 21:34 America/New_York, tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The person I spoke to listed a half dozen other cameras that would get it first, and doubted that Pentax would have enough market share to make it worthwhile for them. That sucks. C1 rocks. That's true, but they're probably also thinking that at $495, not many *ist-D owners would buy it. Now if we all marched on their booth tomorrow and put down our payment in cash, maybe they'd support it. :-) --jc
Re: Lens Tripod Mount?
if you intend to get that lens, you will need a good sturdy tripod. figure that into the cost. i got the Sigma 50-500 and then had to upgrade my tripod. Herb Nevermind. Out of my price range. Marnie
Re: Anybody shooting auroras?
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:09:15 -0500, Stephen Moore wrote: O Pentaxians -- Saw the aurora borealis last night for the first time in my 57-year life. Wow! ... With the recent solar flares and CMEs, have any of you Pentaxians had your cameras poited skyward? I'm in Australia, but they hae reported seeing the Aurora Australis 700 kilometers north of where I am. Of course it's been cloudy here since it started so I haven't seen a thing!!! Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
