Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
> > Just curious -- are PEF and TIFF file formats open source? TIFF is a published, documented format, and there is an open source library that supports the standard version. The same is true of JPEG. EXIF is an extension to TIFF (or to JPEG), and is a way to include all sorts of additional data which (amongst other things) documents all the settings on the camera, etc. a PEF file really is just a TIFF file, including EXIF data, low-resolution JPEG thumbnails, etc. But the image data is the raw sensor data, not anything you could view directly.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
John Francis wrote: >That's the first thing I'll do - a PEF-to-TIFF converter (24 & 48 bit) that preserves all the EXIF information, but which uses the RAW-to-RGB converter from dcraw. It looks as though dcraw does white balance, by the way - it just always uses auto-white-balance, ignoring the camera settings. >I'm not sure what the right values would be for the non-auto settings, but I'll do some experimentation with the camera once I've got the framework ready. >dcraw will write Photoshop-format files, by the way. Just curious -- are PEF and TIFF file formats open source? Marnie aka Doe the clueless
RE: I feel like Mike Johnston
I will send you a copy of the software if you like. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14-Nov-03 21:22 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I feel like Mike Johnston > > > Exactly. And the main thrust of the current discussion centers around > getting the best possible image, which apparently Pentax's photo lab > does not deliver. Dario's comparison with the 300D proves that. The > Genzo Raw convertor's images look much sharper. I can't seem to find it > anywhere tho. > > rg > > > Bucky wrote: > > Utter nonsense. People have yammered on ad nauseam about > developers in this > > forum too. Bits, bytes, and the software that manipulates 'em > is a big part > > of a new, and equally legitimate, form of photography. Pentax is now a > > manufacturer of digital photographic equipment, which makes the entire > > science fair game on this list. > > > > > > > > > >>I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies > >>of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from > >>Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file > >>formats, and so on, has rather little to do with P&P above... > > > > > > > > >
Testing, Testing, 1,2,3 I forget what comes after 3
Warped mind to pentax list! anyone out there? __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
> > John, how about a converter to 48bit Tiff? There is not much to do > (compared to a full blown app) except fix dcraw to do the white balance > using all 12 bits and "spreading" it out over 16 bits (maybe continue to > ignore the 4 lsbs). That way it can be brought into Adobe and processed > with all its nice gadgets. Plus I hear that the new PS 8 can do > everything in 16 bits now if you want. PS 7 was limited to a few > operations. That's the first thing I'll do - a PEF-to-TIFF converter (24 & 48 bit) that preserves all the EXIF information, but which uses the RAW-to-RGB converter from dcraw. It looks as though dcraw does white balance, by the way - it just always uses auto-white-balance, ignoring the camera settings. I'm not sure what the right values would be for the non-auto settings, but I'll do some experimentation with the camera once I've got the framework ready. dcraw will write Photoshop-format files, by the way.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Exactly. And the main thrust of the current discussion centers around getting the best possible image, which apparently Pentax's photo lab does not deliver. Dario's comparison with the 300D proves that. The Genzo Raw convertor's images look much sharper. I can't seem to find it anywhere tho. rg Bucky wrote: Utter nonsense. People have yammered on ad nauseam about developers in this forum too. Bits, bytes, and the software that manipulates 'em is a big part of a new, and equally legitimate, form of photography. Pentax is now a manufacturer of digital photographic equipment, which makes the entire science fair game on this list. I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file formats, and so on, has rather little to do with P&P above...
Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
graywolf wrote: >.Using the close focus portion of my glasses gives me a crick in the neck (grin). The +2 also allows me to focus with contacts. And the nursing home guy can't help you with that? ;)
Re: ME-F vs ME Super
Bill Owens wrote: > > Bet you $1.00 it's a vanity call. We have a club member, George Poteat, > K4GP. > > Bill Ahhh, that could be. I haven't kept up with call signs, NOR Amateur Radio in years and years... Used to be, an early call sign, a low number, meant the operator was in a long time. Issued as the applications came in. It may now be that unissued calls will go to the requisitioner, for a fee. . . Don't know. But, thanks for bringing it up. keith > > - Original Message - > From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:44 PM > Subject: Re: ME-F vs ME Super > > > > > > > Fred wrote: > > > > > > > 4. It weighs slightly more. > > > > > > It's a bit taller, too. > > > > > > Fred, K1FW <=== > > > > How many years have you had THAT one, Fred? > > > > _Great_ call sign! > > > > keith whaley > > > >
Further news
Also according to the December Shutterbug, quoting the Wall Street Journal, Kodak will stop film R&D. Of course there could be something already in the pipeline. Kodak might want to lower the grain of E100VS, and there has been a rumor of a high-saturation ISO 200 slide film. Also in the same issue: "The Pentax *ist siblings -- one digital, one film -- makes [sic] so much sense you wonder why it took so long for somebody to figure that one out." And in the "fire the copy editor" department, the December Popular Photography reviews the FA 77 limited on p. 40. The Table of Contents tells you to look for the review on p. 52. The FA 77, btw, looked very good in the review. Now if I could just figure out why I would need one. Joe
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Bill Owens wrote: > > With you and Jostein in there, maybe I should delete the beans? > > Bill Naw, just put some real peppers in there! Funny story: I vacation with a group of friends every year and we take turns with the cooking. Bob R. was doing the cooking that night and was making chili. The person shopping picked up habaneras peppers instead of jalapenos. Thinking he had jalapenos, Bob made what would have been a 2-3 alarm chili. Needless to say it was off the chart. I, who likes hot food, could barely eat it, most others took 1 bite and went screaming off into the sunset. Bob R has been forbidden from ever making chili again. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
LOL. But companies do this all the time however (lose money to gain market share). Esp Japanese companies. Remember all the fuss over DRAM back in the 80's and the "dumping" below cost to put other DRAM companies out of business? Pentax doesn't have that deep of pockets however, hence the caveat at the end. graywolf wrote: Ah yes, Pentax should sell the camera at a loss. A couple of hundred dollars a camera is nothing to worry about. After all they can make it up in film sales. -- Robert Gonzalez wrote: And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more aggressively. Canon may have stolen the *istD's thunder by coming out with the 300D at < $1000, which they may have thought the Pentax camera was going to priced at. By not competing with the 300D, in which Pentax would have been clearly superior to, it got lost in the noise. Lack of deep pockets to fight that war may have been the reason. It probably would have been unsustainable at those price levels, even for the lucrative market share it might have given them. rg Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Nov 2003 at 9:11, Mark Roberts wrote: I'll bet that Canon has an "economy" version (less than $5000.00) full-frame DSLR already designed and ready to go into production... as soon as they need to sell it. That'll be when a serious full-frame competitor appears and not a moment before. Spot on, this is how the microprocessor industry works, I've been privy to information discussed under NDAs in the past (the market is being manipulated constantly). I am sure that the DSLR market is the same, look how damned fast the 300D hit the market when Pentax finally delivered. 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: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
I know it sounds too flattering to Pentax, but it also seems too coincidental. Ever since Pentax announced the *istD in Feb, there had been rumors of its potential low release price. The idea that another company creating the first sub $1000 camera was too much for Canon, which obviously wanted that distinction. By cutting every corner and re-using as much technology out of the 10D as they could, Canon created the digi rebel and quickly announced it and its price right before Pentax did. Herb Chong wrote: i sincerely doubt that Canon paid the slightest attention to Pentax in their marketing plans for the 300D. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26 And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more aggressively. Canon may have stolen the *istD's thunder by coming out with the 300D at < $1000, which they may have thought the Pentax camera was going to priced at. By not competing with the 300D, in which Pentax would have been clearly superior to, it got lost in the noise. Lack of deep pockets to fight that war may have been the reason. It probably would have been unsustainable at those price levels, even for the lucrative market share it might have given them.
pdml@pdml.net
I just did, one with blue sky and clouds. The sky and clouds look similar to B&W film with an 8A yellow filter. Apparently digital sensors aren't overly sensitive as B&W film to blue. Or is there some other reason? Bill
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
"Mr. Komura told Mr. Keppler that Nikon will use the smaller sensor in future digital SLR cameras at all levels. 'Nikon will continue to study full-size sensors,' he said, 'but it is for study only.' " Looking at the B&H ad in the back of Shutterbug, I am astounded by the variety of D lenses Nikon now has - and also by their very high prices. Yikes, these are Pentax lens prices. Joe
Re: Slide projectors
"As much as it may be distressing to some, these companies are in business to turn a profit. No profit, no money for future R&D, no R&D, no future products. With tens of thousands of rolls of film going out of date daily, film camera sales declining, and the digital handwriting on the wall becoming more legible everyday, why should manufacturers continue to hold on to old technology that's not making money for them." When I submitted my lament this morning I knew someone would post this reply. It reads exactly as I expected, nearly to the word. Can't a person simply lament without getting a worn-out lecture? Save this one for cliche month. Joe
Re: ME-F vs ME Super
Bet you $1.00 it's a vanity call. We have a club member, George Poteat, K4GP. Bill - Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:44 PM Subject: Re: ME-F vs ME Super > > > Fred wrote: > > > > > 4. It weighs slightly more. > > > > It's a bit taller, too. > > > > Fred, K1FW <=== > > How many years have you had THAT one, Fred? > > _Great_ call sign! > > keith whaley > >
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #1429
Did you give her Greywoofs e-mail address? Although she might be a little young for him. Maybe Pentax could feature her in their next DIY porno ad. BR From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Same thing at weddings round here, though I did spot this last week: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pentax.jpg Yes, it was her camera.
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
The story on the Pop Photo site is that Pop Photo quoted a Japanese article stating that Nikon would develop a full frame sensor SLR. No one at Nikon ever told Keppler that Nikon would do it. This is really just another case of sloppy Pop Photo reporting. BR From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Speaking of which, has anyone else been following the ongoing fiasco with Nikon's announcement that they are developing a full-frame DSLR...and subsequent denial of same? Last month's Popular Photography featured an interview with a Mr Komura of Nikon, who revealed (big surprise) that Nikon is developing a full-frame DSLR.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Chris ... I don't spend any money doing this. Camera shops around here are more than happy to let good customers take a camera for a test drive, sometimes over night. Sometimes a friend or an acquaintance has one that s/he'll let you try. And yes, I'm aware that not everyone has the opportunity to borrow gear ... and it's not always easy for me to do so, either. It's sometimes a long drive between camera shops. As for time, well, it's probably a good idea to spend some time using camera gear before making a purchase. Many photogs will test numerous samples of a lens before deciding on the one(s) they want in their kit. If you don't want to spend the time making sure you're satisfied with an item (regardless of what it is) then you've no right to complain when it doesn't perform to your standards. Chris Brogden wrote: > > I don't care what the camera does to get me the image. If > > I don't like the results, I'll use a different camera. > > And at a few thousand bucks a pop for a DSLR, you're going to spend a lot > of time and money doing this. >
Re: great idea for APS sensored DSLRs
JC; Minolta uses a moving CCD as it's image stabilization in the new Dimage A1: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1/Images/asmovie.mov or: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1/ and scroll down. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:49 PM Subject: great idea for APS sensored DSLRs > Being a large format user, today I thought of a great > idea for the APS sensor / 35mm lens DSLR camera format. > If they put a full frame mirror and prism in the camera > and mounted the APS sensor on a motorized X-Y platform, > you could get both vertical and lateral shift movements > with ANY full frame 35mm lens! This would be especially > useful with the wide angles and architectual photography. > The only "trick" would be to somehow indicate in the viewfinder > the actual field of view of the sensor as you shifted it > about. It really makes sense with 35mm lenses, why not > take advantage of their full image circle?? Bad thing is > this is just another reason to wait to buy a DSLR.. > > What do you all think?? > > -- -- >J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > -- -- >
Re: ME-F vs ME Super
Fred wrote: > > > 4. It weighs slightly more. > > It's a bit taller, too. > > Fred, K1FW <=== How many years have you had THAT one, Fred? _Great_ call sign! keith whaley
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: I feel like Mike Johnston > I've used the precursor to the Speed Graphic ... the Slow Graphic I have used a Crown Graphic, which is appropriate, since we still believe in royalty here. William Robb
Re: cable release for *ist D
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Tiger Moses wrote: > >Is this something we can build? > > Do we just go to the $1 store, buy a cheap set of headphone, > cut the headphones off and wire the puppy up? The *ist D uses the 2.5mm size jack, not 3.5mm. You can make your own though. Basically when you short the ground to tip it makes an exposure and when you short ground to the middle it does the autofocus. I converted the cable release from my ZX-5n to work on my *ist D, then make an adapter so that I could still use it with the ZX-5n. The ZX cable release has a spring that can send pieces flying when you take it apart, so be careful in doing so. Radio Shack doesn't sell 2.5mm 3 conductor plugs, but they did have a 2.5mm extension cord (in the cell phone section) so I used that as my cable. alex
Re: ME-F vs ME Super
> 4. It weighs slightly more. It's a bit taller, too. Fred, K1FW
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > My point is that I don't give a damn about what goes on in the camera if > I can't change it, and it's not important to me if I can change it. I > don't give a hoot where file markers are located. I don't care what > Bayer interpolates. Give me the image I want to work with, that's all I > care about. I don't care what the camera does to get me the image. If > I don't like the results, I'll use a different camera. And at a few thousand bucks a pop for a DSLR, you're going to spend a lot of time and money doing this. chris
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
mike wilson wrote: > > Hi, > > Cotty wrote: > > > > On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > > > >Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer > > >and camping! Hoo Haa! > > > > > >Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... > > > > That bloody camper will be floating of into the treetops like something > > out of ET > > When you've poured some Hobgoblin down their necks, it will be more like > a Saturn V! > > mike No disrespect, Mike, but there ain't NOTHIN' like a Saturn V! Even standing a few miles away, the "blatting" noise and overpressure from that HUGE solid lighting off, was among the most impressive, scariest thing I'd ever witnessed! keith
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Bill Owens wrote: > > With you and Jostein in there, maybe I should delete the beans? > > Bill Naw, just put some real peppers in there! keith > > - Original Message - > From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:46 PM > Subject: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston > > > On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > > > >Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer > > >and camping! Hoo Haa! > > > > > >Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... > > > > That bloody camper will be floating of into the treetops like something > > out of ET > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty
Re: FS: 67II
Having picked up a 67II myself a while ago, I can sit back and let someone else take this one. It's an amazing camera, and the slides from it are phenomenal. chris On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Seeing how it is Friday, it seemed like a good day to list a sale. In > order to help finance my foray into the DSLR world, I am offering up > for sale one of my 67II's. It includes AE prism and 67II wooden > hand/flash grip. Includes all body/finder caps, boxes and original > packaging. EX+ condition. As those of you who know, my equipment is > in excellent condition and is well taken care of. Anyone wanting to > get the latest and greatest 67 "Brotherhood" camera body, now is your chance. > > KEH price for EX+ body is $1169. AE Finder is $569. KEH total is > $1738.00 > > Asking $1300 or offer. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > >
cable release for *ist D
Is this something we can build? Do we just go to the $1 store, buy a cheap set of headphone, cut the headphones off and wire the puppy up?
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Nope, you're mistaken, Rob. While it's not a simple matter, and it's probably not something you'd want to do very often, the M3 (at least) will make a double exposure. Haven't tried the later versions - 4, 6, 7 cheers, shel Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > I could even make a double > > > exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best > > > camera for that. > > LOL. Leica M cameras haven't been able to do this since their introduction. >
RE: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
That's not a huge deal. Nikon doesn't manufacture their own film compacts anyway. chris On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Andy Chang wrote: > It is really a misunderstanding > Nikon representative was trying to clear the confusion made by this > press release. > They are actually withdrawing the compact film camera range not the > SLR range > > Here is the translation of the press release > > November 13th (the wood) withdrawal from the domestic market of our > company compact camera is reported, but presently there is no that kind > of plan in our company. As for business of the digital camera although > it expands business of the compact film camera has reduced, but the > country is included and the same business continues. Therefore, it seems > that is reporting there is no schedule " of cancelling the shop front > sale from next year ". > > Including the customer, restraining the fact that worry was assumed on > everyone of the authorized personnel, we apologize. > > The original corrected press release is here > > http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/jpn/whatsnew/2003/1113.htm > > There you go.! > > PS: Oh BTW, I'm new to this forum I'm using a MZ/ZX-50 with FA > 28-200 IF and FA 100-300 > > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan... > > I think that all the major manufacturers, with the possible exception of > Minolta (are they a major manufacturer anymore?) have probably made the > same > decision, just Nikon has made if official. > > Bill > > > > And, boy, is it happening much faster than I thought it would. > > > > Me too! And, to have a major player like Nikon make this sea-change > move > > now is glaringly significant. > > > > > Marnie aka Doe Much faster, even though I thought it might happen > fast. > > > > keith whaley > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: ME-F vs ME Super
> We can make a poll here. Anybody has been using the ME-F for some > time? How much a battery set usually lasted? I've never noticed much of any extra battery drain from my ME-F's (compared to ME-S's) (although I only occasionally turn on the focus confirmation function). The only really bad news is that it takes four cells instead of two to fire up an ME-F. Fred, K1FW
Re: great idea for APS sensored DSLRs
Hey JC.. I actually did think about that but a motorised platform together with the headache of planning viewfinder indication viability is impractical. The final product will be digital, so the capture really wouldn't be too averse to digital manipulation (whereas to capture it on film you'd really need the corrected image at the image-forming stage). Btw, PSP 8 incorporated some really useful Perspective Correction tools. Furthermore, if the APS (not really APS.. but we know what we mean) sensor was on a motorised platform, it'd compromise the consistent flatness of the plane, which I suspect would be a common call to tech support. The conclusion/solution I came to personally, was to fabricate (at muchos lower production cost) an adapter, much like Zörk's panorama shift adapter (if you're not familiar with it, this wondrous and spendy-for-what-it-is device is located here: http://zoerk.com/pages/p_psa.htm ) which allows you to use medium format lenses on your 35mm mount, enabling PC as well as panorama exposures (though the latter feature seems to me somewhat dodgy, because of stitching). I won't be surprised if Zörk fixes one of these 35mm/APS adapters up as a new product. Also this solution eliminates your viewfinder image issue, not to mention bypasses the motors and circuits (which would also increase camera size) aspect. On another note, I was was dreaming (as I seem quite predisposed to) of a humble mz5n with a hasselblad MF lens on it.. good for oooh factor ;) Rgds, Ryan - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Being a large format user, today I thought of a great > idea for the APS sensor / 35mm lens DSLR camera format. > If they put a full frame mirror and prism in the camera > and mounted the APS sensor on a motorized X-Y platform, > you could get both vertical and lateral shift movements > with ANY full frame 35mm lens! This would be especially > useful with the wide angles and architectual photography. > The only "trick" would be to somehow indicate in the viewfinder > the actual field of view of the sensor as you shifted it > about. It really makes sense with 35mm lenses, why not > take advantage of their full image circle?? Bad thing is > this is just another reason to wait to buy a DSLR.. > > What do you all think?? > > -- -- >J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > -- -- > >
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
pro films will dry up. the ISO 800 print consumer print film will be around a long time. as to why a school teaches film? because their teachers are more interested in art than making a buck. fine art photography doesn't depend a lot on what the mass market does. Herb - Original Message - From: "Dave Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan... > One last point, I've been considering going to the New England School of > Photography in Boston, and according to the agenda on their website an awful > lot of work is still being emphasized in the old fashioned darkroom. Why > would they continue to teach this if it was obvious that digital is the > future?
Re: FA28-105/3.2-4.5
i have never thought so. it is good, but not great. my recent experiments with various of my lenses on the *istD make it clear me me that lens quality is even more important with the camera than with a film camera. it's clearly better than the $70 lenses, but quite a bit less quality than the top FA* lenses. Herb - Original Message - From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: Vs: FA28-105/3.2-4.5 > I hope you are right - but the 24-90 mm is very good indeed. > All the best!
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
you can't change how silver reacts to light either. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:10 AM Subject: Re: I feel like Mike Johnston > RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking > RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, "bypasses most of > the processing on the camera." Most means not all.
Slide projectors
> This is not an improvement. I understand that Kodak must transition to > > digital along with everyone else, but some parts of that transition may > > be going to quickly. Was Kodak losing money on slide projectors? It > > seems to me that there will be demand for them for some time, if only > > for luddites like me who want our images actually to look good on a > > screen. Why buy quality gear, quality film, and work on becoming a good > > photographer only to have low quality projection equipment? > > > > Joe >>> Losing money? In the long haul, probably yes. As much as it may be distressing to some, these companies are in business to turn a profit. No profit, no money for future R&D, no R&D, no future products. With tens of thousands of rolls of film going out of date daily, film camera sales declining, and the digital handwriting on the wall becoming more legible everyday, why should manufacturers continue to hold on to old technology that's not making money for them. Bill
Re: OT:Publishing and photo credits
sue. the screwed up big time now and you have lots of evidence that they screwed up. if they merely haven't paid you, that is a different story. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:13 AM Subject: OT:Publishing and photo credits > In the past 3 weeks i have had 4 pictures published in 2 horse related > magazines and 1/4'lys. > > In both cases my pictures have been credited to other photographers that contribute quite > a bit more > than i do. > > I have contacted the 1/4ly and they said they will fix that up in the next issue. I > contacted the magazine > last night(no email yet) to let them know. > > Any one else have or had this happen. Do they really make amends in futre issues or i'm i > stuck with > pages i cannot insert into my portfolio.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
i have. i don't miss the old days one bit. i get more and better pictures faster with my *istD than i can get with any of my film bodies. the only reason i haven't sold my film bodies is because i still have a pile of film in the fridge and that for times when i am shooting what i think will be suitable for sale as large prints, the *istD is only good enough for 12x18 with some resampling and sharpening unless sharpness isn't important. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 7:47 AM Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston > So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab > some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone > era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or > some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around > the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack > of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... > "Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you > about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so > much about developers."
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
it's been refuted. Herb - Original Message - From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:11 AM Subject: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan... > Well, it just happened: > > in german: > http://www.finanztreff.de/ftreff/news.htm?id=21174221&&r=0&sektion=branchen&; > awert=&u=0&k=0 > > or translated: > http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.finan > ztreff.de%2Fftreff%2Fnews.htm%3Fid%3D21174221%26%26r%3D0%26sektion%3Dbranche > n%26awert%3D%26u%3D0%26k%3D0&lp=de_en&tt=url
Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
i sincerely doubt that Canon paid the slightest attention to Pentax in their marketing plans for the 300D. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26 > And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more > aggressively. Canon may have stolen the *istD's thunder by coming out > with the 300D at < $1000, which they may have thought the Pentax camera > was going to priced at. By not competing with the 300D, in which Pentax > would have been clearly superior to, it got lost in the noise. Lack of > deep pockets to fight that war may have been the reason. It probably > would have been unsustainable at those price levels, even for the > lucrative market share it might have given them.
Re: fighters and ring girls
> > Tom, what do you use to assemble your webpage? > An application or good ol' hand coding? I think this line from the web page source might offer a clue:
Re: fighters and ring girls
Tom, what do you use to assemble your webpage? An application or good ol' hand coding? At 04:42 PM 11/14/2003 -0500, you wrote: Met a video guy who produces a boxing show, and he gave me a pass. I've never shot this sort of thing before: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
Hi, Friday, November 14, 2003, 10:13:47 PM, you wrote: > "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Here's a report in english: >> >>http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/11/10/daily44.html >> >>I guess you *can* make a few bucks with digital. > As a side note, I learned something interesting from that article: They > aren't called "film" cameras any more, they're "legacy" cameras. > Now *that's* sobering. Weasel words from the hidden persuaders. These people are worse than the nerds who write software viruses. They use Big Brother tactics to try and infect our brains. Support your local Plain English campaign. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Brewer wrote: >> In many ways, the "bits and bytes" talk is analogous to the talk of >> dark room techniques and equipment. It's about the getting and >> extracting "latent image". >Not really, Doug ... Oh yes it is. You have a better chance of making the most of what you've captured - whether it's on film or digital - if you have a thorough understanding of what's going on inside. That "inside" covers film emulsions, development chemicals, CCD chips and computer file formats. No, you don't *have* to know about this stuff to create good images, but it never hurts to have extra arrows in your quiver, so to speak. Galen Rowell was diligent in this regard and it paid off many times. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: fighters and ring girls
I've already replied to Mr. Van Veen off-list WRT some other "nice" shots! ;-) Christian - Original Message - From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:20 PM Subject: Re: fighters and ring girls > But this is better :-Q > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003/bb1003-0067_rt8j.htm > > Bill > > - Original Message - > From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:18 PM > Subject: Re: fighters and ring girls > > > > Nice shot! > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003/bb1003-0065_rt8j.htm > > > > I think you found another career track! > > > > Christian > > > > >
RE: fighters and ring girls
> -Original Message- > From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Nice shot! > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003/bb1003-0065_rt8j.htm > > I think you found another career track! Thanks, I like that one too. I was talking to a guy who basically just shoots boxing, shoots all the big matches, gets an occasional shot in SI. Apparently he makes most of his money selling 8x10's to the ring girls. Who, he told me, are almost always strippers. Doesn't appear to be a very lucrative business tv
Test: Sending this to see if pdml subsciption is still alive
Haven't got a mail in 2 days?!?!?
Re: fighters and ring girls
But this is better :-Q http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003/bb1003-0067_rt8j.htm Bill - Original Message - From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:18 PM Subject: Re: fighters and ring girls > Nice shot! > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003/bb1003-0065_rt8j.htm > > I think you found another career track! > > Christian > >
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
"Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What I think they are saying is that they are dismayed by someone leaking >the decision before they were ready to make it public. They probably wanted >to sell more of their existing film cameras before breaking the news. Speaking of which, has anyone else been following the ongoing fiasco with Nikon's announcement that they are developing a full-frame DSLR...and subsequent denial of same? Last month's Popular Photography featured an interview with a Mr Komura of Nikon, who revealed (big surprise) that Nikon is developing a full-frame DSLR. This month there's a "correction": > " Mr. Komura told Mr. Keppler that Nikon will use > the smaller sensor in future digital SLR cameras at all levels. > "Nikon will continue to study full-size sensors," he said, > "but it is for study only." " There's a great Dilbert comic strip in which Dilbert is giving a presentation to a prospective customer and has virtually closed the sale. Then the Pointy-Haired Boss show up and starts bragging about how great the *next* version of the product is going to be. At which point the customer says, "Wow, I guess I'll postpone my purchase until the next version comes out". In the original Pop Photo interview Mr. Komura played the part of the PHB. Of course, he was promptly called into *his* boss's office and slapped hard for such a blunder. By revealing Nikon's plans for a full-frame DSLR he caused thousands of prospective buyers to put off plans for buying a D1h or for upgrading to the inevitable D2h. Trying to backtrack now makes things even worse: Instead of not buying a new Nikon, people will switch to Canon. Of course Nikon is going to release a full-frame DSLR! They aren't going to roll over and let Canon walk all over them! But it's going to be a while and they can't afford to lose sales while they do their R&D. But with the two-part public relations fiasco in Pop Photo, losing sales is exactly what is going to happen... The original interview and subsequent correction represent an supremely foolish move and a supremely foolish followup. No wonder Pentax doesn't announce what their plans for lens mount changes, new cameras, etc. are. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Kodak's announcement
When I was at Big Bend National Park three weeks ago the evening shows were all done using slides and the Kodak projectors. Seems a lot easier to do slides instead of a digital presentation where a computer would have to be handy. I have a Vivitar projector that uses the old Sawyers trays. Even though I own a small Pentax Optio 230 I am more incline to shoot slides and use the 230 just for prints. Jim A. > From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:20:51 -0700 > To: pdml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Kodak's announcement > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:20:24 -0500 > > According to the December issue of Shutterbug, Kodak has announced that > it will no longer produce slide projectors, and will stop servicing > those already produced in 8 or 9 years. > > Can slide film be far behind? > > This is a shock for me. I give a lot of presentations with slides. I am > accustomed to showing up with a carousel and finding a Kodak projector > ready. Over the next few years this will gradually cease to be a > reliable expectation. > > I don't think digital projectors give the impact of a conventionally > projected transparency. And people still have trouble getting them to > work somtimes. > > I know there are a couple of other slide projector makers, but nothing > they offer (to my knowledge) equals the convenience of the Kodak > carousel. I have sometimes been forced to use them. Even if such > projectors continue to be made, the major hotels that house conferences > will not buy them. All that will be available is a digital projector. > > As with so many transitions in photographic technology (p&s cameras, > APS, mini labs, etc.), change seems to mean a decline in image quality. > Also, to preview one of my presentations, I will now have to carry a laptop. > > This is not an improvement. I understand that Kodak must transition to > digital along with everyone else, but some parts of that transition may > be going to quickly. Was Kodak losing money on slide projectors? It > seems to me that there will be demand for them for some time, if only > for luddites like me who want our images actually to look good on a > screen. Why buy quality gear, quality film, and work on becoming a good > photographer only to have low quality projection equipment? > > Joe >
RE: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
> -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Here's a report in english: > > > >http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/11/10/d > aily44.html > > > >I guess you *can* make a few bucks with digital. > > As a side note, I learned something interesting from that > article: They > aren't called "film" cameras any more, they're "legacy" cameras. > > Now *that's* sobering. Don't you love that? They're like mainframes now tv
Re: fighters and ring girls
Nice shot! http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003/bb1003-0065_rt8j.htm I think you found another career track! Christian
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Here's a report in english: > >http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/11/10/daily44.html > >I guess you *can* make a few bucks with digital. As a side note, I learned something interesting from that article: They aren't called "film" cameras any more, they're "legacy" cameras. Now *that's* sobering. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
Gosh, I took it to mean she was giving me 4 gold stars. Bill - Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan... > Uhhh, 'squat' is a 5 letter word, Marnie... > > . . . Oh. > > keith > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >IMHO, Nikon is not "on the ropes". Although it's sooner than I expected, I > > basically made the call two days ago right here on the list when I stated > > that manufacturers weren't temporarily neglecting film, they were abandoning > > it. > > > > >Bill > > > > You get for being right. > > > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) Though, maybe not, since it hasn't really happened... > > YET. > >
Re: MZ-S infra red
This one time, at band camp, "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The manual recommends against it. > The reason is that it uses IR for tracking the film advance. > It has to keep accurate track to be able to place exposure data between > sprocket holes. Thanks, I will use the K1000 Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
> > On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory. > >Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too; > >interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the > >project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]). > > Er, sorry, what was the question again? > > Are you talking about setting up a digital darkroom? Not full-blown; it's hard to replace Photoshop, or whatever your favourite tool happens to be. I really am just talking about a couple of items; one command-line utility, and one program that does pretty much what Photo Laboratory does, but with a larger window (and, hopefully, a better RAW-to-RGB conversion routine).
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
Uhhh, 'squat' is a 5 letter word, Marnie... . . . Oh. keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >IMHO, Nikon is not "on the ropes". Although it's sooner than I expected, I > basically made the call two days ago right here on the list when I stated > that manufacturers weren't temporarily neglecting film, they were abandoning > it. > > >Bill > > You get for being right. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) Though, maybe not, since it hasn't really happened... > YET.
Re: Help! My LX is stuck
I had the identical problem with an LX a few years ago. It happened to me with perfect timing when I was 3000 miles from home and on holiday with 1 body. There is a lesson there. However I got mine fixed and CLAd at Asahi Photo in London for just under a hundred quid, which seemed like a good deal. They actually replaced the rewind knob / film speed selector as part of the repair. Peter - Original Message - From: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 1:47 AM Subject: Help! My LX is stuck > Much to my dismay, when I attempted to load film into my LX this morning, I > found I could not open the back. It was working okay a few days ago, but > now it just won't budge. > > The door has a little play in it, as expected, so doesn't seem to be > stuck... its more like pulling up on the rewind lever doesn't release the > spring latch. It doesn't have that 'sprung' feel to the final bit of the > movement, it just comes out a certain way and stops. > > Anyone have any ideas, or am I in for an expensive repair? > > Thanks! > > Love, Light and Peace, > - Peter Loveday > Director of Development, eyeon Software >
fighters and ring girls
Met a video guy who produces a boxing show, and he gave me a pass. I've never shot this sort of thing before: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/BB1003 Man, this stuff is hard to shoot! Pretty much shot f/2.8 at 1600 the whole nightI had meant to take a meter reading and get the color temp before I started, but traffic prevented me from getting there early, and then it got hectic, and then these scantily clad women came out...so, I have some noisy pics, and the color isn't 100%. I'm not getting paid for this, so I'm not going to spend any time fixing them up... Even with a ringside pass, it's really hard to position yourself. Ideally you want to lean a bit under the bottom rope, but the height of the ring and the width of the apron made it a little tough on me considering my height. It was hard to find any position to keep the camera steady...I noted the two veteran boxing photographers there were short. I think I started to get my bearings towards the end, the pics from the last bout have a few keepers. I was very sore this a.m. The guy who runs this thing says at some point it will be broadcast into 25 million homes. You'll be happy to know that once it got warm in there I took off my sweater to reveal my Pentax t-shirt, so keep an eye out. BTW, I have a few, ah, gratuitous, ring girl shots. If you want to see them, email me off list. tv -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.thomasvanveen.com 301-758-3085
Re: OT:Publishing and photo credits
> Unfortunately, all they usually do is put a little notice in the editorial, or > letters to the editor page. Never makes up for it. Some serious editorial > photographers put a penalty clause ($$$) in their contract to cover such events, > after all, Dave, at this point the credit is more valuable to you then their > piddling little payment is. You are so correct on this one Tom.Payment is low and I get such a thrill when i see the picture and name once in a while. Dave
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hey, it ain't the camera I was kvetching about ... > Annsan (who deletes anything that says *istD)
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Hey John ... I enjoyed using your *ist D ... remember, I told you how much I liked some of the features. I like that it's not a Leica, just like I'm glad the Leica is not a digital Pentax or Canon, or some such. I like my Sony, but I won't give up the MX. shel John Francis wrote: > > > > [Shel enjoys his Leica] What a lovely experience ...
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
I've used the precursor to the Speed Graphic ... the Slow Graphic graywolf wrote: > Wait a minute. Do we know that Shel is a "real" photographer? > > Shel, have you ever used a Speed Graphic? > > "Real" photographers use Speed Graphics. I do not want to have to say this > again. IS THAT CLEAR?
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
>IMHO, Nikon is not "on the ropes". Although it's sooner than I expected, I basically made the call two days ago right here on the list when I stated that manufacturers weren't temporarily neglecting film, they were abandoning it. >Bill You get for being right. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Though, maybe not, since it hasn't really happened... YET.
Re: TOPDML Beer and Camera Meet
Sounds like a fun evening. Wish I'd been there! Nice pictures, too, Frank. How do you like the LX so far? Pat White
Re: FA28-105/3.2-4.5
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Joseph Tainter wrote: > As reviewed some time ago in Popular Photography, it is inferior to the > excellent FA 24-90. This is reflected in the difference in their prices. > Pentax prices lenses according to their quality. Thanks. As I said, my benchmark is the F28-80/3.5-4.5 or the FA28-80/3.5-5.6 which I already possess, not the unreachable 24-90. Kostas
Re: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Oh yes, it's getting to be a tradition. Made with Campbell's tomato soup, hamburger, kidney beans, onion and chili powder. Bill - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:10 PM Subject: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston > Bill, > > Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer > and camping! Hoo Haa! > > Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... > > > > cheers, > frank > > > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > > >From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Can't help with a beef stew recipe, but can provide one for chili. > > > >Bill > > > > _ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca > >
Re: I'm back
Hey, Tiger, Welcome back. Nice to hear from you, and glad you're happy with the Starkist D. I don't have one, or any other digital cam, but the concensus around here seems to be that it's good value for the bucks. Unfortunately it ain't the cheapest out there, but it seems worth the money. But, I'm certainly not talking from experience (which has never stopped me from talking before, BTW). cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Tiger Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I'm back Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:41:19 -0600 Been around...always shooting the Pentax (or my Russian cams), but I joined back tonite because I got my new *ist-D next to me! I am so pleased! Every lens I own will work on it! Rephrase, I can use every lens I own to take photos on it! Ofcourse the A, FA, KAF, KAF2 work as expected. My manual focus Tamron 300/2.8 works in A mode with its matched 2X, it also works and either way above with the Pentax 1.7X-AF - also works! My M lenses work with just a tiny adjustment in the Custom settings My Screw mount lenses work with the adapter My RUSSIAN and Carl Zeiss Jena medium format lenses work even. I tried everything from my Arsat 30mm to Sonnar 180mm & Sonnar 300mm and even my huge Pentacon 500/5.6f worked because I have a pentacon to screw mount adapter that then works with my screw to K! My Pentax 15mm/3.5A worked fine, the Limited shoot beautifully. I think its over priced compared to comparible cameras, but its the onyl DSLR with a K mount, so its exactly what I need! _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Kodak's announcement
>This is not an improvement. I understand that Kodak must transition to digital along with everyone else, but some parts of that transition may be going to quickly. Was Kodak losing money on slide projectors? It seems to me that there will be demand for them for some time, if only for luddites like me who want our images actually to look good on a screen. Why buy quality gear, quality film, and work on becoming a good photographer only to have low quality projection equipment? >Joe I would think schools, at least, would hold onto slide projectors for a long time. 8-9 more years of servicing is pretty long. Unfortunately when it comes to technological changes, resistance is futile. Marnie aka Doe But things do seem to be moving rapidly. I have a 40-45-year old projector (non-Kodak), BTW, that still works, if a bit shakily.
Digital Issues
I'm wondering more about trade-offs than advantages. There's some real losses with digital. For instance, CD-R media is showing itself non-durable, with some media only retaining data for a couple of years. Indexing systems are sparce, mostly inadequate. (I'm going to purchase a laptop this next month and create one -- a professional one. Finally. Period. $5,000. It's been designed but just not built & tested yet.) Few have reliable tape or CD-R backups installed. CD-R backup s/w for Win is about $50 & media is dirt cheap. Do it at least monthly. Weekly is better. DLT tapes don't cost that much and are practial as well. In that light I've designed an imaging system that accomplishes more than you could imagine. It's 24x36mm, holds 60 million pixels of information with unlimited color and gray-scale levels, the media lasts 50 to 150 years, take no hard drive space, are thinner than a potato chip, cost about 10 cents per image capture, and is retrieved by simple optical scan. 2 1/4" & larger cost more per image capture but all are handled in the same manner. Should have saved this for April 1. CRB
Re Bills Chili-was: I feel like Mike Johnston
Bill, Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer and camping! Hoo Haa! Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Can't help with a beef stew recipe, but can provide one for chili. Bill _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: OT:Publishing and photo credits
Hi, I was going to suggest you join Magnum, and let them look after this sort of thing . But then I remembered that they have similar problems. Philip Jones Griffiths told a story about it at a talk I went to once. After Francis Ford Coppola had eventually finished 'Apocalypse Now!' it was clear that he had lifted some significant sections and pieces of text from the book 'Vietnam, Inc.' by Jones-Griffiths. So Magnum asked for some money and a credit because they own the copyright. Griffiths said "Coppola replied in the traditional Hollywood style: 'Sue me'". Magnum never got their money or credit, so at least you're in good company. Cheers, Bob Friday, November 14, 2003, 6:03:39 PM, you wrote: > Yup - one of my best photo-journalistic shots at a Scrabble tournament at the Grand > Canyon some > years ago was credited to the staff writer who had me take the photo. I don't think > they > ever published a correction. > But I've more often had them simply left off, even when promised by whoever asked me > for them that they would make sure the credit was there. > Sometimes though you get lucky an they reprint the photo when they correct - > But it is very annoying, nonetheless.
Re: Re[2]: 67II
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But want to check the D100 Nikon also. N!!! The viewfinder is crap! > If I go the Nikon route, I would have to buy it all. The D100 would > have to be pretty compelling to win over the *ist D. Also, viewfinder > is quite important to me, and from everything I have heard, the *ist D > spanks the D100 in that category. Phew! Ignore my previous statement. > Fortunately my local shop carries both so I can compare them side by > side. That's the best way. I don't think you'll be buying the D100 Christian
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Shel's back. -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:47:08 -0800 Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning. I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about all the crap that goes on inside a digital camera, or what and where the headers are in some TIFF or JPEG file, the ebb and flow of electrons, the size of the sensor, who Bayer is and why he interpolated red green and blue pixels. Show me the picture, the final image, if you will. Show me the interplay of light and shadow, the smile caught in a sly glance, or a story written in light, whether with a silver or an electronic brush. That is what photography is. That is the tradition. I've been having a lot of fun with my digital camera, and it's been exciting to learn Photoshop, but hanging out here for the past couple of weeks has made me nauseous from all the digital hyperbole. I got so tired of hearing about the technical strengths and failings of software, the dissection of file formats, complaints about sensor size (It's that age old question: Does size matter? Or is what you do with your tool more important?), analyzing and supposing why one size shall prevail over another ... so, since I'm off my antidepressants for a while I had to find something to elevate my mood. I grabbed my old Leica M3 - no batteries, no light meter, no auto anything except for the nerves, dendrites, and synapses that connect my eye, brain, and shutter release finger - stuck on a 90mm lens, and went out an made some photographs in the old fashioned way. What a lovely experience ... I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus upon!), not where some sensor told me to; I decided if the focus was correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; I could over or under expose without changing modes; I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one would make a double exposure using post processing techniques I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Oh, I know that it won't take long to figure out how to get one of these high-tech image processors up and running, and that with most it's just a quick read of the manual to learn how to make the camera do what I want it to do, which is generally nothing but take the picture at the aperture and shutter speed that I choose. And I know that all you dudes who grew up on video games and have great eye-hand coordination can probably switch modes before I could even figure out what mode I should be in. Maybe I should just find a nice sunny spot in the park, sit on a bench, and feed the squirrels. So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... "Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so much about developers." Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for beef stew? I've been craving comfort f
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
Doug Brewer wrote: > > At 01:35 PM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote: > > >On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > > > >They are actually withdrawing the compact film camera range not the > > >SLR range. > > > > > >That makes more sense. > > > > > >Hard to imagine them just dropping SLRs like that. Way too soon for that. > > > >Marnie, I wouldn't be too sure of that myself. Anyone fancy a bet? > > > > > > > >Specifically: Canikon stop production of all but one film based SLR each > >by end of 2005. > > > > > >Cheers, > > Cotty > Here's the deal, Cotty, I gave it more thought about why I thought that. Price. They won't drop SLRs until they have a DSLR they can sell for around $300. Otherwise, hobbyist photography, anything other than P&S photography, becomes the playground of the rich. Seriously. And somehow I don't think Nikon is quite that irresponsible. Or any other major camera co., for that matter. And it's not just a matter of responsibility, but of not pissing your customers off. Still tons of people out there who cannot drop even $900 on a camera (300D). But the end of 2005 could be different from the end of 2004, anyway. Marnie aka Doe Let's hope, price-wise.
Re: AF 360FGZ - Need Help
Twice, but they're so close together that I can only tell by looking through the viewfinder. With the lens off A, there's only one flash. Bill - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:07 PM Subject: AF 360FGZ - Need Help > Would a list member who owns this flash and either the *ist, *isd D, or > MZ-S perform the following experiment for all of us? > > Set the flash on the camera, ready to fire. Set the metering to center > weighted and press the shutter release. > > Does the AF 360FGZ fire once (TTL) or twice (P-TTL)? > > Thanks, > > Joe > >
Re: Annsan and the *ist D
Of course, we can talk behind her back because she will delete the thread. ;) Bruce Friday, November 14, 2003, 11:35:58 AM, you wrote: C> It's a waste of time to start this thread cuz she's gonna delete it anyway. C> It's quiet in here. C> Cheers, C> Cotty C> ___/\__ C> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche C> ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps C> _ C> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Annsan and the *ist D
We're all ignoring you, Cotty. Just like a little kid, always trying to get our attention... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Annsan and the *ist D Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:35:58 + It's a waste of time to start this thread cuz she's gonna delete it anyway. It's quiet in here. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: TOPDML Beer and Camera Meet
Ooops... Sorry, Dave. You know me and those new fangled auto-focus cameras. As I have no need for them (trans: can't afford one, and I'm happy with MF - I know if I ever really tried AF, I'd be hooked), I don't really pay attention to what's what. I kind of thought that it wasn't an SF 1. Does such a beast exist? If it doesn't, it should. Sounds like a great name for a camera to me. So, to clarify, Dave Brooks was there with his 6x7 and his PZ 1. It all pales to my beautiful LX anyway... BTW, congrats on the piccies being published. Bitch about the credit. Will they publish an apology next issue? Of course, it still ain't the same, but it's better than nothin'. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LOL Frank. First the OHJA magazine publishes two of my pictures and credits them to another photographer.Then Horse Sport published another, in there childrens magazine ,for a caption contest and credits it to a different photographer. Now my poor PZ-1 gets a SF-1 credit. Hurry up December,lets get November over with. Just kidding Frank Dave _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
Dunno, Doug, but to me, for the past several decades, a loogy was something of substance, not just a little spittle. Yuk! keith whaley * * * Doug Brewer wrote: > > At 01:35 PM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote: > > >On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > > > >They are actually withdrawing the compact film camera range not the > > >SLR range. > > > > > >That makes more sense. > > > > > >Hard to imagine them just dropping SLRs like that. Way too soon for that. > > > >Marnie, I wouldn't be too sure of that myself. Anyone fancy a bet? > > > > > > > >Specifically: Canikon stop production of all but one film based SLR each > >by end of 2005. > > > > > >Cheers, > > Cotty > > um, does loogy mean the same thing in the Empire than it does here?
Re[2]: 67II
Hello Christian, Lean towards the *ist D - still have a couple of zooms for the ZX-10 and the flashes for my 67 stuff. Could also get the 67->35mm adapter and use some of my 67 glass. But want to check the D100 Nikon also. Even though Canon is the leader, I just can't get excited about their stuff - go figure. My last foray into Canon left me very ho-hum. Maybe I like the underdog. At least for me right now, I would consider the DSLR for things I would use 35mm for, and still use the 67 gear for paying jobs or where I need high quality. By just getting a 50/1.4 and a wide zoom I would end up with a 17/18 - 35 zoom, 28-80, 80-320 and some flashes. Would only need to buy the 50 and wide zoom. If I go the Nikon route, I would have to buy it all. The D100 would have to be pretty compelling to win over the *ist D. Also, viewfinder is quite important to me, and from everything I have heard, the *ist D spanks the D100 in that category. Fortunately my local shop carries both so I can compare them side by side. I just hope that someone would like a great deal on a 67II. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, November 14, 2003, 11:10:12 AM, you wrote: C> - Original Message - C> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Seeing how it is Friday, it seemed like a good day to list a sale. In >> order to help finance my foray into the DSLR world, C> Watcha gonna buy? C> Christian
Re: AF 360FGZ - Need Help
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:07:57 -0700, Joseph Tainter wrote: >Would a list member who owns this flash and either the *ist, *isd D, or >MZ-S perform the following experiment for all of us? > >Set the flash on the camera, ready to fire. Set the metering to center >weighted and press the shutter release. > >Does the AF 360FGZ fire once (TTL) or twice (P-TTL)? Joe, It still fires twice - as in P-TTL. If you find it a bother then buy an AF500FTZ instead. Is the gap between the flashes much different to the Nikon or Canon systems? Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Annsan and the *ist D
It's a waste of time to start this thread cuz she's gonna delete it anyway. It's quiet in here. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory. >Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too; >interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the >project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]). Er, sorry, what was the question again? Are you talking about setting up a digital darkroom? Curious, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: FS: 67II
Silly to respond to your own mail, but forgot to mention that KEH price on the grip is $165. That brings the total to $1903. Great deal for someone! -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, November 14, 2003, 10:59:36 AM, you wrote: BD> Seeing how it is Friday, it seemed like a good day to list a sale. In BD> order to help finance my foray into the DSLR world, I am offering up BD> for sale one of my 67II's. It includes AE prism and 67II wooden BD> hand/flash grip. Includes all body/finder caps, boxes and original BD> packaging. EX+ condition. As those of you who know, my equipment is BD> in excellent condition and is well taken care of. Anyone wanting to BD> get the latest and greatest 67 "Brotherhood" camera body, now is your chance. BD> KEH price for EX+ body is $1169. AE Finder is $569. KEH total is BD> $1738.00 BD> Asking $1300 or offer.
Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
I'm having a hard time swallowing the fact that film will be disappearing any time soon. I'm also having a hard time understanding that even film P&S will disappear either. Throw away cameras that probably require the same processing are also very hot items for the occasional family photoshoot. My reasoning is based on plain old dollars and cents. I'm not sure the majority of any public is ready for shelling out the dinero for digital cameras at today's prices. Consider that you can buy a 35mm P&S for $35 and a pretty decent one for under a $100. Also consider someone can break into SLR market for under $200 or less. In the case of P&S which is the real mass producer, I'm guessing that would be 5 to 6 times as much. Going on the Canon Rebel price about 4 times as much for SLR. I'm thinking the purchasers of digital cameras in general are a lot more serious about photography then the average person. What percentage of the total market does this cover? I realize prices will keep coming down, but will they ever really compete with film-based equipment on this level. Does or will the AVERAGE user actually even take enough photos to justify the price. Whether you print in your home or have prints made, processing still costs about the same. Based on this line of thought it might also be feasible to easily saturate your market if it does not really include a wide population base. I can't remember where, but I have seen it in print that others think the digital market may be overrated and easily saturated. The one thing they have going for them is I would bet the digital cameras won't last nearly as long and will have to soon be replaced. If not for that because they are soon be outdated. You would think these manufacturers would have done their homework in statistics, but you never know. If any line would be discontinued I would expect it to be prolevel film SLR equipment as this market probably will switch to all digital very soon. This line of thinking would lean towards more film SLRs, but expect them to be of the *ist variety. Fortunately they will still all burn the same film that we also use in our better cameras. Although probased film lines may well disappear...ugh! A plus for film is the amount of R&D that is still going into film scanners as well. I'm actually surprised at the amount of enthusiasm on this list for this modern equipment. For some reason I always pictured the average Pentax user as a more conservative type of photographer that enjoyed the manual cameras without autofocus even. One last point, I've been considering going to the New England School of Photography in Boston, and according to the agenda on their website an awful lot of work is still being emphasized in the old fashioned darkroom. Why would they continue to teach this if it was obvious that digital is the future? Dave - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan... > On the Leica forum, someone reported that Nikon has denied the rumor. > > On Friday, November 14, 2003, at 09:17 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > On 14 Nov 2003 at 12:11, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > > > >> Well, it just happened: > > > > Is anyone really that surprised? > > > > 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 > > > >
FS: SMC-F 24-50mm f/4 zoom
This lens is in lovely excellent condition, with hardly any exterior wear and beautiful glass. It's a constant f/4 and covers the very useful 24-50mm focal length. It feels fairly rugged for an autofocus lens, as it has more metal and heft than most consumer FA series zooms. It takes a 58mm filter. It gives a decent focal length range, on the *ist D, as well. It has the "A" position _and_ an aperture ring! Front and rear caps included, as is the original box. $150 or best offer, with free shipping in the continental U.S.; I'll kick in $10 toward shipping/insurance out of the U.S. Photos: http://people.clarityconnect.com/webpages/wilensky/eBay/24-50_kit.jpg http://people.clarityconnect.com/webpages/wilensky/eBay/24-50_side.jpg http://people.clarityconnect.com/webpages/wilensky/eBay/24-50_front.jpg http://people.clarityconnect.com/webpages/wilensky/eBay/24-50_rear.jpg Joe -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Communication and Marketing Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873
Kodak's announcement
According to the December issue of Shutterbug, Kodak has announced that it will no longer produce slide projectors, and will stop servicing those already produced in 8 or 9 years. Can slide film be far behind? This is a shock for me. I give a lot of presentations with slides. I am accustomed to showing up with a carousel and finding a Kodak projector ready. Over the next few years this will gradually cease to be a reliable expectation. I don't think digital projectors give the impact of a conventionally projected transparency. And people still have trouble getting them to work somtimes. I know there are a couple of other slide projector makers, but nothing they offer (to my knowledge) equals the convenience of the Kodak carousel. I have sometimes been forced to use them. Even if such projectors continue to be made, the major hotels that house conferences will not buy them. All that will be available is a digital projector. As with so many transitions in photographic technology (p&s cameras, APS, mini labs, etc.), change seems to mean a decline in image quality. Also, to preview one of my presentations, I will now have to carry a laptop. This is not an improvement. I understand that Kodak must transition to digital along with everyone else, but some parts of that transition may be going to quickly. Was Kodak losing money on slide projectors? It seems to me that there will be demand for them for some time, if only for luddites like me who want our images actually to look good on a screen. Why buy quality gear, quality film, and work on becoming a good photographer only to have low quality projection equipment? Joe
Vs: FA28-105/3.2-4.5
I hope you are right - but the 24-90 mm is very good indeed. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: pdml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 14. marraskuuta 2003 20:31 Aihe: Re: FA28-105/3.2-4.5 >As reviewed some time ago in Popular Photography, it is inferior to the >excellent FA 24-90. This is reflected in the difference in their prices. >Pentax prices lenses according to their quality. > >Joe >
RE: B&H Digital Catalogue
At 11:06 AM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, tom wrote: The really imopressive catalog is the *lighting* book. Omigawd. tv Yeah, that's a fun book. Doug "snoots..." Brewer
Re: OT:Publishing and photo credits
Unfortunately, all they usually do is put a little notice in the editorial, or letters to the editor page. Never makes up for it. Some serious editorial photographers put a penalty clause ($$$) in their contract to cover such events, after all, Dave, at this point the credit is more valuable to you then their piddling little payment is. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the past 3 weeks i have had 4 pictures published in 2 horse related magazines and 1/4'lys. In both cases my pictures have been credited to other photographers that contribute quite a bit more than i do. I have contacted the 1/4ly and they said they will fix that up in the next issue. I contacted the magazine last night(no email yet) to let them know. Any one else have or had this happen. Do they really make amends in futre issues or i'm i stuck with pages i cannot insert into my portfolio. Dave(still waiting for payments form 2001)Brooks BTW i'v been promised the old"cheque is in the mail" so things are getting closer. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
> > BRAVO, BRAVO! > > [Shel's "rant" deleted] > > "You might as well accept people as they are, > you are not going to be able to change them anyway." I really like the irony here.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
> > [Shel enjoys his Leica] What a lovely experience ... > > I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus > upon!), not where some sensor told me to; Oddly enough, you can do this with a *ist-D, too. > I decided if the focus was > correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; And this ... > I could > over or under expose without changing modes; And this ... > I could even make a double > exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best > camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic > makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one > would make a double exposure using post processing techniques Guess what? The *ist-D lets you do this in-camera, too. It's probably at least as easy as doing it on the Leica. > I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. > There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new > technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a > camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... > I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has > become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get > into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Well, you *do* have to turn the *ist-D on. But unlike most other digital cameras it doesn't have a shooting mode and a playback mode; it's ready to go almost as soon as you turn it on. The thing you'd probably like least about a *ist-D set in all-manual mode (apart from the in-viewfinder displays telling you whether the camera agreed with your choices) is having to set the aperture with a thumbwheel on the body if you wanted the meter coupling to be right.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
By the way, Shel, I didn't know you hated cat pictures. :) -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Wait a minute. Do we know that Shel is a "real" photographer? Shel, have you ever used a Speed Graphic? "Real" photographers use Speed Graphics. I do not want to have to say this again. IS THAT CLEAR? ditto: Doug's PS. -- Doug Brewer wrote: At 07:47 AM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday Okay, everyone, listen up. Shel only wants us to talk about what Shel is interested in. Before you send a post to the list, please send it to Shel first and see if he thinks it's appropriate. Shel, being the only real photographer on the list, will determine if your post meets his standards and will let you know if you can send it to the rest of the subscribers. Thanks, Doug "I know Mike Johnston and you, sir, are no Mike Johnston" Brewer p.s. For the humor-impaired on the PDML, this is a joke. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
RE: B&H Digital Catalogue
> -Original Message- > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > The really imopressive catalog is the *lighting* book. Omigawd. > > > Yep. I got one of those. I don't know why, exactly; I don't do > studio work. I think it's because I ordered a pelican case > from B&H. > But it was interesting to flip through, at any rate. And > if I hadn't > just purchased a Fellowes monitor stand, it would have > easily replaced > the two-inch telephone directory that had previously filled > that role. Yeah. 3 years ago it would have elicited a yawn from me, now I can thumb through it for hours. tv
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
BRAVO, BRAVO! -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday morning. I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about all the crap that goes on inside a digital camera, or what and where the headers are in some TIFF or JPEG file, the ebb and flow of electrons, the size of the sensor, who Bayer is and why he interpolated red green and blue pixels. Show me the picture, the final image, if you will. Show me the interplay of light and shadow, the smile caught in a sly glance, or a story written in light, whether with a silver or an electronic brush. That is what photography is. That is the tradition. I've been having a lot of fun with my digital camera, and it's been exciting to learn Photoshop, but hanging out here for the past couple of weeks has made me nauseous from all the digital hyperbole. I got so tired of hearing about the technical strengths and failings of software, the dissection of file formats, complaints about sensor size (It's that age old question: Does size matter? Or is what you do with your tool more important?), analyzing and supposing why one size shall prevail over another ... so, since I'm off my antidepressants for a while I had to find something to elevate my mood. I grabbed my old Leica M3 - no batteries, no light meter, no auto anything except for the nerves, dendrites, and synapses that connect my eye, brain, and shutter release finger - stuck on a 90mm lens, and went out an made some photographs in the old fashioned way. What a lovely experience ... I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus upon!), not where some sensor told me to; I decided if the focus was correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; I could over or under expose without changing modes; I could even make a double exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one would make a double exposure using post processing techniques I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Oh, I know that it won't take long to figure out how to get one of these high-tech image processors up and running, and that with most it's just a quick read of the manual to learn how to make the camera do what I want it to do, which is generally nothing but take the picture at the aperture and shutter speed that I choose. And I know that all you dudes who grew up on video games and have great eye-hand coordination can probably switch modes before I could even figure out what mode I should be in. Maybe I should just find a nice sunny spot in the park, sit on a bench, and feed the squirrels. So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... "Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so much about developers." Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for beef stew? I've been craving comfort food lately ... wonder why? shel -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: B&H Digital Catalogue
> > The really imopressive catalog is the *lighting* book. Omigawd. > Yep. I got one of those. I don't know why, exactly; I don't do studio work. I think it's because I ordered a pelican case from B&H. But it was interesting to flip through, at any rate. And if I hadn't just purchased a Fellowes monitor stand, it would have easily replaced the two-inch telephone directory that had previously filled that role.
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
> > RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking > RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, "bypasses most of > the processing on the camera." Most means not all. No. A *ist-D will produce just about the same RAW image as a Nikon D-100, as far as the actual image pixels are concerned. The differences are mostly in those EXIF bits you're not interested in talking about. A Canon 300D, or a Sony point-and-shoot, or ... will produce different RAW data, because they use different sensors. > If you've not already tried it, grab a few different cameras that use RAW, > take the same shot under the same conditions (don't forget to use your > tripod ) and then compare the images. According to you, they should be > the same. Do the experiment, and let us know what results you've come up > with. In fact, post 'em so we can make up our own minds. But that's not looking at the same RAW images - it's looking at the images after they've been through whatever piece of software converts from the RAW image to a TIFF or JPEG. And in any case it's no more reasonable to assume that two digital cameras would produce the same RAW images than it is to assume that two 35mm cameras would produce the same images without carefully controlling the other variables (such as film & glass). You do lose one element of freedom with digital cameras; the choice of 'film' (primary image capture element) to put in it - sensors aren't interchangeable. But after that, you gain a lot of freedom. There wasn't a lot of choice on how to process C41 (or E6) emulsions; just about everybody used the same mix of chemicals and the same procedure. Black and White, though, was a very different story; there were all sorts of different developers from which you could pick the right one for your purpose to get extended range, or finer detail, or better contrast, ... Digital offers the possibility of just that sort of choice, but with the added advantage (to most) that you can do this sort of thing with colour images. To do that, though, you need to come up with the right developer (software) and the right process. Just living with the in-camera choices, or even the slightly less limited set of choices available in the software supplied with the camera, is like handing your B&W film to a high street one-hour lab. You'll get images back, but they may not be anywhere near as good as you could do in your own darkroom. I'm sorry if all this discussion is of no interest to you. There again, I didn't see complaints from you if anybody decided to discuss the benefits of Microdol vs. malt vinegar, which is equally irrelevant to the process of photography. Of course it's overwhelming, at present; the *ist-D has just come out, so a lot of people are dabbling in digital image capture for the first time. But, as Marnie points out, this provides an excellent opportunity for interested novices to learn from people who have a lot of relevant expertise. And we may see some better tools come out of this; I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory. Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too; interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
