Re: new gallery
And the gallery is where, Larry ... Larry Hodgson wrote: > > Hi Gang: > > Just put up my new gallery. Have a look if you like. I will be adding more > sub-galleries including one for PDML specific images. I have not customized > it yet, but plan on doing that in the coming days. > > Larry from Prescott
new gallery link
Hi Gang: Just put up my new gallery. Have a look if you like. I will be adding more sub-galleries including one for PDML specific images. I have not customized it yet, but plan on doing that in the coming days. Larry from Prescott P.S. It would help if I included the link dummy!!! http://tripodman.smugmug.com/
Hood fit ?'s
Hi all does anyone know if the hood at the B&H link below will work on A*85mmF1.4 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&; Q=&sku=169805&is=REG Thanks JD
new gallery
Hi Gang: Just put up my new gallery. Have a look if you like. I will be adding more sub-galleries including one for PDML specific images. I have not customized it yet, but plan on doing that in the coming days. Larry from Prescott
Re: Digital Photography
Why, Herb ... they're the greatest advance in photography since the Polaroid, surpassing film by degrees. They produce wonderful results in the hands of a creative soul ... or ... they're the biggest piece of shit to come down the pike since the camera obscura, and in the hands of some soulless techno maven produce nothing but mediocre images that need to be manipulated heavily in Photoshop to make even a passable image. It's a friggin' camera, Herb. It produces what you can make it produce. Herb Chong wrote: > > alright, what do they produce? > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:42 PM > Subject: Re: Digital Photography > > > Hey, Herb, I NEVER said that digital cameras produced crap. > > Read my comments to graywolf in a bit.
Re: OT: Another Sign of the Apocalypse
Yet another sign of the Apocalypse: I have just gotten mounted in my room a permanent projector . . . admidtly, it's a cheap one, but it gets the job done, and by the start of the next school year a Smart Board will be attached to the wall for use with it . . . who says that computer projection technology is too complex for teachers :-D IL Bill On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 09:04 PM, Jim Apilado wrote: Until I retired last May, as the AV coordinator for my high school, computer projection was just too complex for most of the teachers. The main problem was the setup procedures. I had lots of Ektagraphic Kodak Carousels available for use - and they were used many times. Jim A. From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:25:50 -0500 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: Another Sign of the Apocalypse Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:26:16 -0500 Seems to be the theme of the afternoon: I met a colleague on campus and I walked with him to the media center in the library. He needed a slide projector. He told the student at the desk and she comes back with a computer projector. After several minutes of unproductive conversation, he shows her a slide from the little pack he has with him. She thinks its really neat but expresses the opinion that it must cost a lot to actually have these things made. I am laughing and generally being unhelpful, so he says "yes, but nothing is too good for my students". We finally go with her into the back and locate the elusive Kodak Carousel. I'm going to ask my daughter (17) tonight if she's ever had a slide show during her high school career. Now that I think about it, everything I've seen there, including pictures during sports awards night, has been computer projection.
Re: OT: Another Sign of the Apocalypse
Until I retired last May, as the AV coordinator for my high school, computer projection was just too complex for most of the teachers. The main problem was the setup procedures. I had lots of Ektagraphic Kodak Carousels available for use - and they were used many times. Jim A. > From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:25:50 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: OT: Another Sign of the Apocalypse > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:26:16 -0500 > > Seems to be the theme of the afternoon: > > I met a colleague on campus and I walked with him to the media center > in the library. He needed a slide projector. He told the student at > the desk and she comes back with a computer projector. After several > minutes of unproductive conversation, he shows her a slide from the > little pack he has with him. She thinks its really neat but expresses > the opinion that it must cost a lot to actually have these things made. > I am laughing and generally being unhelpful, so he says "yes, but > nothing is too good for my students". We finally go with her into the > back and locate the elusive Kodak Carousel. > > I'm going to ask my daughter (17) tonight if she's ever had a slide > show during her high school career. Now that I think about it, > everything I've seen there, including pictures during sports awards > night, has been computer projection. >
Re: OT: North Americans
I see. It's okay to categorize a fellow list member as "old," but it's insensitive to call those who live in the United States of America "Americans." That's PC logic for you. On Feb 4, 2004, at 9:26 PM, Keith Whaley wrote: Make of it what you will, ol' fella! keith graywolf wrote: My you do have to dig to find something to feel guilty about, don't you. They are also all humans, so you should stop calling yourself that immediately. I can almost understand them trying to run a guilt trip on us, what do you get out of it? Since this is becoming a political thread, and I am getting rather hot under the collar, I am going to kill file it. -- Keith Whaley wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: It has nothing to do with Hubris. [. . .]
Re: OT: North Americans
No, Bill, Not "little time". No time. So, is there a huge difference if you venture south, and cross the border into the USA? Other than the guns and no universal healthcare thing? I'm not being facetious. I'm just thinking that a Saskatchewan wheat farmer would have more in common with a North Dakota wheat farmer than with a fisherman from Vancouver Island. But, as usual, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: North Americans Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:41:48 -0600 - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: Re: OT: North Americans > The prairies are the prairies, both north and south of the 49th parallel. Spoken by someone who has obviously spent little to no time on the praries, neither north nor south of the 49th. William Robb _ STOP MORE 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
FS: Filter bonanza
Another batch of cheap goodies from the local camera store close-outs! Tiffen --- Step-up Rings: 49->55 58->62 60 Bay to 67 Filters: 49mm 812 warm (2) 49mm 81B warm 46mm 81A (skylight) 55mm 812 warm 55mm Sky 1-A (skylight) 67mm Sky 1-A (skylight) (3) 67mm 15 Orange Promaster --- 67mm diffusion (soft focus) 67mm Skylight 1A Items are old inventory so packages show handling, but are not seriously torn up. All are new in original packaging. 67mm are $8 each (originally around $20 each) the others are $6 each. (originally around $15 each) Shipping is $2 + $0.25 per filter. (the easiest way to calculate for US.) Overseas will be actual shipping. PayPal preferred. Collin
Re: GFM plans
Tanya, As long as I'm there, there'll be someone who knows less about nature photography than you! I'm only going for the camping and the beer. And, to see Cesar's Snakeskin LX. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> not only will I be totally "out of my league" and surrounded by many gifted nature photographers _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
*istD current best price $1349 US?
B&H Photo shows the *istD in stock at $1349 US. Is there a better price around? Does $1349 reflect the recent price reduction? I suddenly find myself in the market for a Pentax DLSR and there is only one to choose from... unless something is in the wings. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Digital Photography
Well, it did make me smile ... mainly because the EXIF data were missing It's kinda cool the way the noses are ... shel frank theriault wrote: > > Shel, > > If my kids won't make you smile, nothing will: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1106077&size=lg > > See? I bet you're smiling...
Re: Digital Photography
Shel, If my kids won't make you smile, nothing will: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1106077&size=lg See? I bet you're smiling... -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]> Show me some soul, some heart, something to make me smile ... _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 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: Digital Photography
Herb, What's this "film guys" stuff? Geez, aren't we all here taking photographs? I can't throw numbers around. I have no idea how many stops of dynamic range my favourite films have; not because I'm stupid, but because I don't give a shit. I take photographs. Either they work, or they don't. Isn't that what it's about? I think the problem with this thread (or maybe the problem with digital?) is that one tends to get lost in the technology. At least I think I would. That's kind of the problem that I have with AF AE cameras, too. In order to "make things simpler", they've added so many freaking thumbwheels, buttons, switches, displays and "control surfaces/interfaces" on the bodies, it's a wonder anyone can figure out how to turn them on, let alone take a photo with them! As someone said earlier, we're basically dealing with focus, aperture and shutter speed. Everything else gets in the way, at least for me. Am I saying digital's bad? Of course not! Is it better than film? I have no idea. Does film produce results that satisfy me? Much of the time. Would I do better with digital? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. OTOH, maybe for others, doing different types of photography, digital's much more appropriate. But, please, let's not get into a "film guy (or gal) vs. the digi-guys (and gals). No good can come of that, IMHO. regards, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Digital Photography Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:02:04 -0500 i have some examples (not taken with my *istD) where i have pulled about 6 stops more range out of a single image than the unmodified image was showing. blending together a sequence of 6 exposures, each 1 stop apart, shows about the same contrast as the manipulated single image. the color isn't as good in the shadows as blending 6 exposures, but not bad. i'd like to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of dynamic range onto any single exposure with good contrast. a digital sensor with 12 bits/pixel is by definition able to record 12 stops of dynamic range. the deepest shadows are not going to be great, but not great is better than not at all. _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 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: OT: North Americans
Hi ERN, I think us Californians wanted to copy the Texans. We had a California Republic for about three weeks, then the USA took us over. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California > ERN > (resident of what was once, long before my time, the Republic of Texas)
Re: OT: North Americans
Bucky wrote: > > Understood. Diversity of opinion can be quite threatening. But, hardly political. . .IMMHO. keith whaley > > > -Original Message- > > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 4-Feb-04 17:14 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: OT: North Americans > > > Since this is becoming a political thread, and I am getting > > rather hot under the > > collar, I am going to kill file it. > >
Re: Digital Photography
> > But the digital camera fanatics, instead of seeing the > thread as a discussion about PHOTOGRAPHY, and the > desire/need (real or perceived) for more images delivered > faster, and reducing the quality of photographs, saw it as > an attack on their precious pixels. Perhaps that's because you aimed your criticisms at digital photography, not at 21st-century photography. Not that aiming at 21st-century photography would have been any more accurate, either - the same old arguments have been levelled at 35mm vs. medium format, roll film vs. sheet film, and probably at sheet film vs. wet plates.
Re: OT: North Americans
Make of it what you will, ol' fella! keith graywolf wrote: > > My you do have to dig to find something to feel guilty about, don't you. They > are also all humans, so you should stop calling yourself that immediately. > > I can almost understand them trying to run a guilt trip on us, what do you get > out of it? > > Since this is becoming a political thread, and I am getting rather hot under the > collar, I am going to kill file it. > > -- > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > >>It has nothing to do with Hubris. [. . .]
RE: D70 and digital kills real cameras
I understand that but that is the way we are headed. The computer in our house will wake us up, ask us if we want the news, have coffee or whatever ready for us, and do many other things that we routinely want. If we don't want something we will be able to tell the computer not to do it. It's not a bad thing, at least to me. If you don't want it in the morning, it will provide it for you when you ask for it. Looks pretty good to me. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > -Original Message- > From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: D70 and digital kills real cameras > > > But Len, I don't _want_ or _need_ to read the news on my > computer. I spend > all day in front of it: I get the newspaper delivered at > breakfast time, and > sit somewhere else and read it at my leisure, both then and > later in the > day - maybe even the next day, if I have other events which > prevent my doing
Re: Digital Photography
the missing step is that i can go to 20 stops if i wanted to with what Rob and i do, and in color. the practical limit is my patience. Herb - Original Message - From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:54 PM Subject: Re: Digital Photography > Almost any standard B&W negative film will record 10 stops, that is where AA got > the 10 zones in the zone system from.
RE: OT: North Americans
Understood. Diversity of opinion can be quite threatening. > -Original Message- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 4-Feb-04 17:14 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: North Americans > Since this is becoming a political thread, and I am getting > rather hot under the > collar, I am going to kill file it. >
Re: Digital Photography
capture on film is what i am talking about. in B&W printing, you can change the paper contrast or use multiple contrast filters and exposures if you are using such so that the highlights and shadows you captured still print. yes, it's only about 7 stops range that will show up on the print as you compress it. the characteristic curves for traditional B&W film that i have looked at reach only about 10 stops with normal development in something like D-76/ID-11. Herb - Original Message - From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Digital Photography > Use chromogentic B&W film. 15 stops is pretty normal. What I want to see is a > print that can show it. AFAIK, B&W is still limited to about 7 stops, and color > to about 5. Of course if you are talking about compressing those 10 stops down > to 5 you are saying something different than you seem to think you are saying, > as that is easy to do with traditional photo techniques.
Re: Digital Photography
> > if we follow Shel's line of reasoning to completion, taking away all of his > film bodies and making him use an *istD for a week will result in him > turning out pure and only pure garbage because it's the camera's fault. Actually just about all of Shel's arguments against digital are nothing more than a rehash of the old sheet film vs. roll film bickering.
Re: Digital Photography
I was actually being facetious... Norm graywolf wrote: Almost any standard B&W negative film will record 10 stops, that is where AA got the 10 zones in the zone system from. -- Norm Baugher wrote: What's the range of B&W? Norm Herb Chong wrote: i'd like to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of dynamic range onto any single exposure with good contrast
Re: Viruses...
Glenn, there is never a need to send a .exe file nowadays. Anything of that
nature should be zipped using WinZip or similar to compress the file in any
case, and the recipient can then preview the package before opening it.
This is what I do with my clients nowadays, where I need to send updates or
new program executables to them.
The only reason viruses promulgate so fast and so widely nowadays is that
every day there's some idiot (or 10,000 of them) who really thinks that it's
OK to open the attached .exe or .scr or .pif that some unknown person has
sent without checking it out, or without even basic virus protection in
place.
I receive on average 30 emails a day offering me life insurance, member
extension, love-making advice, or just outright plain porn. I'm also told
on average twice a day that my credit card has expired, my order is now
ready, I can get a low mortgage or cheap software, that I can get my meds
from Canadian pharmacies real cheap (Frank, can you explain why I should
wait a week to get my aspirin by mail from Canada - don't these prats have
any concept of the real world?), etc. etc. etc. And there are so many
people saying Hi, or sending mails with neither subject nor text that my
kill filters need bigger radiators on them!
If Bill Gates can fulfil his promise to rid the world of spam in two years,
we should offer him the Nobel Prize for Peace!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Viruses...
> Robert wrote:
> > At 06:35 AM 5/02/2004 +1000, you
> [ uh, Tanya, I think ]
> > wrote:
> >
> > You must realise that sometimes companies overreact. They will ban ALL
exe
> > attachments claiming they are viruses ;-(
>
> That's not that bad an idea. For an ISP to do it would
> be bad, because in theory somebody might have a legitimate
> need to ship an EXE, but it does make sense for a company
> to decide that EXE files are just too risky and too seldom
> legitimate to be allowed through their mail gateway.
>
> The last time I remember somebody sending my an EXE file
> on purpose was ... about two years ago, I think. And the
> time before that was ... somebody who did it on purpose
> but _shouldn't_have_, because it was a Trojan that he'd
> gotten fooled by, back before mail worms (viri that
> automagically re-mail themselves) had come on the scene.
>
> How often do _you_ need to send an EXE that's not just a
> "hey look at this cute thing I found (which may turn out
> to be a Trojan)"? Where sending source code wasn't more
> apropriate? Yeah, it can come up, but not bloody often.
>
> > >I just came online and downloaded 68 emails, and 9 of these were virus
> > >emails!
> >
> > Life on the net is NOT THAT dangerous!
>
> What, not so dangerous that she actually got nine worms
> out of sixty eight messages?
>
> Or not that dangerous in that it "doesn't matter" if your
> machine gets infected?
>
> Or that just getting them in your mailbox isn't a big
> deal as long as you're careful?
>
> The first of these is refutable by direct observation
> (and if you like, I can give you _my_ numbers, which
> look much more frightening than hers). The second is
> a scary thing to hear someone say nowadays. There have
> already been worms that grab a random document from
> your machine to include to make themselves look legitimate,
> thus exposing private or proprietary information to random
> outsiders, so it's not just "oh you might lose the contents
> of your hard drive, I hope you have backups" and "gee, you
> can unwittingly contribute to DDoS attacks!".
>
> The third is accurate but less than useful for some mail
> programs and basically false for others. It's meaningfully
> true for some reactionary net.old.farts like myself who use
> a text-based mail client on a UNIX/Linux system.
>
> > >I know that my system is
> > >completely virus free,
> >
> > no such thing! there is no 100% guarantee against viruses.
>
> She didn't say "100% SAFE FROM viruses." She said "IS completely
> virus free". She may well be correct today. She may still be
> correct tomorrow. She may even actually _know_ what she claims
> to know. She did not say what you're reacting to.
>
>
> I can say that _my_ system is 100% safe from _email_worms_
> unless _I_ screw up. For me to screw up, I would have to
> go out of my way to invoke a different mail program, one
> that understands attachments, extract the payload of the
> worm, and then manually execute it on a different machine
> ('cause it'll be written for Windows and I'll be reading
> under Linux). It's possible that I'll get bitten by a
> Trojan that way if it's convincing enough _and_tempting_enough_.
> "Look at this cute/dirty screensaver" is not tempting
> enough (for me). I can say that I am _almost_ certain that
> my system is virus-free _at_this_moment_, but it's _possible_
> that a legitimate web site from
Re: I got an *ist (film)
graywolf said: > If it is insulting Dr Suess invented it. Anyone else aware that everyone of > those terms is a charactor in his childrens books? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I am not a dweeb, and I don't think I'm a dork. I'm pretty sure I'm a geek. But > > I could be a > > nerd. > In that case, I was mistaken. I am absolutely nothing that Dr Suess ever described. (Hate his stuff. Fervently.)
RE: Viruses...
There's a new hoax going round too... >I hate those hoax warnings, but this one is important!!! Please send >this to everyone on your email list. > >If a man comes to your front door and says he is conducting a survey >And asks you to show him your bum, do not show him your bum. This is a >scam; he only wants to see your bum. > >I wish I'd got this yesterday. I feel so stupid and cheap! :-) Simon -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2004 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Viruses... On 5 Feb 2004 at 10:39, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > Oh, I know that! lol - I just meant that I am virus free at the moment (I > know this as I just formatted my HDD and loaded on the latest Norton System > Works and virus updates before I even connected to the net. This, combined with > Zone Alarm and now the bigpond virus scan, I know 100% that at this very moment > in time, I am virus free - couldn't say how I am in say 2 minutes though! lol... If you just re-loaded you OS you better ensure that you've got all the current security patches in place as Norton stop them and neither will Zone Alarm if it's incorrectly configured. 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: Digital Photography
Almost any standard B&W negative film will record 10 stops, that is where AA got the 10 zones in the zone system from. -- Norm Baugher wrote: What's the range of B&W? Norm Herb Chong wrote: i'd like to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of dynamic range onto any single exposure with good contrast -- 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: Digital Photography
Overall, mine are much better. Especially the indoor shots with ambient light due the ability to adjust the white balance to the current lighting conditions. Bill - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:43 PM Subject: Re: Digital Photography > i seriously doubt any *istD owner here on PDML thinks they are getting fewer > good pictures than they were with their film cameras. if anything, the > majority report more and better pictures. >
Re: Digital Photography
Use chromogentic B&W film. 15 stops is pretty normal. What I want to see is a print that can show it. AFAIK, B&W is still limited to about 7 stops, and color to about 5. Of course if you are talking about compressing those 10 stops down to 5 you are saying something different than you seem to think you are saying, as that is easy to do with traditional photo techniques. -- Herb Chong wrote: i have some examples (not taken with my *istD) where i have pulled about 6 stops more range out of a single image than the unmodified image was showing. blending together a sequence of 6 exposures, each 1 stop apart, shows about the same contrast as the manipulated single image. the color isn't as good in the shadows as blending 6 exposures, but not bad. i'd like to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of dynamic range onto any single exposure with good contrast. a digital sensor with 12 bits/pixel is by definition able to record 12 stops of dynamic range. the deepest shadows are not going to be great, but not great is better than not at all. Herb - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:45 PM Subject: Re: Digital Photography Seriously the advent of digital capture has spurned on the imaging software developers to produce a whole array of tools that weren't available in the past. One type of which are the extended contrast tools which create HDR images. Using this technology often an image can be shot which would have been impossible using film due to extremes of contrast. There are some occasions where the light will never be "right", this technology (which obviously can now be used to extend and compress the contrast range of digitized film images) provides a whole new set of opportunities to the thinking photographer. -- 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: Digital Photography
- Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" Subject: Re: Digital Photography > What's the range of B&W? > Norm > 8 to ten stops easily, 10-15 stops if you really try hard. William Robb
Re: OT: North Americans
- Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" Subject: Re: OT: North Americans > Yes, the Canadians, the Mexicans and those of us from the U.S. of A., > who are all North Americans. Right? How do we differentiate? Canadians apologize a lot more often than Americans. Mexicans have better fake ethnic take out food. William Robb
Re: OT: North Americans
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: Re: OT: North Americans > The prairies are the prairies, both north and south of the 49th parallel. Spoken by someone who has obviously spent little to no time on the praries, neither north nor south of the 49th. William Robb
Re: OT: North Americans
- Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: OT: North Americans > Dominion of > Canada; Canada, and Canadians for short. We have a Constitution of our own. We are not Dumb Minions any more. William Robb
Re: lens
- Original Message - From: "jim bostelle" Subject: lens > Hi Group > My name is Jim Bostelle, I am from the philadelphia suburbs of the > USA. I am an amatuar photographer and I have a k1000 and a ist-D I use > my camera for work (I own a dental lab and use it for promotions and > such) But I also like to shoot landscapes so I want a really good wide > angle lens that takes into consideration the digital ccd Factor. I'm > looking for something around 20mm that has a really good reputation for > quality in most areas. I did look at your lens page but was generally > overwhelmed with all that info. If anyone out there would like to give > me thier opinion on what would be a good lens to buy I would be very > thankful. Jim Bostelle The A 20mm f/2.8 is quite nice, I have tried on a few occassions to pick up thA 15mm f/(?) but the price alwats climbs out of reach before I get in the game. William Robb
Re: North Americans
- Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" Subject: OT: North Americans > I was looking through Shutterbug yesterday and noticed that 3 of the > 6(?) photographers they were interviewing where referred to as "North > Americans", not Americans or Canadians. I have noticed this elsewhere. > Is this usage becoming common? From what I have seen, this does not > seem to include Mexicans although this certainly spoils my sense of > geography. Probably its a precursor to invasion. William Robb
Re: Digital Photography
Ok, so now I truly have NO IDEA what you are talking about... *eek* and I'm not exactly sure if I really want to know?!?! tan. Cotty said: > That simply isn't true. I've never been into toilet slavery. > > LOL >
Re: Viruses...
Tanya, my housemate's getting quite a few Mydooms daily.. By which email address he's getting them at (and which addy he's not) he figures that it's because he's got that email address published on his website and it was somehow harvested. There could be a chance that you got it from your website's exposure too? If you want to test it, you could create a new email address and secretly insert it in a really tiny font or same colour as the background or as a junk string in your source, then leave it for a week to see if it gets infected too? Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 6:35 AM Subject: Viruses... > Just a quick note - in regards to viruses - I have, last week, taken out an > option from my ISP to have all viruses removed from my emails before they > hit my inbox. The messages still come through but say "Telstra has removed > a virus from this email...etc". Due to this, I don't know which virus it > is, but omg, there are SO many emails coming through with them! > > I just came online and downloaded 68 emails, and 9 of these were virus > emails! > > It is the one that is titled "hello"... Was that the "mydoom" one? > > Also, the other day I got an email from two separate companies (it was > automatically generated) saying that one of their employees had been sent a > virus from my address. This makes me believe even more so that it is > someone on-list as it was my [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which I use for > my list subscription (amongst other things). I know that my system is > completely virus free, so it must be coming from someone who has me in their > Address Book... > > Anyways, just wanted to let you know that someone on-list definitely still > has this virus, so you may all want to check your 'puters again... > > tan. > >
Re: Digital Photography
a restatement of my previous pithy remark - the ones that complain the most are the ones that don't have one. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:45 PM Subject: Re: Digital Photography > I've enjoyed the discourse on the matter, however it seems peculiar that the > listers arguing so vehemently against digital image capture don't own DSLRs > (digi-p&s don't count). :-)
Re: Digital Photography
Aw, come on, Cotty. You are a video cameraman. That means you smell bad, and have hypertrophied musles in you right shoulder. Paint with light! Indeed! (OK, so it isn't a one liner) -- Cotty wrote: On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Hey! I asked for straight lines, not competition! I don't take snaps, I paint with light! Really. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- 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: more *ist D pricing news...
I agree. I bought mine the first chance I got to lay my hands on it and I bought it at a local camera store. The difference between mail order and local price was not enough to worry about. I just did it and have enjoyed it ever since. Buying local once in a while helps keep camera stores in business. I had to mail order the battery grip because there was nobody in the whole St Louis metropolitan area that had one. I could still be waiting around to get one cheap but then I wouldn't have had one to use in the intervening time. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > I was a very early adapter to the istD, buying it about 45 > minutes after it became available to me. > At that time, I paid about the same as what you are quoting now, > and the US dealers hadn't started to discount it. > Consequently, at that time it was cheaper in Canada than the USA > (at least in my instance). > What I don't get is why all the hand wringing over the pricing. > If you want it, and can afford it, just buy the damned thing and > get on with life. > If you want it and can't afford it, then you have the same > relationship to it that I have to a new Land Rover. > OTOH, if you want it, can afford it, but refuse to buy it > because you think it's going to cost less next week, then wait > till next week and quit bellyaching. > You know that within 6 months of a new version coming out, they > will be giving them away for probably about the cost of the > chip, so wait till then, and get the best deal possible. > > Sorry for the rant, but the whole price issue just doesn't fly > with me. > > William Robb > >
Re: Digital Photography
if we follow Shel's line of reasoning to completion, taking away all of his film bodies and making him use an *istD for a week will result in him turning out pure and only pure garbage because it's the camera's fault. Herb - Original Message - From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Digital Photography > Apparently, from comments on this list, when you buy a DSLR you lose whatever > common sense you had. > > Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners.
Re: GFM plans
http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/_whatsnew.msnw Bill - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: RE: GFM plans > On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >645n > > FA45/2.8, FA75/2.8, FA120/4, A*300/4 > > > >K-mount > > LX (3-5), MX, MZ-S, K-1000?, ME-Super?, Super Program?, any requests? > > FA*24/2, FA Limited 31/1.8, K50/1.2, FA Limited 77/1.8, M200/4, A*300/4 > > > >Screwmount > > SV, S1a (2), SV, S3, Spotmatic SP > > SMC 28/3.5, S-T 35/3.5, S-T 50/1.4, S-T 85/1.9, SMC 85/1.8, SMC 105/2.8, > >S-T 135/2.5, SMC 200/4, Tele-Takumar 300/6.3 > > Holy cow! The guy's a mobile Ad-o-rama! > > Is this to shoot with or to show off? I would guess both ;-) > > >any requests? > > Of course, I gotta see these danged snake-jobbies. > > I just realised that 'LX (3-5)' means you're bringing between 3 and 5 LXs? > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > >
Re: Digital Photography
You forget that a few years back when all you guys were saying digital was not worth the money, I was saying your are full of crap. Now that you are converted I have to defend the other side. The recently converted are always such unthinking fanatics. If I went back into commercial photography, I would go digital to do otherwise would be stupid and suicidal, as you well know. But, as a hobby, I have gone backwards prefering the old ways. My post was not intended specifically to you but to the wider audiance of the list, you just provided a point to start from, Rob. Landscapes? Why I don't know, Rob. I think that the proper way to do landscapes is to find a view. Then you set up the camera for the shot. They you wait until the light is right. Somehow, I do not see the need to shoot a thousand frames to get it. I mean 90% of the serious landscape photographers still use a view camera. -- Rob Studdert wrote: I think if you actually owned one you'd find it a little more capable that you expect, of course there are things that it can't do but hey all media has it's limitations, you've just got to learn what they are (which is difficult if you don't own one). -- 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: GFM plans
> Will anyone have a spare tripod? I think that mine will add much too much > weight to my luggage, it DOES fit into my suitcase (I take it away to > Brisbane etc with me) and so I may have to dispense with some clothes *eek* > if no-one has a spare! lol... Or maybe, I could just be like Stan and not > shower for a few days and wear the same clothes! lol... I can bring an extra Bogen 3021 with pan head and one missing rubber foot. > Film - I doubt that I will actually shoot much at all - maybe just a couple > of rolls of Reala or NPH400, but I think it will be primarily a digital > affair. I probably won't be entering the competition, I have never really > shot slide film before and could end up with some very embarrassing results! > ;-) No one need see them but you. You and you alone get them back on Sunday morning and decide which ones, if any, you wish to enter in the contest. The first 2 years I attended, I entered the contest. Then I found out how much more fun it was to relax and have fun than to run all over the mountain looking for something to photograph. Bill
Re: OT - NYers was - more *ist D pricing news...
I couldn't quite see myself spending the money at this point but I did lust after the sigma EX 120-300 2.8 (NA in PK mount). I ended up getting the sigma EX 70-200 2.8(and the vendor has agreed to swap for a canon mount fortunately). I did find that quite a few of the newer lenses were not available for pentax. perhaps it's just a matter of time, but I suspect that this will remain true for a while. there is also the lack of image stabilization for pentax lenses. Even the stabilized sigmas are not available in Pentax mount. But with all that said and given the rapid drop in ist prices(can't stomach losing too much money on it), I might end up keeping it as a *very* competent P&S :-) as it is a very compact package with the 50/1.8 and pass on my current P&S (a sony 707) to my brother. Yousef --- Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > which lenses did you want that were not available > for Pentax? > > Christian > > - Original Message - > From: "Yousef Lasi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:57 PM > Subject: Re: OT - NYers was - more *ist D pricing > news... > > > > I love the camera, but what puts me off is the > lack of > > 3rd party support. it bothers me that here isn't > more > > support for the pentax raw format...I want to be > able > > to use tools like capture one, but they have no > clear > > time table for pentax support. It also seems that > some > > very desirable 3rd party glass is not available > for > > the pentax(yet, maybe never) > > in a straight comparison between the 10D and the > ist, > > I actually preferred the ist and returned the 10D > to > > B&H within their 7 day return period. However, > after > > having the ist for a month and having endured the > > disappointment of finding that software and /or > lenses > > I want are not available for the pentax, I have > swung > > back to the canon. Plus there is the added > incentive > > of a clear upgrade path to the 1Ds/1D MKII down > the > > road. > > Having no current investment in pentax glass, it > seems > > the choice is clear...of course YMMV > > Yousef > > > > >
Re: Digital Photography
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5 >> minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... >> I just about fell off my chair when it hit me... > > I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist > the thread back to the one a while back about the global > warming/impending ice age boogieman. > ... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital > photography. > > (pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D It was him, Miss, honest. He started it Miss. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: D70 and digital kills real cameras
Sorry, but I don't subscribe, but I'm sure someone who will be at GFM does and will hopefully bring a copy. Bill - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 6:50 PM Subject: Re: D70 and digital kills real cameras > On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > > >> You have that one right, Bob. If you are still shooting film you are > >working for > >> a monthly magazine. > > >Not necessarily the case. The recent National Geographic article on the > >history of aviation was shot totally digitally. > > > >Bill > > And a beautiful job they did, also. To be honest, it didn't matter to me > one jot whether it was film or digital - but it mattered to the > Geographic - there was some shots that were grabbed right at the last > minute and digital helped enormously. > > It was a damn good feature. Bill, see if you can remember to bring that > copy along to GFM - I can see that being a nice topic of conversation ;-) > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > >
RE: GFM plans
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >645n > FA45/2.8, FA75/2.8, FA120/4, A*300/4 > >K-mount > LX (3-5), MX, MZ-S, K-1000?, ME-Super?, Super Program?, any requests? > FA*24/2, FA Limited 31/1.8, K50/1.2, FA Limited 77/1.8, M200/4, A*300/4 > >Screwmount > SV, S1a (2), SV, S3, Spotmatic SP > SMC 28/3.5, S-T 35/3.5, S-T 50/1.4, S-T 85/1.9, SMC 85/1.8, SMC 105/2.8, >S-T 135/2.5, SMC 200/4, Tele-Takumar 300/6.3 Holy cow! The guy's a mobile Ad-o-rama! Is this to shoot with or to show off? I would guess both ;-) >any requests? Of course, I gotta see these danged snake-jobbies. I just realised that 'LX (3-5)' means you're bringing between 3 and 5 LXs? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: GFM plans
Actually, in regards to this, owing to the huge travel involved and excess baggage etc. If I do make it to GFM, I think I'll only be bringing with me: MZ-6 (ZX-L) (which I hardly EVER use and would benefit from spending the weekend "playing" with it) *istD (I WILL have one by then! lol) FA50mm f1.7 Tamron Manual Focus 135mm f2.5 FA 28-105mm f4-5.6 pz Tamron Asph. 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 (maybe or maybe not - haven't played with it since it was repaired from its car accident, so thought it would be fun to bring along) A70-210mm f4 (so that Stan can reminisce - it used to be his!) DA 16-45mm f4 (if I have been able to get one before then!) Sadly, I think that they Oly will stay at home (unless anyone requests a look) as he isn't light... Likewise with my PZ-20s... Will anyone have a spare tripod? I think that mine will add much too much weight to my luggage, it DOES fit into my suitcase (I take it away to Brisbane etc with me) and so I may have to dispense with some clothes *eek* if no-one has a spare! lol... Or maybe, I could just be like Stan and not shower for a few days and wear the same clothes! lol... Film - I doubt that I will actually shoot much at all - maybe just a couple of rolls of Reala or NPH400, but I think it will be primarily a digital affair. I probably won't be entering the competition, I have never really shot slide film before and could end up with some very embarrassing results! ;-) FYI - I *have* already pre-registered, my diary is free, and my accommodations are sorted, it is just the money thing holding me back now - the mum side of me just feels really guilty about spending what will be around AUD$5k for "selfish" reasons, when it would almost complete much of our house renovations and in particular, my children's play area and front verandah... tan. *who is HOPING to make it, but on the money side of things, isn't holding her breath JUST yet* > Cesar, > > Actually, I think Desjardins started it, but Cotty was in there early. > > I'll play, too, although mine will be somewhat more modest that some: > > MX, LX, Leica CL, Summicron C 40mm, Vivitar Series 1 24-48 3.8, Vivitar > Series 1 70-210 3.8, maybe Vivitar 3.8 19mm (just for fun), M 2.0 50mm. > > Film? Some of you guys are thinking film already? Sheesh. Well, for sure > Ilford HP5+, Maybe Agfa APX 100, I don't know what colour print film (if > any). > > Maybe a Manfrotto monopod. > > cheers, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > > >From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: GFM plans > >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:34:29 -0500 > > > >Since Cotty started it... blame him. > > > >645n > > FA45/2.8, FA75/2.8, FA120/4, A*300/4 > > > >K-mount > > LX (3-5), MX, MZ-S, K-1000?, ME-Super?, Super Program?, any requests? > > FA*24/2, FA Limited 31/1.8, K50/1.2, FA Limited 77/1.8, M200/4, A*300/4 > > > >Screwmount > > SV, S1a (2), SV, S3, Spotmatic SP > > SMC 28/3.5, S-T 35/3.5, S-T 50/1.4, S-T 85/1.9, SMC 85/1.8, SMC 105/2.8, > >S-T 135/2.5, SMC 200/4, Tele-Takumar 300/6.3 > > > >Digital > > *ist D, Optio S, Nikon Coolpix 995 > > > >Just a thought at the moment, > > > >Cesar > >Panama City, Florida > > > >-- -Original Message- > >-- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-- Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:07 PM > >-- > >-- Cotty wrote: > >-- > >-- >Whew! A bit early to list equipment for GFM, but sounds fun > >-- so why not. > >-- > > >-- Ah, why the hell not > >-- Film: Plus-X/APX100 > >-- P6x7/105f2.5/45f.4 > >-- Program Plus/SuperProgram(backup) > >-- K28f3.5/M35f2.8/M50f1.4/K135f2.5/M200f4 > >-- Throw in some filters, tripod, ext tubes, beer (from Frank) > >-- and I'm good > >-- to go. > >-- Norm > >-- > > > > _ > 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: Machine Gun Photography (was: Digital Photography)
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >You can look at this shot I took with the Nikon D1X (or was it the H?) with >some friends playing beach volleyball http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/secondouting.msnw? action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=536 >I just waited for when I thought I would want the shot... Whoa, Cesar. Nice fanny pack BTW. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Digital Photography
The interesting thing is if you do your own settings, so you know what you did rather than having to look up what the camera did, you get to the point you do not need that technical data. "In that light I probably used f2.8 at a 30th with that film, and it looks like I used the 90mm lens." In other words you know what you are doing, so it is easy to do it backwards and know what you did. But on the other hand, most of the pro-digital folks here are sounding like a bunch of artists I know, "I'm an artist, I don't care about all that technical stuff". Trial and error are less work than gaining a sound knowlege of the technology, and now you don't even have to pay for the waste. Great! A new generation of digital-artists. To me a "photographer" is someone who is skilled in the craft of photography. It does not really matter whether he is doing digital photography, or chemical photography, but if he is not skilled in his craft he can hardly call himself a photographer. Picture taker? Maybe. Snapshooter? Yes. I kind of like the observation we keep hearing that HCB did not do his own lab work. No one, that I know of, has asked the questions, did he know how, could he have done it if he chose to? I will bet the answer to them is yes. I mean, if you don't know how it's done, how can you direct the lab person? -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Technical data doesn't make a strong image. Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: I totall agree Rob... plus it records all the technical shooting data for review after the fact." -- 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: Digital Photography
Yes! The exact words years ago (before digital anything) were, "Film is the cheapest thing in photography." You were supposed to shoot, shoot, shoot! Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > I totall agree Rob... > > Rob Studdert noted:">Isn't the first advice that any > photographer gets is to > shoot then shoot some more? The way I see it is that digital > makes this easy > given that there is no film costs plus it records all the > technical shooting > data for review after the fact." > > > tan. >
Re: Tripod collar or no collar?
Hi, Alan Chan wrote: > > I remember I saw a photo which shown somebody mounted 2 tripods - one for > the lens, one for the camera. But don't think I am going to try it, partly > because I have one tripod only. Also, it was a test to see which was the > best way for me to shoot, and I think I have my own answer already. :-) It's a compromise, as are many things in life. Poorer pictures but less strain on the lens mount if you use the lens collar. Better pictures but more strain if you don't. A monopod for the camera? I have used this when I had only a Benbo trekker to support a 300/2.8 - I used the Benbo monopod on the camera to "triangulate" the mounting. Did the job for me but I was dealing with a static situation. mike
Re: Viruses...
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Anyways, just wanted to let you know that someone on-list definitely still >has this virus, so you may all want to check your 'puters again... Thanks Tan, I've just checked mine. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Digital Photography
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5 >minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... > >I just about fell off my chair when it hit me... > >That was totally NOT what I was going for with that comment, you guys are >feral! That simply isn't true. I've never been into toilet slavery. LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT: North Americans
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >It bugs me that I used to be able to claim that I was a "native American" >because I (and several generations of my family) were born here. Now, >political correctness gives me the status of an immigrant. Even the now >called "native Americans" migrated from Asia. Cotty. From Mesopotamia. How'd you do. :-D Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: D70 and digital kills real cameras
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> You have that one right, Bob. If you are still shooting film you are >working for >> a monthly magazine. >Not necessarily the case. The recent National Geographic article on the >history of aviation was shot totally digitally. > >Bill And a beautiful job they did, also. To be honest, it didn't matter to me one jot whether it was film or digital - but it mattered to the Geographic - there was some shots that were grabbed right at the last minute and digital helped enormously. It was a damn good feature. Bill, see if you can remember to bring that copy along to GFM - I can see that being a nice topic of conversation ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Digital Photography
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Hey! I asked for straight lines, not competition! I don't take snaps, I paint with light! Really. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: D70 and digital kills real cameras
TV and the Internet are just faster than the newspapers. When they start delivering the news directly to our e-mail inbox, they will recover the ground they lost. Local newspapers would do well to present local news, something national newspapers and nework TV don't do well. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > Meanwhile, a perceived need for "speed" is why > magazines and newspapers are going out of business! > > Chaso
Re: FW: Amazon: Creative Labs Nomad.....
> I don't know if its true or not, but some sellers on ebay are warning > about using the drives from these players. They claim that the > interface is different and proprietary, and that it may cause incorrect > behavior/failure of the card and the device its used in. I wonder if > there is any truth to this or they are just trying to scare people into > buying the actual card vs getting it cheap this way. > > rg The 1.5GB variant of the MuVo^2 employs a Cornice Storage Element with a proprietary interface that an external chip converts to CompactFlash. The 4GB version uses a standard Hitachi Microdrive. It seems so far to work fine in my *ist D, as did its 1 GB Microdrive predecessor (which is now in the MuVo^2) == Brian Dipert Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Memory, Multimedia, PC Core Logic and Peripherals, and Programmable Logic EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 454-5242 (voice), (617) 558-4470 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: Tripod collar or no collar?
I remember I saw a photo which shown somebody mounted 2 tripods - one for the lens, one for the camera. But don't think I am going to try it, partly because I have one tripod only. Also, it was a test to see which was the best way for me to shoot, and I think I have my own answer already. :-) Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Actually, you decrease sharpness by using a lens mount to tripod attachment point. The shutter, being farther away from the fulcrum (the tripod head wants to be a pivot point) gives more opportunity for shutter/mirror bounce to manifest itself. At least that's what I think. Lens adaptors are a compromise to keep from torquing the camera body out of shape with the heavy lens. Try another test: Put a support of some sort from the camera body to a tripod leg, see if that doesn't do some good. William Robb _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 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: OT: North Americans
Well, I can't speak for all Canadians; I don't really think the other 35 million or so would want that. But, I prefer being called Canadian. Just so we're differentiated from residents of the USA. Not that we (or at least I) don't like you. Just that we like to think we different (probably because we aren't really...). So, to get back to Steve's initial post, North Americans? Not a problem. Don't call us Americans, though. Because, even though everyone in this hemisphere is "American", the reality around the world is that if one says "American", one is referring to the USA. So, just so there's no ambiguity, Canadian works better. But, really, it's not such a big deal for me. I've always said that culture runs along north/south lines. Vancouver is like LA. Lunenberg, Nova Scotia is like Gloucester, Mass. Calgary is like Dallas. Toronto is like Chicago. The prairies are the prairies, both north and south of the 49th parallel. The exeption is Quebec and those parts of Canada that are francophone. Even then, Acadian Canada has ties to Cajun Louisiana - but that's a long and interesting story for another time. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: North Americans Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:11:04 -0800 Paul Stenquist wrote: > > It has nothing to do with Hubris. It's the name of the country: United States > of America. or America for short. The continent is North America, and we're all > North Americans. Yes, the Canadians, the Mexicans and those of us from the U.S. of A., who are all North Americans. Right? How do we differentiate? Do any of the others in North America dispute the habit of calling those who live in the U.S. Americans? How about South America? Those folks are Americans, too. South Americans, yet. . . Americans is what we ALL are, isn't it? So how can we in the U.S feel comfortable taking on the mantle of national identification as Americans, when the others who are ALSO Americans, all have their own regional name? I don't know how eise to explain how I feel about it. You didn't like "hubris." What else shall it be called? Or maybe no-one else feels the dichotomy as I do. I'll accept that. keith > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > As a US citizen, that has always bothered me. > > To call those citizens of the U.S. of A. "Americans" seems to be great > > hubris, especially when it's them saying it, and patently ignores the > > fact that there are other Americans, both north and south of the Canal Zone. > > I suppose it's like coke in lieu of Coca Cola. In spite of CC's lawyers, > > common usage makes it acceptable, if not legal. . . > > Nevertheless, the feeling remains. > > > > keith whaley > > > > Steve Desjardins wrote: > > > > > > I was looking through Shutterbug yesterday and noticed that 3 of the > > > 6(?) photographers they were interviewing where referred to as "North > > > Americans", not Americans or Canadians. I have noticed this elsewhere. > > > Is this usage becoming common? From what I have seen, this does not > > > seem to include Mexicans although this certainly spoils my sense of > > > geography. > > > > > > I'm not complaining about anything, just curious. This is the only > > > international group with which I can discuss such things. The UN won't > > > return my Emails :-( > > > > > > Steven Desjardins > > > Department of Chemistry > > > Washington and Lee University > > > Lexington, VA 24450 > > > (540) 458-8873 > > > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ 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: Digital Photography
On 4 Feb 2004 at 18:13, graywolf wrote: > Well, I find it peculiar, that all you anti-film folks don't own a Speed > Graphic. Strangely, I find myself doing the same thing with photography that I > did with beer when I gave up drinking a lot, and instead began drinking an > occasional bottle of the good stuff. Doing less, enjoying it more. I don't own a Speed Graphic but I do own a Bessa folder and two Mamiya 67 bodies (and even an old Argus 6x6). I didn't say that film hasn't a place and I still very much enjoy and intend to continue making good use of film in those bodies. > Personally, I find the whole process of (B&W) photography enjoyable. It does not > get in my way. I use the Graphic for fun, and processing the film, making > prints, etc. is an important part of it to me. From what I read here most of you > do not like photography. It is a bore, and a bother. I sometimes wonder, why not > hire someone to take pictures for you? Who wrote that? I personally printed several 11x14" prints that I shot (and processed) with my lowly film gear pre-christmas, they are now adorning the recipients walls. I enjoyed the process, they enjoyed the prints. > Digital seems to be the P&S dream, no need to feel guilty any longer about all > those prints you used to just throw away, just delete them. A DSLR and > landscapes? Sorry, I can not help sneering. What's the problem with DSLRs and landscapes, tilt and shift? > Even if someone gave me a DSLR, it would just replace the 35mm for snapshots, I > would still be shooting the Graphic for serious (fun) photography. I think if you actually owned one you'd find it a little more capable that you expect, of course there are things that it can't do but hey all media has it's limitations, you've just got to learn what they are (which is difficult if you don't own one). Cheers, 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: GFM plans
OMG!!! Hmmm, I think I'll just turn up empty handed (IF I make it at all...) tan. - Original Message - From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: RE: GFM plans > Since Cotty started it... blame him. > > 645n > FA45/2.8, FA75/2.8, FA120/4, A*300/4 > > K-mount > LX (3-5), MX, MZ-S, K-1000?, ME-Super?, Super Program?, any requests? > FA*24/2, FA Limited 31/1.8, K50/1.2, FA Limited 77/1.8, M200/4, A*300/4 > > Screwmount > SV, S1a (2), SV, S3, Spotmatic SP > SMC 28/3.5, S-T 35/3.5, S-T 50/1.4, S-T 85/1.9, SMC 85/1.8, SMC 105/2.8, > S-T 135/2.5, SMC 200/4, Tele-Takumar 300/6.3 > > Digital > *ist D, Optio S, Nikon Coolpix 995 > > Just a thought at the moment, > > Cesar > Panama City, Florida > > -- -Original Message- > -- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:07 PM > -- > -- Cotty wrote: > -- > -- >Whew! A bit early to list equipment for GFM, but sounds fun > -- so why not. > -- > > -- Ah, why the hell not > -- Film: Plus-X/APX100 > -- P6x7/105f2.5/45f.4 > -- Program Plus/SuperProgram(backup) > -- K28f3.5/M35f2.8/M50f1.4/K135f2.5/M200f4 > -- Throw in some filters, tripod, ext tubes, beer (from Frank) > -- and I'm good > -- to go. > -- Norm > -- >
Re: *istD Pricing News
Chris, here's the link... They do ship to Aus, but you have to pay via wire transfer of cash - you could always use Paymate though and get around it easily... http://www.willoughbys.com/shop/Product.asp?sku=2050PENISTD tan. - Original Message - From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:29 AM Subject: *istD Pricing News > Hi Tan, >Well that translates to a difference of about > $370.0-$400.00.Dollars.Dothey ship to Oz?If so bloody hell what a deal > Chris.P.S Who are they? > >
Re: OT - NYers was - more *ist D pricing news...
which lenses did you want that were not available for Pentax? Christian - Original Message - From: "Yousef Lasi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:57 PM Subject: Re: OT - NYers was - more *ist D pricing news... > I love the camera, but what puts me off is the lack of > 3rd party support. it bothers me that here isn't more > support for the pentax raw format...I want to be able > to use tools like capture one, but they have no clear > time table for pentax support. It also seems that some > very desirable 3rd party glass is not available for > the pentax(yet, maybe never) > in a straight comparison between the 10D and the ist, > I actually preferred the ist and returned the 10D to > B&H within their 7 day return period. However, after > having the ist for a month and having endured the > disappointment of finding that software and /or lenses > I want are not available for the pentax, I have swung > back to the canon. Plus there is the added incentive > of a clear upgrade path to the 1Ds/1D MKII down the > road. > Having no current investment in pentax glass, it seems > the choice is clear...of course YMMV > Yousef > >
Re: Digital Photography
hehehe, you're forgiven Bill, now that I am officially corrupted from my naivety... ;-) tan. - Original Message - From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 8:39 AM Subject: Re: Digital Photography > Tanya wrote: > > > Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5 > > minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... > > I just about fell off my chair when it hit me... > > I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist > the thread back to the one a while back about the global > warming/impending ice age boogieman. > ... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital > photography. > > (pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D > > - > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - >
Re: GFM plans
Well, okay then, here's our supply *ist D Optio S (now property of the wife MAYBE MZ-S The wife with her ZX-L Bill - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: RE: GFM plans > On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >I plan to bring my Sp500, MX, Mz-S, 645, and *istD. This way I can sit > >and complain about "the right way to do photography" with any group I > >find myself closest too (or has the most beer). > > Whew! A bit early to list equipment for GFM, but sounds fun so why not. > > Film: (for the contest) > Pentax MX (black of course) > Tokina 17mm 3.5 > Tokina 90mm 2.5 macro > > Digital: (for me) > D60 > Smegma 14mm 2.8 > (Maybe) Smegma 24mm 1.8 macro > Tokina 28-70 2.8 > PENTAX (yeah!) EOSK-50mm 1.2 > Smegma 70-200mm 2.8 + 1.4X matched converter > angle finder > Manfrotto 190 and ballhead > > The D60 will be used as both lightmeter and polaroid preview for the MX ! > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > >
Re: Digital Photography
> > graywolf wrote: > > > Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners. > > Photography is all about light. What makes you think > that you can learn more from firmware than film? What makes you think you can learn more about light from film than from a device that measures light directly?
Re: Digital Photography
Well, I find it peculiar, that all you anti-film folks don't own a Speed Graphic. Strangely, I find myself doing the same thing with photography that I did with beer when I gave up drinking a lot, and instead began drinking an occasional bottle of the good stuff. Doing less, enjoying it more. Personally, I find the whole process of (B&W) photography enjoyable. It does not get in my way. I use the Graphic for fun, and processing the film, making prints, etc. is an important part of it to me. From what I read here most of you do not like photography. It is a bore, and a bother. I sometimes wonder, why not hire someone to take pictures for you? Digital seems to be the P&S dream, no need to feel guilty any longer about all those prints you used to just throw away, just delete them. A DSLR and landscapes? Sorry, I can not help sneering. I just stuck all the 4x6 prints that were laying about, at least the ones I found so far, into some albums. Doing that, I saw that the real reason for me to want to go digital is the lousy printing the mini-labs do. About 1/2 of those snapshot prints were unacceptable. How they can get good prints from some shots on a roll, and bad ones from others when they were all shot in the same light at the same settings is beyond my understanding. Automatic machinery run by idiots is my best guess. About 10% are bad because I was not paying attention to what I was doing. Suffering from autocamitus, I guess. Even if someone gave me a DSLR, it would just replace the 35mm for snapshots, I would still be shooting the Graphic for serious (fun) photography. -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 4 Feb 2004 at 14:11, Robert Gonzalez wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. And I'm still trying to get used to the idea that I can take as many pictures as I want and not have to worry about the cost. But when I remember, I shoot, check exposure, look at the composition, re-compose, re-shoot, experiment, etc. Then I get very quick feedback that would have taken a week previously. Its a marvelous teaching tool. I've enjoyed the discourse on the matter, however it seems peculiar that the listers arguing so vehemently against digital image capture don't own DSLRs (digi-p&s don't count). :-) 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 -- 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: GFM plans
Cesar, Actually, I think Desjardins started it, but Cotty was in there early. I'll play, too, although mine will be somewhat more modest that some: MX, LX, Leica CL, Summicron C 40mm, Vivitar Series 1 24-48 3.8, Vivitar Series 1 70-210 3.8, maybe Vivitar 3.8 19mm (just for fun), M 2.0 50mm. Film? Some of you guys are thinking film already? Sheesh. Well, for sure Ilford HP5+, Maybe Agfa APX 100, I don't know what colour print film (if any). Maybe a Manfrotto monopod. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: GFM plans Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:34:29 -0500 Since Cotty started it... blame him. 645n FA45/2.8, FA75/2.8, FA120/4, A*300/4 K-mount LX (3-5), MX, MZ-S, K-1000?, ME-Super?, Super Program?, any requests? FA*24/2, FA Limited 31/1.8, K50/1.2, FA Limited 77/1.8, M200/4, A*300/4 Screwmount SV, S1a (2), SV, S3, Spotmatic SP SMC 28/3.5, S-T 35/3.5, S-T 50/1.4, S-T 85/1.9, SMC 85/1.8, SMC 105/2.8, S-T 135/2.5, SMC 200/4, Tele-Takumar 300/6.3 Digital *ist D, Optio S, Nikon Coolpix 995 Just a thought at the moment, Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:07 PM -- -- Cotty wrote: -- -- >Whew! A bit early to list equipment for GFM, but sounds fun -- so why not. -- > -- Ah, why the hell not -- Film: Plus-X/APX100 -- P6x7/105f2.5/45f.4 -- Program Plus/SuperProgram(backup) -- K28f3.5/M35f2.8/M50f1.4/K135f2.5/M200f4 -- Throw in some filters, tripod, ext tubes, beer (from Frank) -- and I'm good -- to go. -- Norm -- _ 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: OT: North Americans
Cesar Matamoros II wrote: > > Not intolerance. It is just ambiguous. Again, not something you would see, > but take for instance when in Belize the term Americans was for North, > Central, and South... Exactly my point. . . Thanks Cesar, keith > Just some idle time on my hands, > > Cesar > Panama City, Florida > > -- -Original Message- > -- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:11 PM > -- > -- Not to say, Republic of Mexico; Mexico, and Mexicans for > -- short. Dominion of > -- Canada; Canada, and Canadians for short. As it happens there > -- are a lot of United > -- States in the world, but only one of them is the United > -- States (political > -- description) of America (location description). > -- > -- I see no reason for me, or you (that's a plural you), to > -- feel guilt for others' > -- intolerance. In my opinion when ever someone yells bigot he > -- is telling us more > -- about himself than about the one he is accusing, after all > -- he is the one who > -- thinks some other group is no good. > -- > -- -- > -- > -- Paul Stenquist wrote: > -- > -- > It has nothing to do with Hubris. It's the name of the > -- country: United States > -- > of America. or America for short. The continent is North > -- America, and we're all > -- > North Americans. > -- > > -- > Keith Whaley wrote: > -- > > -- > > -- >>As a US citizen, that has always bothered me. > -- >>To call those citizens of the U.S. of A. "Americans" seems > -- to be great > -- >>hubris, especially when it's them saying it, and patently > -- ignores the > -- >>fact that there are other Americans, both north and south > -- of the Canal Zone. > -- >>I suppose it's like coke in lieu of Coca Cola. In spite of > -- CC's lawyers, > -- >>common usage makes it acceptable, if not legal. . . > -- >>Nevertheless, the feeling remains. > -- >> > -- >>keith whaley > -- >> > -- >>Steve Desjardins wrote: > -- >> > -- >>>I was looking through Shutterbug yesterday and noticed > -- that 3 of the > -- >>>6(?) photographers they were interviewing where referred > -- to as "North > -- >>>Americans", not Americans or Canadians. I have noticed > -- this elsewhere. > -- >>>Is this usage becoming common? From what I have seen, > -- this does not > -- >>>seem to include Mexicans although this certainly spoils > -- my sense of > -- >>>geography. > -- >>> > -- >>>I'm not complaining about anything, just curious. This is the only > -- >>>international group with which I can discuss such things. > -- The UN won't > -- >>>return my Emails :-( > -- >>> > -- >>>Steven Desjardins > -- >>>Department of Chemistry > -- >>>Washington and Lee University > -- >>>Lexington, VA 24450 > -- >>>(540) 458-8873 > -- >>>FAX: (540) 458-8878 > -- >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > > -- > > -- > > -- > -- -- > -- 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: OT: North Americans
Paul Stenquist wrote: > > It has nothing to do with Hubris. It's the name of the country: United States > of America. or America for short. The continent is North America, and we're all > North Americans. Yes, the Canadians, the Mexicans and those of us from the U.S. of A., who are all North Americans. Right? How do we differentiate? Do any of the others in North America dispute the habit of calling those who live in the U.S. Americans? How about South America? Those folks are Americans, too. South Americans, yet. . . Americans is what we ALL are, isn't it? So how can we in the U.S feel comfortable taking on the mantle of national identification as Americans, when the others who are ALSO Americans, all have their own regional name? I don't know how eise to explain how I feel about it. You didn't like "hubris." What else shall it be called? Or maybe no-one else feels the dichotomy as I do. I'll accept that. keith > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > As a US citizen, that has always bothered me. > > To call those citizens of the U.S. of A. "Americans" seems to be great > > hubris, especially when it's them saying it, and patently ignores the > > fact that there are other Americans, both north and south of the Canal Zone. > > I suppose it's like coke in lieu of Coca Cola. In spite of CC's lawyers, > > common usage makes it acceptable, if not legal. . . > > Nevertheless, the feeling remains. > > > > keith whaley > > > > Steve Desjardins wrote: > > > > > > I was looking through Shutterbug yesterday and noticed that 3 of the > > > 6(?) photographers they were interviewing where referred to as "North > > > Americans", not Americans or Canadians. I have noticed this elsewhere. > > > Is this usage becoming common? From what I have seen, this does not > > > seem to include Mexicans although this certainly spoils my sense of > > > geography. > > > > > > I'm not complaining about anything, just curious. This is the only > > > international group with which I can discuss such things. The UN won't > > > return my Emails :-( > > > > > > Steven Desjardins > > > Department of Chemistry > > > Washington and Lee University > > > Lexington, VA 24450 > > > (540) 458-8873 > > > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFM plans
Ah, a Freudian slip. You surely meant "for" frank... -knarf "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ah, why the hell not Film: Plus-X/APX100 P6x7/105f2.5/45f.4 Program Plus/SuperProgram(backup) K28f3.5/M35f2.8/M50f1.4/K135f2.5/M200f4 Throw in some filters, tripod, ext tubes, beer (from Frank) and I'm good to go. Norm _ STOP MORE 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: GFM plans
Ann, Need a place to stay whilst in Toronto? I'm in a 3 bedroom with an extra bedroom. Loads of room. I know my roomate wouldn't mind. Let me know... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GFM plans Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:26:06 -0500 As it stands now, I'm planning on driving to GFM... figure I will spend thursday night at the home of some Scrabbler or other fairly nearby... If push comes to shove, I could sleep in the car I'm driving or someone could. After GFM I'm heading to St. Louis, then Chicago, then Cleveland and then up to Toronto. I'm hoping to get a fantastic rental rate doing it for a month and am going to impose on a bunch of old friends all along the way. I've just got to find the cheapest place to rent a car in about 100 mile radius from New York -- or a bit father if necessary. ramblin' ann _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail 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: Digital Photography
Norm Baugher wrote: > We're not buying it Bill... I might have been fudging a teeny bit on the snow part !8^) Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: OT - NYers was - more *ist D pricing news...
I love the camera, but what puts me off is the lack of 3rd party support. it bothers me that here isn't more support for the pentax raw format...I want to be able to use tools like capture one, but they have no clear time table for pentax support. It also seems that some very desirable 3rd party glass is not available for the pentax(yet, maybe never) in a straight comparison between the 10D and the ist, I actually preferred the ist and returned the 10D to B&H within their 7 day return period. However, after having the ist for a month and having endured the disappointment of finding that software and /or lenses I want are not available for the pentax, I have swung back to the canon. Plus there is the added incentive of a clear upgrade path to the 1Ds/1D MKII down the road. Having no current investment in pentax glass, it seems the choice is clear...of course YMMV Yousef --- Cesar Matamoros II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Careful what you say about NYers. > > I recall something like this coming up once quite a > few years ago here. It > ended up with Mafud taking offense to something I > wrote. Still not sure > what it was that set him off so. > > NYC - born and raised, > > Cesar > Panama City, Florida > > -- -Original Message- > -- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:20 PM > -- > -- Both companies are famous for NYC curtness. Don't > take it as > -- a put down, it is > -- just their way. New Yorkers are strange people, > they will > -- call you all kinds of > -- nasty names while giving you their right arm. The > curtness > -- probably comes from > -- have 11 million neighbors all wanting attention > at the same time. > -- > -- -- > -- > -- Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > -- > Last night I sent this email to both B and H > and Adorama: > -- > > > -- > Have to say though, I am totally unimpressed by > the > -- shortness of both of > -- > their replies, I mean they didn't even say > "thanks for > -- your enquiry" or > -- > whatever... > -- > > -- > I am going to ring Pentax Australia (CR > Kennedy) right now > -- to see what they > -- > have to say... > -- > > -- > tan. *who WANTS her *istD! but refuses to pay > more than > -- she has to for it!* > -- > > -- > -- -- > -- 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: Older non Pentax flash on *istD
I used to use the AF360FGZ on the LX, MX and SuperProgram It worked in Manual or Automatic on the MX and TTL Manual or Automatic on the LX and SP. Originally I was a bit worried about damage, but it never happened. Christian - Original Message - From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > That's really interesting as, theoretically, modern (digital control) > Pentax flashes just will not work on old (mechanical control) camera > bodies. > > I am even more confused than you. > > mike >
Re: Digital Photography
We're not buying it Bill... Norm Bill D. Casselberry wrote: Tanya wrote: Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5 minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... I just about fell off my chair when it hit me... I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist the thread back to the one a while back about the global warming/impending ice age boogieman. ... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital photography. (pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D
Re: Digital Photography
Tom, I've been reading this thread with great amusement. I may just decide to wade in at some point. You may get a few good one liners if I do... -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Photography Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:27:41 -0500 The masses are no smarter or dumber than they have ever been, but they do have more money than they used to. Aside to Tanya, just because it sells for lots of money does not mean it is good. Both confidence men, and cops depend on people being dumber than you or I would believe possible to do their job. If you want to be a great artist you have to be at least borderline insane. A digital SLR does not take any better pictures than a 1903 box Brownie, but it is a lot more impressive to show your friends. Apparently, from comments on this list, when you buy a DSLR you lose whatever common sense you had. Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Older non Pentax flash on *istD
Hi, Peter Hillerstrom wrote: > > Hi Fritz > > No I meant "Modern pentax flashes could damage older > pentax bodies". Thats the info pentax gave me and I > think I've seen it around the internet also. Your > statement makes most sense to me and I get confused > when others states the opposite. Even if I don't use > this flash on the *istD and instead buy a new one, I'm > curious how it works. That's really interesting as, theoretically, modern (digital control) Pentax flashes just will not work on old (mechanical control) camera bodies. I am even more confused than you. mike
Re: Digital Photography
Tanya wrote: > Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5 > minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... > I just about fell off my chair when it hit me... I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist the thread back to the one a while back about the global warming/impending ice age boogieman. ... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital photography. (pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: OT: North Americans
- Original Message - From: "Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Even the now > called "native Americans" migrated from Asia. > So... you find the term "indians" more accurate anyway? :-) Jostein
Re: Finding models ( Was: Helmut Newton dead)
Man after my own heart... Norm Cesar Matamoros II wrote: Travelling... Reminds me that I have yet to take an international trip this year. I have to space them out or it will be a very empty house towards the end of the year... With passport always handy,
Re: D70 and digital kills real cameras
and their reasoning was that without digital it would not have been ready in time. Christian - Original Message - From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:09 PM Subject: Re: D70 and digital kills real cameras > Not necessarily the case. The recent National Geographic article on the > history of aviation was shot totally digitally. > > Bill > > - Original Message - > From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:50 PM > Subject: Re: D70 and digital kills real cameras > > > > You have that one right, Bob. If you are still shooting film you are > working for > > a monthly magazine. > >
OT: extended warrantees (defended)
I am one of those rare persons who believes in and usually purchases extended warranties or service contracts, perhaps because I used to sell them while working in electronics retail and a big part of my time when I became manager was in arguments with customers who didnt purchase the service contract and had devices fail shortly after warranty (or within warranty - but the manufacturer invariably claimed it was not covered because the problem was not a defect but rather wear and tear). Our warranties at Service Merchandise, as with a few other places (though not the majority) actually covered normal wear and tear. I personally had a $500 Aiwa mini system, a $200 Zenith 4-head hi-fi VCR, and $200 6-head Toshiba hi-fi VCR REPLACED (with equivalent gift certificates) no questions asked and I certainly doubt Ive paid $900 in warranties in that time. More recently, I purchased the longest possible warranty on my wifes Dell PC and so far the floppy drive has been replaced once and the hard drive twice - already worth the couple hundred for the warranty. My mother-in-law purchased a warranty on an $8000 month-long trip and sadly had to collect when her husband passed on unexpectedly. Granted this is all anecdotal evidence. Mind you, warranties were indeed high-margin for Service Merchandise and of course that is why the company pushed them. They were 50% margin (true margin straight to the bottom line) for us and another percent margin to the third party contractor who handled them. However, this doesnt necessarily make them bad, though I agree they ought to be priced lower in general. In fact, our highest margins were in jewelry, then warranties, and then in furniture - and no one alleges jewelry and furniture are immoral to sell. Electronics overall had a break-even margin (the purpose was to get new jewelry customers into the store) and since we had such a liberal returns policy I felt the warranty margins partially compensated us for that. I certainly gave more latitude on customer satisfaction if the receipt or our computer showed the purchase of an extended warranty a hidden benefit to warranty purchasers. I find generally that extended warranty purchasers are taken care of to a degree. This has been my experience at Ritz, for example. Salespeople certainly like you better and help you more when you come back for help or service. Manufacturers were just terrible to deal with on warranty issues, compared to much better dealings with at least our service corporation and Ritzs. High margins do actually translate into some value in this sense. Part of why warranties are high-margin apart from perceived reliability of consumer goods is that people forget they have the warranty, they lose the paper work and receipt and dont send in necessary cards, etc. Also, they dont bother with fixing a product that is performing less than optimally because many have low standards and/or lose interest in the product. My Zenith VCR was playing very slightly slow this was only noticeable in that music was a fraction of a tone flat most people wouldnt have cared but being a musician using the VCR for music tapes I found this unacceptable and so had it replaced. In short, most folks dont fully utilize the extended warranties. All that said, I probably wouldnt buy the $15 Radio Shack warranty on a $60 throw-away item. I WOULD buy an extended warranty on a five-liter Mustang whose clutch will reliably fail every few years, usually when ones cash flow is zero. If you did a life-long survey of the economics of warranty buying you might very well come out ahead by not buying warranties - or possibly not. The same could be said of any other type of insurance. And other concerns, such as short-term cash flow (e.g., I couldnt have paid for fixing my wifes Dell very quickly) enter in as well. There is also peace of mind based on, in my case, a longstanding experientially-based distrust of the quality and service of major manufacturer. I like the feeling that no matter what for the next four years because of the warranty that damn Dell will be working regardless of how awful my finances are with my wife in grad school! Its just too easy to unthinkingly decry warranties for being high-margin. (Myself I am more annoyed by margins in storage media and batteries.) Even Consumer Reports or Digest (I forget which), who is against warranties for this reason, turns around and docks manufactures such as Sony for only providing a 90-day warranty on labor on audio products. Almost every TV sold today has a 90-day warranty on labor (the main cost of repair), while proclaiming one-year warranty on the box in large letters (with a little asterisk noting that that only refers to parts). Even during the 90 days, good luck getting them to admit it is a defect, especially if it is something like a power button (notoriously awful on new TVs because it is assumed folks will ONLY use remotes). It w
RE: pOT: People & Their Bikes - Frank, one more for your collection!
Frank, Remind me as it looms closer. I will see if I can get some here. If not, there is always a quick trip to New Orleans where I know I can get it. Just trying to keep you happy, César Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:58 PM -- -- Cesar, -- -- I'm an easy drunk. -- -- Bring wine. Bring beer. Bring liquor. -- -- Just bring something. -- -- Seriously, I've never had Honduran beer. I'd try that! -- -- cheers, -- frank -- -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible -- worlds. The pessimist -- fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer -- -- -- -- -- >From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- >Subject: RE: pOT: People & Their Bikes - Frank, one more for your -- >collection! -- >Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:55:03 -0500 -- > -- >Frank, -- > -- >Give me some time to work on this. I am most definitely -- not well versed in -- >beer. Much better in wine though... -- > -- >Perchance an international beer? I may have to try to get -- some Honduran -- >import, just because... -- > -- >Sipping on a 2001 Emmett Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon,
OT: personal growth was - * ist Digital Question
Mike, I am just trying to make sure I don't end up with a bony butt! That is all I am saying on that one, Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: mike.wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 3:43 AM -- -- Hi, -- -- Cesar wrote: -- -- > Can I find a larger fanny pack? -- -- How big is your fanny likely to grow? -- -- m --
RE: Finding models ( Was: Helmut Newton dead)
-- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Subject: RE: Finding models ( Was: Helmut Newton dead) -- -- -- César posted -- -- > Hmmm, not sure how exactly to take this :-) -- > -- > It seems the stories or impressions of me continue. -- Reminds me of a story -- > that is apparently going around about my 'stealing' some -- equipment or other -- > to help the host country out. Something I found out this -- year. What about -- > me makes these all plausible??? :-) -- -- I think it's all this travelling you do. Makes you a candidate for -- the "International Man of Mystery". -- (I do not wish to imply, however, that your teeth are -- anything like Austin -- Powers'.) -- ERN -- Eleanor, No offense taken :-) Travelling... Reminds me that I have yet to take an international trip this year. I have to space them out or it will be a very empty house towards the end of the year... With passport always handy, César Panama City, Florida
Viruses...
Just a quick note - in regards to viruses - I have, last week, taken out an option from my ISP to have all viruses removed from my emails before they hit my inbox. The messages still come through but say "Telstra has removed a virus from this email...etc". Due to this, I don't know which virus it is, but omg, there are SO many emails coming through with them! I just came online and downloaded 68 emails, and 9 of these were virus emails! It is the one that is titled "hello"... Was that the "mydoom" one? Also, the other day I got an email from two separate companies (it was automatically generated) saying that one of their employees had been sent a virus from my address. This makes me believe even more so that it is someone on-list as it was my [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which I use for my list subscription (amongst other things). I know that my system is completely virus free, so it must be coming from someone who has me in their Address Book... Anyways, just wanted to let you know that someone on-list definitely still has this virus, so you may all want to check your 'puters again... tan.
Re: OT: North Americans
- Original Message - From: "Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It bugs me that I used to be able to claim that I was a "native American" > because I (and several generations of my family) were born here. Now, > political correctness gives me the status of an immigrant. Even the now > called "native Americans" migrated from Asia. > > Len To follow that logic: We are all Africans. Hey Lucy! Christian
OT - NYers was - more *ist D pricing news...
Careful what you say about NYers. I recall something like this coming up once quite a few years ago here. It ended up with Mafud taking offense to something I wrote. Still not sure what it was that set him off so. NYC - born and raised, Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:20 PM -- -- Both companies are famous for NYC curtness. Don't take it as -- a put down, it is -- just their way. New Yorkers are strange people, they will -- call you all kinds of -- nasty names while giving you their right arm. The curtness -- probably comes from -- have 11 million neighbors all wanting attention at the same time. -- -- -- -- -- Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: -- > Last night I sent this email to both B and H and Adorama: -- > -- > Have to say though, I am totally unimpressed by the -- shortness of both of -- > their replies, I mean they didn't even say "thanks for -- your enquiry" or -- > whatever... -- > -- > I am going to ring Pentax Australia (CR Kennedy) right now -- to see what they -- > have to say... -- > -- > tan. *who WANTS her *istD! but refuses to pay more than -- she has to for it!* -- > -- -- -- -- 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: Digital Photography
tv wrote about his foot picture: > and shot on velvia! Oh! Thank God! I thought you had some serious illness. It was just those garish Velveeta colors (toe cheese?) Christian
Re: *ist D for sale...Minor Correction
Yousef, why are you selling it? tan. - Original Message - From: "Yousef Lasi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:36 AM Subject: Re: *ist D for sale...Minor Correction > That should read Pentax FA 50 1.4 lens not 1.8, > thanks again > > Hi, > I'm not sure if this is against list rules(no mention > in FAQ), but in any > case, I have a > less than 4 week old *ist D with a Pentax FA 50 1.8 > lens and rechargeable NiMh > batteries for sale. I have used it to take maybe a > total of 300 shots > (the weather has not been the greatest here in NYC) > > I have the original receipt from B&H for the > camera/lens and am hoping > to get $1350 including the lens/batteries and a Tenba > Black/brown > camera bag worth $90 > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=75271&is=REG > > The camera is in perfect condition, has no dead > pixel/exposure/AF > issues and has had the firmware upgraded to 1.10. > > Thanks > Yousef > > >
Re: Digital Photography
Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5 minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... I just about fell off my chair when it hit me... That was totally NOT what I was going for with that comment, you guys are feral! OMG, if I make it to GFM, it is going to be one very interesting couple of days, and I fear that I will bear the brunt of many jokes at my expense... LOL!!! tan. *who mutters under her breath... "Bloody men!"* hehehe > On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > > >> Bill, despite your cynicism the "grab" shots are often also the "money" > >> shots... > > > > > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast wrote > > > ;^) > > Your mind is as filthy as mine Bill, LOL. > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk >
Re: OT: North Americans
It bugs me that I used to be able to claim that I was a "native American" because I (and several generations of my family) were born here. Now, political correctness gives me the status of an immigrant. Even the now called "native Americans" migrated from Asia. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 _ What are the 5 hot job markets for 2004? Click here to find out. http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/WPI_WhereWillWeFindJobsIn2004.htm?siteid=CBMSN3006&sc_extcmp=JS_wi08_dec03_hotmail1
Re: Digital Photography
Hey! I asked for straight lines, not competition! -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: graywolf wrote: Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners. Photography is all about light. What makes you think that you can learn more from firmware than film? -- 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: OT: North Americans
Not to say, Republic of Mexico; Mexico, and Mexicans for short. Dominion of Canada; Canada, and Canadians for short. As it happens there are a lot of United States in the world, but only one of them is the United States (political description) of America (location description). I see no reason for me, or you (that's a plural you), to feel guilt for others' intolerance. In my opinion when ever someone yells bigot he is telling us more about himself than about the one he is accusing, after all he is the one who thinks some other group is no good. -- Paul Stenquist wrote: It has nothing to do with Hubris. It's the name of the country: United States of America. or America for short. The continent is North America, and we're all North Americans. Keith Whaley wrote: As a US citizen, that has always bothered me. To call those citizens of the U.S. of A. "Americans" seems to be great hubris, especially when it's them saying it, and patently ignores the fact that there are other Americans, both north and south of the Canal Zone. I suppose it's like coke in lieu of Coca Cola. In spite of CC's lawyers, common usage makes it acceptable, if not legal. . . Nevertheless, the feeling remains. keith whaley Steve Desjardins wrote: I was looking through Shutterbug yesterday and noticed that 3 of the 6(?) photographers they were interviewing where referred to as "North Americans", not Americans or Canadians. I have noticed this elsewhere. Is this usage becoming common? From what I have seen, this does not seem to include Mexicans although this certainly spoils my sense of geography. I'm not complaining about anything, just curious. This is the only international group with which I can discuss such things. The UN won't return my Emails :-( Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
