Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
As driver: cut down Range Rover racer - est. 130mph (the speedo finished at 120) As passenger: 170mph in a Jaguar, being taken around Silverstone to get shots of Derek Warwick - can't remember the type as it was over ten years ago. I remember him apologising for being slow, as it was wet... Cotty PS - the shots were a bit wobbly :-) My personal best on a public way was in my 1979 Jaguar XJ12. It was on route 18 in New Jersey. I entered on route 79 and headed east toward route 34. I didn't see any speed traps, so I turned around and held it to the floor going the other way. 138 mph on the speedo. On a dragstrip I went 187 in a 1420 pound dragster that had been broken in half in an earlier crash and welded back together. It was powered by a fuel injected 6.7 liter Pontiac engine running on 70% nitromethane. It blew one head gasket in the lights and covered me with oil. But I was only 19 at the time, so my stupidity is entirely excusable. In the following years I built some much faster drag cars (a Corvette that went 237 in 6.35 seconds) but never drove any of them. I had learned the meaning of fear. Paul On Feb 23, 2004, at 8:24 PM, John Francis wrote: My personally driven top speed is a more modest 105mph in my first car I've done 120mph or more in three cars: o A Bentley R-type (on the A127 coming back from Southend). I started out running at around 80mph, and the speed gradually crept up. Absolutely no sensation of speed. Fortunately I didn't have to slow down rapidly, as I'm sure thar drum brakes (even if they are 14 drums) would take a long time to have much of an effect on a car that heavy going that fast. o My Triumph Vitesse on the motorway spur from the M4 to Reading. Scary - the front of the car was almost lifting off the road. o My current car - a Ford Mustang GT convertible - on route 3 at around 2:00 am, with no other traffic in sight. That was in 1986, when the car was new.
Firewired...
I just got myself all Firewire'd in preparation for the arrival of my new *ist D. 100mb file transfers in 17.5 seconds...gotta love that! Using a Sandisk Ultra card reader and Sandisk Ultra II 512mb CF card. Wonderfully quick! Although USB 2.0 is probably just as quick...if only Pentax had used it! Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au
PAW (... )
OK, here's another one. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2158144size=lg DagT
Re: Firewired...
on 24.02.04 10:21, Dr. Shaun Canning at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got myself all Firewire'd in preparation for the arrival of my new *ist D. 100mb file transfers in 17.5 seconds...gotta love that! Using a Sandisk Ultra card reader and Sandisk Ultra II 512mb CF card. Wonderfully quick! Although USB 2.0 is probably just as quick...if only Pentax had used it! Nice thing, isn't it? Over 10 times faster than USB 1.1 on *istD and much more convenient for everyday use :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Firewired...
I bought a Lexar Firewire CF reader yesterday, and YES! it was an impovement. From what I've heard the USB 2.0 is not as fast as firewire in practical use DagT Fra: Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just got myself all Firewire'd in preparation for the arrival of my new *ist D. 100mb file transfers in 17.5 seconds...gotta love that! Using a Sandisk Ultra card reader and Sandisk Ultra II 512mb CF card. Wonderfully quick! Although USB 2.0 is probably just as quick...if only Pentax had used it! Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au
Uncle Herb's thoughts
I saw this and thought about the difficulties with TTL flash and many other issues. http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/02-12/features/the_way_it_is.html Bob
Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars:
Before speed cameras, I once got from London to Scotland in four and a half hours. The car was quite warm on arrival. John On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:15:06 +1000, John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had a 1963 bog-standard 850cc Mini that would do about 85mph flat-out, but it always worried me that the rear-end was a bit untidy at high speeds. Then I found the previous owner had mended the cracked rear sub-frame with a piece of shoe-leather... Once averaged 100mph from Walsall to Leeds (about 160 miles) in a Ford Cortina with 4 up - must have been mad (or late). John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 3:03 PM Subject: Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars: keith said I'd give my left goanie for a Mini! Maybe both for a Cooper-Pooper! Sighhh. To each his own, I guess. I grew up around a real Mini. I just can't attach the name to a car as large as the new Mini. As did I. I drove the original, many times. But the MINI is a heck of a lot smaller than practically anything else on the road this side of Tokyo (except the Swatch, perhaps), and is much more fun to drive. (This opinion is shared by my mother's neighbour, who had a Swatch capable of 120mph. He drives a MINI now). -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Screwheads and collectors
Take time out to add you equipment to the growing list of Pentax screwmount cameras and lenses. Also, you can view where your equipement falls in the S/N ranges. http://www.m-fortytwo.info/firstpage.htm Bob Rapp
Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] issued the following: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2157559 Here is my take on a similar chilli theme, less the accessories http://www.wildcherry.com.au/index.php?p=galleryphoto_id=133 Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Screwheads and collectors
On 24 Feb 2004 at 21:07, Bob Rapp wrote: Take time out to add you equipment to the growing list of Pentax screwmount cameras and lenses. Also, you can view where your equipement falls in the S/N ranges. http://www.m-fortytwo.info/firstpage.htm Looks pretty good although they could use a hand from JCO filling out the equipment pics :-) 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: Screwheads and collectors
The site is in its infancy. Originally, Nigel was interested in bodies only then added the lenses. He is very keen and will improve the site over time. Bob - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Screwheads and collectors On 24 Feb 2004 at 21:07, Bob Rapp wrote: Take time out to add you equipment to the growing list of Pentax screwmount cameras and lenses. Also, you can view where your equipement falls in the S/N ranges. http://www.m-fortytwo.info/firstpage.htm Looks pretty good although they could use a hand from JCO filling out the equipment pics :-) 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
MZ6/ZXL/MZL LCD color back light
Hello, In France, the MZ6 has an orange back light color. But I remember a gif where the LCD is blue. http://www.clover.freesurf.fr/MZ6Tour.gif What about the color in the US ?
Re: MZ-S grid screen
Mark Erickson écrit: Anyone on the list have the grid screen installed in their MZ-S? How do you like it? --Mark It was set befor I use it with standard one. Very usefulle, but, I may prefer the gold grid one which was avaible withb the Z1p
Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
Cotty wrote: As driver: cut down Range Rover racer - est. 130mph (the speedo finished at 120) As passenger: 170mph in a Jaguar, being taken around Silverstone to get shots of Derek Warwick - can't remember the type as it was over ten years ago. I remember him apologising for being slow, as it was wet... Surely that wasn't with your shoulder-borne Sony! g keith Cotty
Re: Interesting article: Largest lens ever!
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/08/. the images are there from Hubble and confirmed by the Keck telescope in Hawaii. Hubble found it and Keck measured the distance. Herb... - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Interesting article: Largest lens ever! Perhaps you'd like to explain what a 'gravitational' lens is Herb? Also isn't 'detection' differentiated from resolving it optically? Eitherway, off or not, I found the mere concept of using cosmic gases as optical elements interesting. Not being in the industry, the specifics don't really bug me.
Re: Too much mail
LOL But Ann, Raimo said nothing about the PAW being the cause of the list being too busy, did he? I noticed he pout up a link to his photography page as well. As for sending comments privately, I know that's done, but it's also valuable to send many of the comments via the list since that's a good way for some people to learn. For example, the discussion about cropping Frank's puppy pic is a good thing to be public as others can see and participate in the making of a final photo. I didn't see anyone complaining about the GFM threads, which had nothing to do with photography, but, rather, was about setting up a social situation amongst users. Or maybe we should discontinue whisky and car threads, or those stupid and unintelligible digital threads, or comments about scrabble, or any personal comments. Just out of curiosity, what are the threads that are important to you that you don't want to miss? For the first time in a while there is something going on that's of real interest to a certain number of list members that have no or little interest in a lot of other topics that go on here. So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week Friday event, because they can't handle it. Well, to use the sane words that are used when people have complained about other types of threads: Use the delete key. At least those that are participating in the PAW have been courteous enough to include PAW in the subject line to allow for easy filtering or deleting. That's more than can be said for many who post lots of off topic comments about other, non photographic related subjects. Ann Sanfedele wrote: Raimo K wrote: PDML is too active now - which in itself is a good thing - but I have difficulties in keeping up so I think I´ll have to unsubscribe for awhile. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho I second that -- Perhaps some of the comments on PAWS could be sent privately ??? I really don't want to unsubscribe because there are a few important threads here I don't want to miss but I'm overwhelmed -
Re: Firewired...
i had trouble with my SanDisk 6-in-1 USB 2.0 reader. it would run only at USB 1.1 speed despite being rated at USB 2.0 high speed. i have since replaced it with a Lexar Firewire reader. Herb - Original Message - From: Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:21 AM Subject: Firewired... I just got myself all Firewire'd in preparation for the arrival of my new *ist D. 100mb file transfers in 17.5 seconds...gotta love that! Using a Sandisk Ultra card reader and Sandisk Ultra II 512mb CF card. Wonderfully quick! Although USB 2.0 is probably just as quick...if only Pentax had used it!
Re: Scotland and Single Malt
I got a cask strength bottle of Glenmorangie from my wife's last business trip to Edinburgh, and I must say I find the lower proof more tasty. Oh, I managed to finish it ; -) but for pure taste I prefer the 86 proof version. That's been my only exposure to cask strength whisky, and that observation is clouded by inexperience! keith whaley Mark Erickson wrote: All, Thanks to some nice pointers from list members (John Forbes among others) I've got tickets into Glasgow for the last week in May. I'm going to celebrate with a little Glenfarclas 12 Year (their Cask Strength 105 is wonderful, but hard to get and really expensive in California). Neat with a glass of water on the side. --Mark
Re: Too much mail
On 23 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week Friday event, because they can't handle it. You're sounding like a cranky old fart Shel, lighten up, the Friday suggestion was only that, and if you were keen to turn this forum into a daily photo techniques forum why introduce the concept as PAW. From my stunted technical perspective I read it as a-picture-week, no? 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: Too much mail
On 23 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week Friday event, because they can't handle it. Doh, make that... I read it as a picture-a-week, no? 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
Special lenses for digital
Have any digital slr users experienced the sensor-reflection phenomenon referred to by Keppler? It's a bit worrying. I have been buying up lots of cheap (but good) old Pentax lenses on Ebay in anticipation of buying a *ist D. I have never seen a real sensor up close, but I wouldn't have expected them to be too reflective. After all, they're meant to read the light, not reject it. It's one of those things that smack very much of hype in order to get consumers to buy new lenses, but at the same time it clearly could be true. John On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:14 -0500, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i had trouble with my SanDisk 6-in-1 USB 2.0 reader. it would run only at USB 1.1 speed despite being rated at USB 2.0 high speed. i have since replaced it with a Lexar Firewire reader. Herb - Original Message - From: Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:21 AM Subject: Firewired... I just got myself all Firewire'd in preparation for the arrival of my new *ist D. 100mb file transfers in 17.5 seconds...gotta love that! Using a Sandisk Ultra card reader and Sandisk Ultra II 512mb CF card. Wonderfully quick! Although USB 2.0 is probably just as quick...if only Pentax had used it! -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 February 2004 22:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photoshop CS RAW Converter Based on Herb and Paul's comments, I downloaded and installed the Photoshop CS update today. I am _really_ impressed. A while back I took a shot that was calculated to overwhelm the resolution of the *ist-D. It was basically a wider-angle landscape shot with lots of branches, twigs, dried leaves, etc in it. After processing it with the Pentax RAW converter, upsampling it to 12x18 in Genuine Fractals 2.0, and then sharpening, I found the print to be unacceptbale in terms of detail. Trees looked plastic and the areas with lots of branches resolved into a sort of haze. With the CS RAW converter I upsampled and sharpened the image as part of the RAW processing, and then just made some color adjustments. It's considerably better than the first attempt, though I still would not consider it to be acceptable. The 35mm film exposures (Velvia) taken at the same time are still better. The shot I used as a test was packed with tons of info - I really went out a picked a scene that I expected would need more resolution that the *ist-D could possibly deliver. But other scenes that are not so demanding - like some lighthouse shots were there is just not much fine detail - have been fine with the *ist-D and Pentax converter, and look really outstanding with the CS converter. I'd rate Photoshop CS as a 'must have' utility, if you want to print larger images. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
RE: Firewired...
Sounds like your motherboard only supported 1.1 Herb? Weird? Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2004 7:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Firewired... i had trouble with my SanDisk 6-in-1 USB 2.0 reader. it would run only at USB 1.1 speed despite being rated at USB 2.0 high speed. i have since replaced it with a Lexar Firewire reader. Herb - Original Message - From: Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:21 AM Subject: Firewired... I just got myself all Firewire'd in preparation for the arrival of my new *ist D. 100mb file transfers in 17.5 seconds...gotta love that! Using a Sandisk Ultra card reader and Sandisk Ultra II 512mb CF card. Wonderfully quick! Although USB 2.0 is probably just as quick...if only Pentax had used it!
RE: Photokina : Big Surprise ?
I will go for *ost for the papa-D (Most, Ghost, Lost, Boost etc) And *rst for the baby-D (First, Worst) maybe also *ast for a retro model (Last, Past, Fast, blast etc) And *est for the 645 back/body (Biggest, Baddest, Maddest etc) I am starting to suspect it is all pipe-dreams for this year though... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2004 01:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photokina : Big Surprise ? Sorry, it is late here, and trying not to sleep makes me think about crazy things. Remember this : Photokina 2000 : MZ-S is announced as well as the MR -52 Photokina 2002 : Optio 330 GS is announced (crisis time) Photokina 2004 : ??? Well, news lens DA , and, I really hope a big big news (Digital back for 67 or 645 or baby ist D or *ist D Pro ?) And you ??? Just notice one thing : What the hell will be the name of next Pentax SLR/DSLR ??? ^_^ MZ or ZX something is easy, change number or letter but *ist ... use n like MZ5n or p like Z-1p I give my opinion : add e because PENTAX*ist e = pentaxiste = french way to call a crazy man like me ! (remember www.pentaxiste.org ) ^_^ Clover [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pentaxiste.org Sorry for this post, I gonna take a pill for the night (not the blue one of course !)
RE: Firewired...
Yeah, I have read that 'true' USB 2.0 is slightly faster than FW but there seem to be a lot of 'bogus' USB 2.0 devices around which arent up to full speed. Also I have heard that USB requires a lot more processor usage so if you are doing something on the PC while transferring files the transfer slows down. Apparently Firewire is much better in this respect, and it wont be affected by your mouse/keyboard etc that might be on the same usb bus either... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2004 09:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Firewired... I bought a Lexar Firewire CF reader yesterday, and YES! it was an impovement. From what I've heard the USB 2.0 is not as fast as firewire in practical use DagT Fra: Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just got myself all Firewire'd in preparation for the arrival of my new *ist D. 100mb file transfers in 17.5 seconds...gotta love that! Using a Sandisk Ultra card reader and Sandisk Ultra II 512mb CF card. Wonderfully quick! Although USB 2.0 is probably just as quick...if only Pentax had used it! Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au
Re: Special lenses for digital
On 24 Feb 2004 at 11:36, John Forbes wrote: Have any digital slr users experienced the sensor-reflection phenomenon referred to by Keppler? It's one of those things that smack very much of hype in order to get consumers to buy new lenses, but at the same time it clearly could be true. Hmmm, you may be right, I've not seen any problems however SMC is pretty good has been sued on all elements for many years. I can't see why such problems wouldn't have been visible when using slide films although any reflections may have been sufficiently diffused by the film emulsion as to make them less apparent. Keppler is usually believable but I'd still like to see some examples of this phenomenon. The only references to the problem that I can find seem to be at astro sites. 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: Firewired...
Dr. Shaun Canning a écrit: Sounds like your motherboard only supported 1.1 Herb? Weird? To use USB 2.0, you must have: - motherboard or Pci card that support USB 2 - W*s XP plus SR1 or SR1a - adequate driver
Re: Reala rated at 80
A-CS Did you found Fuji Reala somewhere? If yes, can you tell me where and at A-CS what price? I have found it on the web: FUJI Reala CS120 ISO 100 at 3.98 EUR http://www.f64studio.ro/det.php?c=14pid=712 GRAYWOLFWell, it is not obvious. What is happening is that the current speed indexes of GRAYWOLFnegative film basically give you minimum exposure. Sometimes that causes a loss GRAYWOLFof shadow detail. So many expert photographers overexpose a bit to prevent that. GRAYWOLF That is so prevailent that many pro labs are set up for film with a 1/3 stop GRAYWOLFoverexposure as their normal print channel PSI overexpose all color negative film by a bit or even a lot. Kodak PSPortra 160NC and 160VC I rate at 100. All of the Fuji ISO 160 neg films PSare shot at 100. Kodak Portra 400 VC and NC are shot at 300. Not as big PSa bump on the last two but they seem to have more inherent pop. This sounds interesting for capturing shadow detail. But how much shuld I overexpose for that? As I understand 1/3 stop is just safe for any film, but the effect varies. Does somebody know how this works for ordinary Fuji Superia 100 (not Reala)? And more exactly how much is a lot for you? How far can I go on the safe side? SPIn case of negatives by underrating ISO you avoid problems with SPunderexposure. Most negatives give enlarged grain effect when even slightly SPunderexposed. This is scary... I should better follow Peter's advice and overexpose all my negatives! Attila
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Just to add another angle to the discussion; I found myself seriously disappointed with the photoshop plugin. As far as I can see, the bayer interpolation is based on dcraw's vng code, which is dodgey, at best. Having said that, Pentax's raw convertor is possibly worse, but compared to Canon or Nikon's tools, the photoshop plugin (and dcraw) are dreadful quality. It generates horrible edge aliasing and artifacting, not to mention nasty colour interference in some cases. As always, this is just an opinion. YMMV. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: RE: Photoshop CS RAW Converter Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 February 2004 22:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photoshop CS RAW Converter Based on Herb and Paul's comments, I downloaded and installed the Photoshop CS update today. I am _really_ impressed. A while back I took a shot that was calculated to overwhelm the resolution of the *ist-D. It was basically a wider-angle landscape shot with lots of branches, twigs, dried leaves, etc in it. After processing it with the Pentax RAW converter, upsampling it to 12x18 in Genuine Fractals 2.0, and then sharpening, I found the print to be unacceptbale in terms of detail. Trees looked plastic and the areas with lots of branches resolved into a sort of haze. With the CS RAW converter I upsampled and sharpened the image as part of the RAW processing, and then just made some color adjustments. It's considerably better than the first attempt, though I still would not consider it to be acceptable. The 35mm film exposures (Velvia) taken at the same time are still better. The shot I used as a test was packed with tons of info - I really went out a picked a scene that I expected would need more resolution that the *ist-D could possibly deliver. But other scenes that are not so demanding - like some lighthouse shots were there is just not much fine detail - have been fine with the *ist-D and Pentax converter, and look really outstanding with the CS converter. I'd rate Photoshop CS as a 'must have' utility, if you want to print larger images. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
Fra: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] issued the following: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2157559 Here is my take on a similar chilli theme, less the accessories http://www.wildcherry.com.au/index.php?p=galleryphoto_id=133 Kind regards Kevin
Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
Fra: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] issued the following: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2157559 Here is my take on a similar chilli theme, less the accessories http://www.wildcherry.com.au/index.php?p=galleryphoto_id=133 Kind regards Kevin
Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
Fra: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] issued the following: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2157559 Here is my take on a similar chilli theme, less the accessories http://www.wildcherry.com.au/index.php?p=galleryphoto_id=133 Kind regards Kevin
Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
Fra: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] issued the following: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2157559 Nice, but I think I'd prefer a bit softer and warmer lighting. It seems a bit chilli on this screen Here is my take on a similar chilli theme, less the accessories http://www.wildcherry.com.au/index.php?p=galleryphoto_id=133 Hey, I think I like this one better. I like the composition with the mixture of red and green in combination with the lines created by the peppers. ...and here's mine: http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=11568 :-) DagT
RE: PAW
Terrific, Ken. Did I see this shot in your show? Site is well done, too. -Original Message- From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 23, 2004 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:PAW Shel, thanks for suggesting PAW. It got me off my duff and led me to open a web site. So here's my Picture A Week - I promise to keep it to one a week. http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html taken @ White Sands, New Mexico. Comments - good/ bad/indifferent Kenneth Waller
Re: Interesting article: Largest lens ever!
This is truly an awesome sight! And site! I could spend hours looking at the Hubble shots! The Eagle nebula for instance. Fascinating! Thanks for posting it. -- keith whaley Herb Chong wrote: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/08/. the images are there from Hubble and confirmed by the Keck telescope in Hawaii. Hubble found it and Keck measured the distance. Herb... - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Interesting article: Largest lens ever! Perhaps you'd like to explain what a 'gravitational' lens is Herb? Also isn't 'detection' differentiated from resolving it optically? Eitherway, off or not, I found the mere concept of using cosmic gases as optical elements interesting. Not being in the industry, the specifics don't really bug me.
Re: Uncle Herb's thoughts
I have the TTL flash exposure problem also on my FA24-90mm Pentax lens, isn't that lens already designed with digital in mind? Are the people on the list also experiencing flash exposure problems with the 18-35mm lens? On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 11:00, Bob Rapp wrote: I saw this and thought about the difficulties with TTL flash and many other issues. http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/02-12/features/the_way_it_is.html Bob -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
Ops, I wonder what happened here... Sorry! DagT Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dato: 2004/02/24 Tue PM 01:04:57 CET Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot Fra: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] issued the following: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2157559 Here is my take on a similar chilli theme, less the accessories http://www.wildcherry.com.au/index.php?p=galleryphoto_id=133 Kind regards Kevin
*ist D - What Version of PhotoShop?
What version of Photoshop would I need to work with *ist D images, and whatever plugins etc. people are using in Photoshop to work with *ist D images? I think I still have Photoshop 4.0 somewhere that came with a scanner. I hope I don't have to buy 8.0 -- I'd probably just go without instead. If 4.0 is too old, I hope to buy a used copy of whatever version I would need on eBay. Thanks, Greg
Re: What is PAW
What is PETNAX? PAW is (one) Photo A Week. Post your photo on the web and give the link to it on this list, and the PDML members will give their comments. On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 01:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry to ask this, but, what is the meaning of PAW , is it the equivalent for PETNAX of the Silent wave or USM ??? ^_^ -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *ist D - What Version of PhotoShop?
The plugin supplied by Pentax which you can download from the USA Pentax web site works with all Photoshop version beginning at version 5.0 The RAW plugin by Adobe works only on Photoshop CS (version 8). This one is supposed to be of better quality then the one from Pentax. Of course, if you are running linux, you can use dcraw to (batch) create 48 bit psd files from the pef files. On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 13:19, Greg Lovern wrote: What version of Photoshop would I need to work with *ist D images, and whatever plugins etc. people are using in Photoshop to work with *ist D images? I think I still have Photoshop 4.0 somewhere that came with a scanner. I hope I don't have to buy 8.0 -- I'd probably just go without instead. If 4.0 is too old, I hope to buy a used copy of whatever version I would need on eBay. Thanks, Greg -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:34:03 +1030, you wrote: Just to add another angle to the discussion; I found myself seriously disappointed with the photoshop plugin. As far as I can see, the bayer interpolation is based on dcraw's vng code, which is dodgey, at best. Having said that, Pentax's raw convertor is possibly worse, but compared to Canon or Nikon's tools, the photoshop plugin (and dcraw) are dreadful quality. It generates horrible edge aliasing and artifacting, not to mention nasty colour interference in some cases. As always, this is just an opinion. YMMV. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software Thank you for the opinion, Peter. Do you have a comparison or two to show? I have a Nikon system in addition to Pentax so I may be able to generate a few myself later this week, but I probably don't have the expertise to know what to look for. Do you know of any better tool than the plugin? -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:43:04 -, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! Phew! The price of Photoshop CS is really out of sight. I started with a used but legal copy of PS 3.0 way back when, and paid for upgrades 4.0, 5.0, free 5.5 I think, and 6.0. I figure I have paid Adobe about the cost of an MZ-S for Photoshop over the past few years. Now they want me to operate some OS newer than my old standby Win98 just to be able to use CS. What a hassle. I for one am shopping for a less expensive alternative. The idea of paying Adobe through the nose again for another upgrade is starting to tick me off. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
RE: MZ6/ZXL/MZL LCD color back light
Mine here in Aus. is orange - very retro! lol... tan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2004 8:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MZ6/ZXL/MZL LCD color back light Hello, In France, the MZ6 has an orange back light color. But I remember a gif where the LCD is blue. http://www.clover.freesurf.fr/MZ6Tour.gif What about the color in the US ?
Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
On 24 Feb 2004 at 13:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice, but I think I'd prefer a bit softer and warmer lighting. It seems a bit chilli on this screen Believe it or not it was a grab shot, the only thing I added was the reflector. I picked the chillies put them in a bowl and then decided there was a photo there. They were on my kitchen bench and lit by my kitchen lights, I didn't even move the bowl :-) I'll try to be a little more manipulative next time (most are gone now) ...and here's mine: http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=11568 That's a nice shot. :-) 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: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
At 11:43 AM 2/24/2004 +, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! Yeah - the digital is free mantra sounds a bit hollow as you punch in you charge card numbers into the Adobe site - but it's worth it! - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW's: Flower photos
Elegant shots, Mark. The colors in the first one are great. I also like the dynamic of the second shot as well. You might want to check out Harold Feinstein's book 100 Flowers - your first shot reminds me much of the work in it. - MCC At 09:23 PM 2/22/2004 -0600, you wrote: Hey Folks, I was going through my negs and slides yesterday and scanned in a couple of pics. Nothin' fancy, just a couple of flower photos to share with y'all. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2151760 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2154642 Mark - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
PictureAlabama.com
Picture Alabama is a web site that is dedicated to the photographic celebration of those things that are uniquely Alabama. The site includes not only a photographic database that allows photographers to post their images, it includes a forum for the discussion of photographic issues. If you have a question about taking pictures in Alabama, where to go, when to go, where to stay, ask the question and get an answer from someone who knows, an Alabamian. There will be a major photo contest announced on this site later this year. Check often for the latest information. Ed
Re: PAW (... )
Beautiful - I particularly like the framing and symmetry of the two lamp-posts. S Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: OK, here's another one. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2158144size=lg DagT
Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter)
Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3662764632 His entire eBay history consists of 4 transactions. He was the *buyer* in all 4. The *most expensive* of these was £1.00! This is an obvious scam. You should alert ebay immediately. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PAW: Too Much PAW
On 23/2/04, SHEL disgorged: I've also noticed that some of the more tech oriented people haven't participated in the PAW yet ... after all their talk about how valuable the technical and high tech side of gear and peripherals is to making a good photo, I haven't seen any of those good, high-tech produced pics. C'mon guys, join the party, show us your stuff. [snipped] I haven't participated because I have a web site with galleries on it, and the link is on every one of my emails. I could PAW a link once a week but - and I'm not trying to be a party-pooper here - and with all due respect - this is a Pentax discussion list, and there's a lot of list traffic already. I see no point in cluttering up peoples' in-boxes with my pics *that may not be shot using Pentax gear anyway*. That said, I've got no right to talk - I'm as guilty as sin when it comes to off-topic postings, so I'll just go flagellate myself. To PAW or not to PAW ? Doesn't really bother me one way or the other. I suppose on balance, taking into account that this list is a bit of an anomaly WRT email lists (in that it's *more* that just an email list - it's a community, a gathering, a bar - call it what you will), then I would say that anything that encourages photography must be a positive thing. It's all academic anyway - it's an unmoderated list and so there are no rules. Post PAWs or not, every day or just Friday. .02, Cheers, Cotty (off for some more flagellation) ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter)
I just tried that, but ebay tells me my browser isnt accepting cookies so I cant sign in - despite the fact that I am already signed in! -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2004 14:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter) Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3662764632 His entire eBay history consists of 4 transactions. He was the *buyer* in all 4. The *most expensive* of these was £1.00! This is an obvious scam. You should alert ebay immediately. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: PAW: portrait
Thanks, Frank! Glad you like it. :) -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intriguing!! At first blush, it could be a family snapshot, but after a second, one realizes that there's way more going on here. It has a certain low brow feel to it, yet the composition is amazing (I love the way the two bodies play off each other, the dark couch and white wall, I could go on...), and the sharp subject and out of focus background, including the female figure tell us that this ain't no ordinary photo. I think it's outstanding. Thanks, Amita. cheers, frank From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's my entry for the week: http://www.beyondthepath.com/photos/misc/nate1.jpg
Re: Too much mail
And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs we present here. So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs. Doug Brewer wrote: At 11:00 PM 2/23/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I didn't see anyone complaining about the GFM threads, which had nothing to do with photography, but, rather, was about setting up a social situation amongst users. Hey now. Bitch all you want about the OT stuff, but lay off GFM. Some of us have worked very hard to turn the GFM NPW into a premier =photography= workshop. We have a good time, but we're very serious about the weekend.
Re: PAW: Too Much PAW
Hi, Why not make the URL to your site more noticeable by making it, what do you call it, a dynamic link ... y'know, with the http in front of it. I agree about the community feel to this list. shel Cotty wrote: I haven't participated because I have a web site with galleries on it, and the link is on every one of my emails. [...] this list is a bit of an anomaly WRT email lists (in that it's *more* that just an email list - it's a community, a gathering, a bar - call it what you will), then I would say that anything that encourages photography must be a positive thing. www.macads.co.uk/snaps
Re: Too Much PAW
On 23/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Too Much PAW!?!?!?!?! Wow, this list is nuttier than I thought. There are threads on whisky, sports cars and, in the past, an incredible number of goofy off-topics. Now people are threatening to unsubscribe because there are too many threads about PICTURES!?!?!?!?!? See you later, gs http://www.georgesphotos.net ROTFL. George, you are absolutely right. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast)
On 23/2/04, STAN's ULCER disgorged: I did just read the User's Manual and found the following: To help awaken the bouquet of Laphroaig whisky and bring out the aromatics, add a few drops of water. Hold your glass towards the light and observe how the water swirls in the golden liquid. Nose the glass deeply for a hint of... So, a few drops of water recommended. Dahhh. You're all a bunch of wusses. I take a glass, boil the rest of the water out until there's a skanky crisp lining of essence of Scotch, collect buckets of the stuff, mash it into shape with a pestle and mortar, cram it into a syringe and inject straight into the jugular! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
PAW - Hat and Beard
Okay, in an effort to steer away from car threads and abstain from beer threads, here's some dude with a hat: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/reportage/images/pic4.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast)
On 23/2/04, STAN THE POET disgorged: Laphroaig anyone? In honor of this thread I have opened a bottle which I am sipping neat, of course. The only water in my Whisky are the tears I shed as this golden sunshine warms my frozen heart... violins Where's my hanky? :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Too much mail
I was referring to making once a week ON FRIDAY. i.e., limiting the posting to but one designated day per week, as opposed to once a week on whatever day suits the poster. Plus, the idea of picture a week was more a reference to the Leica format than what we might do here, although I feel that if everyone who wants to participate limits the photos to one posting per week that would certainly be an improvement over what we've had thus far: just a couple of people putting up pictures at random intervals and interspersed between numerous messages about the minutia of digital cameras, fast cars and fast women, GFM, and other such topics, all of which, imo, are just fine here, even though some can become a bit wearing for those not interested in such matters. I suppose I liken your suggestion of posting pics on but one day of the week similar to someone suggesting that digital only be discussed on Tuesdays, and that we have a Whisky Wednesday. Rob Studdert wrote: On 23 Feb 2004 at 20:00, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, some cranky minority wants to curtail the PAW, limit discussions resulting from it, reduce it to a once a week Friday event, because they can't handle it. Doh, make that... I read it as a picture-a-week, no?
Re: Too much mail
At 10:21 AM 2/24/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs we present here. So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs. What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a word about PAW or posting photographs. You smacked on something I care about, and I defended it. Get that chip off your shoulder. I'll continue to do as I have done on this list since 1996, which is to post links to photos as I am moved to do so. I am long past the stage where I need constant reassurance that I am a capable photographer, and into that stage where I can occasionally offer a little encouragement to our younger photographers. In the meantime, I will also view and consider the photos that are being presented, yours and others, regardless of the degree of difficulty.
Re: Too much mail
Forgive if I misinterpreted your comments ... Doug Brewer wrote: At 10:21 AM 2/24/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs we present here. So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs. What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a word about PAW or posting photographs. You smacked on something I care about, and I defended it. Get that chip off your shoulder.
Re: Too much mail
I'm getting quite a bit of private mail, some it it rather rude, on this topic. I cannot believe that something as simple as the suggestion of posting pics to the list could generate such controversy and animosity. There are other, much nicer messages as well, so that sort of balances the crap I've received. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Forgive if I misinterpreted your comments ... Doug Brewer wrote: At 10:21 AM 2/24/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs we present here. So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs. What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a word about PAW or posting photographs. You smacked on something I care about, and I defended it. Get that chip off your shoulder.
Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter)
Regardless of his/her feedback on eBay, there is exactly 0% probability that his individual is selling a full, legal copy of Photoshop for £17. - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 09:53 AM Subject: Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter) Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3662764632 His entire eBay history consists of 4 transactions. He was the *buyer* in all 4. The *most expensive* of these was £1.00! This is an obvious scam. You should alert ebay immediately. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggestions?
The ancient Vivitar 252 is small, auto/manual, 2 AA's, works well. I carry one for those times when you just need some extra light. Usually go for $10 or so. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
I missed something
What's a PAW? Took me long enough to learn about blogs! CRB
RE: Too much mail
Yes, there is too much mail, we now have over 400 per day coming in, that might be ok for the people that don't work and have time to download and go through all the posts. I work and in the past week just don't have the time to go through my email. Just a download, quick look and delete all. With this volume coming in, if you don't download most days then mail will be bounced and you will get unsubscribed. Two solutions; 1 - go modern, get rid of the list and use a www forum and you can have sections for whatever topic you choose and easy access from anywhere. 2 - mark email headings with OT, DIGITAL, PAW, GENERAL, LENS, BODY, FILM, etc, so that you can filter incoming email into appropriate folders. Then if you don't want to see OT or PAW you don't have to look just periodically delete the contents of the folder. HTH Ziggy
Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
160+mph in a Mitsubishi 3000 twin-turbo, Utah desert, public highway. Norm Mark Roberts wrote: My personal public road speed record is about 140 mph in Interstate 390 in upstate NY.
Re: PAW (... )
Yes, it is in Oslo. You can see the Royal Castle hidden in the fog. Thanks! DagT På 24. feb. 2004 kl. 15.20 skrev Albano Garcia: I like it. I like the pano crop. Where it is? Norway? Regards Albano --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, here's another one. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2158144size=lg DagT
OT - Dynamic links (was:Re: PAW: Too Much PAW)
On 24/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Why not make the URL to your site more noticeable by making it, what do you call it, a dynamic link ... y'know, with the http in front of it. Will this make a difference? In my plain text email application (Powermail 4.2), anything beginning with 'www' becomes highlighted in blue and if clicked on, opens the web browser and goes to that site. Does this mean that some email applications need the 'http://' preceding the 'www' ? Sorry, I'm an infant WRT html... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Too much mail
On 24/2/04, A PDML SUBSCRIBER disgorged: I guess I feel I have to look if it is a picture and if it is WHISKEY or SPORTS CARS I can delete without guilt. :) Sorry guys, but I am going to have to chime in here - AFAIK, *both* those threads mentioned above carried 'OT' in the subject line. If you double- click on a message with 'OT' in the subject line, you deserve everything you end up reading! From time to time a spurt of OT threads happen, and okay, it may not be ideal, but the spirit (d'oh) of the list is alive and well, and long may it remain. Jeees, you should look at the EOS list sometime - it is unbelievably dull. This list has a life, a great life - but that life paradoxically enough depends ultimately on one button DELETE Cheers, Cotty PS - I am wrong! The whisky thread is not marked OT - apologies. The beer thread is. The sentiment still stands. ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter)
His reserve might be at £500 , who knows? On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 16:58, Chris Hamilton wrote: Regardless of his/her feedback on eBay, there is exactly 0% probability that his individual is selling a full, legal copy of Photoshop for £17. - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 09:53 AM Subject: Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter) Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3662764632 His entire eBay history consists of 4 transactions. He was the *buyer* in all 4. The *most expensive* of these was £1.00! This is an obvious scam. You should alert ebay immediately. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Making fine prints in your digital darkroom
Just been sent this url, probably been posted before but worth bookmarking; http://www.normankoren.com/printer_calibration.html#TestPrint Lots of good stuff here. Regards, Ziggy
RE: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter)
Nope - he will only sell for £16.49 through Nochex, bypassing ebay. Notice it is closed bidding and you cant buy it unless he authorises you as a bidder - which he wouldn't do when emailed. He told me This is not an auction but a buy now listing for £16.49. Still - even though it can only be measured by Douglas Adams ultimate improbability drive, there must be more than 0% probability... -Original Message- From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2004 16:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter) His reserve might be at £500 , who knows? On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 16:58, Chris Hamilton wrote: Regardless of his/her feedback on eBay, there is exactly 0% probability that his individual is selling a full, legal copy of Photoshop for £17. - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 09:53 AM Subject: Re: This look dodgy to anyone? (WAS: Photoshop CS RAW Converter) Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3662764632 His entire eBay history consists of 4 transactions. He was the *buyer* in all 4. The *most expensive* of these was £1.00! This is an obvious scam. You should alert ebay immediately. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
This thing goes back long before that, to the early detroit super cars (late
fifties) at least. Only it was a $20 back then (anyone else old enough to
remember when $20 was enough to take your gal out for a hot date?).
A guy layed that one on my in bragging about his 58 Olds (J-5?) back around 1961
when I was in the Air Force. I took him up on the bet (deal was if I could not
get his $20 off the dash, I gave him one of mine). Me and 3 of my buddies got
drunk off of his $20. Might have had a bit of a problem there if he had been a
better driver and could have kept the acceration constant, but probably not that
Olds couldn't actually pull a g. Nothing but a dragster could back then because
road tires just didn't have the stiction needed.
He had gotten the idea, I believe from an article in one of the car magazines.
Which goes to show you should always check out these stories for yourself before
putting your money on the line (grin).
--
Cotty wrote:
On 23/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Cotty blurted out -- Did you try the 100 dollar bill on the windscreen
trick?
I have some ideas about this but what did you have in mind?
I seem to recall a TV motoring program ('The Car's The Star, Quentin
Wilson) here in England featuring the Cobra and if I'm not mistaken (it
was some time ago), the presenter recounted a tale about Carol Shelby (?)
placing a hundred dollar bill on the dash, and telling the bewildered
occupant of the passenger seat that once they accelerated off, if they
could reach the bill, they could have it.
Am I right in thinking zero to one hundred mph and back to a stop again
in ten seconds? Fearsome.
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: Photographer a Week
Ok Shel, I'll bitebut I like the idea of lesser know photographers. Here's a good one that I like, you might know him: http://toto.lib.unca.edu/exhibits/blowers/motherjones/andr%C3%A9_cypriano.html There's a link to his homepage at the bottom. Norm Shel Belinkoff wrote: One of the things that's helped me learn about photography, and given me great pleasure, is looking at the work of other photographers. snip
Re: OT - Dynamic links
That seems to be the case. In both my email programs the http is needed to make the link active. But, more than that, it shows up in a different color and is less likely to be overlooked amongst all the other text in the message. I never notice the link to your site until you mentioned it. I didn't know that without the http the link could be active Cotty wrote: On 24/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Why not make the URL to your site more noticeable by making it, what do you call it, a dynamic link ... y'know, with the http in front of it. Will this make a difference? In my plain text email application (Powermail 4.2), anything beginning with 'www' becomes highlighted in blue and if clicked on, opens the web browser and goes to that site. Does this mean that some email applications need the 'http://' preceding the 'www' ? Sorry, I'm an infant WRT html... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Digital Links
More useful links; Digital Pentax http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/forum2.htmlsid=53a603648a70c0df64bac5240d 6e4fa7 Digital Photography FAQ http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html#sharpening USE ICC PROFILES FOR AN EPSON PRINTER http://www.photoexpert.co.uk/UK/EXPERTISE/how_to_icc_page1.htm Digital Imaging Resources for Photographers by Photographers http://www.drycreekphoto.com/ The Histogram Exposed http://www.bayphoto.com/Instructions/Histogram.htm Adobe forums, you can login as guest http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
Re: PAW: Hot Hot Hot
Chrisitian just stold my post! Ditto. Norm Christian wrote: Nice colors, but the background is tilted slightly and makes me seasick ;-)
Re: Photographer a Week
Maybe, if others see fit, they can tell us about their favorite photographer(s) and post a URL or information about them. Just a thought. shel Great idea! Rather than mention all the usual suspects it might be interesting to post something about lesser-known photographers. One of my favourites is an Italian photographer called Dario Mitidieri: http://www.mitidieri.com/ I agree but at the same time I think some of the best photographers are unknown to many of us. For the experienced ones, it's always refreshing to go back to classics. I liked Mitidieri photos, although I don't think he is in the same league than Eugene Richards. His photo of the young boy under Lenine's statue (#10 in War Games) is arranged. I also liked Ravilious stuff. Thanks, Bob. http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/arbus/arbus.html Albano Great place to begin for many photographers. Arbus stuff is overwhelming... The name of the photographer as a subject header? Andre
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Hello John, I know the feeling - so far, I have resisted buying it. You should really take a look at Picture Window Pro (http://www.dl-c.com) Here is the site of an advocate: http://www.normankoren.com/ -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 4:27:24 AM, you wrote: JM On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:43:04 -, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! JM Phew! The price of Photoshop CS is really out of sight. JM I started with a used but legal copy of PS 3.0 way back when, and paid JM for upgrades 4.0, 5.0, free 5.5 I think, and 6.0. JM I figure I have paid Adobe about the cost of an MZ-S for Photoshop JM over the past few years. Now they want me to operate some OS newer JM than my old standby Win98 just to be able to use CS. What a hassle. JM I for one am shopping for a less expensive alternative. The idea of JM paying Adobe through the nose again for another upgrade is starting to JM tick me off. JM -- JM John Mustarde JM www.photolin.com
Re: Photographer a Week
Bob's suggestion of posting info about lesser known photogs is, of course, a good one. However, not everyone knows about the better known photogs ... someone on the Leica list had, for example, never heard of Salgado or Nachtwey. Still, putting forth the names and perhaps urls of any photog is a Good Thing. A favorite of mine is Chih Hsin Yang. I saw some of his work in a Taiwanese publication, Photographers International (a beautiful magazine, almost booklike in its quality) but have not been able to find any of his work on the net. He was, it seems, unknown even in his own country. The photos published in the magazine in June, 1999, were all about forty years old and the first time any of the work had been published. If anyone knows more about this photographer, please tell us. shel Andre Langevin wrote: Maybe, if others see fit, they can tell us about their favorite photographer(s) and post a URL or information about them. Just a thought. shel Great idea! Rather than mention all the usual suspects it might be interesting to post something about lesser-known photographers. One of my favourites is an Italian photographer called Dario Mitidieri: http://www.mitidieri.com/ I agree but at the same time I think some of the best photographers are unknown to many of us. For the experienced ones, it's always refreshing to go back to classics.
Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
My speed record was 1100km/hour in a Boeing 747-400. On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 17:27, Norm Baugher wrote: 160+mph in a Mitsubishi 3000 twin-turbo, Utah desert, public highway. Norm Mark Roberts wrote: My personal public road speed record is about 140 mph in Interstate 390 in upstate NY. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Photographer a Week
http://www.photointl.com.tw/english/p044/index.htm Ahhh ... found some of Chih Hsin Yang's work ... the url to the magazine had changed. http://www.photointl.com.tw/ A favorite of mine is Chih Hsin Yang. I saw some of his work in a Taiwanese publication, Photographers International (a beautiful magazine, almost booklike in its quality) but have not been able to find any of his work on the net. He was, it seems, unknown even in his own country. The photos published in the magazine in June, 1999, were all about forty years old and the first time any of the work had been published.
RE: Photographer a Week
Shel, Have you seen this; http://www.taiwaninfo.org/english/newsletter/200301nl/1.htm Regards, Ziggy -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2004 17:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Photographer a Week Bob's suggestion of posting info about lesser known photogs is, of course, a good one. However, not everyone knows about the better known photogs ... someone on the Leica list had, for example, never heard of Salgado or Nachtwey. Still, putting forth the names and perhaps urls of any photog is a Good Thing. A favorite of mine is Chih Hsin Yang. I saw some of his work in a Taiwanese publication, Photographers International (a beautiful magazine, almost booklike in its quality) but have not been able to find any of his work on the net. He was, it seems, unknown even in his own country. The photos published in the magazine in June, 1999, were all about forty years old and the first time any of the work had been published. If anyone knows more about this photographer, please tell us. shel Andre Langevin wrote: Maybe, if others see fit, they can tell us about their favorite photographer(s) and post a URL or information about them. Just a thought. shel Great idea! Rather than mention all the usual suspects it might be interesting to post something about lesser-known photographers. One of my favourites is an Italian photographer called Dario Mitidieri: http://www.mitidieri.com/ I agree but at the same time I think some of the best photographers are unknown to many of us. For the experienced ones, it's always refreshing to go back to classics.
Re: PAW: Too Much PAW
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've also noticed that some of the more tech oriented people haven't participated in the PAW yet ... after all their talk about how valuable the technical and high tech side of gear and peripherals is to making a good photo, I haven't seen any of those good, high-tech produced pics. C'mon guys, join the party, show us your stuff. I haven't posted because I really haven't shot much with the *ist D yet. I tend to shoot the most while I'm hiking or travelling and I haven't done either since purchasing it. Everything else that I've shot in the last 3 years has been on a Sony camera, so I didn't think that this would be appropriate for PAW. Here is a picture from a Sony that I like: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pdx-japanese-garden/reduced/DSC00491.JPG I like this one, but wish I could go back and recompose it. I like the boat in the water, but find the bush to the right a little distracting. http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/east-coast/reduced/DSC01233.JPG A few decent *ist D shots: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/snow-lake-10-5-03/ I wish I had a longer lens with me for IMGP1391.JPG I'm not crazy about the framing on IMGP1405.JPG, but it is the best of the group. Shel, I admire your street photography. I really like good street photography, but I'm pretty lousy at it myself. I feel very self concious when taking photographs of others and that makes it difficult to concentrate on taking good photographs. alex
RE: How many people do we have on this list
Nice and active, lets hope we can go over 1000.. The more the merrier. Regards, Ziggy -Original Message- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2004 18:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How many people do we have on this list ~600 Bill - Original Message - From: zoomshot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:27 PM Subject: How many people do we have on this list Been a long time since this was asked, so how many? Regards, Ziggy
RE: How many people do we have on this list
This isn't a state secret. Or is it? Would just like to know about how many other souls are in this community as I'm sure would everybody else. Regards, Ziggy -Original Message- From: Doug Brewer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2004 18:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How many people do we have on this list At 01:27 PM 2/24/04, throwing caution to the wind, zoomshot wrote: Been a long time since this was asked, so how many? Regards, Ziggy Why?
Re: Too much mail
A little tact would be good here, Shel. This is Doug's list. You we can do without, him we can not. Sometimes OT gets a little out of hand, but it dies down. You have introduced this PAW thing which mostly is good. I do think however that the one on the Leica list you modeled it after limits photos to those taken with Leica equipment. Also they seem to limit it to one photo a week person. You are trying to open this list to anything, anywhere, anytime, no limits. And then snarling at the guy who is paying for this list out of his own pocket. Like I said, PAW seems like a great idea. But maybe we should keep it to Pentax equipment, and one shot per person per week on this list. Furthermore, there are all kinds of sites on the web where you can post photos to be commented on and no one has ever objected to folks mentioning here that they had a photo on one they would like comments about. As for the gearheads here that you so disparage, this is a Pentax list not a general photography list despite the fact it is very open and interesting. You seem to want to highjack the list for your own purposes. We like you, Shel, but maybe you are going a bit too far here. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: And some of us have worked very hard to make the photographs we present here. So, bitch all you want about OT stuff, but lay of the PAW and the posting of photographs. Doug Brewer wrote: At 11:00 PM 2/23/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I didn't see anyone complaining about the GFM threads, which had nothing to do with photography, but, rather, was about setting up a social situation amongst users. Hey now. Bitch all you want about the OT stuff, but lay off GFM. Some of us have worked very hard to turn the GFM NPW into a premier =photography= workshop. We have a good time, but we're very serious about the weekend. -- 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: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Hi, Mark Cassino wrote: At 11:43 AM 2/24/2004 +, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! Yeah - the digital is free mantra sounds a bit hollow as you punch in you charge card numbers into the Adobe site - but it's worth it! I don't think so. There is a country where the enforcers of copyright have come to an agreement with pirates. In exchange for agreeing to hand over some of the income, the copies are now legitimate. Proper serials numbers, contact addresses and emails on the packets. My copy of PS7? £4. The exchange rate is shifting too fast for me to give a dollar figure. I understand there are development costs but production of software is a virtually no-cost operation. If the retail price was more reasonable, many more people would buy it and the piracy market would collapse. As the producers have decided to make a deal where I buy mine, I will continue to combine holidays with software purchases. mike
Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
My experience with small, English sports cars has taught me that the English are born tinkerers. Both my Austin Healey 3000 and (earlier) my MG Midget required constant tinkering with the carbs, throttle assembly, timing etc. This was also true of my friend's Jag XKE. That the English are born tinkerers and love it can be the only explanation. Regards, Bob... They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken. - Anonymous, presumed dead.
Re: 24-50s
From: Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED] While the M 24-50 has a mediocre reputation, the A 24-50 was a new design (same design was used for the F 24-50) and I have one. I didn't know there was an M24-50! Seems odd that there would be both a 24-35 and a 24-50 in the same series. In general that has not been a very popular zoom range. Pentax had to redesign the M24-50 because of a big flare problem with it. This lens could pick up the color of the surroundings, which is a lesser known flare related problem. Only mention I have found of this is in the reference book Ilford Manual of Photography. Second sentence is the rare one. In colour photography, flare is likely to lead to a desaturation of colours, since flare light consists of a mixture of light from all parts of the scene, which usually approximate to white light. It may also lead to colour casts, sometimes resulting from objects outside the scene photographed. With sun in my back, I took a photo of white snow, surrounded by green spruces. Few spruces were in the scene. The SMC Takumar 28/3.5 at f8 gave white snow. The M24-50 at 28mm and f8, gave green snow. Yikes! I sold mine. The M24-50 would have a value as a collector's piece though. Of even more value would be the elusive set-screw lens shade for the lens. I don't know if anybody has ever TRIED to make a really good 24-50 zoom. Pros don't seem to have used such a thing. Nikon made a 25-50 f/4.0 that was quite well regarded, and also as big as you'd expect a good quality 24-50 f/4.0 to be. It wasn't a big success financially. Minolta also made one, rather well regarded for a zoom. I think it went through AF times like Pentax F24-50. Andre
Re: Reala rated at 80
The old (pre 1959) indexes were about 1 stop lower, though some pro films were only raised 2/3 stops. On that basis I would say you will always be safe with a 1 stop over-exposure on amateur films, and a 2/3 stop over-exposure on pro films. Beyond that I would suggest careful experimentation to see if it works for you. Also realise you will need to redo those experiments if you change labs. Very seldom though is there any reason to go more than 1/2 stop, except for needed exposure compensation. -- Boros Attila wrote: This sounds interesting for capturing shadow detail. But how much shuld I overexpose for that? As I understand 1/3 stop is just safe for any film, but the effect varies. Does somebody know how this works for ordinary Fuji Superia 100 (not Reala)? And more exactly how much is a lot for you? How far can I go on the safe side? SPIn case of negatives by underrating ISO you avoid problems with SPunderexposure. Most negatives give enlarged grain effect when even slightly SPunderexposed. This is scary... I should better follow Peter's advice and overexpose all my negatives! Attila -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Hijack!
Gee, Tom, you got me. I, and my clandestine band of pirates, cutthroats, and thieves have been plotting to hijack the list for our own nefarious ends. Our intention has been to plunder the list for its treasures, liberate the secret cache of NIB manual gear hidden deep in the archives, release the billions of *istD designated pixels from their subterranean vault thereby, bringing on the demise of digital imaging, and deface all the PUG portraits by drawing moustaches on them. I apologized to Doug and the list for my misunderstanding of Doug's comment, but I guess that's not good enough. This afternoon I shall go to confession, and afterwards to the OT Bar and Auto Repair Emporium and reflect upon my miserable behavior by downing several triple Laphroaigs with a Quaker State 10W-30 chaser. Ciao, bambino
Re: PAW - Hat and Beard
On 24/2/04, NORM disgorged: Self-portrait Cotty? Interesting shot, what's that on the bottom right of the frame? Norm Cotty wrote: Okay, in an effort to steer away from car threads and abstain from beer threads, here's some dude with a hat: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/reportage/images/pic4.html It's a car engine heavily illuminated - the shot was grabbed at the 2002 UK Motor Show at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. Only time for 2 frames before the chap moved off. I kept the guy behind in the drop as it would have been a bit tight if he'd gone, and I don't do Digital Removal (tm) . Keeps it busy. Actually I think it's John Francis g Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads http://www.macads.co.uk
Re: PAW - Hat and Beard
On 24/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Okay, in an effort to steer away from car threads and abstain from beer threads, here's some dude with a hat: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/reportage/images/pic4.html My goodness! It's Gandalf!! How cool!!! (with some awfully distracting trash-bag-lookin thing in the lower right corner -- what's that really?) Good point Eleanor, now that you mention it, it is very distracting, isn't it. I't a heavily illuminated car engine. I had no choice but to leave it in as i wanted the handkerchief in the pocket to stay. I suppose a closer crop would lose it but then one would wonder what the reflections were in the glasses. Oh fiddlesticks. I should have left it full frame! Thanks Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads http://www.macads.co.uk
UNSUBSCRIBE
-- Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 352 Today's Topics: Re: A busy little fairygirl [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *ist D software update[ Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= ] Re: *istD for print photo [ Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Mark's PAW[ Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Support for big glass [ Don Herring [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] OT - I WILL GET BROADBAND![ Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: PAW: A good breakfast [ Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: A busy little fairygirl [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: A busy little fairygirl [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: bokeh [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: A busy little fairygirl [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *ISTD autofocus failing before b [ Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: A busy little fairygirl [ John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Mark's PAW[ Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Pentax or Burst ? [ Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars [ Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: PAW frozen lake [ Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] The lens remains the same?[ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Support for big glass [ Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] -- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:12:35 -0500 From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit b) the viewfinder shows about 95% of what is being captured filling in the entire area. that's why it looks closer. your 50mm lens has the same FOV as as 75mm lens on a 35mm film body. c) if you had shot RAW, you could have set white balance after the fact when converting from RAW to TIFF/Photoshop. you might not be able to organize your work with IrfanView if it doesn't support PEF files. TIFF files aren't worth using because they are large and have already been reduced to 8-bit/channel mode. if you do little manipulation of your images, then RAW isn't an advantage. if you may need to do some extensive color adjustment, especially if you don't know which ones you might do ahead of time, then RAW is your best bet. i don't think it is worth using 512M memory cards on the *istD in RAW mode. 1G cards are the minimum useful. don't bother with the Pentax software since you have Photoshop CS. use the CS File Browser instead. Herb... - Original Message - From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:20 PM Subject: A busy little fairygirl b) In regards to the focal length multiplication thingy - it appears to me that when I look through a 50mm lens with the *istD, the subject does indeed look closer than if I look through the same lens on my MZ-6. Ryan seems to think that this shouldn't be the case and that it should simply be that it is a cropped version of what I see in the MZ-6 - I know that there has been discussions about this in the past, but I didn't see them, so I was just wondering what the general concensus of this is? c) I haven't shot in RAW as yet, as I have only just got the plug-in set up etc (and I haven't even bothered to install the Photo Lab software, I'd prefer to just stick with PS and Irfanview). BUT, I noticed that the files are HUGMUNGO (and TIFFS are even bigger) and with 512mb cards I can only fit 30 or so images on the card!! I was wanting to stay with 512mb cards just to get around the possibility of losing too many images should a card fail, but with only 30 or so images per card - this is totally impractical when shooting weddings etc. Just wondering what other wedding photographers are using? I saw that yesterday someone began to discuss this, claiming that most Pros shoot with JPEGs at their lowest
Re: Too much mail
I wonder if the different personalities of this list and the EOS list have to do with the fact that nowadays you have to be a bit of a rebel, or perhaps just a curmudgeon, to stick to Pentax while the sheep are flocking to Canon and Nikon. John Who has noticed that the most frequent posts are now from people complaining about too many posts. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:31:50 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/2/04, A PDML SUBSCRIBER disgorged: I guess I feel I have to look if it is a picture and if it is WHISKEY or SPORTS CARS I can delete without guilt. :) Sorry guys, but I am going to have to chime in here - AFAIK, *both* those threads mentioned above carried 'OT' in the subject line. If you double- click on a message with 'OT' in the subject line, you deserve everything you end up reading! From time to time a spurt of OT threads happen, and okay, it may not be ideal, but the spirit (d'oh) of the list is alive and well, and long may it remain. Jeees, you should look at the EOS list sometime - it is unbelievably dull. This list has a life, a great life - but that life paradoxically enough depends ultimately on one button DELETE Cheers, Cotty PS - I am wrong! The whisky thread is not marked OT - apologies. The beer thread is. The sentiment still stands. ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: London PubDML (was Re: Whisky)
Whahey, If I can make it, count me in too. It's probably too short notice for anyone, but I'll be in London from 8th to 9th of March. The evening is off...:-) Jostein Quoting Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Count me in! I know a quaint little pub where they mainly sell Peter's Ales. Nick -Original Message- From: Cotty[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23/02/04 22:12:14 Subject: Re: Whisky (was Re: PAW: A good breakfast) I'll drink to that. Mini PDML in a London Pub? Any other partakers? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
RE: Too much mail
You missed a couple didn't you... :) there is always the digest version and reading the posts online sorted already by subject. This list is plain text only, thus it doesn't use much bandwidth. I'm on dialup and I don't have any problems. Lots of folks unsubscribe temporarily when their going to be gone for a bit. There's filters any which way you want it, 2 clicks and I can sort and delete a whole subject all at the same time. I really think all need to lighten up and go read the instructions on how to fully get the most out of their email browser. I for one enjoy the humor and comradery that exist on this list often in OT posts. This is a very active list and that's a good thing! I look forward to sitting down relaxing for bit checking out what's going on in PDML. Quiet boring lists don't get it either. Come on folks, lets fence this bad humored disgruntled attitude and be decent and considerate of everyone's opinions and ideas. If this isn't your thing, maybe you shouldn't be here. If you have forgotten how to unsubscribe or switch to digest the directions are on the web site. http://www.pdml.net/dbrewer/p2.html? I feel bad for Shel about the nasty emails he is now getting. If you feel you need to flame someone, you should be brave enough to do it in public. If you can't say it in public it probably shouldn't be said. If I were Shel, I would strongly be tempted to consider forwarding these nastys to the list so their true colors would be shown to all. Although this might be bad overall for the list and a kill file will take care of them permanently. Dave Two solutions; 1 - go modern, get rid of the list and use a www forum and you can have sections for whatever topic you choose and easy access from anywhere. 2 - mark email headings with OT, DIGITAL, PAW, GENERAL, LENS, BODY, FILM, etc, so that you can filter incoming email into appropriate folders. Then if you don't want to see OT or PAW you don't have to look just periodically delete the contents of the folder. HTH Ziggy
Watch out everybody
It's the attack of the killer complete-digest response!
CRB
--
--
Collin Brendemuehl
void C( JobAvailability )
char JobAvailability[30];
{
C( program run );
C( shop stop C );;
C( programmer doing Notes/Domino. );
}
--
