Re: PAW Week 5
Hello Peter, I like the shot and don't mind the title:) It is a good composition, and the glittering tail gives an adequate metal feeling to it. Attila Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:44:34 PM, you wrote: PJA> I haven't got a title for this one, since the one I had in mind is a PJA> blatant lie to anyone PJA> who has even a trace of a clue. PJA> This is the center 3rd of a 35mm frame. I was at an air show and near PJA> the end of the PJA> day I noticed the moon hanging in the sky just about where a number of PJA> the planes PJA> taking off would have to pass, so this isn't quite a grab shot, but it PJA> wasn't quite planned PJA> either. PJA> http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PAW_--_Week5.html -- Best regards, Borosmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May PUG
What is the May PUG category? Thanks. Pat in SF
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
I had a chance to play with friends' Nikon gears couple of days ago. A F100 and a F5 I would suggest that if Canon is not considered, the F100 is a wonderful machine. The fastest shutter speed is 1/8000 and the fast built-in winder can allow you to finish a roll of film in no time! The AF is swift and accurate. The F5, even though it's the top of the class, I think it's very heavy and too much control and fiddly. So with my limited experience, I suggest the F100 with a grip. The MZS, a wonderful machine, but I think in this case, the Nikon is slightly better suited for the job. Andy -Original Message- From: Patrick Pritchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: > The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you > want > noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current > (or > maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies > aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick > > tv > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM >> To: Anthony Farr >> Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? >> >> Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, >> it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very >> good performer. >> >> My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies >> are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love >> Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: >> >> AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could >> be a problem in >> AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you >> what you need to >> AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the >> MZ-S might be >> AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration >> as did the LX (and >> AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close >> tolerances with the >> AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. >> >> AF> regards, >> AF> Anthony Farr >> >> AF> - Original Message - >> AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, >> before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly >> because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar >> Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to >> move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning >> towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? >> AF> (snip) >> >> >> >> >> > > >
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Hello Patrick I have use both AF ans MF for the last 12 years. I think all the cameras you mention are nice and very high quality. I only own 3 AF lenses. If AF was so much better, I guess I would have had a lot more AF lenses by now! What is important is to get a camera you like to use. A camera the feels right for your kind of work. If it does, you'll get nice photgraphs. If all the buttons are "in the wrong place", you might not. I recently got the MZ-S. I can tell you it's a joy to use. Kind of retro - has a button for each of the most important things (meter-mode, drive, bracketing, exposure comp., AF-mode, AE-lock, AF-lock, shutterspeed, aperture, choise of focus-point). Not "MENU's". Easy - at a glance overview. Clean viewfinder with nothing att all inside the frame. Rarely hunting focus. It's is simply pleasing to hold and to fire. My favorite. I guess it's less expensive than the F4. Use the difference for AF lenses. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Patrick Pritchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. marts 2004 03:15 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. This has me concerned, as I will need those lenses later (e.g., 85/1.4 to replace my current MF 85/1.4, 24/2 to replace 24/2.8 I am using now, etc.). The PZ1P and F4 go for comparable prices (albeit not comparable condition) on KEH, which I have been using as a quasi-benchmark for my price checks. No matter where I go, I will end up buying new lenses in AF to replace my current MF lineup. From my research and contemplating the subject, here's what I've come up with: Pentax: Pro: I can use my old MF lenses for now Currently lenses are available, and used market is so-so for finding the fast lenses I'll need later I am very familiar with the system, and the quality of the lenses; I will not have to change much in terms of darkroom work to compensate for a new lens "type" If I find a good deal on an AF lens *NOW*, I can buy it and still use it on my Super Program Has 3 of the 4 lenses I desire: 35/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: Pentax seems to be pulling out, and making pro grade stuff less available ZERO rental support; if I need a particular lens in AF, I can't get it anywhere else, to my knowledge in Toronto, Canada Pentax lacks a good mid-range telephoto (e.g., 135/2.0), although they do offer the 135/2.8 which is FA, not FA* Nikon: Pro: F4 is a proven workhorse Cost is comparable to PZ1P @ ~$500 for used body TONNES of rental support Has the key lenses I want: 35/2.0, 135/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: I'll end up starting from scratch in terms of lens lineup Looking at side by side prints by myself and a friends F90X a few years ago, the Nikon had more contrast; this means more fiddling in the darkroom to get my procedure's down to the way I want them again. My renting is a minor issue at the moment. No matter who I go with, my first lens will undoubtedly be either the 35/2.0 from Pentax, or the 35/2.0 D from Nikon, and from there work up to a mid-telephoto, wider zoom, then telephoto. However for sports and the like, I'll need longer and faster lenses, and this is a problem area for Pentax, only in terms of availability. Build quality is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I'll be dealing with harsh environments: lots of bumping around, lots of jostling; extreme temperatures (-20 when I shoot at home up to 45+ when I shoot in the summer); lots of moisture (think dance clubs with 1000+ people all crammed into a tiny room, and everyone is sweating). When I came back from the outback last time, I had sand in my socks, which were *in my bag*, so I don't want to risk sand or moisture getting into the bodies. Lens build is also important. While I've been extremely happy with my all metal K-mount MF lenses, the newer Pentax lenses look pretty plasticy to me; I'm not sure how they'll hold up. I'd like to here comments from anybody out there who has used PZ1P, MZ-S or F4. I love my Pentax system as it is, and have built up quite a collection of gear (a bunch of lenses, a bellows [ eas
Colour theory
Hi all, I mentioned the other day that I'd lost my link to the colour theory page on the Barco website. Today I tracked down its new home. It didn't work very well in IE5.5 but looks fine in Safari. YMMV. http://www.barcoview.com/penp/links/colorthe.asp Its quite long and a bit technical but it seems to be a good introduction to colour theory and some of the issues of colour management. I still haven't found the Adobe one, which is a much simpler (but still excellent) overview of the colour management process. Maybe I should stop whining, do some research and write my own article. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
The AF performance of Canon EOS 1n still performs very well when conpared to newer high end AF bodies. The price of these is quite good also in the current market, might be something worth considering. Patrick Pritchard wrote: On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF> regards, AF> Anthony Farr AF> - Original Message - AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF> (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
I've heard a number of people described the Nikon F4 as Nikons best manual focus body. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered.
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
I have put the MZ-S beside an F100 with similar lenses and found the auto focus speeds to be the same, or at least imperceptible differences. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. tv > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM > To: Anthony Farr > Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? > > Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, > it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very > good performer. > > My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies > are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love > Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: > > AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could > be a problem in > AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you > what you need to > AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the > MZ-S might be > AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration > as did the LX (and > AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close > tolerances with the > AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. > > AF> regards, > AF> Anthony Farr > > AF> - Original Message - > AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Hello all. > >> > >> I've decided that within the next year (specifically, > before September > >> 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly > because I will be > >> in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar > Challenge, where MF > >> didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to > move into > >> more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. > >> > >> My dilemma is this: > >> > >> - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning > towards a > >> used F4) > >> - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? > >> > AF> (snip) > > > > >
Re: OT: OT
Tom, It is not! cheers, 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: OT: OT Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:23:49 -0500 Not only is it off topic it is the bigest waste of bandwidth on the internet. When I had a usenet server of my own I once went in and counted. There were about 10x as many complaints about off topic posts as there were off topic posts. In fact complaints about off topic used about 1/2 the disk space that rec.photo posts filled. Of course that was a long while back, and many have given up complaining over the years so it may only be 1/4 (wild guess) of the posts on usenet these days. Luckily we do not have it that bad here. Long threads indicate that they are interesting to a lot of folks until they deteriate into two guys saying, "Is so", "Is not". _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
> -Original Message- > From: Patrick Pritchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: > > > The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on > fire. If you > > want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's > > current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or > > older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. > > This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top > notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a > LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things > considered. It's been a few years, but iirc, it was pretty bad. It's nickname was the "best manual focus camera Nikon ever made." > > And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind > the current pro line? Technically. Nikon put out a few versions of AF between the F4 and F5. tv
Re: My own DOF confusion
Hi! LK> No, I won't, you arrogant little piece of shit! LK> Not as long as you keep trolling, littering this list and LK> pissing in decent list member's faces with your moronic American LK> right wing preachings. >> > > Keep an eye on the Left. >> > > They complain any time we go after any group that hates America. >> > > They were ambivalent about going after Al Queda & going into Afghanistan. >> > > They really opposed overthrowing Marxists like Aristide and Saddam >> > Hussein, et al. >> > > After all, they share a common goal with the former and common world >> > view with the latter. Collin, Lasse, as a starter of the original thread, I hereby ask you to come to order. There is no sense in mutual insults. There is even less sense in mutual insults in public. Please, be civilized... Hope you understand. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF> regards, AF> Anthony Farr AF> - Original Message - AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF> (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Patrick Pritchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. What? Who posted that??? Well, it has been since March 16, 2004 since that is when I re-subscribed to the list. While no-one has given direct evidence, there was something anecdotal about "... when they run out of the glass they'll stop producing certain lenses ..." or something along those lines. -Patrick -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. Is this true of most Pentax AF? Having never dealt with Pentax AF before, I'm not sure of build quality in general. My thoughts on Pentax are all based on older early 1980s gear, which as I said previously, has been excellent. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF> regards, AF> Anthony Farr AF> - Original Message - AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF> (snip)
RE: PAW3 - ice cream cone
A lovely shot to be cherished Bob, what a cutie she was. btw, you didn't take that with the *istD by any chance did you? Looks like some blown out highlights there to me... ;-) tan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2004 2:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW3 - ice cream cone Seeing Boris's daughter and the other kids in the PAW made me miss my youngest who is away at her freshman year of college. I keep passing this picture of her posted on my refrigerator. We dug it out last year when she needed a shot of her as a young child. It didn't make the final cut, but I liked it for the personality and attitude she shows. http://www.members.aol.com/dontmailbob/Paw3.jpg Now I wish that the picture was better, and that I had her in focus instead of the ice cream cone, but... Like any 18/19 year old girl, my daughter is very conscious of her grooming. She was mortified to see the dirty hands she was eating with as a 4 1/2 year old. It reminded me of that day and how she was a fiesty little girl with two older brothers. She was playing in the sand box when we all went for ice cream. She didn't want to have her hands washed, or even cleaned up with a wet-wipe. So she went as is... To those of you with young children, enjoy them, take lots of photos, and keep even the not so good ones. They will make you smile later. Regards, Bob S.
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. tv > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM > To: Anthony Farr > Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? > > Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, > it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very > good performer. > > My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies > are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love > Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: > > AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could > be a problem in > AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you > what you need to > AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the > MZ-S might be > AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration > as did the LX (and > AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close > tolerances with the > AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. > > AF> regards, > AF> Anthony Farr > > AF> - Original Message - > AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Hello all. > >> > >> I've decided that within the next year (specifically, > before September > >> 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly > because I will be > >> in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar > Challenge, where MF > >> didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to > move into > >> more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. > >> > >> My dilemma is this: > >> > >> - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning > towards a > >> used F4) > >> - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? > >> > AF> (snip) > > > > >
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
just my half thimble-full ... shel I feel what Tanya is going through. I would hate to leave the *istD at home knowing I have it. BUT maybe it is possible to have 2 bodies. One for digital and a film one. Digital for those that want it. And Film to back you up and have this security blanket (just in case). You will have digi for speed and film for quality. Beest from both worlds! ;-) (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PAW3 - ice cream cone
Seeing Boris's daughter and the other kids in the PAW made me miss my youngest who is away at her freshman year of college. I keep passing this picture of her posted on my refrigerator. We dug it out last year when she needed a shot of her as a young child. It didn't make the final cut, but I liked it for the personality and attitude she shows. http://www.members.aol.com/dontmailbob/Paw3.jpg Now I wish that the picture was better, and that I had her in focus instead of the ice cream cone, but... Like any 18/19 year old girl, my daughter is very conscious of her grooming. She was mortified to see the dirty hands she was eating with as a 4 1/2 year old. It reminded me of that day and how she was a fiesty little girl with two older brothers. She was playing in the sand box when we all went for ice cream. She didn't want to have her hands washed, or even cleaned up with a wet-wipe. So she went as is... To those of you with young children, enjoy them, take lots of photos, and keep even the not so good ones. They will make you smile later. Regards, Bob S.
RE: PAW - Zion National Park
Absolutely bloody stunning... tan. -Original Message- From: Larry Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2004 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW - Zion National Park Some you liked #4 best, so I converted it to B&W. I like it even better. Your thoughts? Larry from Prescott http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/3013800/Large
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF> regards, AF> Anthony Farr AF> - Original Message - AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Hello all. >> >> I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September >> 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be >> in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF >> didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into >> more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. >> >> My dilemma is this: >> >> - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a >> used F4) >> - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? >> AF> (snip)
Re: FS: FA* 24mm f/2.0
Bucky, I'm sure that you'll decline the offer, but I can scrape together $100 to offer you. I would love to have the lens and I would take excellent care of it ... but $100 is all I can spare. :-/ Thank you for your time, Chris On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The lens itself is in excellent condition; the hood has moderate wear from > being carried in the bag with the other stuff. Can send pics if anyone's > interested. > > Price? Well, make an offer. It's just sitting there, so I am inclined to sell > for the low side of fair value. > > Please email privately for further info. > > Cheers, > > Bucky > > - > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ >
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Patrick Pritchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling >faster pro grade lenses. What? Who posted that??? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Da 14 filter size
What was the filter size on the new DA 14? I lost the link to the info. Larry from Prescott
Lasse V. Collin, formerly Re: My own DOF confusion
Lasse & Collin: Surely your dispute could be taken off-list? Thanks.
Re: PAW#4: Kid
Boris said, among many other things: > > I do appreciate the thought though. I almost feel like the only > daughter photographer here... Well, I WAS going to point out that I've shared some pics of MY daughter > No offence to other fathers of > daughters... but if you insist on only counting fathers ... never mind! (I'm joking, of course.) ERN (Well, if you do insist on only counting fathers, of course, I believe Frank has daughters and has shown pictures.)
Re: My own DOF confusion
At 20:57 2004.03.22 -0500, you wrote: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:23:43 +0200 From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Collin R Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:00 AM Subject: Re: My own DOF confusion > At 18:10 2004.03.22 -0500, you wrote: > >From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Keep an eye on the Left. > > > They complain any time we go after any group that hates America. > > > They were ambivalent about going after Al Queda & going into Afghanistan. > > > They really opposed overthrowing Marxists like Aristide and Saddam > > Hussein, et al. > > > After all, they share a common goal with the former and common world > > view with the latter. > > > >Do you know what they say about you, Collin? > >They say that you are so full of shit that it's finally overflowed. > >Is this true? > > > >Just curious, > >Lasse > > You'll get over it. No, I won't, you arrogant little peace of shit! Not as long as you keep trolling, littering this list and pissing in decent list member's faces with your moronic American right wing preachings. Lasse Trolling? That was my sig. Nothing more. The insults and demeaning remarks are unsuitable and lack civility. Preaching? Did I hurt your feelings somehow? Did that little thought jump out and bite you? Right wing? Somewhat. But I honestly wonder what bothers you so. Open to some intelligent, civil dialog? (off-list, of course) We can talk about Kant, Hegel, Marx, Mao, Jesus, Budda, C. S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and whatever world view is appropriate. Collin
Re: PAW - Zion National Park
> > Some you liked #4 best, so I converted it to B&W. I like it even better. > > Your thoughts? Much better. I just didn't like the muddy browns in the colour shots. > Larry from Prescott > > http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/3013800/Large > >
Re: My own DOF confusion
At 20:57 2004.03.22 -0500, you wrote: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:08:35 + From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My own DOF confusion Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lasse: Agreed, Collin's political stance appears to be a little right-wing, even by American standards, but if you don't like his posts you can always instruct your client to filter them out. :-) S And that was just my sig. Not even a discussion point. Collin
RE: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Hi Tan repeat this mantra histograms, histograms Seriously use your histograms often to make sure you're not clipping = highlights try to stay away or modify very contrasty lighting and = bracket -1 and -2 ev. Shoot raw for the 16 bit color as it will help = with smoother tonal transitions. Finally, rely on your instincts as, = despite your doubts, you are a good photographer.. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hello all. > > I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September > 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be > in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF > didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into > more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. > > My dilemma is this: > > - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a > used F4) > - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? > (snip)
Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. This has me concerned, as I will need those lenses later (e.g., 85/1.4 to replace my current MF 85/1.4, 24/2 to replace 24/2.8 I am using now, etc.). The PZ1P and F4 go for comparable prices (albeit not comparable condition) on KEH, which I have been using as a quasi-benchmark for my price checks. No matter where I go, I will end up buying new lenses in AF to replace my current MF lineup. From my research and contemplating the subject, here's what I've come up with: Pentax: Pro: I can use my old MF lenses for now Currently lenses are available, and used market is so-so for finding the fast lenses I'll need later I am very familiar with the system, and the quality of the lenses; I will not have to change much in terms of darkroom work to compensate for a new lens "type" If I find a good deal on an AF lens *NOW*, I can buy it and still use it on my Super Program Has 3 of the 4 lenses I desire: 35/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: Pentax seems to be pulling out, and making pro grade stuff less available ZERO rental support; if I need a particular lens in AF, I can't get it anywhere else, to my knowledge in Toronto, Canada Pentax lacks a good mid-range telephoto (e.g., 135/2.0), although they do offer the 135/2.8 which is FA, not FA* Nikon: Pro: F4 is a proven workhorse Cost is comparable to PZ1P @ ~$500 for used body TONNES of rental support Has the key lenses I want: 35/2.0, 135/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: I'll end up starting from scratch in terms of lens lineup Looking at side by side prints by myself and a friends F90X a few years ago, the Nikon had more contrast; this means more fiddling in the darkroom to get my procedure's down to the way I want them again. My renting is a minor issue at the moment. No matter who I go with, my first lens will undoubtedly be either the 35/2.0 from Pentax, or the 35/2.0 D from Nikon, and from there work up to a mid-telephoto, wider zoom, then telephoto. However for sports and the like, I'll need longer and faster lenses, and this is a problem area for Pentax, only in terms of availability. Build quality is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I'll be dealing with harsh environments: lots of bumping around, lots of jostling; extreme temperatures (-20 when I shoot at home up to 45+ when I shoot in the summer); lots of moisture (think dance clubs with 1000+ people all crammed into a tiny room, and everyone is sweating). When I came back from the outback last time, I had sand in my socks, which were *in my bag*, so I don't want to risk sand or moisture getting into the bodies. Lens build is also important. While I've been extremely happy with my all metal K-mount MF lenses, the newer Pentax lenses look pretty plasticy to me; I'm not sure how they'll hold up. I'd like to here comments from anybody out there who has used PZ1P, MZ-S or F4. I love my Pentax system as it is, and have built up quite a collection of gear (a bunch of lenses, a bellows [ easily one of my favorite toys; I love Macro work ], motor drives, etc.) and it has treated me well. However for AF everything changes, mainly in terms of availability (Pentax has a small market share) and build quality (everything these days seems to be made of plastic). Cheers, Patrick
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Tanya, no filter will help you. you need to learn to check your histogram periodically whenever lighting changes a lot and the exposure is critical. use a test shot to check the highlights right away. shooting digital, you can afford to take extra shots of this nature. for tricky exposures, you really have to shoot RAW. it gives you a lot more room to work with than JPEG. specifically, a full stop of underexposure is trivial to handle. tv said that he carries 18 CF cards with him when he goes on a shoot (that is the number i remember when i asked him sometime in the last 6 months). as for the flash problem, i think yours was underpowered for the lighting conditions, but that is a guess. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:43 AM Subject: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)... > The guys wore white shirts which were an absolute disaster to try and > expose. The bride wore a dark pink dress (thank god!), imagine if it had > been white, I would have been totally up proverbial the creek.
Re: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Peter, Which do you think? -frank ps: neither - I just hit "send" in error - surely it takes more than that to constitute a "bad day"!! "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:25:22 -0500 Frank is your tag line a comment on this thread, (it might be), or are you just having a bad day? _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
So I now realise. Thanks John On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:18:08 -0500, Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It doesn't know the ISO you do. You set the lens opening to account for the ISO the flash unit delivers light to match. If you set the lens opening incorrectly you'll get and incorrect exposure. John Forbes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but the AF280T has, I believe, three modes: TTL, auto and manual. With TTL, it takes its instructions from the camera. With auto it decides when to shut off, based on light received through its sensor, and the ISO. On manual, it's just full power (or a fraction). I can't see how the gun can have an "auto" mode if it doesn't know, and use, the ISO. Pray enlighten me. John On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:47:51 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "John Forbes" Subject: Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash If the flash is on manual, it will take no notice of the ISO settings, it will just deliver full power or an appropriate fraction of full power if it has 1/2 or 1/4 power settings. If you want to use the ISO settings to adjust the flash output, then use auto (on the flash), and, as you suggest, play with the ISO settings. Make that output settings. The calculator on the back of the AF 280 doesn't do anything to the flash output. The flash has two auto ranges, the guide scale tells you what the minimum/maximum ranges are for them at various ISO settings, nothing more. William Robb -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: GF Mountain. Attn: Fairygirl
Cotty, Intercourse the Penguin! -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There's a penguin on my TV. _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Frank is your tag line a comment on this thread, (it might be), or are
you just having a bad day?
frank theriault wrote:
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: M D Giess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:42:08 +
Hi all
This is my first post, so hello to everyone.
I have a question regarding flash I'd like to ask. I am taking
photos of a
band in quite a small, dark venue and I usually just use a fast lens
with high
speed film without flash. I'm after a bit more quality (i.e. smaller
aperture
and slower film) and would like to experiment a bit, but
unfortunately I have
to print a few photos for band members so I can't mess up too badly!
I have got an MZ-3 with a 400FTZ flash and when I use flash in normal
situations I simply shoot in aperture priority and let the camera
work out the
shutter and TTL flash, and if I only want a bit of fill flash I take
1 to 2
stops off using the Exposure Compensation dial which doubles as the
flash
compensation dial.
The problem I am facing is using flash to supplement low light
levels, in
effect how to balance natural light and flash. I have always
considered fill
flash as something that simply lights up a few shadows, where the
exposure
would be correct without the flash but that little burst just puts a
bit more
light where the scene is a bit dark. I am confused as to how to set the
camera to automatically use flash to supplement low light levels,
where I can
shoot off aperture priority but underexpose by two stops and use the
flash to
bump the light back up these two stops. I can't figure out how to do
it, as
on the MZ-3 the exposure and flash compensation are done by the same
dial. If
I set the flash compensation dial to take 2 stops off, I assume that the
camera will (under aperture priority) simply set the shutter speed
for 'correct' exposure and use the flash for fill only, which hard-won
experience shows is too slow ('soft' hands and drumsticks etc.). I
understand
that I can manually set the camera 2 stops underexposed and set the
flash
exposure to 2 stops over, but there's so much going on I always miss
shots if
I have to manually balance exposure - poor AF doesn't help, and the
shutter
speed dial is a pig to turn with the flash mounted (little camera and
big
fingers!) I would hence like to automate the process, does anyone
know if
this is possible?
As you can probably see, I'm quite new to the flash area, any advice or
comments would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Matt
_
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2
months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: PAW: More Cows
I don't know, I liked it better in color, not every color photograph has to be vibrant. Steve Desjardins wrote: One more try. . . Several folks have commented on how the muted colors in this picture doesn't work for them. So, how about in B&W : http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: First impressions
Sounds like fun, Boris!! BTW, I don't think you "have to ask permission". Depends what you're after. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Some of my best stuff is totally spontaneous, with no permission sought or received. Sometimes you don't have time. Other times, you just start chatting, and the "permission" is implied - you're shooting and talking, and the subject(s) know you're shooting, and don't say anything one way or the other. Other times, I specifically ask permission. Like my next PAW, which I was going to pick up today, but they screwed up the print, so it's being re-done (it was fuzzy at the bottom and after looking at the neg under the loupe, Robert agreed it was tack-sharp - unusual for me I'll admit - the lens board must have been a bit out of alignment or something). I simply saw an interesting person, and asked if I could take a picture - they said yes, so I did. So, don't sweat it. I found the whole process a bit daunting at first, and for me, snapping without asking first got me into it. After a while, the whole conversation and/or asking process comes easily. At least it did for me. I hope we'll see the results! cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: First impressions Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:07:29 +0300 Hi! Yesterday I took a day off work to visit my old friend (former Moscow uni classmate) in Jerusalem. Among other things, I took with me a little Pentax outfit - ME Super, K 24, M 35, M 50 and this little Industar lens. Mostly I've used K 24 and M 35 as indeed focal lengths were just right for the task. So I had my first actual attempt at putting the camera on my neck, setting the lens to hyperfocal distance and just walking, talking and shooting. Unlike what Shel and others recommend, I did not ask for permission - I just shot. I must say that it was very unusual feeling. It is almost as if I was walking and actually recording my memories of the day on film. It is of course doubtful that the first attempt would yield any meaningful results. Nonetheless, it was quite amazing experience... Thought I should share that with the club ... Boris _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
OT: OT
frank theriault wrote: First, welcome aboard. I hope you stick around after your flash question is answered. You'll find this forum a quite lively place, and a great source of information about Pentaxes, photography in general, and all sorts of other things, from Old English Sports Cars to "ramps" (which thanks to Stan, I recently found out is a cross between a leek and a garlic - or something like that). Not that we're "supposed to" engage in such OT traffic - indeed, some are pretty touchy about too much OT. Whatever... Ah yes, but negative opinions about the number of off-topic discussions are themselves off-topic, so we can brand those who complain as hypocrites ;-) S
Re: PAW: More Cows
>In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:17:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One more try. . . >Several folks have commented on how the muted colors in this picture doesn't work for them. So, how about in B&W : >http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ >Steven Desjardins I like the B&W better. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Christian, I think that's my most lucid post in months, no? cheers, frank ps: you smart-ass! "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:50:44 -0500 That's very interesting Frank, but what do you think Oppenheimer would say about this flash issue? _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Hi, Matt,
Well, I think I'll actually type something this time, before sending off my
sage advice, as it were.
First, welcome aboard. I hope you stick around after your flash question is
answered. You'll find this forum a quite lively place, and a great source
of information about Pentaxes, photography in general, and all sorts of
other things, from Old English Sports Cars to "ramps" (which thanks to Stan,
I recently found out is a cross between a leek and a garlic - or something
like that). Not that we're "supposed to" engage in such OT traffic -
indeed, some are pretty touchy about too much OT. Whatever...
But, there I go, wandering again...
Oh yeah, flashes. Well, I don't know much about them. Tom knows way more,
so listen to him. Listen to anyone else who posts on that topic. Not me.
I was just going to agree with tom when he asked if flash is necessary or
even desirable? It does sound like you've shot some with available light.
What was it about those results that you didn't like? You mention wanting
to shoot smaller apertures and slower film speeds. Why is it that you think
that you'll get "better quality" that way?
I'm not trying to take you to task here. It may be simply that you want a
"different look", just to see how it looks. Maybe you feel you've done all
you can do with available light. And, that's fair enough. I guess I just
wonder about your "better quality" comment.
As tom said, it may be that a flash will not be appreciated. I recently
shot a band with available light. I told them that I'd be using available
light, to which they replied, "Good, because we wouldn't really want a flash
to be used anyway". The music they play is quiet and comtemplative - they
do a lot of improvising, so they need to be able to hear each other, and
concentrate on the music. A flash would have been very disruptive.
OTOH, I've shot several shows of a friend's Loud Rock Band. They didn't
care if I used flash - in fact, at one point I was using a 19mm lens, about
18 inches from them, and they didn't even notice. It was fine with them,
and they liked the results (even if I didn't).
If you've already considered all of these things, then I apologize for
sticking my nose in. Simply do as the rest of the list does, and ignore me.
Whatever you decide to do, I hope it turns out, and you should post the
results so we can see. Here's my last shoot with the "quiet band", my first
shoot at available light in these circumstances - not great stuff to be
sure, but better than I thought it might turn out:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=383331
BTW, do you know about PUG and PAW? I don't know how long you've been
lurking (if at all), so you may be up to speed on this stuff. If not, we
can fill you in if you're interested.
Thanks for your indulgence on a long and rambling post - I'm amazed that you
actually read this far down!!
cheers,
frank in Toronto,
Canada
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: M D Giess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:42:08 +
Hi all
This is my first post, so hello to everyone.
I have a question regarding flash I'd like to ask. I am taking photos of a
band in quite a small, dark venue and I usually just use a fast lens with
high
speed film without flash. I'm after a bit more quality (i.e. smaller
aperture
and slower film) and would like to experiment a bit, but unfortunately I
have
to print a few photos for band members so I can't mess up too badly!
I have got an MZ-3 with a 400FTZ flash and when I use flash in normal
situations I simply shoot in aperture priority and let the camera work out
the
shutter and TTL flash, and if I only want a bit of fill flash I take 1 to 2
stops off using the Exposure Compensation dial which doubles as the flash
compensation dial.
The problem I am facing is using flash to supplement low light levels, in
effect how to balance natural light and flash. I have always considered
fill
flash as something that simply lights up a few shadows, where the exposure
would be correct without the flash but that little burst just puts a bit
more
light where the scene is a bit dark. I am confused as to how to set the
camera to automatically use flash to supplement low light levels, where I
can
shoot off aperture priority but underexpose by two stops and use the flash
to
bump the light back up these two stops. I can't figure out how to do it,
as
on the MZ-3 the exposure and flash compensation are done by the same dial.
If
I set the flash compensation dial to take 2 stops off, I assume that the
camera will (under aperture priority) simply set the shutter speed
for 'correct' exposure and use the flash for fill only, which hard-won
experience shows is too slow ('soft'
Re: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
That's very interesting Frank, but what do you think Oppenheimer would say about this flash issue? Christian - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 5:45 PM Subject: RE: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash > > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > >
RE: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: M D Giess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:42:08 +
Hi all
This is my first post, so hello to everyone.
I have a question regarding flash I'd like to ask. I am taking photos of a
band in quite a small, dark venue and I usually just use a fast lens with
high
speed film without flash. I'm after a bit more quality (i.e. smaller
aperture
and slower film) and would like to experiment a bit, but unfortunately I
have
to print a few photos for band members so I can't mess up too badly!
I have got an MZ-3 with a 400FTZ flash and when I use flash in normal
situations I simply shoot in aperture priority and let the camera work out
the
shutter and TTL flash, and if I only want a bit of fill flash I take 1 to 2
stops off using the Exposure Compensation dial which doubles as the flash
compensation dial.
The problem I am facing is using flash to supplement low light levels, in
effect how to balance natural light and flash. I have always considered
fill
flash as something that simply lights up a few shadows, where the exposure
would be correct without the flash but that little burst just puts a bit
more
light where the scene is a bit dark. I am confused as to how to set the
camera to automatically use flash to supplement low light levels, where I
can
shoot off aperture priority but underexpose by two stops and use the flash
to
bump the light back up these two stops. I can't figure out how to do it,
as
on the MZ-3 the exposure and flash compensation are done by the same dial.
If
I set the flash compensation dial to take 2 stops off, I assume that the
camera will (under aperture priority) simply set the shutter speed
for 'correct' exposure and use the flash for fill only, which hard-won
experience shows is too slow ('soft' hands and drumsticks etc.). I
understand
that I can manually set the camera 2 stops underexposed and set the flash
exposure to 2 stops over, but there's so much going on I always miss shots
if
I have to manually balance exposure - poor AF doesn't help, and the shutter
speed dial is a pig to turn with the flash mounted (little camera and big
fingers!) I would hence like to automate the process, does anyone know if
this is possible?
As you can probably see, I'm quite new to the flash area, any advice or
comments would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Matt
_
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months
FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Need help removing a stripped screw
On 22/3/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: >The ways most folks have been mentioning here are fine for getting a larger >screw or bolt out, but can be disasterous when tried with the tiny screws >we are >talking about in cameas. Good point Tom. All this chat reminds me of a brilliant cartoon I saw years ago in an offroad club magazine. The scene is a mechanic sat forlornly next to his 4X4 (a Pinzgauer if I recall), the front axle cocked up in the air and the wheel off. The chap is staring at the hub and saying: 'Look here, I am an experienced and resourceful mechanic and you are simply a lug nut. Now are you going to come off, or do I have top take the lump hammer to you?' LOL. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions
The link would be great if I had anything but the Flash Meter III! :-( Christian - Original Message - From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:34 PM Subject: Re: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > Christian, > > Try this link > > http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent/CPG/CPG_SupportCenter/ManualResults > > Bill > - Original Message - > From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:16 PM > Subject: Re: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > > > > While I appreciate your answers, the first thing I did was search google > and > > Minolta's website (before asking the list). Unfortunately, Minolta does > not > > support its old products the way Pentax does. The Flash Meter III was not > > available for download from Minolta. > > > > Sure, I can buy a photocopy, but I was trying to be cheap and hope that > > someone on this great list would have it available, much as I have made > > various manuals available for my fellow list-members when Pentax did not > > have them. To be honest, except for postage, I am not willing to for it. > > > > Thanks again. > > > > Christian > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Michel Carrère-Gée" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:48 PM > > Subject: Re: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > > > > > > > Christian a écrit : > > > > > > >Anyone have an instruction book for this meter? I just bought one off > > KEH. > > > >It works great, but I want to make sure I am using it correctly and to > > its > > > >full potential. I'm hoping someone could photocopy or scan it and send > > it > > > >to me. > > > > > > > > > > > Google say me: > > > http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001apM > > > > > > http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent/CPG/CPG_SupportCenter/ManualResults > > > > > > > > >
Re: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions
It is not the auto meter III F. It is the Flash Meter III. The controls and functions are very different between the two. Thanks! Christian - Original Message - From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > If it's the Auto Meter III F, I was able to download a manual from the > Minolta website. > > Bill > > - Original Message - > From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:33 PM > Subject: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > > > > Anyone have an instruction book for this meter? I just bought one off > KEH. > > It works great, but I want to make sure I am using it correctly and to its > > full potential. I'm hoping someone could photocopy or scan it and send it > > to me. > > > > TIA > > > > Christian > > > > > >
Re: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions
Christian, Try this link http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent/CPG/CPG_SupportCenter/ManualResults Bill - Original Message - From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:16 PM Subject: Re: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > While I appreciate your answers, the first thing I did was search google and > Minolta's website (before asking the list). Unfortunately, Minolta does not > support its old products the way Pentax does. The Flash Meter III was not > available for download from Minolta. > > Sure, I can buy a photocopy, but I was trying to be cheap and hope that > someone on this great list would have it available, much as I have made > various manuals available for my fellow list-members when Pentax did not > have them. To be honest, except for postage, I am not willing to for it. > > Thanks again. > > Christian > > - Original Message - > From: "Michel Carrère-Gée" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:48 PM > Subject: Re: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > > > > Christian a écrit : > > > > >Anyone have an instruction book for this meter? I just bought one off > KEH. > > >It works great, but I want to make sure I am using it correctly and to > its > > >full potential. I'm hoping someone could photocopy or scan it and send > it > > >to me. > > > > > > > > Google say me: > > http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001apM > > > http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent/CPG/CPG_SupportCenter/ManualResults > > > >
Re: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions
If it's the Auto Meter III F, I was able to download a manual from the Minolta website. Bill - Original Message - From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:33 PM Subject: OT: Minolta Flash Meter III instructions > Anyone have an instruction book for this meter? I just bought one off KEH. > It works great, but I want to make sure I am using it correctly and to its > full potential. I'm hoping someone could photocopy or scan it and send it > to me. > > TIA > > Christian > >
Re: PAW: More Cows
One more try. . . Several folks have commented on how the muted colors in this picture doesn't work for them. So, how about in B&W : http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FS: FA* 24mm f/2.0
The lens itself is in excellent condition; the hood has moderate wear from being carried in the bag with the other stuff. Can send pics if anyone's interested. Price? Well, make an offer. It's just sitting there, so I am inclined to sell for the low side of fair value. Please email privately for further info. Cheers, Bucky - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
OT - UK only - TV Surgeon
Any UK listers at a loose end this evening (actually in 10 mins) might find a TV program interesting: 'Your Life in Their Hands' follows heart surgeon Stephen Westaby in his role as world renowned cardiac specialist, including artificial heart implantation. I've filmed with him a few times, including open heart surgery. Quite a character. BBC 1 9pm Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
> -Original Message-
> From: M D Giess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I am confused
> as to how to set the camera to automatically use flash to
> supplement low light levels, where I can shoot off aperture
> priority but underexpose by two stops and use the flash to
> bump the light back up these two stops. I can't figure out
> how to do it, as on the MZ-3 the exposure and flash
> compensation are done by the same dial.
I don't believe you can set ambient and flash compensation independently if
you're not in manual mode with this camera.
> If I set the flash
> compensation dial to take 2 stops off, I assume that the
> camera will (under aperture priority) simply set the shutter
> speed for 'correct' exposure and use the flash for fill only,
> which hard-won experience shows is too slow ('soft' hands and
> drumsticks etc.).
Your exposure will be 2 stops underexposed. The ratio of ambient to flash
will depend on the ambient light level, and whether or not that particular
camera decides to go with the lowest safe handheld speed or sets a really
long shutter speed.
> I understand that I can manually set the
> camera 2 stops underexposed and set the flash exposure to 2
> stops over,
Well, you could do that, but your shots would have 2 stops too much flash.
> but there's so much going on I always miss shots
> if I have to manually balance exposure - poor AF doesn't
> help, and the shutter speed dial is a pig to turn with the
> flash mounted (little camera and big
> fingers!) I would hence like to automate the process, does
> anyone know if this is possible?
First, are you sure you're allowed to use flash? Are you sure you want to
use flash in this situation? A flash is going to kill all the ambience of
that sort of situation...Studdert does this sort of thing all the time,
maybe he'll chime in here...
Anyway, if you want to proceed, your best option is to drag the shutter. In
manual mode set a fairly long shutter speed, maybe 2 or 3 stops slower than
your safe handholding speed. Set your aperture as wide as you're comfortable
with. Leave your compensation dial at zero.
OTOH, this might not work very well in this situation because it mostly
works to bring up backgrounds. If your subjects are spotlit the backgrounds
will be almost black.
A common error is to think that you can make up for underexposure with a
little blip of flash. It doesn't really work that way...if you're
underexposing with your ambient settings, you must set your flash comp to
zero. Either your ambient or your flash must be the correct exposure. If
both are under, then you're under.
Flash/ambient compensation math -
-1 + -1 = -1
-2 + 0 = 0
-2 + +2 = +2
Your exposure is whichever of the 2 is higher.
In order to mix ambient and flash, both have to be pretty close to the
correct exposure. If it's really dark, there just isn't enough ambient to
mix in
tv
Re: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long)
That's also a part of the problem. Dag T wrote: One problem is that if the CoC is much less than the usual number today, 0.035mm, the diffraction limit comes into play. With a CoC at half this value, 0.017mm, you will never achieve a sharp image with the aperture set at 22. DagT På 22. mar. 2004 kl. 17.18 skrev Peter J. Alling: The Circle of confusion required for an acceptable depth of field changes depending on the format. The smaller the sensor size, the smaller the cof must be. Also the desired enlargement factor should also be taken into account, (although that last is difficult). This unfortunately isn't hard science it's more like cooking.
Re: Rome Photoshow and PDML meeting
This brings up a very serious question about Spanish women. One I will refrain from asking since I'm more likely to get into trouble than not... (I'll let Frank do it). Bob W wrote: Hi, Monday, March 22, 2004, 9:17:24 AM, Flavio wrote: Ops... I notice only now I mistyped Gianfranco's name in a funny feminine version (Gianfranca) ... not that anybody could have doubts, looking at the picture... well, you know, some of these Latin women... One of my friends taught English in Spain for a couple of years. She asked her students to write an essay about someone they admired, and one of the students wrote about my friend. The essay included the immortal line '... she is very beautiful because she doesn't have a moustache'.
Re: PAW
Rules? This is the PDML, where did you get the idea there might be rules? You can submit any damned thing you want, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what are the rules, if any, for PAW? Can anyone submit and is there a central posting point? John G
Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
It doesn't know the ISO you do. You set the lens opening to account for the ISO the flash unit delivers light to match. If you set the lens opening incorrectly you'll get and incorrect exposure. John Forbes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but the AF280T has, I believe, three modes: TTL, auto and manual. With TTL, it takes its instructions from the camera. With auto it decides when to shut off, based on light received through its sensor, and the ISO. On manual, it's just full power (or a fraction). I can't see how the gun can have an "auto" mode if it doesn't know, and use, the ISO. Pray enlighten me. John On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:47:51 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "John Forbes" Subject: Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash If the flash is on manual, it will take no notice of the ISO settings, it will just deliver full power or an appropriate fraction of full power if it has 1/2 or 1/4 power settings. If you want to use the ISO settings to adjust the flash output, then use auto (on the flash), and, as you suggest, play with the ISO settings. Make that output settings. The calculator on the back of the AF 280 doesn't do anything to the flash output. The flash has two auto ranges, the guide scale tells you what the minimum/maximum ranges are for them at various ISO settings, nothing more. William Robb
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
If there is an issue with sensors and meters picking up ambient light and affecting a shot (too dark or washed out) then using a flash in manual mode may be the easiest option. For candids where you're working with a consistent distance from the subject this can work. If you have a high-output flash unit (GN120 or greater) there's often enough reflection around the room that the flash's coverage resolves and ambient light issues and greatly reduces the possibility of errors in exposure. I know a number of wedding pros who do this -- maintain a consistent subject framing (which providess a consistent camera/flash- to-subject distance) and then they don't worry about sensors and meters. Sometimes all the technology available just turns a simple matter into a complicated one. Collin
Re: PAW#4: Kid
På 22. mar. 2004 kl. 20.49 skrev Boris Liberman: Hi! DT> I´ve got three of them, so I get some pictures of them. Boys will DT> never be as cute as Shels daughter, but... Substituting Shel for Boris... Sorry about that :-) DT> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2217012&size=lg Dag, I really think that leaving a piece of his eyes out does hurt the frame. I wouldn't care about ears for example, but eyes - they make the whole frame and one of them is not fully there... I could produce various theories (a.k.a. excuses) why you might have wanted to leave a tip of an eye out, but I wouldn't. I'd rather ask you - why? To me it is simply because it adds some intensity to the image. Being unable to see the eye makes the face seem closer. I liked this intensity because it fits very much to his interest in what I was doing, or rather, the interest any child has in his parents. If I had left the eye uncropped (I do have a couple of more exposures with the whole eye) the kid would seem calm, which he wasn´t. I do appreciate the thought though. I almost feel like the only daughter photographer here... No offence to other fathers of daughters... Somebody has got to do it . I´ve got three sons at 4.5, 2.5 and 1 year old, so that is my job... DagT
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
I do not have a digital camera, so I can only speak in generalities. But digital to my understanding is much like slide film. Blown highlights are unrecoverable. You might try setting exposure compensation to underexpose 1/2 to 2 stops depending on the brightness of those highlights. I might just leave it set on -1/2 stop all the time on the principle that an underexposed image will be salvageable where an overexposed one would not if it were me. Since I believe you are used to negative film, this is probably the opposite of what you do without thinking. Which means working on retraining yourself a bit. -- Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: The reason for this post is to ask for your help. Since shooting with the *istD, I have had MAJOR problems with blown out highlights. I shot a wedding last weekend which was on the beach at 11am and almost every shot with the water in the background is totally blown out. Likewise, when using flash, I am having alot of overexposure problems too. And then, on the other hand, a blown out shot will be followed by a shot that has a blue sky and for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is I'd done differently. Now my bg concern and problem here is that I will be shooting the kids for this agency for two full days over a Saturday and a Sunday. The light will be varying alot over the time and they will all be shot on the beach! Here is a link to the type of images they will be expecting: -- 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: My own DOF confusion
From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:14 PM Subject: Re: My own DOF confusion > Keep an eye on the Left. > They complain any time we go after any group that hates America. > They were ambivalent about going after Al Queda & going into Afghanistan. > They really opposed overthrowing Marxists like Aristide and Saddam Hussein, et al. > After all, they share a common goal with the former and common world view with the > latter. Do you know what they say about you, Collin? They say that you are so full of shit that it's finally overflowed. Is this true? Just curious, Lasse
Re: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long)
One problem is that if the CoC is much less than the usual number today, 0.035mm, the diffraction limit comes into play. With a CoC at half this value, 0.017mm, you will never achieve a sharp image with the aperture set at 22. DagT På 22. mar. 2004 kl. 17.18 skrev Peter J. Alling: The Circle of confusion required for an acceptable depth of field changes depending on the format. The smaller the sensor size, the smaller the cof must be. Also the desired enlargement factor should also be taken into account, (although that last is difficult). This unfortunately isn't hard science it's more like cooking.
Re: WOW - 60th Anniversary Photo
Sorry Shel, In Photoshop 7 I 1) set black and white points in 'curves' 2) Created a new layer containing only the sky 3) Blurred that layer and merged it with background 4) Used Polaroid's free dust and scratch removal plugin 5) Adjusted lightness and contrast to taste. Pretty simple really. -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long)
Here we go again. Basically DOF depends on COC, magnification, and aperture (not f-stop). If you decide to use the same size final image, say an 8x10, then COC and overall magnification become constants. So the DOF depends entirely on the apperture. D=f/N where f = focal length, N = f-stop, and D = diameter of the aperture. Notice that f and N are used only to determine D, they in themselves have nothing to do with DOF. From the above it is obvious that the smaller format will have greater DOF simply because the aperture at a given f-stop is smaller. For what it is worth, subject-distance, focal-length, and enlargement-factor determine magnification. These factors are why those numbers are involved in the formulas you usually see. COC if you are talking about an 8x10, or 8x12, print is a constant. Why someone would want to know the DOF on the negative is beyond me unless they are only making contact prints. -- Jens Bladt wrote: Some of you people are very knowledgeable when it comes to optical science. So, I would like to ask you this: On the internet there is an ongoing discussion about this subeject. Some say, that smaller formats have greater DOF (Photonet). They say that in order to get comparable images, I must use shorter focal length to go with the smaller format, thus achieving greater DOF. They are using circle of confusion (COF) theories to support their point of view. I (and Photozone) say, that smaller formats only show a part of the image, captured by a specific focal lenght. If I shoot the same scene twice with the same camera, same lens (focal length( and same aperture and focus point, you will get identical images on let's say APS and 35mm film - that is for the part, that is covered by the smaller format (e.i. APS). I say that the DOF of these two identical images - is exactly the same. I say that focal length, aperure and focal distance determins the DOF. IMO COF theories are somewhat subjective, because the point to where a point looks like a disc, depends on the degree of enlargement. I think that the smaller image, captured by a shorter focal length needs more enlargement, thus less appearing less sharp. What is right and wrong here? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -- 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: PAW#4: Kid
Hi! DT> I´ve got three of them, so I get some pictures of them. Boys will DT> never be as cute as Shels daughter, but... Substituting Shel for Boris... DT> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2217012&size=lg Dag, I really think that leaving a piece of his eyes out does hurt the frame. I wouldn't care about ears for example, but eyes - they make the whole frame and one of them is not fully there... I could produce various theories (a.k.a. excuses) why you might have wanted to leave a tip of an eye out, but I wouldn't. I'd rather ask you - why? I do appreciate the thought though. I almost feel like the only daughter photographer here... No offence to other fathers of daughters... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash
Hi all
This is my first post, so hello to everyone.
I have a question regarding flash I'd like to ask. I am taking photos of a
band in quite a small, dark venue and I usually just use a fast lens with high
speed film without flash. I'm after a bit more quality (i.e. smaller aperture
and slower film) and would like to experiment a bit, but unfortunately I have
to print a few photos for band members so I can't mess up too badly!
I have got an MZ-3 with a 400FTZ flash and when I use flash in normal
situations I simply shoot in aperture priority and let the camera work out the
shutter and TTL flash, and if I only want a bit of fill flash I take 1 to 2
stops off using the Exposure Compensation dial which doubles as the flash
compensation dial.
The problem I am facing is using flash to supplement low light levels, in
effect how to balance natural light and flash. I have always considered fill
flash as something that simply lights up a few shadows, where the exposure
would be correct without the flash but that little burst just puts a bit more
light where the scene is a bit dark. I am confused as to how to set the
camera to automatically use flash to supplement low light levels, where I can
shoot off aperture priority but underexpose by two stops and use the flash to
bump the light back up these two stops. I can't figure out how to do it, as
on the MZ-3 the exposure and flash compensation are done by the same dial. If
I set the flash compensation dial to take 2 stops off, I assume that the
camera will (under aperture priority) simply set the shutter speed
for 'correct' exposure and use the flash for fill only, which hard-won
experience shows is too slow ('soft' hands and drumsticks etc.). I understand
that I can manually set the camera 2 stops underexposed and set the flash
exposure to 2 stops over, but there's so much going on I always miss shots if
I have to manually balance exposure - poor AF doesn't help, and the shutter
speed dial is a pig to turn with the flash mounted (little camera and big
fingers!) I would hence like to automate the process, does anyone know if
this is possible?
As you can probably see, I'm quite new to the flash area, any advice or
comments would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Matt
Re: PAW - Tres Amigos (The Chiclet Bandits)
That is so cool! I wish you would remember the names of the dusty small towns that you came from, my grandparents are from that general area! The pic evokes so many memories of going down there to visit relatives. Celaya was the "big" town, then closer by was "Salvaterria", and "Acambaro". My grandmother owned a little store very much like the one in the picture. And of course there were always little kids selling chicklets, especially near the bus terminal. The pic is great, I have many similar pics of that time/place. Do you have any others? rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: I'd been traveling on a "chicken bus" for the better part of a day. The bus stopped at numerous small, dusty towns en route to Celeya from I-don't-remember-where-I-got-on. If any of you have traveled on such buses you know the joy and frustration that goes with such a journey. I stepped off the bus in one of these towns feeling as dusty as the streets, my throat parched, and smelling of chickens and goats. I was greeted by "Los Tres Amigos" who wished to sell me some Chiclets. They had but one package of the gum between them, and it appeared that I would be their last customer for the day. I asked that they show me to where I could get something to drink, and the took me to a nearby bodega, where I was able to quaff a warm soft drink, and where I bought them a small carton of Chiclets. Here they are, proudly showing off their new inventory, while the shop keeper looks on. I tried a little sepia conversion in Photoshop to perhaps give the photo a little more "feel" for the situation. This is a work in progress, and I'd really appreciate your comments. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/tres-s.html
Image Storage Update
For you who shoot LOTS of digital here's a hardware change that you're certain to apprecieate. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040322/D81FJ1VO1.html A full 8.5 gig of storage. Collin
Re: PAW
Rules? Nah ... anyone can present a photo, made with any camera, lens, or format. All you have to do is put the photo up on your web site, or use one of the many free sites available on the internet. I guess the only "rule" might be to keep the photos to a reasonable size, and post JPEG files. shel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > what are the rules, if any, for PAW? Can anyone submit and is there a > central posting point? > > John G
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Actually, I believe the 360 is on the operating table at the moment. Different John. On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:11:04 -0800, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello John, Why do you say that? She is using an AF360FGZ which does have flash compensation on it. Instead of dialing it into the body, you dial it into the flash (like Nikon and others). I used to do as you described with my PZ-1p's and AF500FTZ and now do the same with the *istD and AF360FGZ. I would agree that the amount of flash being used may be too weak. Tanya, you are aware that the *istD/AF360FGZ combo can do high speed flash synch above 1/180 sec aren't you? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: [2] Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
Dave, For fill flash with Auto mode on a flash, I have found the easiest approach is to vary the ISO setting on the flash for compensation, rather than fiddling with the sensor setting as you are suggesting. So in this case, set the lens to the setting of the flash auto mode and then change the ISO setting on the flash to get the fill amount you want. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, March 21, 2004, 8:08:25 PM, you wrote: bcin> Joe. bcin> Thats the info i remember receiving,but lost during the email problem.Just could not bcin> remember what it bcin> was. bcin> One other thought.If i meter in Av mode for f 8(one of bcin> the auto settings on the 280T) but bcin> set the auto bcin> dial on f 4(the other setting)will that give me less of a burst of flash,as it will be bcin> thinking it needs light bcin> for a more wide open lens,or is this not connected either if on manual. bcin> I'v looked at the manual but all my flash books seem bcin> vauge on fill,or i just am not bcin> picking it up. bcin> Dave bcin> > As far as the question about the setting on the bcin> back of the flash, >> I'm quite sure the ASA setting on the back of the AF280T is just a >> visual calculator to let you know what to set the lens at and the >> effective flash distance, etc. It's not connected to anything that >> affects the flash output itself or when it's quenched when the flash >> is on auto or TTL. >> >> Joe >> >> >> > >> >If i use manual exposure(PZ-1 and SP being used) and set the 280t to >> >manual and if using >> >iso 100 >> >film,set the back of the flash to either iso 200 or 400,will this >> >lessen the out put to >> >just add a bit of fill to >> >the face shadows. >> >Or is there another method you like. >> >Again sorry for having to reask this question. >> > >> >Thanks >> > >> >Dave >> >>
Re: My own DOF confusion
You might also notice another DOF difference that's obvious when one thinks about it. A lens @ max aperture f3.5 is automatically SHOWING more DOF in finder than a 1.7! So you always SEE more right from the start! It would be like keeping your 1.7 lens @ 3.5 and holding in the DOF Preview all the time. Same thing. CRB -- Keep an eye on the Left. They complain any time we go after any group that hates America. They were ambivalent about going after Al Queda & going into Afghanistan. They really opposed overthrowing Marxists like Aristide and Saddam Hussein, et al. After all, they share a common goal with the former and common world view with the latter. -- just me --
Re:[2] Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
Joe. Thats the info i remember receiving,but lost during the email problem.Just could not remember what it was. One other thought.If i meter in Av mode for f 8(one of the auto settings on the 280T) but set the auto dial on f 4(the other setting)will that give me less of a burst of flash,as it will be thinking it needs light for a more wide open lens,or is this not connected either if on manual. I'v looked at the manual but all my flash books seem vauge on fill,or i just am not picking it up. Dave > As far as the question about the setting on the back of the flash, > I'm quite sure the ASA setting on the back of the AF280T is just a > visual calculator to let you know what to set the lens at and the > effective flash distance, etc. It's not connected to anything that > affects the flash output itself or when it's quenched when the flash > is on auto or TTL. > > Joe > > > > > >If i use manual exposure(PZ-1 and SP being used) and set the 280t to > >manual and if using > >iso 100 > >film,set the back of the flash to either iso 200 or 400,will this > >lessen the out put to > >just add a bit of fill to > >the face shadows. > >Or is there another method you like. > >Again sorry for having to reask this question. > > > >Thanks > > > >Dave > >
RE: LAPDML? was:RE: It's official!!
Tan, I'm interested, I'd love a LAPDML. Also just to make sure, I'm the second Paul, Eriksson. /Paul From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: LAPDML? was:RE: It's official!! Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:42:31 +1000 So, who in LA was interested in doing this? Paul Steinquist? Who else? I have the option to overnight in LA with my plane ticket and would be more than happy to do so. It will be the night of Wednesday, 26 May, and my flight will be getting into LA around 10am... tan. _ Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms all in one place at MSN Money! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/home.asp
RE: My own DOF confusion
Alin Rule of thumb is appr. (AFAIR) 1/3 in front of focus point, 2/3 behind. All the best Jens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Alin Flaider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. marts 2004 12:30 Til: Boris Liberman Emne: Re: My own DOF confusion Boris, I understand you were comparing DOF markings on the lenses and not DOF as resulted from your own photographic experience. Then your problem does not exist per se: simply Pentax is more conservative with DOF estimation than the Russian manufacturer. These markings are truly to be taken as a guide. Generally you need to stop down one to two more stops to achieve the desired result, depending on how much do you wish to enlarge the picture. [DOF is a function of magnification factor (or focal length, if distance to subject is constant), aperture value and size of circle of confusion. These are all invariant to the optics design; the later can only impact slightly on the distribution of DOF around the point of focus: more DOF in front or behind the focus point.] Servus, Alin BL> Anyway... I've compared the readings of DOF scale of this lens and my BL> M 50/2.0. Thankfully, it has proper DOF scale unlike modern FA 50/1.7 BL> that I also have. Industar has considerably bigger (right term?) DOF BL> for the same aperture. I cannot give the exact numbers, as I am in my BL> office. BL> Nonetheless, I am confused - how can that be? I've been told that if BL> the lens has less elements (Industar is 4 lenses in 3 groups, if I am BL> not mistaken), then it presumably should have a bigger DOF.
PAW Week 5
I haven't got a title for this one, since the one I had in mind is a blatant lie to anyone who has even a trace of a clue. This is the center 3rd of a 35mm frame. I was at an air show and near the end of the day I noticed the moon hanging in the sky just about where a number of the planes taking off would have to pass, so this isn't quite a grab shot, but it wasn't quite planned either. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PAW_--_Week5.html
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Yes it will. Works just the same way. The big trick here is that TTL readings (not P-TTL) seem to be a bit off. With my AF400T I normally dial in about -1 stop for regular flash - so the amount for fill might be greater than you would think. This would be a good time to experiment (strong suit of digital) to figure out just how much to dial in. But yes, can be done. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 8:13:56 AM, you wrote: RB> Her FGZ is bust at the moment - so she cant do this so easily. Will RB> using the EXP comp on the body do the same thing when in manual EXP mode RB> on the body? This was what people suggested for the MZ-S? >> -Original Message- >> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 22 March 2004 16:11 >> To: John Francis >> Subject: Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)... >> >> >> Hello John, >> >> Why do you say that? She is using an AF360FGZ which does >> have flash compensation on it. Instead of dialing it into >> the body, you dial it into the flash (like Nikon and others). >> I used to do as you described with my PZ-1p's and AF500FTZ >> and now do the same with the *istD and AF360FGZ. >> >> I would agree that the amount of flash being used may be too weak. >> >> Tanya, you are aware that the *istD/AF360FGZ combo can do >> high speed flash synch above 1/180 sec aren't you? >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> Monday, March 22, 2004, 2:23:58 AM, you wrote: >> >> >> JF> If you are blowing out the background (or underexposing the face) >> JF> then the problem is that the flash isn't putting out >> enough light. >> JF> Unfortunately this is an area where the *ist-D is nowhere near as >> JF> good as the PZ-1p. With the PZ-1p it's straightforward - >> just adjust >> JF> the flash compensation to dial up the amount of flash >> output. You >> JF> can't do that on the *ist-D. >> >> >> >> >>
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Hello Tanya, Well, that certainly changes things. The AF360FGZ is about the only flash right now that will allow high speed flash synch and adjustable compensation for the flash output. Your other flashes are going to make it slower to work with - you really need a more versatile backup - either another 360 or some other flash that gives you more control of automatic and manual settings. I'm with you on sticking to the digital solution and working around the problem. There have been some good suggestions concerning light modification (diffusers, reflectors) that should be looked into. Congrats on getting the shoot! -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 5:22:48 AM, you wrote: TMP> Hi everyone, TMP> Thanks so much for advice and suggestions... >Snip< TMP> Next to Bruce - I probably should have explained a little better. My TMP> AF360fgz is still in the repair shop since my little tripod accident a few TMP> weeks back. I have been shooting with the Sigma EF 430st and the Sigma EF TMP> 500st. Like Bill Robb, I gave up shooting TTL with the *ist D about five TMP> minutes after I received it and have been shooting using M mode (manual TMP> exposure) and just using the flash as fill. This is tough with these two TMP> Sigma flash guns as you only have the option of either full (mh), 1/16th TMP> (ml) or ttl. So half the time, if I use MH I get too much output, and the TMP> other half, if I use ML, I get too little.
Re: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long)
The Circle of confusion required for an acceptable depth of field changes depending on the format. The smaller the sensor size, the smaller the cof must be. Also the desired enlargement factor should also be taken into account, (although that last is difficult). This unfortunately isn't hard science it's more like cooking. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long) Some of you people are very knowledgeable when it comes to optical science. So, I would like to ask you this: On the internet there is an ongoing discussion about this subeject. Some say, that smaller formats have greater DOF (Photonet). They say that in order to get comparable images, I must use shorter focal length to go with the smaller format, thus achieving greater DOF. They are using circle of confusion (COF) theories to support their point of view. I (and Photozone) say, that smaller formats only show a part of the image, captured by a specific focal lenght. If I shoot the same scene twice with the same camera, same lens (focal length( and same aperture and focus point, you will get identical images on let's say APS and 35mm film - that is for the part, that is covered by the smaller format (e.i. APS). I say that the DOF of these two identical images - is exactly the same. I say that focal length, aperure and focal distance determins the DOF. This part is true, to an extent. However, if you are going to use the same focal length, but change formats, then really, camera to subject distance pretty much has to change to be photographically useful. Or, if you are going to change formats, but not camera to subject distance, then you need to change lenses. In theory, I think you are correct. In practice, I find that I have to stop down a bit more on 6x7 to get similar DOF as I get with 35mm, presuming a similar angle of view is being done on both cameras. IMO COF theories are somewhat subjective, because the point to where a point looks like a disc, depends on the degree of enlargement. I think that the smaller image, captured by a shorter focal length needs more enlargement, thus less appearing less sharp. Well, yes. Of course. William Robb
RE: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Her FGZ is bust at the moment - so she cant do this so easily. Will using the EXP comp on the body do the same thing when in manual EXP mode on the body? This was what people suggested for the MZ-S? > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 March 2004 16:11 > To: John Francis > Subject: Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)... > > > Hello John, > > Why do you say that? She is using an AF360FGZ which does > have flash compensation on it. Instead of dialing it into > the body, you dial it into the flash (like Nikon and others). > I used to do as you described with my PZ-1p's and AF500FTZ > and now do the same with the *istD and AF360FGZ. > > I would agree that the amount of flash being used may be too weak. > > Tanya, you are aware that the *istD/AF360FGZ combo can do > high speed flash synch above 1/180 sec aren't you? > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Monday, March 22, 2004, 2:23:58 AM, you wrote: > > > JF> If you are blowing out the background (or underexposing the face) > JF> then the problem is that the flash isn't putting out > enough light. > JF> Unfortunately this is an area where the *ist-D is nowhere near as > JF> good as the PZ-1p. With the PZ-1p it's straightforward - > just adjust > JF> the flash compensation to dial up the amount of flash > output. You > JF> can't do that on the *ist-D. > > > > >
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Hello John, Why do you say that? She is using an AF360FGZ which does have flash compensation on it. Instead of dialing it into the body, you dial it into the flash (like Nikon and others). I used to do as you described with my PZ-1p's and AF500FTZ and now do the same with the *istD and AF360FGZ. I would agree that the amount of flash being used may be too weak. Tanya, you are aware that the *istD/AF360FGZ combo can do high speed flash synch above 1/180 sec aren't you? -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 2:23:58 AM, you wrote: JF> If you are blowing out the background (or underexposing the face) then the JF> problem is that the flash isn't putting out enough light. Unfortunately JF> this is an area where the *ist-D is nowhere near as good as the PZ-1p. JF> With the PZ-1p it's straightforward - just adjust the flash compensation JF> to dial up the amount of flash output. You can't do that on the *ist-D.
RE: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long)
Thanks DagT >Both, depending on you priorities. If angle of view is important you say the first, if DOF is more important you say the >>>latter. In addition, as you say, the degree of enlargement also plays a part, along with resolution/diffraction limits etc. I guess it matters who is asking (digital or 35mm enthusiasts) I have allways regarded DOF as sometihning like this: The speed of which sharpness is decreasing - from the focal point - to both sides of the focus point - further away towards infinity, and towards the camera. This "speed" is determined by the physical, optical laws rather than a subjective opinion about what is sharp and what isn't. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. marts 2004 10:33 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long) > Fra: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Some of you people are very knowledgeable when it comes to optical science. > So, I would like to ask you this: > > On the internet there is an ongoing discussion about this subeject. > Some say, that smaller formats have greater DOF (Photonet). They say that in > order to get comparable images, I must use shorter focal length to go with > the smaller format, thus achieving greater DOF. They are using circle of > confusion (COF) theories to support their point of view. If you want the same field of view, that is correct. > I (and Photozone) say, that smaller formats only show a part of the image, > captured by a specific focal lenght. If I shoot the same scene twice with > the same camera, same lens (focal length( and same aperture and focus point, > you will get identical images on let's say APS and 35mm film - that is for > the part, that is covered by the smaller format (e.i. APS). I say that the > DOF of these two identical images - is exactly the same. I say that focal > length, aperure and focal distance determins the DOF. If field of view is unimportant, that is correct. The APS size sensor simply crops the image. > IMO COF theories are somewhat subjective, because the point to where a point > looks like a disc, depends on the degree of enlargement. I think that the > smaller image, captured by a shorter focal length needs more enlargement, > thus less appearing less sharp. > What is right and wrong here? Both, depending on you priorities. If angle of view is important you say the first, if DOF is more important you say the latter. In addition, as you say, the degree of enlargement also plays a part, along with resolution/diffraction limits etc. This image: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=13611 is impossible to make with an APS size sensor, because of the combination of shallow DOF and field of view. This was made using a 28mm @ 1:2.0. A corresponding 18mm will not be able to make the large difference between COF in focus and in the background. Compare images made with MF and APS formats and this is much more evident. DagT
RE: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long)
Thanks William, now I can sleep fimly again...:-) >In practice, I find that I have to stop down a bit more on 6x7 to get >similar DOF as I get with 35mm, presuming a similar angle of view is >being done on both cameras. Exactly my point - if I want change angle of view I can do to things: 1. Change focal length, which changes DOF 2. Change ditance to subject (move the camera), wich also changes the conditions for DOF. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. marts 2004 07:35 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long) - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long) > Some of you people are very knowledgeable when it comes to optical science. > So, I would like to ask you this: > > On the internet there is an ongoing discussion about this subeject. > Some say, that smaller formats have greater DOF (Photonet). They say that in > order to get comparable images, I must use shorter focal length to go with > the smaller format, thus achieving greater DOF. They are using circle of > confusion (COF) theories to support their point of view. > > I (and Photozone) say, that smaller formats only show a part of the image, > captured by a specific focal lenght. If I shoot the same scene twice with > the same camera, same lens (focal length( and same aperture and focus point, > you will get identical images on let's say APS and 35mm film - that is for > the part, that is covered by the smaller format (e.i. APS). I say that the > DOF of these two identical images - is exactly the same. I say that focal > length, aperure and focal distance determins the DOF. This part is true, to an extent. However, if you are going to use the same focal length, but change formats, then really, camera to subject distance pretty much has to change to be photographically useful. Or, if you are going to change formats, but not camera to subject distance, then you need to change lenses. In theory, I think you are correct. In practice, I find that I have to stop down a bit more on 6x7 to get similar DOF as I get with 35mm, presuming a similar angle of view is being done on both cameras. > > IMO COF theories are somewhat subjective, because the point to where a point > looks like a disc, depends on the degree of enlargement. I think that the > smaller image, captured by a shorter focal length needs more enlargement, > thus less appearing less sharp. Well, yes. Of course. William Robb
Re: WOW - 60th Anniversary Photo
Nice picture. It has the everlasting "hero" stamp to it. I did a very quick and rough version (and left some try-out mistakes in it as well), mostly like a hint at one direction that one could go. May not be what you had in mind, but nevertheless - it's at http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2224990&size=lg Lasse - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: WOW - 60th Anniversary Photo > This week is the 60th anniversary of this photo, my uncle > getting ready for his first solo flight in a trainer plane. > I'd like to see what others can do with it. I'll be putting > my final work up soon, as well. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/pilot.jpg >
Re: My own DOF confusion
Hi! "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looks like in the former Soviet Union they had larger circles of confusion - big country, big tolerances, we used to say. All the best! Raimo K LOL.
Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
- Original Message - From: "John Forbes" Subject: Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash > If the flash is on manual, it will take no notice of the ISO settings, it > will just deliver full power or an appropriate fraction of full power if > it has 1/2 or 1/4 power settings. > > If you want to use the ISO settings to adjust the flash output, then use > auto (on the flash), and, as you suggest, play with the ISO settings. Make that output settings. The calculator on the back of the AF 280 doesn't do anything to the flash output. The flash has two auto ranges, the guide scale tells you what the minimum/maximum ranges are for them at various ISO settings, nothing more. William Robb
Re: My own DOF confusion
Looks like in the former Soviet Union they had larger circles of confusion - big country, big tolerances, we used to say. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:39 PM Subject: My own DOF confusion > Hello. > > Few days ago I received my own pancake lens. This is probably the > cheapest one - Industar 50-2 (50mm f/3.5) lens. I've been told that > being relatively slow and being based on classic Tessar formula, it > should be reasonably good optic... > > Anyway... I've compared the readings of DOF scale of this lens and my > M 50/2.0. Thankfully, it has proper DOF scale unlike modern FA 50/1.7 > that I also have. Industar has considerably bigger (right term?) DOF > for the same aperture. I cannot give the exact numbers, as I am in my > office. > > Nonetheless, I am confused - how can that be? I've been told that if > the lens has less elements (Industar is 4 lenses in 3 groups, if I am > not mistaken), then it presumably should have a bigger DOF. > > Please help me out on this one. > > Confused in Tel Aviv. > > Boris >
Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
If the flash is on manual, it will take no notice of the ISO settings, it will just deliver full power or an appropriate fraction of full power if it has 1/2 or 1/4 power settings. If you want to use the ISO settings to adjust the flash output, then use auto (on the flash), and, as you suggest, play with the ISO settings. John On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:40:35 US/Eastern, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I gang. Well i have been invited to shoot my daughters,coaches,young daughters, 1 year BD party on Saturday.Not so much the party but they really want some nice B&W shots of the parents with the baby. Saturday long range is mostly sunny and around 10 degrees C, so most should be outdoors. I know were i can do natural light in the house,and through Tom V's flash tips last January for my buddies wedding,can do indoor TTL flash ok. I'm just concerned about any outdoor,face hidden by hat shadows etc. I realize i asked this quite awhile ago,but i had email problems in Feb and the isp deleted all my messages(dont ask) to fix this problem, and i think the replies were there. If i use manual exposure(PZ-1 and SP being used) and set the 280t to manual and if using iso 100 film,set the back of the flash to either iso 200 or 400,will this lessen the out put to just add a bit of fill to the face shadows. Or is there another method you like. Again sorry for having to reask this question. Thanks Dave -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
As far as the question about the setting on the back of the flash, I'm quite sure the ASA setting on the back of the AF280T is just a visual calculator to let you know what to set the lens at and the effective flash distance, etc. It's not connected to anything that affects the flash output itself or when it's quenched when the flash is on auto or TTL. Joe If i use manual exposure(PZ-1 and SP being used) and set the 280t to manual and if using iso 100 film,set the back of the flash to either iso 200 or 400,will this lessen the out put to just add a bit of fill to the face shadows. Or is there another method you like. Again sorry for having to reask this question. Thanks Dave
Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
Printed. Thanks Dave > >Bill said > > Found this on a back up CD from 4 years ago. > Once in a while I am organized > > > William Robb > > > > > The following is an excerpt from: "MANUAL FILL FLASH FOR DUMMIES" > Copyright 1993, 1999, 2000 By Suda Mafud > > FILL FLASH FOR DUMMIES > Copyright 1993 By Matt Greene > > [MANUAL] FILL FLASH FOR DUMMIES > [finding correct flash to subject distance] >& > [finding correct apertures] > > > MANUAL FILL FLASH [when needing to determine the correct aperture] > *Set flash sync > *Take ambient reading > > *Divide ambient reading f/stop into flash GN to establish correct > flash to subject distance. The results = "bright" [1 to 1] fill. > *Moving the flash back exactly HALF the "bright" fill distance gives > [2 to 1] "normal" fill. > *Moving the flash back exactly TWICE the "bright" distance gives [3 > to 1] fill. > *Example: Ambient f/stop = f/16 Guide Number = 130 / = 8.125 \ > Example: Ambient f/stop = f/11 Guide Number = 180 / = 16.363 FEET. > Example: Ambient f/stop = f/5.6 Guide Number = 120 / = 21.42 / > > > MANUAL FILL FLASH [when needing to establish a correct shooting > aperture] > *When you know the precise flash to subject distance, use this: > *Set flash sync > > Divide the flash Guide Number by the known flash to subject distance > to find the proper aperture. > > *Example: Guide Number = 140/flash to subject distance = 15 > *140 divided by 15 = 9.33 or f/9.5 > *Example: Guide Number = 175/flash to subject distance = 20 > *175 divided by 20 = 8.75 or f/8 or f/9.5 > > Copyright 1993-1997 by Matt Greene > Zawadi Imaging & Media > All rights reserved > > > > > > >
RE: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
It might be worth trying the old exposure compensation trick that people used on the MZ-S. If you are shooting in manual exposure mode anyway it may not be too tricky - just set the exposure compensation on the body to the value you want the exposure compensation applied to the flash. The exposure on the body will not change because it is in manual (duh!) but the flash output in TTL would. Worth a try anyway... If I were shooting weddings I would not even consider shooting anything other than RAW when doing digital. Some Wedding Photogs have even switched back to film because digital just doesn't have the lattitude of a negative and you have to deal with the extreme contract of fine detail on a white dress and avoiding blocking on black suits. Whatever it takes to enable you to shoot RAW, I would do it - or go back to film. Buy a flashtrax would be ideal if you cannot carry your laptop, or maybe get one (or more) of those Muvo MP3 players with a free 4Gb Microdrive inside. If you have Photoshop CS (I am sure you said you did) then try taking some images with burnt highlights and see how much it can recover. When I got CS I was amazed how much highlight info could be retrieved - much more than the Pentax Photo Lab which was better than JPG itself! Ideally you should look at lighting without using flash for these shoots - Bruce was right on the button with his advice & setups based on what I understand from reading around. Unfortunately I guess you wont have an assistant available and I am sure it would take some time to try out and perfect the techniques. Might be worth telling the Agency to put the 'most important' kids at either end of the day explaining that the lighting will be better as there is only so much that can be done to minimise harsh midday sun. Failing all this then I think mapson is right that you are better to risk underexposure - there is a lot you can drag out of the shadows in digital with contrast techniques. Fingers crossed for you. Rob > -Original Message- > From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 March 2004 13:23 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)... > > > > Hi everyone, > > Thanks so much for advice and suggestions... > > Firstly to Anthony - I am so sorry to have put you through > that! lol. I was about to post and say to you that the > thumbnails are only 2k in size and I went to my server to > realise that I had uploaded the large images into the > thumbnail gallery! And also to anyone else who tried to view > those pages, what a nightmare it would have been! BUT, I can > confidently say that I have fixed it now and that the > thumbnails are indeed 2kb in size with the large images > ranging between 18kb and 50kb each...! > > Next to Bruce - I probably should have explained a little > better. My AF360fgz is still in the repair shop since my > little tripod accident a few weeks back. I have been > shooting with the Sigma EF 430st and the Sigma EF 500st. > Like Bill Robb, I gave up shooting TTL with the *ist D about > five minutes after I received it and have been shooting using > M mode (manual > exposure) and just using the flash as fill. This is tough > with these two Sigma flash guns as you only have the option > of either full (mh), 1/16th > (ml) or ttl. So half the time, if I use MH I get too much > output, and the other half, if I use ML, I get too little. > > Yes, I did shoot high res jpegs for that particular wedding, > as at this stage I only have 2gbs worth of CF cards in total. > What I have been doing is switching to RAW where I think > that an image needs help or if I expect it to be enlarged > alot, but unfortunately, when shooting on location, quickly, > at a wedding, it is very difficult for me to shoot RAW and > continuously download pics to my laptop. For all of my > portrait and other work I am shooting only RAW, but with > weddings it just takes up too much room > > I have the camera set to low contrast and low saturation. > Bruce you asked what my flash settings on the camera were? I > am unsure of the answer to this? I didn't know that I could > control the flash from my camera? Are you talking exposure > compensation? Cause if that is the case, there is none as I > was shooting with the flash manually rather than TTL. I hope > this is making sense...lol. > > A few of you have suggsted that for this shoot at least, I > should go back to shooting the film as I know it and the > cameras better. BUT, I really want to "stick at it" as I am > sure there are ways to get around the problems that I am > having and secondly, one of the reasons I got this shoot in > the first place was my ability to shoot it digitally and > offer them proofs almost immediately. Also, I loathe the > thought of having a $2k camera that is sitting there > collecting dust, I really want this thing to earn its keep
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Hi Tanya ... I wasn't going to offer any suggestions as what I know about the istd and flash wouldn't fill a thimble, but you made a comment that I can comment upon. You said: > A few of you have suggsted that for this shoot at least, I should go back to > shooting the film as I know it and the cameras better. BUT, I really want to > "stick at it" as I am sure there are ways to get around the problems that I > am having and secondly, one of the reasons I got this shoot in the first > place was my ability to shoot it digitally and offer them proofs almost > immediately. Also, I loathe the thought of having a $2k camera that is > sitting there collecting dust, I really want this thing to earn its keep and > so I must learn how to use it properly... I agree that you should learn to properly use your gear, but not necessarily in this situation. This is a career making shoot for you, and the client is expecting high quality work. It just doesn't seem to be the time o be "learning" all the new things you'll need to know, or that have been suggested. The idea that your $2K camera is at home on the shelf collecting dust is reason enough to use unfamiliar equipment is silly. A carpenter uses many saws, choosing the one best suited to the task, and does not worry too much that his new, fancy saw is sitting in the toolbox. If you can, indeed, make the istd work for this situation, great, but, imo, if there's any doubt, or if using it will interrupt your work flow, or cause you anxiety, then leave it on the shelf. It's your call, but don't get hung up on having to use that camera and the digital format just to make a point. Now, if the client insists on digital, you better deliver digital, but find out for sure. just my half thimble-full ... shel
Re: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:40 AM Subject: Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash > If i use manual exposure(PZ-1 and SP being used) and set the 280t to manual and if using > iso 100 > film,set the back of the flash to either iso 200 or 400,will this lessen the out put to > just add a bit of fill to > the face shadows. > Or is there another method you like. Found this on a back up CD from 4 years ago. Once in a while I am organized William Robb The following is an excerpt from: "MANUAL FILL FLASH FOR DUMMIES" Copyright 1993, 1999, 2000 By Suda Mafud FILL FLASH FOR DUMMIES Copyright 1993 By Matt Greene [MANUAL] FILL FLASH FOR DUMMIES [finding correct flash to subject distance] & [finding correct apertures] MANUAL FILL FLASH [when needing to determine the correct aperture] *Set flash sync *Take ambient reading *Divide ambient reading f/stop into flash GN to establish correct flash to subject distance. The results = "bright" [1 to 1] fill. *Moving the flash back exactly HALF the "bright" fill distance gives [2 to 1] "normal" fill. *Moving the flash back exactly TWICE the "bright" distance gives [3 to 1] fill. *Example: Ambient f/stop = f/16 Guide Number = 130 / = 8.125 \ Example: Ambient f/stop = f/11 Guide Number = 180 / = 16.363 FEET. Example: Ambient f/stop = f/5.6 Guide Number = 120 / = 21.42 / MANUAL FILL FLASH [when needing to establish a correct shooting aperture] *When you know the precise flash to subject distance, use this: *Set flash sync Divide the flash Guide Number by the known flash to subject distance to find the proper aperture. *Example: Guide Number = 140/flash to subject distance = 15 *140 divided by 15 = 9.33 or f/9.5 *Example: Guide Number = 175/flash to subject distance = 20 *175 divided by 20 = 8.75 or f/8 or f/9.5 Copyright 1993-1997 by Matt Greene Zawadi Imaging & Media All rights reserved
Will adjusting the iso on the af280t give me fill flash
I gang. Well i have been invited to shoot my daughters,coaches,young daughters, 1 year BD party on Saturday.Not so much the party but they really want some nice B&W shots of the parents with the baby. Saturday long range is mostly sunny and around 10 degrees C, so most should be outdoors. I know were i can do natural light in the house,and through Tom V's flash tips last January for my buddies wedding,can do indoor TTL flash ok. I'm just concerned about any outdoor,face hidden by hat shadows etc. I realize i asked this quite awhile ago,but i had email problems in Feb and the isp deleted all my messages(dont ask) to fix this problem, and i think the replies were there. If i use manual exposure(PZ-1 and SP being used) and set the 280t to manual and if using iso 100 film,set the back of the flash to either iso 200 or 400,will this lessen the out put to just add a bit of fill to the face shadows. Or is there another method you like. Again sorry for having to reask this question. Thanks Dave
Re: Double Exposure:paw
Your correct Dag. However i find shooting the north star gives me really nice swirls with a 60 min. exposure.(this was less,just an experiment)Any were else in the sky,in my backyard,gives streaks which i did not want. I wondered if anyone would notice.:-) Dave > Nice exposure, but it is a bit unusual to see the full moon and Polaris in the same picture, due north :-) > > DagT > > > > > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Hi all. > > Submitting a double exposure i did during last falls Lunar eclipse. The star swerls were > > about 10 min on > > bulb and the moon shot 125 at f 11. > > Used the sp500 2x converter and the tak 200 f4. > > There are some jaggies around the moon,but i hope thats not much of a distraction. > > Scanned at a low dpi. > > > > Dave > > http://www.caughtinmotion.com/PAW/double.jpg > > > > > > >
Re: PAW
Nice shot Bill. I like the frost covered trees. Are you planning to do a series during the construction.?? I dont see any fish though Dave > This is a shot of some repairs being done to our local lake. It has > been quite the undertaking, as the lake was completely drained of > water last fall, and as soon as the ground was frozen hard enough to > allow, heavy equipment started the process of removing some million > and a half cubic yards of material from the lake bottom. > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP2588.jpg > > > William Robb > >
Re: Travel Tips - Japan
One of my favorite spots is Japan is Miya Jima, an island in the inland sea completely occupied by temples and parks. It was a great please to relax, to experience Japanese culture, and to take photographs.
Re: Double Exposure:paw
Nice exposure, but it is a bit unusual to see the full moon and Polaris in the same picture, due north :-) DagT > > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi all. > Submitting a double exposure i did during last falls Lunar eclipse. The star swerls > were > about 10 min on > bulb and the moon shot 125 at f 11. > Used the sp500 2x converter and the tak 200 f4. > There are some jaggies around the moon,but i hope thats not much of a distraction. > Scanned at a low dpi. > > Dave > http://www.caughtinmotion.com/PAW/double.jpg > > >
re: WOW - 60th Anniversary Photo
Shel, Here's my attempt. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2224695 -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: PAW: New Brighton Beach
Doesn't look much like our US Brighton Beach at all!
