Re: Politics in Oz

[graywolf]

The news media does that all the time. Every hear them say, "Dirty pictures 
appeal to childish interests"? Naw, they use the Latin, and most folks think it 
must be really bad.

--

Peter J. Alling wrote:

It reminds me of the Chicago Politician of the late 19th century who 
tarred his opponent as being
a "known philatelist".  I expect he knew the definition and expected his 
constituents didn't.

Anthony Farr wrote:

"I categorically refute the allegations, and denounce the alligators."

A quote IIRC from an Aussie politician in the dim dark past.  Not that 
I've
been accused of being the poison pen, but it was too good an 
opportunity to
use one of my favourite quotes to let it pass.

regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

On 25/3/04, THE INJURED PARTY discumbobulated:

  

No, it most definitely was not Chris who emailed me...

tan.

"The trick here", said the Cat-In-The-Hat, "is Calculatus Eliminatus."

It wasn't Chris, and it wasn't me.

I *do* love a mystery...

Cheers,
 Cotty
  




 




--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

*ist D arrived - First Impressions

[Greg Lovern]

My *ist D arrived today. I haven't even had time to go through the manual
yet, but I wanted to see what it could do. I realize that for best results
I'll need to shoot in RAW and process in software, but I didn't have time
to learn how to do that today.

So, I set the sharpness and contrast to +1 (or as least that's what I
think I did; the menu didn't seem very clear on which setting was +1 and
which was -1), made sure it was set to make the largest JPEGs with the
lowest compression, and took a few snaps of my wife and infant son. Here's
one of them:

   http://precisioncalc.com/images/istd.jpg

Although I bought the DA 16-45 with it as a kit (Adorama), I used my
F50/1.7 for these shots.

I looked at them on my very old 20" monitor, and was surprised at how much
detail I could see even after zooming in a lot. I emailed them to Mom and
and went shopping at Costco, where I have all my film processing done at
their in-house service. I ordered 4x6's of those shots, and they weren't
busy so they were able to do them right then for me (usually digital
prints are overnight). I almost ordered progressively larger enlargements
too, but decided to wait until I had some better shots.

I'm amazed at how good they look! I would have been impressed even if this
had been the best it could do with RAW format. I've been shooting mostly
Fuji Reala 100 through sharp primes, and had been wondering how often I
would still want to shoot Reala (instead of the *ist D) to get the best
quality.

Well, these look at least as good as Reala shot through the same lens
(F50/1.7), with both printed on Fujicolor Crystal Archive at Costco. But
again that's just 4x6; I'll be comparing them up to 12x18.

My wife usually isn't very concerned about picture quality, but when I
casually showed her these prints, her eyes got big and she said wow, they
look great!

And to think it will look even better once I've learned to shoot in RAW
and process in software!


Some other random first impressions:

The strap, though beautiful, doesn't have pockets like the one that came
with my ZX-L (MZ-6). I keep the hotshoe cover and eyepiece cover in one
pocket, and the remote control in the other pocket. It's very convenient
to have the remote control there. Maybe I'll get an OpTech film holster
for it and keep the remote, eyepiece cover, and hotshoe protector in it in
a film canister.

The ergonomics aren't quite as good as the ZX-L, though still fine. The
battery pack would help, but I'd prefer to adjust to it as is and enjoy
the tiny size.

Wow, the viewfinder readouts at the bottom of the viewfinder are big! I'm
used to very tiny ones on the ZX-L. I have to move my eye to see the
readouts to the right, but I won't need them most of the time anyway since
I usually use Av mode and exposure compensation.

Hyper-program is a cool feature, but I'll probably still use Av most of
the time. I was a little worried about losing the ability to control
aperature with the lens ring, but since in Av mode it remembers your
aperature setting even after turning the camera off, and since the
aperature readout in the viewfinder is so big, I'm happy.

The CompactFlash problem was easily solved by making a tab on the card
with a piece of scotch tape, as suggested on this list I believe. I have a
Lexar 40x 1GB, and it had stuck even when ejecting it while facing it
downward, as was also suggested.

One reviewer I read complained that the viewfinder readouts go dark during
DOF preview. But I think it's sensible to remove viewfinder light sources
when viewing a dark DOF preview. I think your eye's pupil would get a
little bigger, letting you see the dark preview a little better. Am I
wrong?

Someone on this list noted that the strap still has the little nubs for
pushing in the mid-roll rewind button on film cameras. But I think they
were left on intentionally for a new purpose - to push the arrow buttons
on the 4-way controller!  :-)

I wasn't sure whether the DA 16-45 would get much use, since I usually
prefer sharp primes, and it is big and heavy. And I intend to continue to
use my ZX-L for very wide shots anyway (I really like my Sigma KA 18/3.5).
But I figured that between the US $200 rebate and Adorama's kit discount,
it would cost me about $170 to get a $430 lens, and if I decided I didn't
want it I could just wait until after the rebate period and resell it, and
probably not come out too badly. And, maybe I'll end up using it a lot
after all.

I sometimes shoot one-handed with the ZX-L when I get myself into awkward
positions and brace myself with the other hand. The ZX-L's light weight
and ergonomics make that easier than it had been with my Super Program,
and I've been doing it more. But with the *ist D's added weight and
not-as-good ergonomics, I think there will be less of that.

I wavered between the *ist D and the Canon Rebel for weeks, mainly because
of the Canon's instant histogram review with flashing burnouts (and price,
of course). But I didn't even look at his

Re: Advice on lens I purchased

[graywolf]

Return it if they did not disclose the damage to you before you purchased it. 
They should pay the shipping both ways as well. Adorama has a good reputation, 
but that kind of thing is fraud, or a very stupid salesperson.

--

Francis Alviar wrote:

I've had my sights set on buying the 77mm Limited for
quite some time now.  After receiving my tax refund I
went out looking for one (through the internet) and
found one at Adorama.  It was used in EX+ condition so
I bit and purchased it.  It arrived today and upon
inspection it seemed that the lens has been dropped by
the previous owner (I'm assuming).  The lens cap has a
big dent on it and the built-in hood also has a small
dent.  The thin black ring surrounding the glass is
not level anymore due to the impact.  I inspected the
glass and it seems fine.  However there is a big speck
right smack in the middle.  It looks to me like dirt
but how in the world did it get there?
I attached the lens onto a PZ-1p and checked for
autofocus functions.  It seems to focus fine but I'm a
bit skeptical since it looks blurry to me.  The blurry
view might be attributed to the diopter but I checked
it out and it is still blurry.
Now comes the big question.  Should I return it and
get my money back?  If I keep the lens will the fact
that it was dropped have any impact (no pun intended)
on image quality (blurry view, focus control)?  How is
Adorama on returns?  I'm afraid they might blame me
for the lens condition.  I'm being paranoid since this
has never happened to me before.
Awaiting for your replies.  Thank you.

Francis

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: OT: The Eggman Cometh; or Koo Koo Katchew

[Chris Brogden]

Ok, that yolk's gone on long enough... you know hen it's time to lay it
aside.

chris


On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, graywolf wrote:

> Psycho-egg-analysis?
>
> And, yes I noticed that most of them did eggsactly the same thing.
>
> (groan)
>
> frank theriault wrote:
>
> > Hey, Tom,
> >
> > Yeah, that guy was real interesting, too.  Had a long chat with him.
> > He's had a tough go of it lately, but somehow is still optomistic about
> > life.
> >
> > Funny, but everyone asked, "how should I hold the egg?", and my answer
> > was "Any way you want."
> >
> > As you can see, 8 or the 12 spontaneously held the egg the same way.
> > Interesting, eh?  Our friend, #2, was the only true individual of the
> > group.
> >
> > A comment on how society treats non-conformists?  Or am I reading too
> > much into it?
> >
> > Who knows?
> >
> > -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:  The Eggman Cometh;  or Koo Koo Katchew
> >> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:14:50 -0500
> >>
> >> I kind of like Egg #2.
> >>
> >
> > _
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> graywolf
> http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
>
>
>

Re: Pretty Girls and Mighty PDMLers Pictures - Rome Photoshow

[graywolf]

Wow, cool, an MX with a MD and bulk back. (Now you guys really know I am getting 
old).

Gianfranco Irlanda wrote:

Hi guys and gals,

Hope you don't mind if I post something ON topic during this
week...
:-)
I've uploaded some pictures from last week's Photoshow.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386098
All shot on Supra 200 with the Z-1p, Sigma EX 70-200/2.8 or FA
20-35/4 AL. Flash (AF400FTZ) used in all shots (almost always -1
EV).
Hope you'll enjoy having a look at them. Comments and criticism
welcome; bear in mind that those are simple snapshots, though...
:-)
Ciao,

Gianfranco

=
“To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage.” 

---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: Postcards from Pinole

[John Francis]

> 
> Shel,
> 
> They don't look like photos, rather like painted illustrations.  Like real 
> old postcards (well, I guess that's the intention, right?).
> 
> So, what are they, and how did you do them?
> 
> I especially like the bike shot.  Love the racoon wandering through the 
> image.  And, that train!  C'mon, that's no photo!  What's going on?
> 
> Love 'em, BTW.

Aren't they just photographs of murals?

Re: OT: The Eggman Cometh; or Koo Koo Katchew

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Frank ...

I read that you'd gotten the flash, but I didn't realize it
was a Genuwine Cap'n Billy model.  Cool.

BTW, I found a flash way in the back of my coat closet a few
days ago.  It's a Vivitar 283, or some such similar three
digit number.  See, there was a reason I asked about how you
figured out the flash - I was going to try some flash
exposures myself. Hmmm ... that almost sounds like I'm
heading out the door wearing a big ol' rain coat.  Which
reminds me of a story.

My friend Meg and I were driving in downtown San Francisco a
while ago, and we were stopped at a traffic light.  Some old
fellow walked up to her door, stood right by her window, and
exposed himself, saying "Whaddaya think of that, sweetie." 
She replied, ever so coolly, "Why, it looks just like a
p*nis only a lot smaller."

Can you say p*nis here? Am I in trouble now.  OK, let's say
P***s instead.  Better?



shel

frank theriault wrote:
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you, Shel.
> 
> I was gonna tell you a whopper about walking around with flash bulbs hanging
> out of my mouth, ready to pop into the big huge flash gun, a la Weegie,
> about guide numbers and quickly flicking the aperture ring to and fro as I
> mentally calculated distances and the like.
> 
> But, no, I have a Captain Billy Whiz Bang flash.  Okay, maybe not quite that
> fancy, but a couple of weeks ago, I acquired from Vic, from whom I bought my
> LX, his Vivitar 3700 flash.  It has the Pentax module installed, to take
> advantage of the ttl flash metering of the LX.
> 
> So, as Ron Popeil says of whatever his rotisserie oven is called that he
> shills on late night TV, you just "set it and forget it".
> 
> I set the aperture to f11 for a bit of DOF, since I thought focusing in the
> dark might be dodgy, and shot away.  Now, thinking that the faces might be
> burned out a bit, I set the EV dial to -1/2 stop, to tone down the flash a
> bit.  Seems from reading other threads, it may not have made any difference,
> as maybe that dial only works for non-flash ttl metering?
> 
> I guess I better go read the manual.
> 
> And, thanks for the compliment on the idea.  I'm not displeased with how it
> turned out (like I said, the proofs that I brought into the cafe today were
> way better than those I scanned for this list).  I'd like to try something
> similar sometime.  It's a fun exercise, regardless of 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: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: OT:  The Eggman Cometh;  or Koo Koo Katchew
> >Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:24:35 -0800
> >
> >Frank,
> >
> >what a great idea!
> >
> >Now, you gotta tell me ... how did you set the flash. You
> >don't have one of the Captain Billy Whiz-Bang flashes, so
> >how did you know how to make all the settings to camera and
> >flash?
> >
> >shel
> >
> >frank theriault wrote:
> > >
> > > So, here's what I've been up to earlier in the week.
> >
> > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386090
> >
> 
> _
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: Australia and Pentax - frustration (whinge)

[Peter J. Alling]

That's not so bad.  I had a local camera shop send a MX to a local 
authorized Pentax repair depot.  It needed to
have it's hot shoe re-attached.  I even supplied all the parts.  Other 
than the missing hot shoe the camera although
nicely brassed worked flawlessly.  It was returned unrepairable due to 
lack of parts.  Missing the parts I supplied!
Their handling included bending the shutter release just enough to keep 
the meter from turning off and denting the
prism housing.  For this special treatment I was charged the $20.00 
deposit to get the camera returned.  On top of
this when I complained to the shop owner they refused to take any 
responsibility or action giving me the phone number
of the repair dept. so I could complain directly.  I'll not be going 
back there again and advise all my friends and acquaintances
to steer clear.  At least the ME Super wasn't any worse when it came back.

mason wrote:


camera shop and had it promptly returned as a no fix due to 
unavailability of
parts at a cost of AU$50. The simple fact is that it has a dodgy 
ratchet on the

Rob Studdert




I think it is very unfair to charge for letting you know that the work 
cannot be done. Please do not tell me that the technician spent 5 
minutes on it and someone has to pay for it.

I have met (unfortunately) some people who prey on others by charging 
them for every second of their lack of professionalism. They charge by 
the hour and they couldn't care less if it takes them 1h or 5h to work 
it out.  I think you should pay per job. If someone is incompetent 
enough to spend 4h on a 20min job - IT SHOULD BE THEIR PROBLEM, not a 
huge bill for the client!

   (*)o(*) 
Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Australia and Pentax - frustration (whinge)

[Peter J. Alling]

That's not so bad.  I had a local camera shop send an X to a local 
authorized Pentax repair depot.  It needed to
have it's hot shoe re-attached.  I even supplied all the parts.  Other 
than the missing hot shoe the camera although
nicely brassed worked flawlessly.  It was returned unrepairable due to 
lack of parts.  Missing the parts I supplied!
Their handling included bending the shutter release just enough to keep 
the meter from turning off and denting the
prism housing.  For this special treatment I was charged the $20.00 
deposit to get the camera returned.  On top of
this when I complained to the shop owner they refused to take any 
responsibility or action giving me the phone number
of the repair dept. so I could complain directly.  I'll not be going 
back there again and advise all my friends and acquaintances
to tear clear.  At least the ME Super wasn't any worse when it came back.

mason wrote:


camera shop and had it promptly returned as a no fix due to 
unavailability of
parts at a cost of AU$50. The simple fact is that it has a dodgy 
ratchet on the

Rob Studdert




I think it is very unfair to charge for letting you know that the work 
cannot be done. Please do not tell me that the technician spent 5 
minutes on it and someone has to pay for it.

I have met (unfortunately) some people who prey on others by charging 
them for every second of their lack of professionalism. They charge by 
the hour and they couldn't care less if it takes them 1h or 5h to work 
it out.  I think you should pay per job. If someone is incompetent 
enough to spend 4h on a 20min job - IT SHOULD BE THEIR PROBLEM, not a 
huge bill for the client!

   (*)o(*) 
Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fw: PAW"S*3

[Chris]

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: PAW"S*3


> Meandered around the city and saw this charming clock chiming the hour and
> more eye candy.Basically shown as is with minor cropping on the girls,none
> on the clock.Comments as always welcome.
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2234624
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2234638
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2234642
>
> Apologies for the Sigma SD10,all I had with me.
> Regards Chris K
>
>

RE: Advice on lens I purchased

[J. C. O'Connell]

I had a very bad experience getting a refund from adorama
recently. It took weeks of repeated phone calls before they
credited my credit card.  Make sure you send it back insured
and with return receipt.
JCO


   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com


-Original Message-
From: Francis Alviar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:02 PM
To: Pentax Discuss List
Subject: Re: Advice on lens I purchased


Thanks for all your replies.  I will definitely call
first thing tomorrow and negotiate for a return of the
item.  It's just too bad that the lens is in that
condition.  The packaging was fine when I received it.
 No dented-in corners or holes.

There is definitely a big speck inside around the
middle of the front optic.  This lens is a major dust
catcher as it is evident in the sides of the lens.

I'll let you all know how the return turns out.
Unfortunately Adorama is out of stock on the new
condition lens that is why I bought this one.  Ohe
well, I guess I could wait.

Thanks once again.


Francis

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: taking a break for a while...

> I've read the thread in its entirety and I know who said what.  I'm not
> addressing the validity of your concerns here.  I'm saying instead that
> this is a public forum, and when you post a statement or opinion here it's
> open to anyone and everyone to respond.
>I objected to your telling someone to mind his/her business when your reply to the 
>list made it the list's business.

Obviously you didn't read close enough.

>Note that I don't care about who the first, second or
> third person to reply on-list was, as they're not the ones complaining
> about other people butting into their discussion.  You are.

No. I was not seriously doing that. Robb however was.
I was just using Robb's own words, assuming a reader would recognize them as his, just 
to high light they absurdity, realizing that I was only giving back to Robb what he 
had thrown at me.

This is my message to Robb, which you, Chris, reacted against:

"Yeah, yeah, yeah... Blah, blah, blah...
I said "please bring that message" - I didn't ask for pointless personal opinion from 
a Canadian twit, my little man!
So bring that message and state your case why it amounts to harassment, or drop it and 
mind your own friggin business, little Mafud in disguise!"

Every objectionable phrase in my message were picked right out of a few of Robb's 
messages to me on the list. (See below)

He called me a "Scandinavian twit" - I called him a "Canadian twit"
He called me "my lttle man" - I called him "my little man"
He told me to drop it - I told him to drop it.
He told me "to mind your own friggin business" - I told him to "mind your own frigging 
business"
He called me "Kirkland Ramsey" - I called him "Mafud in disguise" (The names refer to 
one and the same person)

Here are two of Robb's messages, from which I picked his phrases and returned them:
 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: My own DOF confusion

> I see that Kirkland Ramsey is back, manifesting himself as a
> Scandinavian twit.
> 
> Lasse, if you want to continue this to the childlike extreme that you
> seem capable of, may I suggest you enter into an offensive sig file
> battle, instead of just spewing your own brand of puss
> 
> Here, I even did some homework for you.
> 
> http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ladenframe.htm
> 
> Regards
> William Robb


From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: taking a break for a while...
> From: "Lasse Karlsson"
> Subject: Re: taking a break for a while...

> > Secondly I hope the person who caused Tanya to be upset will make
> sure this incident gets sorted out.
> > Lasse
> 
> And perhaps at some point, you will learn to mind your own frigging
> business.
> Let it drop karlsson.

> William Robb

(And there would be more messages to add.)

I was, again, responding to someone who repeatedly accuses me of continuing threads, 
while he is the one who keeps on bringing up stuff that already is over and past, even 
when there is nothing specific addressed to him. When I respond to attacks and defend 
myself, I'm the one who people object to.
I might add that even though the initial dispute regarding Collins sig file already 
long was settled, I had thanked him for it and went back to normal procedures, there 
were others who kept on bringing stuff up and accused me of doing it!

As for the latest message that Chris now brought up, I am sure that Robb fully 
realized what I was doing in returning his insults word by word, and I would venture 
the guess that he for the sake of list peace maybe finally would have let it drop. As 
would I have.
Then Chris jumped on it, obviously not fully up to date and misundertanding bits of it 
(which I may be at fault for), where there was absolutely no need for it.

Unfortunately I don't think your message, Chris, will have the effect you desired.

Lasse

RE: Postcards from Pinole

[frank theriault]

Shel,

They don't look like photos, rather like painted illustrations.  Like real 
old postcards (well, I guess that's the intention, right?).

So, what are they, and how did you do them?

I especially like the bike shot.  Love the racoon wandering through the 
image.  And, that train!  C'mon, that's no photo!  What's going on?

Love 'em, BTW.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Postcards from Pinole
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:31:55 -0800
Pinole is a small town a few miles north of me, located
along the San Francisco Bay.  Its claim to fame is that it
hasn't any, other than for providing inexpensive housing to
shipyard and dynamite workers during WW II.
These "postcards" are part of a long-term project I'm
working on.  Hope you enjoy 'em.  As usual, comments and
crits are welcome ... ;-))
The American Hotel & Grill:

http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/american-hotel.html

Bay scene with bicycle:

http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/bicycle-by-the-bay.html

shel


_
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 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: Advice on lens I purchased

[Francis Alviar]

Thanks for all your replies.  I will definitely call
first thing tomorrow and negotiate for a return of the
item.  It's just too bad that the lens is in that
condition.  The packaging was fine when I received it.
 No dented-in corners or holes.

There is definitely a big speck inside around the
middle of the front optic.  This lens is a major dust
catcher as it is evident in the sides of the lens.

I'll let you all know how the return turns out. 
Unfortunately Adorama is out of stock on the new
condition lens that is why I bought this one.  Ohe
well, I guess I could wait.

Thanks once again.


Francis

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Re: OT: The Eggman Cometh; or Koo Koo Katchew

[frank theriault]

Sorry to disappoint you, Shel.

I was gonna tell you a whopper about walking around with flash bulbs hanging 
out of my mouth, ready to pop into the big huge flash gun, a la Weegie, 
about guide numbers and quickly flicking the aperture ring to and fro as I 
mentally calculated distances and the like.

But, no, I have a Captain Billy Whiz Bang flash.  Okay, maybe not quite that 
fancy, but a couple of weeks ago, I acquired from Vic, from whom I bought my 
LX, his Vivitar 3700 flash.  It has the Pentax module installed, to take 
advantage of the ttl flash metering of the LX.

So, as Ron Popeil says of whatever his rotisserie oven is called that he 
shills on late night TV, you just "set it and forget it".

I set the aperture to f11 for a bit of DOF, since I thought focusing in the 
dark might be dodgy, and shot away.  Now, thinking that the faces might be 
burned out a bit, I set the EV dial to -1/2 stop, to tone down the flash a 
bit.  Seems from reading other threads, it may not have made any difference, 
as maybe that dial only works for non-flash ttl metering?

I guess I better go read the manual.

And, thanks for the compliment on the idea.  I'm not displeased with how it 
turned out (like I said, the proofs that I brought into the cafe today were 
way better than those I scanned for this list).  I'd like to try something 
similar sometime.  It's a fun exercise, regardless of 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: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT:  The Eggman Cometh;  or Koo Koo Katchew
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:24:35 -0800
Frank,

what a great idea!

Now, you gotta tell me ... how did you set the flash. You
don't have one of the Captain Billy Whiz-Bang flashes, so
how did you know how to make all the settings to camera and
flash?
shel

frank theriault wrote:
>
> So, here's what I've been up to earlier in the week.
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386090

_
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: tele extenders

[Kenneth Waller]

Herb,
It's the 1.4X-S on the 300mm f4.5 FA and the 1.4X-L on the 600mm f4.0 FA.
I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message - 
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: tele extenders


> do you use the S or the L extenders?
> 
> Herb
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: tele extenders
> 
> 
> > Jay, I regularly use 1.4 Pentax extenders on my 300MM f4.5 FA and 600mm
> f4.0
> > FA and am happy with the results. Never tried 2.0 extenders and don't
> intend
> > to.
> 
> 

OT? Advice wanted for setting up a web site

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi ...

My ISP allows me a fair amount of free space, but it's not
enough for a really nice web site.  So, being somewhat of a
dummy here, what should I look for from an ISP in setting up
a site, and what things should I be thinking about
including.  Naturally, it's all about photos, presenting
them well, using the site as a way to present pics to some
markets, and possible to sell from.

What type of design features should I consider, and why? 
How about the underlying code?  It's gotta be compatible
with as many browsers as possible, fast loading, etc. 
Thoughts here?

Who's doing this?  Suggestions eagerly anticipated.

shel

Re: I´m off

[Dan Matyola]

I'd love to hear about your trip when you have a chance.  Two of my 
grandparents came from small towns near Bratislava.

Raimo K wrote:

I´ll be leaving for Bratislava tomorrow so I cannot participate in the
lively OT discussions - but I´ll be back on Tuesday.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

RE: Politics in Oz

[frank theriault]

Of course, were they politicians, saying "it's not me", and "it wasn't him", 
we'd know it really was him, right?

Alas, they're photographers, and we must take their words at face value.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Politics in Oz
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:39:18 +
On 25/3/04, THE INJURED PARTY discumbobulated:

>No, it most definitely was not Chris who emailed me...
>
>tan.
"The trick here", said the Cat-In-The-Hat, "is Calculatus Eliminatus."

It wasn't Chris, and it wasn't me.

I *do* love a mystery...

Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

_
Add photos to your e-mail 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: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a Cigarette

[frank theriault]

Shel,

I'm focused.  It's my photos that aren't.

HAR!

-frank, master of the self-depracatory mock  

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a 
Cigarette
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:55:16 -0800

Mock, Mock ...

Who's there?

Frank.

Frank who?

Frank Theriault.

Oh, come in.  I didn't recognize you.
You were in focus.
Now, Frank ... THAT'S mocking! 

shel who?

frank theriault wrote:
>
> Now I think your guys are just mocking me...
>
> 
_
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: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a Cigarette

[frank theriault]

Hey, no, I like this.

It's fun, first of all to see what PS can do, and second of all to see 
everyone's suggestions for cropping (since I don't think I did a 
particularly good job of cropping in the viewfinder).

I really like how the soft shadow works here, Simon.  Of course, the purist 
in me screams out, "That's dishonest", but the other side of me says, "Well, 
it looks pretty cool, though."  

A totally different look in that crop, but you can see her pretty face much 
better.  Not quite so contrasty, so there's a bit more detail in the darks, 
which I like.

An interesting take, IMHO.  Thanks.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: "Simon King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a 
Cigarette
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:45:29 +0800

Hi Frank,
And now for something completely different...
http://members.iinet.net.au/~celsim/paw/paw.htm
Hope you don't mind people Wowing it up so much.
Cheers,
Simon




-Original Message-
From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2004 10:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a
Cigarette
I like the picture, but it was a bit dark and the central position of
her, along with what can be spotted in the window didn't really click
with me.
Hope you don't mind I did a quick WOW on it.
I think I would have ended somewhere around here, although I am not
quite sure if I overdid it. (It's just a variation):
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2231794&size=lg

(I was surprised at what clothes she proved to be wearing, since the
original was so dark, I thought she was in a long dark overcoat and
knitted stockings...)
Lasse

From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi, all,
> I haven't been around much these last few days.  I'll post later as to
what
> I've been up to (have to scan a bit first, so I can post what's been
up).
>
> Gee, seems I've missed a good flame war!  And I'd been ignoring it,
thinking
> it was about DOF.  Silly me.  
>
> This really isn't a PAW.  It's just a snap of a pretty girl.  I liked
her
> hat with the little cat ears on it.  I asked if I could take her
picture,
> and she said yes, so I did:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2231339
>
> First (and only) roll back from my poor little Leica CL.  That thing
takes
> such sharp photos, I'm always amazed (you should see the print...).
Of
> course, some of you may recall that it's back in the shop, due to my
clumsy
> butter fingers - sigh.
>
> Anyway, I hope you like this pretty snapshot.  Comments are always
welcome.
>
> Now I have to sort through about 400 posts, then I have to scan some
more,
> and I'll let you know why I've been away.
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The
pessimist
> fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
>
> _
> STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium 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
>


_
Add photos to your e-mail 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: The Eggman Cometh; or Koo Koo Katchew

[frank theriault]

Keith,

Nope.  No egg for them.

I didn't mention it in the initial post, but the eggs I had with me that 
night were rotten.

My roomie is having her kitchen renovated, and we had to move the fridge 
into the hallway.  She in the process, the eggs didn't get put back into the 
fridge once it got plugged back in.

They didn't smell or anything, but they'd been outside of the fridge for 
several days.  Once I was done shooting, they went in the garbage.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Eggman Cometh;  or Koo Koo Katchew
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:48:35 -0800


Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

Cool story Frank! Hope you gave the homeless guy some spare change for his
"trouble"...
And, let him keep the egg!
keith

_
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

RE: The Eggman Cometh; or Koo Koo Katchew

[frank theriault]

Of course I did, Tan.

I think that three of the 12 subjects were asking passersby for assistance 
that evening.  At 11:00 pm, there aren't too many people walking around our 
end of town.  So, yeah, I helped out the three that were asking.  They 
didn't make a big deal of it, but seemed to appreciate the help.

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: The Eggman Cometh;  or Koo Koo Katchew
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:25:58 +1000
Cool story Frank! Hope you gave the homeless guy some spare change for his
"trouble"...
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium 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: Advice on lens I purchased

[tigermoses]

I concur - return it.
Limited are a work of art, and you want one in unquestionable condition if you are 
going 
to own one!

On 25 Mar 2004 at 17:39, Francis Alviar wrote:

> I've had my sights set on buying the 77mm Limited for
> quite some time now.  After receiving my tax refund I
> went out looking for one (through the internet) and
> found one at Adorama.  It was used in EX+ condition so
> I bit and purchased it.  It arrived today and upon
> inspection it seemed that the lens has been dropped by
> the previous owner (I'm assuming).  The lens cap has a
> big dent on it and the built-in hood also has a small
> dent.  The thin black ring surrounding the glass is
> not level anymore due to the impact.  I inspected the
> glass and it seems fine.  However there is a big speck
> right smack in the middle.  It looks to me like dirt
> but how in the world did it get there?
> 
> I attached the lens onto a PZ-1p and checked for
> autofocus functions.  It seems to focus fine but I'm a
> bit skeptical since it looks blurry to me.  The blurry
> view might be attributed to the diopter but I checked
> it out and it is still blurry.
> 
> Now comes the big question.  Should I return it and
> get my money back?  If I keep the lens will the fact
> that it was dropped have any impact (no pun intended)
> on image quality (blurry view, focus control)?  How is
> Adorama on returns?  I'm afraid they might blame me
> for the lens condition.  I'm being paranoid since this
> has never happened to me before.
> 
> Awaiting for your replies.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> Francis
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> 

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Chris Brogden]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote:

> From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
> >
> > > So bring that message and state your case why it amounts to harassment,
> > > or drop it and mind your own friggin business, little Mafud in disguise!
> >
> > As long as you people keep airing your disagreements in public, you make
> > it our business.  You can't expect to have a private conversation and
> > exclude certain list members if you're replying in public.  Think about
> > it.
>  I appreciate what your saying Chris and I even agree with you. All I
> can say is that you, or anybody, follow this thread back and find out
> where my wordings originate from. Then please return and address this
> problem appropriately. That's all I ask.

I've read the thread in its entirety and I know who said what.  I'm not
addressing the validity of your concerns here.  I'm saying instead that
this is a public forum, and when you post a statement or opinion here it's
open to anyone and everyone to respond.  I objected to your telling
someone to mind his/her business when your reply to the list made it the
list's business.  Note that I don't care about who the first, second or
third person to reply on-list was, as they're not the ones complaining
about other people butting into their discussion.  You are.  If you want
people to mind their own business, then take it off-list.

chris

Re: taking a break for a while...

[frank theriault]

Listen, Steve,

I have to be frank with you here...

(sorry, couldn't resist ).

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Oi - *I'm* Mr Jolly ;-)

_
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: OT: The Eggman Cometh; or Koo Koo Katchew

[Shel Belinkoff]

Frank,

what a great idea!

Now, you gotta tell me ... how did you set the flash. You
don't have one of the Captain Billy Whiz-Bang flashes, so
how did you know how to make all the settings to camera and
flash?

shel

frank theriault wrote:
> 
> So, here's what I've been up to earlier in the week.

> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386090

RE: Advice on lens I purchased

[J. C. O'Connell]

no question, RETURN IT!
JCO


   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com


-Original Message-
From: Francis Alviar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:39 PM
To: Pentax Discuss List
Subject: Advice on lens I purchased


I've had my sights set on buying the 77mm Limited for
quite some time now.  After receiving my tax refund I
went out looking for one (through the internet) and
found one at Adorama.  It was used in EX+ condition so
I bit and purchased it.  It arrived today and upon
inspection it seemed that the lens has been dropped by
the previous owner (I'm assuming).  The lens cap has a
big dent on it and the built-in hood also has a small
dent.  The thin black ring surrounding the glass is
not level anymore due to the impact.  I inspected the
glass and it seems fine.  However there is a big speck
right smack in the middle.  It looks to me like dirt
but how in the world did it get there?

I attached the lens onto a PZ-1p and checked for
autofocus functions.  It seems to focus fine but I'm a
bit skeptical since it looks blurry to me.  The blurry
view might be attributed to the diopter but I checked
it out and it is still blurry.

Now comes the big question.  Should I return it and
get my money back?  If I keep the lens will the fact
that it was dropped have any impact (no pun intended)
on image quality (blurry view, focus control)?  How is
Adorama on returns?  I'm afraid they might blame me
for the lens condition.  I'm being paranoid since this
has never happened to me before.

Awaiting for your replies.  Thank you.


Francis

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

RE: PAW- Eagle Harbour Lighthouse-Wk of 3/22/04

[frank theriault]

Ken,

I've not a clue as to the body of water.  I'm guessing Great Lakes somewhere 
(hey, that narrows it down, eh?), only due to your proximity to same.  Other 
than that, I dunno.

Love both the photo and the lighthouse.  It looks so charming and domestic.  
Lighthouse with the emphasis on "house".

Terrific that you caught that wave just at the right moment;  really give 
the impression of tempest I think.  How the hell did you co-ordinate the 
light and the waves?Wow!!

Comp is perfect, as is pretty much everything else.  Except (a very small 
except) it seems a bit hazy.  I think it's my monitor.  Or, maybe it was a 
hazy, rainy day, and you shot with a long lens which exacerbated the (minor) 
problem.

I really like this, just like everything else you post.

thanks,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PAW- Eagle Harbour Lighthouse-Wk of 3/22/04
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:47:42 -0500
With the recent run on lighthouses, I thought I'd submit mine.
Check out my 5th Paw.
Anyone know the body of water?
Taken with a 600mm f4.0 FA lens in a high wind along with sideways rain.
Comments - likes/dislikes - what would you have done differently?

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html

Thanks for taking the time

Ken Waller

_
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: taking a break for a while...

[Andre Langevin]

All I can say is that you, or anybody, follow this thread back and 
find out where my wordings originate from.
Then please return and address this problem appropriately. That's all I ask.

Thanks,
Lasse
After a certain point, it doesn't matter who begun, just who are the 
ones still fighting.  We're not historians, we've just had enough of 
it.  Some of us know, some others don't.  It just doesn't matter any 
more.

Andre

RE: Advice on lens I purchased

[Alan Chan]

I highly suggest you returned it. Unlike K or M lenses, Limited lenses were 
not built to withstand such impact (although they look like M lenses). It is 
possible the axis has shifted. Also, FA77 is a dust sucker so don't be 
surprised if it is dusty inside.

Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I've had my sights set on buying the 77mm Limited for
quite some time now.  After receiving my tax refund I
went out looking for one (through the internet) and
found one at Adorama.  It was used in EX+ condition so
I bit and purchased it.  It arrived today and upon
inspection it seemed that the lens has been dropped by
the previous owner (I'm assuming).  The lens cap has a
big dent on it and the built-in hood also has a small
dent.  The thin black ring surrounding the glass is
not level anymore due to the impact.  I inspected the
glass and it seems fine.  However there is a big speck
right smack in the middle.  It looks to me like dirt
but how in the world did it get there?
I attached the lens onto a PZ-1p and checked for
autofocus functions.  It seems to focus fine but I'm a
bit skeptical since it looks blurry to me.  The blurry
view might be attributed to the diopter but I checked
it out and it is still blurry.
Now comes the big question.  Should I return it and
get my money back?  If I keep the lens will the fact
that it was dropped have any impact (no pun intended)
on image quality (blurry view, focus control)?  How is
Adorama on returns?  I'm afraid they might blame me
for the lens condition.  I'm being paranoid since this
has never happened to me before.
Awaiting for your replies.  Thank you.

Francis
_
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 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: Advice on lens I purchased

[Andre Langevin]

I've had my sights set on buying the 77mm Limited for
quite some time now.  After receiving my tax refund I
went out looking for one (through the internet) and
found one at Adorama.  It was used in EX+ condition so
I bit and purchased it.  It arrived today and upon
inspection it seemed that the lens has been dropped by
the previous owner (I'm assuming).
Or dropped by the seller...  Packing was fine?

But then I can't believe the lens in this shape would qualify as an 
EX+ one for them.

The lens cap has a
big dent on it and the built-in hood also has a small
dent.  The thin black ring surrounding the glass is
not level anymore due to the impact.
That part is not cosmetic any more...

I inspected the
glass and it seems fine.  However there is a big speck
right smack in the middle.  It looks to me like dirt
but how in the world did it get there?
You mean deep inside the optics?

I attached the lens onto a PZ-1p and checked for
autofocus functions.  It seems to focus fine but I'm a
bit skeptical since it looks blurry to me.  The blurry
view might be attributed to the diopter but I checked
it out and it is still blurry.
Now comes the big question.  Should I return it and
get my money back?  If I keep the lens will the fact
that it was dropped have any impact (no pun intended)
on image quality (blurry view, focus control)?
From what you say, it seems that the lens will not give quality 
photography.  What you see in your finder (with adjusted diopter) is 
mostly what you will get on film.  Take a 12 exposures roll (of a 
brick wall, at f1.8 and 5.6, with a tripod and parallel to the wall 
plane, at different distances) and look at the prints and then at the 
negatives with a lupe.  If some photos show a problem (right side is 
not as sharp as left side), send them with the camera.

How is Adorama on returns?
I don't know...  But they have a good reputation.

 I'm afraid they might blame me
for the lens condition.  I'm being paranoid since this
has never happened to me before.
I thought you were saying it had happened before (return refused).  I 
would not be paranoid as Adorama seems to have a good reputation.  It 
might be good to call them tomorrow to say exactly what happened (you 
found the lens in that shape after opening the packet).  The "big 
speck" is probably enough by itself for a return of an Ex+ lens 
AFAIK.  Be polite, insinuate they might have send another 77mm lens 
by error (not intentionnally) as this one cannot qualify as an Ex+ 
lens.

Good luck and keep us informed.

Andre

Re: tele extenders

[Herb Chong]

do you use the S or the L extenders?

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: tele extenders


> Jay, I regularly use 1.4 Pentax extenders on my 300MM f4.5 FA and 600mm
f4.0
> FA and am happy with the results. Never tried 2.0 extenders and don't
intend
> to.

RE: PAW #5 - Sludd

[frank theriault]

Please, please tell me, Dag, that you're joking.  In English, we have a word 
for mix of rain and snow.  It's called "sleet".  I can assure you, there's 
nothing pleasant about it.  

Great photo, BTW.  No, Freaking Amazing Photo.  Sharpness?  We don't need no 
stinking sharpness!!

I love it.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PAW #5 - Sludd
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:49:59 +0100
which is the Norwegian word for a pleasant mix of rain and snow:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2231042&size=lg
DagT

_
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: taking a break for a while...

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
> 
> > So bring that message and state your case why it amounts to harassment,
> > or drop it and mind your own friggin business, little Mafud in disguise!
> 
> As long as you people keep airing your disagreements in public, you make
> it our business.  You can't expect to have a private conversation and
> exclude certain list members if you're replying in public.  Think about
> it.
 
I appreciate what your saying Chris and I even agree with you.
All I can say is that you, or anybody, follow this thread back and find out where my 
wordings originate from.
Then please return and address this problem appropriately. That's all I ask.

Thanks,
Lasse

RE: Pretty Girls and Mighty PDMLers Pictures - Rome Photoshow

[frank theriault]

Nice to see what some of you Italians look like, Gianfranco!  Great snaps of 
what looks like a fun time.

I love "sublimating"!  I guess I'd be smiling if I were one of those 
photogs, too.  

And, I gotta say, MXen are ~so~ pretty in black.  I dunno about that bulk 
film back, though.  Kind of defeats the purpose...  Still, it'd be cool to 
have.

Thanks for the photos.  They were fun!

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Gianfranco Irlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pretty Girls and Mighty PDMLers Pictures - Rome Photoshow
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Hi guys and gals,

Hope you don't mind if I post something ON topic during this
week...
:-)
I've uploaded some pictures from last week's Photoshow.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386098
All shot on Supra 200 with the Z-1p, Sigma EX 70-200/2.8 or FA
20-35/4 AL. Flash (AF400FTZ) used in all shots (almost always -1
EV).
Hope you'll enjoy having a look at them. Comments and criticism
welcome; bear in mind that those are simple snapshots, though...
:-)
Ciao,

Gianfranco

=
“To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage.”
---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium 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: Advice on lens I purchased

[Robert & Leigh Woerner]

I expect Adorama to treat you well. A friend of mine got a used Pentax 50mm
F macro from them when she was supposed to get an FA. They made it right.
Sent her a beautiful used FA. I just got a demo MZ-S from them. No problems
so far. They are a class act. I would expect few problems from them.

Robert

P.S. Hope you get things straightened out. :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Francis Alviar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:39 PM
Subject: Advice on lens I purchased


> I've had my sights set on buying the 77mm Limited for
> quite some time now.  After receiving my tax refund I
> went out looking for one (through the internet) and
> found one at Adorama.  It was used in EX+ condition so
> I bit and purchased it.  It arrived today and upon
> inspection it seemed that the lens has been dropped by
> the previous owner (I'm assuming).  The lens cap has a
> big dent on it and the built-in hood also has a small
> dent.  The thin black ring surrounding the glass is
> not level anymore due to the impact.  I inspected the
> glass and it seems fine.  However there is a big speck
> right smack in the middle.  It looks to me like dirt
> but how in the world did it get there?
>
> I attached the lens onto a PZ-1p and checked for
> autofocus functions.  It seems to focus fine but I'm a
> bit skeptical since it looks blurry to me.  The blurry
> view might be attributed to the diopter but I checked
> it out and it is still blurry.
>
> Now comes the big question.  Should I return it and
> get my money back?  If I keep the lens will the fact
> that it was dropped have any impact (no pun intended)
> on image quality (blurry view, focus control)?  How is
> Adorama on returns?  I'm afraid they might blame me
> for the lens condition.  I'm being paranoid since this
> has never happened to me before.
>
> Awaiting for your replies.  Thank you.
>
>
> Francis
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>

Re: The Politics of Oz

[Herb Chong]

that is what a spoiled ballot means in the places that follow the British
method of voting. the system normally requires that the number of spoiled
ballots be reported too. voting machines make it hard to do. same with
voting for more than one thing at a time.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: The Politics of Oz


> Well, I have always said there should be a "None Of The Above" box on the
> ballet. As it is there is no way to vote against both candidates.

Re: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a Cigarette

[Lasse Karlsson]

I like that!

Lasse

Btw, simon. Did you happen to catch some previous comments I made on your series of 4 
portraits a few weeks back? I think it looked promising.

- Original Message - 
From: "Simon King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:45 AM
Subject: RE: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a Cigarette


> Hi Frank,
> And now for something completely different...
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~celsim/paw/paw.htm
> Hope you don't mind people Wowing it up so much.
> Cheers,
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2004 10:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a
> Cigarette
> 
> I like the picture, but it was a bit dark and the central position of
> her, along with what can be spotted in the window didn't really click
> with me.
> 
> Hope you don't mind I did a quick WOW on it.
> I think I would have ended somewhere around here, although I am not
> quite sure if I overdid it. (It's just a variation):
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2231794&size=lg
> 
> (I was surprised at what clothes she proved to be wearing, since the
> original was so dark, I thought she was in a long dark overcoat and
> knitted stockings...)
> 
> Lasse
> 
> From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hi, all,
> > I haven't been around much these last few days.  I'll post later as to
> what 
> > I've been up to (have to scan a bit first, so I can post what's been
> up).
> > 
> > Gee, seems I've missed a good flame war!  And I'd been ignoring it,
> thinking 
> > it was about DOF.  Silly me.  
> > 
> > This really isn't a PAW.  It's just a snap of a pretty girl.  I liked
> her 
> > hat with the little cat ears on it.  I asked if I could take her
> picture, 
> > and she said yes, so I did:
> > 
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2231339
> > 
> > First (and only) roll back from my poor little Leica CL.  That thing
> takes 
> > such sharp photos, I'm always amazed (you should see the print...).
> Of 
> > course, some of you may recall that it's back in the shop, due to my
> clumsy 
> > butter fingers - sigh.
> > 
> > Anyway, I hope you like this pretty snapshot.  Comments are always
> welcome.
> > 
> > Now I have to sort through about 400 posts, then I have to scan some
> more, 
> > and I'll let you know why I've been away.
> > 
> > cheers,
> > frank
> > 
> > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The
> pessimist 
> > fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
> > 
> > _
> > STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium 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: The nickle & diming has begun

[Herb Chong]

the Browser is the converter too and has the most important conversion
features, exposure compensation and white balance. the *istD people don't
get any editing capability. they get capture capability.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: The nickle & diming has begun


> My package came with the browser and the trial Capture 4(raw editor)I
checked the Nikon
> site and i
> see a link to download the 30 day trial and when i hit the Capture 4
link,i'm redirected
> to the 30 day trial
> link.
> Unless i am in the wrong area of the site, still looks like if i want to
edit in Capture 4
> i have to pay Nikon
> Canada $159.00 and the *istDers get it for free.

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Chris Brogden]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote:

> So bring that message and state your case why it amounts to harassment,
> or drop it and mind your own friggin business, little Mafud in disguise!

As long as you people keep airing your disagreements in public, you make
it our business.  You can't expect to have a private conversation and
exclude certain list members if you're replying in public.  Think about
it.

chris

Re: Advice on lens I purchased

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Francis Alviar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:39 AM
Subject: Advice on lens I purchased


> Now comes the big question.  Should I return it and
> get my money back?  If I keep the lens will the fact
> that it was dropped have any impact (no pun intended)
> on image quality (blurry view, focus control)?

Yes, unfortunately it may have affected picture quality drastically if elements got 
out of alignment(?). One way would of course be to test it, but that may be tricky to 
do if you don't have anything to carefully compare it to. From your description of the 
visible dents etc. it would clearly mean that it's not an EX+ condition lens.
I would definitely return it, from what you're reporting.
I have no experience whatsoever with Adorama, but would assume that they would have to 
trust you if you report it to them as soon as you can.
Good luck, and sorry to hear about such a problem. It completely takes away the joy 
until tyou get it sorted out.

Lasse

>How is
> Adorama on returns?  I'm afraid they might blame me
> for the lens condition.  I'm being paranoid since this
> has never happened to me before.
> 
> Awaiting for your replies.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> Francis
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> 

Re: digital infrared

[Mark Cassino]

Cool effect. I went out on Monday and took a few shots using the Hoya RM 90 
- a few snaps (no art intended here either.)

The original color balance:

http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP4305.jpg

De-saturated with the levels adjusted:

http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP4305bw.jpg

A few other de saturated shots:

http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP4328.jpg

http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP4329.jpg

I'm not sure what causes the vignetting effect in the last shot there.

- MCC

At 11:58 AM 3/24/2004 +0100, you wrote:
Hi list,

someone asked to see digital infrared with the *ist-D.

Finally I managed to get some free webspace to put pictures to.
Picture size is limited, but at least I can show you something:
Taken with the starkist, FA*24 and infrared-filter (780 nm) @ ISO 3200.
Presuably better with low ISO and tripod - the filter is almost black!
No special treatment, just croppped and "auto levels".
Also, no art intended - just to show you how the filter works.
But now you have an idea, how the place where I live looks like -
But, sky still is blue here, lawn and trees are green... ;-)
Have a look:

https://www.fotos.web.de/rocketom

You have to click to get into the folder named "pdml" (what else:-)?),
the pic is called "windowview".
Thomas
-

Mark Cassino Photography

Kalamazoo, MI

http://www.markcassino.com

-

Re: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a Cigarette

[frank theriault]

Now I think your guys are just mocking me...



-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a 
Cigarette
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:31:00 +

Well, I don't know what it was Shel, but something about her left eye 
really caught my attention.  So here's a crop of my own. ;-)

http://www.elvum.net/gallery/pdml/lefteye

S



_
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: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a Cigarette

[frank theriault]

Shel,

You should do into the Passport Photo business...

LOL

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WOW (Was: Not Really a PAW - Pretty Young Woman with a 
Cigarette
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:11:29 -0800

http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/franks-pic.html

Maybe the URL will be helpful 

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> Since everyone's chopping away at Frank's pic, I thought I'd
> offer another version.  This, perhaps, is as good as it gets
> ... I know Frank will love it ... a tight crop, a slightly
> warmer tone ... distilled to it's essence
>
_
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 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: The Politics of Oz

[Doug Franklin]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:22:05 -0500, graywolf wrote:

> Well, I have always said there should be a "None Of The Above"
> box on the ballet. As it is there is no way to vote against
> both candidates.

And if "None Of The Above" wins, you have to have a new election
within, say, 90 days, and none of the people on the original ballot can
run for that spot.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

RE: PAW: More Cows

[frank theriault]

ooo!  Good one, Aric!

What, do you do stand up or something?

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: "Rothman, Aric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I'm going to need a bigger box?

_
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
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: taking a break for a while...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Lasse Karlsson"
Subject: Re: taking a break for a while...



> If I ever subjected anyone to what can be considered harassment,
please bring that message to my attention, so that I publicly can
apologize.

More than half your posts over the past few days qualify as
harassment.

William Robb

Re: PAW: More Cows

[frank theriault]

That they can be dead and not dead at the same time?

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Or better yet, what would Schroedinger say about cows?

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
_
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- Eagle Harbour Lighthouse-Wk of 3/22/04

[graywolf]

Looks like Lake Superior.

Kenneth Waller wrote:
With the recent run on lighthouses, I thought I'd submit mine.
Check out my 5th Paw.
Anyone know the body of water?
Taken with a 600mm f4.0 FA lens in a high wind along with sideways rain. 

Comments - likes/dislikes - what would you have done differently?

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html

Thanks for taking the time

Ken Waller


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

OT: The Eggman Cometh; or Koo Koo Katchew

[frank theriault]

So, here's what I've been up to earlier in the week.

Longish story (but not Fairy Girl long, I don't think).

A couple of weekends ago, the owner of my favourite coffee shop hands me a 
paper, something about a photo installation for his April 1st Jet Fuel 
Anniversary Eggs-tavaganza (13 free kegs - one for each year they've been 
open).  I thought it was a contest, the best 12 photographers of which get 
to display for the party, and the month following.  Required:  12 photos of 
eggs - broken, intact, cooked, whatever - only rule, no Ukranian Painted 
Eggs.

"When's it due?", asks this scribe.  "In two days" comes the answer.  "I 
dunno", I said, "If they have to be ready by Monday, I really don't have any 
way to get them developed and printed".

So, I didn't submit anything.

Earlier this week, I go to throw out the sheet he gave me, and I see, it's 
not a contest, rather, I was one of 12 selected photogs.  Poop!!  What have 
I done?!?

So, I go running to the Jet Fuel, and ask Johnnie if it's too late.  "Yup, 
got 12 now.  Sorry I didn't explain it fully," he says.  "But, do your 
stuff, and you can be 'stand by', 'cause two people haven't submitted yet."  
Okay, now I have to think of something to do.  I thought, eggs on nudes, but 
who to get to do it (for free)?  Turns out it's been done.  I want to be 
unique.

I decide to walk the streets at night, with an egg in one hand, LX and flash 
in the other, and walk up to people, and ask if I might photograph them 
whilst they hold an egg.  Surprisingly, 12 people said yes.  A few said no, 
and scurried away (don't blame them, really).

I set my own rules:  One shot per person.  12 shots total.  Whatever comes 
out, comes out.  If I have to reshoot due to technical difficulties, so be 
it.

I wanted spontaneous.  I'd accept the photos, warts and all.  I wanted a 
decidedly "low-tech" gritty feel to it.  I think I succeeded .

Took me about an hour and 1/2.  Little did I know the adventure was only 
starting.

I couldn't get to my usual lab on Tuesday, so I went to a minilab on my 
block, who claims to to b&w (and cheaper than my lab, too!).

Well, he develops negs.  Then he prints them up in the C-41 minilab.  I 
didn't realize that.

They were horrendous!  Fuzzy (so much so that even ~I~ was dissatisfied).  
All kind of sepia-toned and ~real~ darkish!.  They were simply unacceptable.

I scanned them anyway, and here they are:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386090

Please remember, they aren't intended to be serious, rather I'm hoping that 
they'll seen as a lighter and humourous alternative to the "serious 
artistes" that will no doubt be in this thing.

And, of course, the quality is horrible.

Today, I went to my lab, and Robert churned out QuickPrints for me, and they 
look really good.  I took them right over to the cafe.  I heard last evening 
that I may be in, as a photog I was chatting with had to tell Johnnie that 
he couldn't get the stuff done, and John replied, "No probs, a bike courier 
dude [that's me ] is getting some stuff ready".

So, I think I'm in.  I'll let you know.

I think there's a prize to this, like $100 or something.  Not that I care.  
I'm really in it for the fun (how could it be otherwise, with these photos!)

Sorry to drone on, but this has consumed more time this week than it sounds 
like in this post, and I'm just glad to have it over.  Just have to go drink 
that free beer next week;  I've already booked Friday off work!

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

_
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: tele extenders

[Kenneth Waller]

Jay, I regularly use 1.4 Pentax extenders on my 300MM f4.5 FA and 600mm f4.0
FA and am happy with the results. Never tried 2.0 extenders and don't intend
to.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: tele extenders



> >From: Jay Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or
> >300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss
> >of sharpness, contrast, etc?

Re: LX and M*300 f4

[Hal & Sandra Davis]

How do we contact you off list?
- Original Message - 
From: "wendy beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:24 AM
Subject: FS: LX and M*300 f4


> Busy this weekend, so posting a day early
> No takers the last time so feel free to make me an offer
>
> For Sale:
> Excellent condition SMC-M* 300mm f4 lens. 77mm filter size. Built in
> retractable lens hood. Original caps.
> A real bargain at US$300 or CDN$400 plus shipping (probably around $15-ish
> with insurance)
> When I say excellent condition, I mean excellent. Really.
>
> LX. $300 or CDN$400 plus shipping (see above)
> It has the FA-1 finder and I replaced the SB21 screen with a brighter SE60
> (bought from Peter of Sunny Brighton). It's definitely been used. It has a
> fair amount of scuffs and scratches and the leatherette is lifting
slightly
> in a couple of places but it's not actually showing any brassing. A couple
> of bright spots on the top edges of the prism. Serial number is 52
> something and film speed goes to 3200. I also have a brand new user manual
> for it. Speeds were checked about a year ago and it had sticky-mirror
fixed
> with a service about three years ago and it's been fine ever since.
>
>
> Wendy Beard,
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.beard-redfern.com
>
>
>

PAW- Eagle Harbour Lighthouse-Wk of 3/22/04

[Kenneth Waller]

With the recent run on lighthouses, I thought I'd submit mine.
Check out my 5th Paw.
Anyone know the body of water?
Taken with a 600mm f4.0 FA lens in a high wind along with sideways rain. 

Comments - likes/dislikes - what would you have done differently?

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html

Thanks for taking the time

Ken Waller

all about the glass

[edwin]

>From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>2) ...there is very little difference in quality between comparable 
>>lenses from all the manufacturers.

>I think it's true that differences are small. And that manufacturers 
>had a large part of their line comparable with others'. 

Ironically, if this is true then it's not, as somebody suggested,
"all about the glass".  It's either "all about the cameras" (which differ 
a lot more in features and user interface) or "all about the perception 
of the glass".

> For example, 
>I though until last week that Pentax famous low distorsion (0.5%) 
>28/3.5 lens was unique in that respect but discovered that the 
>MC-Rokkor-X 28/3.5 had the same low distorsion figure.

One usually sees comparisons within brand, presumably for the benefit
of users of that brand who wish to make a choice.  You rarely see 
comparisons across brands.  It's not really useful, unless it turns out 
that most of brand A's lenses are better than the other brands at a given
price level.  If that were the case, everybody would buy brand A.
I don't really think that's why everybody seems to be buying Canon these 
days.

That 28/3.5 design is great in other ways too.  It makes Pentax's 
collection of mediocre 28/2.8 designs a bit of a mystery.  Fortunately
Pentax also offered the 30, 31, 28/2, etc.

>>Increasingly, manufacturers are tailoring optical quality more 
>>precisely to price class as they learn not only to engineer quality 
>>in but also to engineer it out.

>Still, sometimes you feel a manufacturer has put a bit more for the 
>price, hoping to sell volumes of that item.  This could be true of 
>the Olympus Stylus with the great 35/2.8.

Unfortunately, this is probably true primarily of entry level and generic 
stuff.  Sigma might outsell Tamron across all platforms if they make a 
better 24-240/4.5-8.0 zoom for the same price, but Pentax isnt' going to
sell a better 135/2.8 to somebody with a Nikon camera.  (Pity about 
that--I'd love to put that 135/2.8 IF on my Nikons...)
A better P&S lens or starter 28-80 might help sell cameras, though.

DJE

Re: Gandhi; WAS Re: My own DOF confusion

[Eactivist]

>In a message dated 3/25/2004 10:42:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Strikes me as strange that so many folks are misspelling such a famous name.

>ERN

Well, the first person spelled it wrong, and it went from there.

Marnie aka Doe   Sounds like a credible excuse to me, anyway.  I'll take 
it.

Re;The Politics of Oz

[Chris]

Graywolf wrote;-
In Australian Politics there are Independent candidates as well as the two
major parties,so one (or more)can express ones displeasureby voting against
them both.We have a situation in the Senate(Federal Upper House) where the
Independent parties hold the balance of power much to the chagrin of the
elected Government who have to negotiate deals to get legislation
passed.Strange system when the elected Gov.(House of Reps.)has to go through
a house of review with ratbag indy's holding enormous sway beyond their
vote.
Regards Chris Kennedy

Re: Cotty WOW

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nothing Special. Did this for a friend's father. It's a pic of Stephane
> Grappelli and Django Reinhart somewhere.

It could have been shot in London at recording sessions in 1936 or 1938. They visited 
London numerous times and did some of their finest recordings there (also soundwise), 
both as a duo and the full Hot Club Quintet.
The picture looks familiar, maybe from a record sleeve. Obviously a publicity shot. I 
may have more pictures from this shoot somewhere in the house.
Do you happen to know anything about the original print that was used?
(Django Reinhardt is one of my greatest musical heroes. Got a great part of his 
recordings, and they were many, all broadcasts, private sessions and privately 
recorded concerts included. He also visited the U.S. once in the forties and performed 
with Duke Ellington.
I consider him and Jimi Hendrix the two, no contest, outstanding geniuses of six 
stringed guitarplaying.)

Lasse

>Re-photographed on digital. The
> final printed version is sepia-toned.

> Some heavy damage to the guitar, the sofa / legs area. Loads of blemishes
> too small to resolve on a web page. About three hours work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _
> 
> 

Re: tele extenders

[edwin]

>From: Jay Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 
>300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss 
>of sharpness, contrast, etc?

That's exactly it.  Usually, it is the loss of sharpness that was 
noticeable, because loss of contrast can be corrected for more readily.
I found 300/2.8A* and 1.4x-AS to be useable, but noticeably less sharp
than the tele alone.  I had a Tokina 2X that was not great with any lens.

The loss of light can also be an issue, making it hard for you or any
AF system to focus well if the combo is slower than f/5.6.

>  When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was 
>always impressed with its results.  But now with another system I'm 
>getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so 
>than I would have expected.

The basic opinion I have seen expressed by many pros that use tele 
extenders is that

1) 2x extenders are not as good as 1.4x extenders.  Very few people I know
use a 2x, whereas a lot of them use a 1.4x.  I have not read many 
favorable reviews of 2x converters, and my own limited experience bears 
this out.

2) zooms are normally VERY POOR with tele extenders compared to primes, 
and the standard advice is NOT to use any extender with a zoom.  Recently,
I am hearing that the new 70-200 Nikon and Canon zooms appear to have 
adequate performance with a 1.4x extender, but it's a combination used out
of necessity for most people and I can't believe that the optical results
are good.  I have seen VERY FEW pros with a 1.4x on their 80-200 zooms, 
and NONE with the 2x on it.  Of course most pros I know own a 300.

DJE

Re: all about the glass

[edwin]

>From: Matt Giess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> Increasingly, manufacturers are
>> tailoring  optical quality more precisely to price class as they learn
>> not only to engineer quality in but also to engineer it out.  The days 
>>of
>> a cheap lens potentially being a great lens are passing.  This may
>> account for the  increase in popularity of the older equipment made in 
>>an
>> era when this did not happen (and equipment was not cheap...)

>I'd personally argue that a major factor in some modern lenses being a 
>bit poor lies in the refinements to the design process, in particular being 
>able to design to a particular price whilst ensuring the lens is at least 
>adequate for the target market. 

Yes.  I was not saying that companies were deliberately designing lenses 
with the goals of low optical quality or poor build quality simply to give
definition to their market line.  I was saying that modern manufacturing
technology makes it possible to make serviceable equipment much more 
cheaply by cutting corners optically and mechanically, and at certain
levels of the market this is acceptable.  There isn't nearly as much 
difference between any of the K series or Spotmatic series cameras as
there is in the current Pentax offerings, and this is because they have
figured out how to make a $150 camera for those folks who only need, want,
or can afford a $150 camera.  They still make "old-style" premium 
products, and they still carry "old-style" premium prices.  Same goes for 
lenses.  I've heard some very high prices quoted for what it would cost
Pentax to put out a re-issue of the Spotmatic and 50/1.4 Super Takumar
to the original specs. 

The thing is, while Pentax might find a way to make a good design more 
cheaply, or to produce a better design using an already cheap process, or
invent a new process which allows better AND cheaper designs, they can't
afford to simply make better lenses whatever the cost if they want to
compete in the market.  There is much better control now of the balance
between quality and manufacturing cost than there ever was, I think.
It does not mean that they can't make a great lens anymore, simply that
users are now used to being able to get acceptable lenses cheap and
out of the habit of paying the cost of premium products.  Leica survives
in a very small niche.

DJE

Re: tele extenders

[Mark Cassino]

At 02:01 PM 3/25/2004 -0600, you wrote:

To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 
300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss of 
sharpness, contrast, etc?  When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was always 
impressed with its results.  But now with another system I'm getting a 
slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so than I would 
have expected.
I read somewhere that a zoom basically already has a teleconverter built 
in.  I'm not sure how technically accurate that is, but in a way it makes 
sense.  I've never found a zoom/tc combo that worked well.

- MCC
-
Mark Cassino Photography

Kalamazoo, MI

http://www.markcassino.com

-

Politics of Oz

[Chris]

Graywolf wrote:-Only the rich can afford not to vote.
Yes,Non voting at this weekends NSW council elections incurs a fine of a
whopping $AU55.00.Almost half ones welfare(dole) payment.
Regards Chris K

Re: Cotty WOW

[Keith Whaley]

So say you!
I think it's a great job!
keith

Cotty wrote:

Nothing Special. Did this for a friend's father. It's a pic of Stephane
Grappelli and Django Reinhart somewhere. Re-photographed on digital. The
final printed version is sepia-toned.
Some heavy damage to the guitar, the sofa / legs area. Loads of blemishes
too small to resolve on a web page. About three hours work.


Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Steve Jolly]

Oi - *I'm* Mr Jolly ;-)

S

Lasse Karlsson wrote:

From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 21:43, Lasse Karlsson wrote:


I am just a jolly kind of fella' who wouldn't like to cause anyone no harm.

Thanks,
Lasse


Now I am worried Lasse!


Yes. Hard to believe, ain't it?
But it's true.
Almost everything about me is in fact very jolly.
You should see me walk for instance. I've got a very jolly walk.
Stan has actually seen it, and can attest to it.
People also say that I sound very jolly when I talk, for instance.
It may not come through in my messages on the list, though.
Yes indeed.
"Mr. Jolly" - that's me, Frits.
That's the one you're talking to, and nobody else.
Funny, ain't it?

:-)
Lasse

Re: Lasse Karlsson; WAS Re: flaming

[Cotty]

On 25/3/04, ERN discumbobulated:

> Anybody else get the impression this guy has either ingested something that 
>really doesn't agree with him; or needs some
>medication?

Dahh, he's okay. It's rutting season up there in Scandinavia. It'll pass ;-)


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Cotty WOW

[Cotty]

Nothing Special. Did this for a friend's father. It's a pic of Stephane
Grappelli and Django Reinhart somewhere. Re-photographed on digital. The
final printed version is sepia-toned.

Some heavy damage to the guitar, the sofa / legs area. Loads of blemishes
too small to resolve on a web page. About three hours work.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: Another reason for me to buy an ist-d

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote:

> Go ahead, think of it anyway you want.  Very few 35 mm users think of it
> as cropped 120.

I guess as many use latter type lenses on former type body.

Kostas

Re: Politics of Oz

[Gianfranco Irlanda]

graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, a reverse poll tax. Only the rich can afford not to vote.
> 

The rich are the ones you have to vote for, I guess... (that
doesn't happen only in Oz, though)
:-(

Gianfranco
(back on topic now)

=
“To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage.” 

---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Re: Australia and Pentax - frustration (whinge)

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 Mar 2004 at 16:53, Cotty wrote:

> On 25/3/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated:
> 
> >>camera shop and had it promptly returned as a no fix due to
> unavailability of
> >>parts at a cost of AU$50. The simple fact is that it has a dodgy ratchet on
> >>the
> >>
> >>Rob Studdert
> 
> Yep. He had that dodgy ratchet when he visited us a a couple a years
> back. I blame the parents...

Hey Cotty let's not be starting rumours, we don't want to scare people :-)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera

[Raimo K]

Do try to find some proof for your statements.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


- Original Message - 
From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera


> From: "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Multi-layer coatings were developed much later, jointly by Zeiss and
Pentax.
> > SMC Takumar lenses were introduced in 1971
>
> You are mistaken. The techniques of multilayer coating developed during
WWII and were used in lenses even in the 50:s.
> What Pentax and Zeiss did was to find methods of applying it in a
economically feasible way.
>
> > - war had ended before that even in Åland islands.
>
> As indicated above - multilayer coating techniques were under development
during a time when also Finland was at war during the WWII.
>
> Lasse
>
> > All the best!
> > Raimo K
> > Personal photography homepage at:
> > http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera
> >
> >
> > > It struck me, Sven - maybe you are thinking of multilayer coating
> > techniques, which indeed I believe were developed during WWII-time?
> > >
> > > Lasse
> > >
> > > From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > From: "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Coating started to become common after WWII. No pre-war lens on
any
> > publicly
> > > > > sold camera will have coating - unless applied later.
> > > > > Sven
> > > >
> > > > I think that you are mistaken. The process and finding that certain
> > coating would suppress reflections on glass surfaces was discovered by
> > accident - I think - around 1907-1909, although memory may slip here.
> > > > As far as I can recall, coating camera lenses got common already
during
> > the twenties.
> > > > I have in my possession a Zeiss Ikon 6x9 folder camera from the mid
> > thirties (to tell by it's serial number) which is clearly, visibly
coated.
> > (I haven't had any reason to believe it was applied later or had a the
lens
> > exchanged, although this may be thinkable.)
> > > >
> > > > If you, or anyone, happen to have any lnks or other references to
show
> > that I'm mistaken on this, I would be grateful, in order to avoid future
> > misinformation.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Lasse.
> > > >
> > > > > Zitat von Lasse Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > ...> I think that any camera lens made since the about the 1920:s
will
> > be
> > > > > coated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lasse
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera

[Raimo K]

This is not correct. If those coated lenses exist they must have been coated
afterwards.
The coating technology was productionised by Zeiss - whether it was
perfected just before WW II - late thirties - or during it is not very
important because they started to use it during the war and allowed Leitz to
coat some of their special lenses also during the war. Leitz tried their own
methods but the coatings were soft, thick and inferior. After the war all
German patents became public property so the technology was available for
anybody.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


- Original Message - 
From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera


> WRT the history of coatings, Lasse is closer.
> By the late 30s *most* New Productions were coated.
> Only a very few weren't.
> (I think perhaps some of the Goerz LF lenses may
> not yet have been coated.)
> A small minority, but there were some.
> And many people still owned uncoated optics.
>
> Then came WWII (disrupting the consumer camera business!),
> and aftewards virtually all lenses were coated.
> And people made new purchases.
> So the perception was that coatings were post-WWII because of
> what people had in-hand and were purchasing.
> But the *transition* was toward the late-30s, not late-40s.
>
> CRB
>
> --
> -
>
> "You can impress people at a distance, but you can only impact them up
close."
>
> -- Howard Hendricks
> --
>

Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera

[Raimo K]

Leitz has not been very good at coatings - so this is wishful thinking by
the Leica lovers.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


- Original Message - 
From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera


> >Multi-layer coatings were developed much later, jointly by Zeiss and
Pentax.
> >SMC Takumar lenses were introduced in 1971...
> >
> >Raimo K
> >
> >>  It struck me, Sven - maybe you are thinking of multilayer coating
> >techniques, which indeed I believe were developed during WWII-time?
> >>
> >  > Lasse
>
> You may refer to the fact that some exotic lenses for scientific
> purposes could indeed be provided with more than one coat long before
> SMC appeared. But this was a very expensive process and was not
> applicable to consumer optics.  I've seen a mention on the Leica User
> Group that some pre-70s Leitz optics could also have had one or a few
> elements coated with more than one coat, but I've not find enough
> information to say if this seemed speculation or proven fact.
>
> What Asahi did is to resolve the question of the feasability of
> multi-coating consumer lenses.  They gave it to the masses.  (Well,
> we're talking about the middle-class in rich countries and the
> upper-class, small but found everywhere, but I'm slipping off-topic.)
>
> By the way, some Pentax 6X7 lenses were multi-coated before the
> official introduction of SMC.  Also some multiple coating (if
> multiple means 2 or more) has been around for quite a while at
> Minolta where it was called Achromatic Coating and available on some
> lenses since 1958.  But this was roughly multi-coating as it implied
> 2 different thickness of the same type of coating, at the beginning
> at least.
>
> Andre
>

Re: Attn: Keith -- 127 b&w film!

[Keith Whaley]

Thanks, Collin...

This auction offering stands at $2.42/roll right now, and you must buy 
18 rolls, and it's almost out of date.
I know it's sstill good for some time, if refrigerated, but...
Brand new will cost me $3.29/roll, and it's got a long shelf life.
Considering my rate of usage, I'd rather pay the additional $.87/roll up 
front, in 3 packs or 6 packs, and not take a chance...

I DO appreciate the heads up, however, as I got a few good URLs from 
that cite.

Thank you very much.

keith whaley

Collin R Brendemuehl wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3805445441&category=4204

RE: Photo Software

[Jens Bladt]

A very good program is Micrografx Picture Publisher. Corell bought it and
killed it. But you might be able to find a version 7 or 8. It can do allmost
anything Photoshop does - and more (you can reverse anything, even after
saving a file).
All the best
Jens

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Jeff Geilenkirchen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 25. marts 2004 17:13
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Photo Software


Hello everyone!

I'm at a loss for use with photo software since my PhotoShop CD appears to
be not usable anymore when I needed to reinstall it.   :-/

Does anyone have any recommendations for some economical photoediting
software as a replacement to PS since it's so expensive?  Or would anyone
know where to get PS copy at a reduced price?

Thoughts & suggestions are welcome!  :-)

Thank you for your time,

Jeff

Re: OT: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera

[Gianfranco Irlanda]

Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What other options might there be for inexpensive
carry-arounds?
> 
> Budget: <$100us.  (I've not seen a Fuji GS645 this
cheap--yet.)
> Other: I prefer a single-coated lens over uncoated.

Collin,

I may be no real expert in this field, but I own an Iskra, a
Soviet 6x6 rangefinder (year 1963) which is a very nice and
compact (well, enough...) camera, although not really
lightweight. Mine was dirty cheap (<$50) back in 1995 but I
guess they are hard to find now (sometimes they are available on
ebay, though). It has a 75mm f/3.5 with a shutter range from 1''
to 1/500. The lens, coated, is definitely sharp for what I can
tell (made several 30x40cm prints and a few 50x50cm).

Ciao,

Gianfranco

=
“To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage.” 

---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Robert & Leigh Woerner]

"Kids say the darndest things".

Art Linkletter

Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera

[graywolf]

I believe Kodak started coating lenses just before WWII. However it was not 
until the 50's that they were coating all their lenses.

--

Rofini wrote:

I can't give a decent reference for the history of coating techniques but
I

know when Rollei started fitting coated lenses (1949, from Zeiss and
Schneider). Had there been coated lenses available in the thirties, Rollei
would have surely used them.
Sven


A link to a coating history summary:
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/%7Eb-wallen/BN_Photo/KingslakeCoatings.htm
Mark Rofini



--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: Photo Software

[tigermoses]

Which version of photoshop?
if you have your serial number, yuo can still install from anyone's CD
its not a CDkey like Microsoft products

-Original Message-
From: Jeff Geilenkirchen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 25, 2004 10:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Photo Software

Hello everyone!

I'm at a loss for use with photo software since my PhotoShop CD appears to
be not usable anymore when I needed to reinstall it.   :-/

Does anyone have any recommendations for some economical photoediting
software as a replacement to PS since it's so expensive?  Or would anyone
know where to get PS copy at a reduced price?

Thoughts & suggestions are welcome!  :-)

Thank you for your time,

Jeff

I´m off

[Raimo K]

I´ll be leaving for Bratislava tomorrow so I cannot participate in the
lively OT discussions - but I´ll be back on Tuesday.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera

[Rofini]

> I can't give a decent reference for the history of coating techniques but
I
> know when Rollei started fitting coated lenses (1949, from Zeiss and
> Schneider). Had there been coated lenses available in the thirties, Rollei
> would have surely used them.
>
> Sven

A link to a coating history summary:
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/%7Eb-wallen/BN_Photo/KingslakeCoatings.htm

Mark Rofini

Re: Lasse Karlsson; WAS Re: flaming

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >  Anybody else get the impression this guy has either ingested something that
> >really doesn't agree with him; or needs some
> >medication?
> 
> Am I wrong or things have now cooled down and Lasse is participating 
> in non-OT threads in a controled way?  This is all we asked.  So, why 
> ask for more trouble?

Beats me too, Andre.
Pity you seem to have killed this thread, though. Got my name on it... 
:-)

Lasse 

Re: tele extenders

[graywolf]

What happens is that all the aberrations of the lens are doubled along with the 
focal length, old cheap tele-converters add their own aberrations as well. Zooms 
tend to have more aberrations so they do not stand up to tele-converters as well 
as most primes. However most of the 2.8 zooms are very good and can stand up to 
the tele-converter quite well while cheaper zooms do not. However there is no 
help for the fact that if your lens is sharp at 16x but not higher 
magnifications with a 2x it will only do 8x. That is simple physics.

--

Andre Langevin wrote:

To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 
300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss 
of sharpness, contrast, etc?  When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was 
always impressed with its results.  But now with another system I'm 
getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so 
than I would have expected.


I've heard repeatedly that zoom don't marry well with tele-converters.  
There may be exception, i.e. when a zoom has a dedicated converter, but 
has there been a lot of them and are they really working fine?

Andre


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 21:43, Lasse Karlsson wrote:

> > I am just a jolly kind of fella' who wouldn't like to cause anyone no harm.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Lasse

> Now I am worried Lasse!

Yes. Hard to believe, ain't it?
But it's true.

Almost everything about me is in fact very jolly.
You should see me walk for instance. I've got a very jolly walk.
Stan has actually seen it, and can attest to it.

People also say that I sound very jolly when I talk, for instance.
It may not come through in my messages on the list, though.

Yes indeed.
"Mr. Jolly" - that's me, Frits.
That's the one you're talking to, and nobody else.

Funny, ain't it?

:-)
Lasse

Re: OT:Agfa paper developer

[graywolf]

I agree, it sounds like oxidation. You can prevent that by squeezing the air out 
of plastic bottles, or dropping marbles into glass bottles to bring the solution 
level to the top of the bottle.

--

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Sounds like the developer has oxidized.  IAC, I've used one
or two of the Agfa developers - Neutol? - and decided not to
use them any more.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Any one here use the Agfa multi contrast paper developer successfully.?

I recently bought a bottle,as it was the only thing available. My first time using my 
own
darkroom setup
was to do 20 contact sheets,which looked ok. The second and third time,all the prints
seemed to have
some contrast but also a heavy grey tint to them.
I stored the clear bottle in darkness,but i noticed at time 2 and 3,there were quite a 
few
brown droplet
stains on the inside and seemed to make the solution off colour when mixed with water.
I used a #3 filter at both school and home.A Beseler 35 printmaker at school and a 
Vivitar
E32 at
home.School developer is Ilford,yet my school prints are good and contrasty,my home 
ones
grey but
with contrast.
One thing is the suare filters are a bit to big for the Vivitar and they sit on a bit 
of a
slant.Could that be
throughing light off a bit,??
Is the Agfa partially to blame or is it me and my Viv.:-)

Dave




--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

SoCal PDML - Hot Rodz

[Francis Alviar]

The Irvine Chamber of Commerce presents Hot Rodz.

Free admission ($5 parking) to be held on April 17 at
the Irvine Park Place - Jamboree and Michelson.

See attached link for more info:

http://www.irvinechamber.com/hotrodz/home.htm

I'll be checking it out if anyone wants to join.

See you there.


Francis M. Alviar


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Re: all about the glass

[graywolf]

Well, you seem to have hit the nail on the head. All of the above (Opps, the 
below). Plus the tendency to claim "mine is better than yours" regardless of 
what the facts may be.

--

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I've been thinking in the wake of some recent discussions of optical
quality that every camera user community I've been exposed to
(Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leica, Minolta) seems convinced that
their lenses are at least as good if not better than the other brands.
This includes people on this list and friends of mine who have switched
from Nikon or Canon to Canon or Nikon, or to Pentax, guys like me
who have moved from Pentax to Nikon (not for the glass), etc.
The only real exception to this is the first string of the third party
manufacturers--Sigma, Tamron, Tokina.  People seem to debate which of them 
is better but only recently compare them to the manufacturer's lenses.

There seem to be several possible explainations for this.

1) Somebody is wrong.  Perhaps Leica IS better but those of us without the
money will never know.  Perhaps Minolta is NOT as good but the user 
community hasn't discovered it or can't admit it.

2) Everybody is right, and there is very little difference in quality 
between comparable lenses from all the manufacturers.  It took me a while
to realize that advertisements did not focus on the qualitative 
differences between products because in general there were no significant
qualitative differences between products.  
Realistically, most modern lenses are "good enough" for the needs of the 
users in any given price class.  Increasingly, manufacturers are tailoring 
optical quality more precisely to price class as they learn not only to
engineer quality in but also to engineer it out.  The days of a cheap lens
potentially being a great lens are passing.  This may account for the 
increase in popularity of the older equipment made in an era when this
did not happen (and equipment was not cheap...)

3) There is enough variation in all the manufacturer's lens lines that
everyone has some duds and some killers and user opinion depends a lot
on what subset of the lens line he has experienced.  Certainly there is
a lot of difference across price lines within each brand, more so in some 
than others.  I'm increasingly convinced that the reason most pros say
Canon is better and most advanced amateurs on this list seem to be 
disgusted with Canon is that Canon has the greatest range of 
variation across its product line, whereas Pentax may have the least.

4) The various brands are optimized differently, with Nikon aiming for 
greater corner sharpness at the expense of bokeh and coma, Canon aiming
for optical specs at the expense of distortion, Pentax aiming for center 
sharpness and bokeh at the expense of corner performance, etc.  
Thus, a given brand may be better at giving a certain "look", or under 
certain conditions of use.  It may also be a question of what fault annoys 
a user more--distortion, coma, bad bokeh, lack of corner sharpness, bad 
color balance, etc.  Eventually each user migrates toward the brand which
offers the best combination of optimizations for his taste.
  
DJE



--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: Postcards from Pinole

[Dan Matyola]

Steve Jolly wrote:

I assume they're part of a larger panorama?

I prefer the bay scene to the hotel, but that's just 'cos there's more 
to look at :-)

S

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Pinole is a small town a few miles north of me, located
along the San Francisco Bay.  Its claim to fame is that it
hasn't any, other than for providing inexpensive housing to
shipyard and dynamite workers during WW II.
These "postcards" are part of a long-term project I'm
working on.  Hope you enjoy 'em.  As usual, comments and
crits are welcome ... ;-))
The American Hotel & Grill:

http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/american-hotel.html

Bay scene with bicycle:

http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/bicycle-by-the-bay.html

shel





--
Daniel J. Matyola  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stanley, Powers & Matyola  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East  http://geocities.com/dmatyola/
Bridgewater, NJ 08807  (908)725-3322  fax: (908)707-0399

Re: Postcards from Pinole

[Dan Matyola]

I really liked the hotel, but found the bicycle scene a bit too cute. 
Different strokes, I guess.

Steve Jolly wrote:

I assume they're part of a larger panorama?

I prefer the bay scene to the hotel, but that's just 'cos there's more 
to look at :-)

Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Multi-layer coatings were developed much later, jointly by Zeiss and Pentax.
> SMC Takumar lenses were introduced in 1971

You are mistaken. The techniques of multilayer coating developed during WWII and were 
used in lenses even in the 50:s.
What Pentax and Zeiss did was to find methods of applying it in a economically 
feasible way.

> - war had ended before that even in Åland islands.

As indicated above - multilayer coating techniques were under development during a 
time when also Finland was at war during the WWII.

Lasse

> All the best!
> Raimo K
> Personal photography homepage at:
> http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera
> 
> 
> > It struck me, Sven - maybe you are thinking of multilayer coating
> techniques, which indeed I believe were developed during WWII-time?
> >
> > Lasse
> >
> > From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > From: "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Coating started to become common after WWII. No pre-war lens on any
> publicly
> > > > sold camera will have coating - unless applied later.
> > > > Sven
> > >
> > > I think that you are mistaken. The process and finding that certain
> coating would suppress reflections on glass surfaces was discovered by
> accident - I think - around 1907-1909, although memory may slip here.
> > > As far as I can recall, coating camera lenses got common already during
> the twenties.
> > > I have in my possession a Zeiss Ikon 6x9 folder camera from the mid
> thirties (to tell by it's serial number) which is clearly, visibly coated.
> (I haven't had any reason to believe it was applied later or had a the lens
> exchanged, although this may be thinkable.)
> > >
> > > If you, or anyone, happen to have any lnks or other references to show
> that I'm mistaken on this, I would be grateful, in order to avoid future
> misinformation.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lasse.
> > >
> > > > Zitat von Lasse Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > ...> I think that any camera lens made since the about the 1920:s will
> be
> > > > coated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lasse
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 

Re: all about the glass

[Andre Langevin]

every camera user community I've been exposed to... seems convinced that
their lenses are at least as good if not better than the other brands.
I noticed it also.  It goes farther.  On one Minolta group, for 
example, I noticed that people took for granted that multi-coating 
was invented by Minolta and used since remote times on their lenses. 
I think they extrapolated from the fact that Minolta began to use a 
two-layer process (two coats of the same material applied with 
different thickness) in 1958.

(...)  There seem to be several possible explainations for this.

2) ...there is very little difference in quality between comparable 
lenses from all the manufacturers.
I think it's true that differences are small. And that manufacturers 
had a large part of their line comparable with others'.  For example, 
I though until last week that Pentax famous low distorsion (0.5%) 
28/3.5 lens was unique in that respect but discovered that the 
MC-Rokkor-X 28/3.5 had the same low distorsion figure.

Increasingly, manufacturers are tailoring optical quality more 
precisely to price class as they learn not only to engineer quality 
in but also to engineer it out.
Still, sometimes you feel a manufacturer has put a bit more for the 
price, hoping to sell volumes of that item.  This could be true of 
the Olympus Stylus with the great 35/2.8.

Andre

Re: Postcards from Pinole

[Steve Jolly]

I assume they're part of a larger panorama?

I prefer the bay scene to the hotel, but that's just 'cos there's more 
to look at :-)

S

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Pinole is a small town a few miles north of me, located
along the San Francisco Bay.  Its claim to fame is that it
hasn't any, other than for providing inexpensive housing to
shipyard and dynamite workers during WW II.
These "postcards" are part of a long-term project I'm
working on.  Hope you enjoy 'em.  As usual, comments and
crits are welcome ... ;-))
The American Hotel & Grill:

http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/american-hotel.html

Bay scene with bicycle:

http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/bicycle-by-the-bay.html

shel

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Frits Wüthrich]

On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 21:43, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
> I am just a jolly kind of fella' who wouldn't like to cause anyone no harm.

> Thanks,
> Lasse
Now I am worried Lasse!
-- 
Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Photo Software

[graywolf]

My first suggestion is to check with Adobe and see if they will not replace the 
CD if you send in the bad one. Of course that presupposes you have an original 
CD. If it is an older version they allow a huge discount on upgrades.

--

Jeff Geilenkirchen wrote:

Hello everyone!

I'm at a loss for use with photo software since my PhotoShop CD appears to
be not usable anymore when I needed to reinstall it.   :-/
Does anyone have any recommendations for some economical photoediting
software as a replacement to PS since it's so expensive?  Or would anyone
know where to get PS copy at a reduced price?
Thoughts & suggestions are welcome!  :-)

Thank you for your time,

Jeff


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: tele extenders

[Mark Roberts]

Jay Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 
>300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss 
>of sharpness, contrast, etc?  When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was 
>always impressed with its results.  But now with another system I'm 
>getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so 
>than I would have expected.

Personally, I'd never use a 2x teleconverter with a 70-200 zoom, even a
top-quality f/2.8 one.

Generally, I stick with top-notch primes for use with teleconverters.
Occasionally (under extreme duress) I have resorted to a 1.4x or 1.7x
with my FA*80-200/2.8, but it's usually too much compromise for my
taste. 

Zooms are a compromise, "consumer grade" lenses are a compromise and
teleconverters are a compromise. I try to limit myself to one compromise
per photo, maximum. :)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: taking a break for a while...

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> OK Lasse - but think about how many times you have sent people emails that
> may be considered as harassments,

If I ever subjected anyone to what can be considered harassment, please bring that 
message to my attention, so that I publicly can apologize.
As everybody should know by now, I am just a jolly kind of fella' who wouldn't like to 
cause anyone no harm.

>scaring the shit out of people

Any people who feel they wrongly got their shit scared out of them by me, please come 
forward and tell me how and when, so I can apologize if this seems to be true.

> or other
> things you want to stamp out now.

> Usually you get your medication right sooner.

I don't understand what you are trying to say by this. Please explain.

> All the best!
> Raimo K

Thanks,
Lasse

> Personal photography homepage at:
> http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:11 PM
> Subject: Re: taking a break for a while...
> 
> 
> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Lasse Karlsson"
> > > Subject: Re: taking a break for a while...
> > > >
> > > > Post it to the list.
> > >
> > > Umm, that is generally considered a fairly serious breach of
> > > ettiquette on email lists.
> >
> > 1) I don't care about other lists. I'm talking about the PDML and am
> suggesting a practise I think would be an improvement.
> > 2) The netiquette practise to which you are referring, is for the purpose
> of protecting private and personal information sent privately in confidence.
> > It's purpose is not to protect unsolicited private emails that may be
> considered as harassments, scaring the shit out of people and possibly
> driving them off the PDML, as in Tanya's case. Do you really favour such a
> behaviour?
> > We've got a report of a list member feeling wrongly harassed. You just
> respond by referring to useless routine practises, spitting on someone who
> wants to do something about it and offer no other constructive alternative,
> just as you if you simply didn't care about other people than yourself.
> >
> > > I'm surprised you would even consider doing such a thing.
> > > Or perhaps not.
> >
> > For your information I'm not a bit surprised at any suspicions you are and
> will keep on throwing at me and using the list for spewing your personal
> venom, obviously thinking that other list members think you're cool.
> > That's simply your nature, I have come to realize.
> >
> > Lasse
> >
> > > William Robb

RE: Photo Software

[brooksdj]

 There is a Photoshop mailing list that has a
> number of very knowledgeable people on it. It's a bit over moderated but
> otherwise friendly. > 
> Butch

Understatement there Butch.

A number of my replies have been bounced and some questions seem to be rejected by the
list moms.
Not enough words like "Photo" or "Shop" in the body of the message i quess.:-)

Dave

Re: OT:Agfa paper developer

[Shel Belinkoff]

Sounds like the developer has oxidized.  IAC, I've used one
or two of the Agfa developers - Neutol? - and decided not to
use them any more.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Any one here use the Agfa multi contrast paper developer 
> successfully.?
> 
> I recently bought a bottle,as it was the only thing available. My first time using 
> my own
> darkroom setup
> was to do 20 contact sheets,which looked ok. The second and third time,all the prints
> seemed to have
> some contrast but also a heavy grey tint to them.
> I stored the clear bottle in darkness,but i noticed at time 2 and 3,there were quite 
> a few
> brown droplet
> stains on the inside and seemed to make the solution off colour when mixed with 
> water.
> 
> I used a #3 filter at both school and home.A Beseler 35 printmaker at school and a 
> Vivitar
> E32 at
> home.School developer is Ilford,yet my school prints are good and contrasty,my home 
> ones
> grey but
> with contrast.
> One thing is the suare filters are a bit to big for the Vivitar and they sit on a 
> bit of a
> slant.Could that be
> throughing light off a bit,??
> 
> Is the Agfa partially to blame or is it me and my Viv.:-)
> 
> Dave
>

Re: Another reason for me to buy an ist-d

[Steve Desjardins]

Go ahead, think of it anyway you want.  Very few 35 mm users think of it
as cropped 120.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/25/04 11:03AM >>>
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> reach I know cropping accomplishes the same thing in film-based
camera's but
> somehow I think it's different, although I know it really isn't.
Weird
> reasoning I know, but it works for me..

I don't think it's strange. The "magnification" is also apparent on
the viewfinder and thus affects composition, would be my unqualified
opinion.

Kostas

Re: tele extenders

[Andre Langevin]

To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 
300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising 
element...loss of sharpness, contrast, etc?  When I used a 300/4A* 
with a 2x-AS I was always impressed with its results.  But now with 
another system I'm getting a slightly diffused image with a 
70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so than I would have expected.
I've heard repeatedly that zoom don't marry well with 
tele-converters.  There may be exception, i.e. when a zoom has a 
dedicated converter, but has there been a lot of them and are they 
really working fine?

Andre

Re: The Politics of Oz

[graywolf]

Well, I have always said there should be a "None Of The Above" box on the 
ballet. As it is there is no way to vote against both candidates.

Everyone seems to think that the great majority of those who don't vote share 
their views, and they would win in a landslide if they could just get them to 
all vote. In probable fact the non-voters are about as divided as the voters and 
the results would be about the same.

When you think of it though when a large proportion of the registered voters 
don't bother going to the polls it does say something about what they think of 
the candidates.

--

Keith Whaley wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Paul.
I assumed that, but you never know...
The U.S. of A. would be a different country if we could get all those 
who don't vote now, to actually get to the polls. Even if some of them 
didn't actually place a vote.
I think most here, like in AU, can't be bothered with the political 
system and those in it...
However, if they found themselves at a polling place and all they had to 
do was go in and make their wishes made known... a lot more might decide 
 to "make some changes around here."

keith whaley

Paul Ewins wrote:

The democratic part is that you only have to show up and have your name
ticked off. They don't check the completed ballot, so you can leave all
squares blank, which is the same as not voting. The system ensures that
everybody turns up and makes a decision on whether or not to vote for
somebody. Nobody ever has to vote for somebody the don't like.
For my next trick I'll try to explain how preferential voting works, and
the senate system. Or maybe not
Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia
-Original Message-
From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
That is exactly what happens Keith!

When you turn 18, you are automatically placed on an electoral roll
where
you live.  Every time there is a voting day, you go in, have your name
ticked off and then go into the booth and vote.  If you don't have your
name
ticked off, you get fined.







--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html