Correct filename now

[Camdir]

http://members.aol.com/camdir/mystery.jpg

Mystery Cable

[Camdir]

I have never seen one of these before.

Cable looks to be around 10 or 15 feet long - one connector is a 5 pin round 
similar to Motor Drive A - the other I have nae ken.

http://members.aol.com/camdir.mystery.jpg

Any ideas?

Kind regards

Peter

RE: dust in my view finder...

[Alan Chan]

If you can see the dust through the viewfinder but can't blow them away, 
they are trapped between the prism and the screen. If the dust looks "sharp" 
through the viewfinder, they are on the upper side of the screen. Don't ever 
use compressed air can because it might blow some nasty stuff onto the 
screen which will be damaged for good. Use a hand blower only. If you know 
how to remove the screen, you can blow off the dust.  If the dust won't come 
off, just flush the screen with warm tap water, then blow off the water 
drops carefully. Never every touch the surfaces of the screen with anything.

Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I am having problems with dust and hair looking bits being visible in both
the viewfinder of my *istD and one of my Z-20's.  I have blown them out 
with
compressed air, but to with no avail.  I am not sure if it is on the mirror
or the pentaprism - any suggestions?  I know that it doesn't affect the
image that comes through the lens, but it is a pain in the butt to look at
when I am shooting!
_
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: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Ann Sanfedele]

John Francis wrote:
> 
> >
> > John Francis wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can someone tell me -
> > > > what sort of distance is it from LAX to San Jose?
> > >
> > > Around 500 miles.
> >
> > I'd say no more than 350 - straight up route 5,
> > no?
> > Typo?
> 
> Perhaps a little more - around 360 miles, I believe.

Well, I went and looked it up - thinking I was
under a bit
too, and came up with 390.  Go figer

> 
> Not so much a typo as the signposted distance on 101,
> which is 448 miles from just south of San Jose, IIRC.

Right,  101 would be more  of course.

> I was thinking of the distance to Long Beach, which
> is what I'll be doing in a couple of weeks.
> 
> > p. s. IT isn't boring if you take the route along
> > the water, or go up the
> > east side of the Sierras and then down -- of
> > course, tahts a lot longer
> > but very pretty.
> 
> I'll come up 101 (or even Route 1) if I've got time,
> but that's an all-day drive.  But it does have the very
> definite advantage that you're driving up through Big Sur
> and the Monterey area as the sun sets over the pacific.

A nicer drive than rt 5 to be sure --
but in case this started with "how fast can i get
to..."
(I've skimmed a lot of posts and deleted tons) by
original
query I thought I'd reassure the traveler it was a
bit
less than 500 :)

ann

Re: SMC-M 135mm f3.5 vs. SMC-M 150mm f3.5

[Alan Chan]

Mine was the "M".  :-)

Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
...but the scans show some very good images!
I see no problem with that.
Which 135mm f/3.5 IS it?

I have several 135s, and am trying to choose...all input is welcomed.

keith whaley
_
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: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[danilo]

Actually I was waaay of track

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[danilo]

Alle 22:47, lunedì 29 marzo 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography ha scritto:
> To begin with, Attila and Danilo asked what a "wabbit" is...  Danilo was on
> the right track...

I don't know if I was on the right track, this is what I've found.
Now that you've pointed out that it was a cartoon I can quite understand the
"You wascawwy wabbit!" quote.
I thought Elmer Fudd was a developer


from www.dictionary.com:

 /wab'it/ [almost certainly from Elmer Fudd's immortal line
"You wascawwy wabbit!"] 1. A legendary early hack reported on
a System/360 at RPI and elsewhere around 1978; this may have
descended (if only by inspiration) from hack called RABBITS
reported from 1969 on a Burroughs 55000 at the University of
Washington Computer Center. The program would make two copies
of itself every time it was run, eventually crashing the
system.

2. By extension, any hack that includes infinite
self-replication but is not a virus or worm. See fork
bomb and rabbit job, see also cookie monster.


ciao
Danilo

---

Re: Wind Point Lighthouse

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 3/27/2004 7:36:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/DarkSkys.html

Just thought to post a link to some lighthouse
photos I had on line.  Bob S.

--
All are unusual or different with cool colors.

But the Witches Night one blows me away.  Definitely looks like the opening 
to a horror flick or something. :-)

Nice shots!

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: PAW - birds and long lenses

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 3/28/2004 3:19:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/

the first three were taken with my *istD at ISO 200 using my FA* 400 f5.6
with the Pentax A1.4X-L and then cropped exactly 50%. that means a total
effective FOV of 400mm * 1.4 * 1.5 * 2.0 = 1680mm. the second three were
taken with *istD at ISO 800 using my FA* 400 f5.6 with the Sigma AF APO 2.0
extender and then cropped 50% too. that is an effective FOV of 400mm * 2.0 *
1.5 * 2.0 = 2400. all were taken this weekend in the Hudson Valley region of
NY State.

Herb

-
Great, Herb! I really like #1, #2, and #4. Style-wise #1 looks like a 
Japanese brush painting. #2 and #4 are nice close-ups with good composition of the 
branches. Some of the others don't do much for me, such as the one with all the 
grass -- not a good view of the birds, but all are decent close-ups.

I would never have know a teleconvertor had been used. 

Marnie aka Doe  Makes me hopeful for the future (re: mag factor of a DSLR). 
I've got to get a good teleconvertor (pls, no recommendations).

Re: big is beautiful

[Eactivist]

>In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:42:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>I agree with everything you say.

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

>From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
>One of the small camera disadvantages that I ran into from time to
>time while playing the wedding game relates to client respect.
>We have been programmed to think of bigger as better (hence the term
>"go big or go home").
>I certainly understand that a large noisey camera would be a
>disadvantage for street photography, and honestly, I think the same
>disadvantage would apply to photojournalism, for many of the same
>reasons.
>OTOH, as soon as you are working directly with a client, often the
>larger camera garners instant respect.
>This, in turn, can actually lead to better photos, as it is one more
>thing that puts the client at ease about the job.
>
>William Robb

How about big (long) lenses? Can't a huge lens on a smaller camera have the 
same effect as a big camera?

I am thinking specifically of the paparazzi. Some of the lenses one sees them 
using are huge. Not that they get any respect, though.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: Sigma 12-24

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 3/29/2004 9:23:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in need of an ultrawide for the *istD.  I'm wondering if this lens
is released yet for Pentax mount and can be purchased somewhere?
Indications are that it is not yet available.

Thanks for any info you can give me.

Bruce
--
Why not contact Sigma directly? Tot ask about mount and distributors? Course 
I don't know if that works, since I've never tried to contact a camera or lens 
company directly. 

Marnie aka Doe

Re: Sigma 12-24

[Bruce Dayton]

Well, now I know that I can't get it in Oz just yet.  I'm hoping that
someone will say it is available in the US somewhere.


Bruce


Monday, March 29, 2004, 9:57:32 PM, you wrote:

TMP> Bruce, I spoke to CR Kennedy here in Australia about just that lens about
TMP> half an hour ago!  They said it was on backorder and that there were three
TMP> separate shipments on back order, and they had no idea at all when it would
TMP> be available. He said that price would be aroun AUD$1500 (rrp), but most
TMP> retailers would probably discount it to around the AUD$1300 mark.

TMP> Probably doesn't help you at all but you did say "...any info you can give
TMP> me".

TMP> tan.

TMP> -Original Message-
TMP> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TMP> Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:23 PM
TMP> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TMP> Subject: Sigma 12-24


TMP> I'm in need of an ultrawide for the *istD.  I'm wondering if this lens
TMP> is released yet for Pentax mount and can be purchased somewhere?
TMP> Indications are that it is not yet available.

TMP> Thanks for any info you can give me.

TMP> Bruce

Re: Pentax sighting

[Bob W]

Hi,

Tuesday, March 30, 2004, 12:33:43 AM, Cotty wrote:

> Just watched a documentary about French photographer Yann Arthus Bertrand
>[...] In fact I saw the exhibition by chance a couple of years ago when
> visiting Jostein in Oslo.

> 

next time you have some time to kill in London, Cotty, go to the
Natural History Museum. In the courtyard they have a large outdoor
exhibition of his work. The photos are displayed on large panels in
the petrified forest, and there is an enormous floor map of the world
showing where he shot. It's a superb exhibition.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re:The Elite Eight

[Chris]

Awesome shot!Just a great action shot.
Regards Chris K

RE: Sigma 12-24

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Bruce, I spoke to CR Kennedy here in Australia about just that lens about
half an hour ago!  They said it was on backorder and that there were three
separate shipments on back order, and they had no idea at all when it would
be available. He said that price would be aroun AUD$1500 (rrp), but most
retailers would probably discount it to around the AUD$1300 mark.

Probably doesn't help you at all but you did say "...any info you can give
me".

tan.

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sigma 12-24


I'm in need of an ultrawide for the *istD.  I'm wondering if this lens
is released yet for Pentax mount and can be purchased somewhere?
Indications are that it is not yet available.

Thanks for any info you can give me.

Bruce

Dust in my viewfinder

[Chris]

Hi Tanja,I had this(have )problem.If you know what you are doing you can
take the viewfinder out of the *istD from inside.It slides out from the
bracket that holds it.The holding bracket swings down after being
unclipped.Sometimes  gunk etc. gets caught behind the viewfinder and wont
blow away.However if you do attempt to remove the viewfinder be extra
gentle.But it can be done.
Regards Chris Kennedy

Re: big is beautiful

[edwin]

> I certainly understand that a large noisey camera would be a
> disadvantage for street photography, and honestly, I think the same
> disadvantage would apply to photojournalism, for many of the same
> reasons.

Photojournalism as I know it is seldom practiced in conditions where
stealth and unobtrusiveness are actually important.  The subjects know you 
are there, but they normally don't worry about it.  The relatively long 
time you have to spend on a given shoot to get something good pretty much
makes it impossible to be unnoticed.  PJs can certainly be DISTRACTING, 
but that is often as much a matter of their conduct as the noise of their 
equipment and the constant firing of flashes (which appears much decreased 
by digital's good high-ISO performance).

I also find modern pro DSLRs to be quieter than film cameras, although 
certainly not as quiet as a rangefinder.   There's a lot of damping of 
sound, plus the high-speed optimizations tend to make the exposure cycle 
very short.  The major noise of pro film SLRs was always the motorized 
film transport.

DJE

Re: FS: SMK Pentax 135mm f/2.5

[Shel Belinkoff]

Sold ... !!

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> Not the Takumar version.
> 
> Details here:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/135mm.html
> 
> Please email off list.  Thanks!
> 
> shel

Re: big is beautiful

[edwin]

> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:15:35 -0500
> From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: big is beautiful
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> 
> Of course, this conversation seems to be somewhat limited as to what a "pro" 
> is.
> 
> More than a few photographers who make a living at this use, for instance M 
> series Leicas (Salgado, for one, although he also uses R series slr's, and 
> they ain't small).
> 
> Anyway, my main point is that not all pros are PJ's (not that you said they 
> were - I'm just expanding the convo a bit), and that some of those other 
> pros have vastly different needs from their cameras.

Increasingly, "pro" in the sense of "guy who makes his living selling 
photography" photographers are moving to digital out of workflow,
client-demand, or economic necessity.  I know a guy at the Minneapolis 
Star Tribune who used to shoot Leica rangefinders for certain sorts of 
work, but he no longer has this option as the paper is all digital and
Leica have been dragging their feet.

Certainly there are styles of photography where a small rangefinder makes 
a lot of sense, or a large format camera, or some other specialized 
equipement.  Unfortunately the non-photography considerations of 
professional photography often make it hard to use what might otherwise
be best.  Personally, I would like a camera on which my 28mm lenses have
the field of view normally associated with 28mm lenses, but at least
in the current situation that isn't going to happen in my job.

I think increasingly the guys using MF and rangefinders are amateurs who
have the freedom to do what they want rather than what considerations of
business dictate.  I envy them.  

DJE

Re: Spotmatic?

[Peter J. Alling]

It certainly looks like an F.

Bob Blakely wrote:

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/

Regards,
Bob...

"A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Winston Churchill


 

Re: dust in my view finder...

[Peter J. Alling]

It's funny, you learn this by having an MX or LX, at least I did, the 
offending matter may be on the reverse side
of the focusing screen.  In a camera with a removable focusing screen 
it's a relitively simple matter to clean
the back side of the screen.  Otherwise it's a pain.  (On the LX you can 
get dust between the prizim and the
body, but that's another story).

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

I am having problems with dust and hair looking bits being visible in both
the viewfinder of my *istD and one of my Z-20's.  I have blown them out with
compressed air, but to with no avail.  I am not sure if it is on the mirror
or the pentaprism - any suggestions?  I know that it doesn't affect the
image that comes through the lens, but it is a pain in the butt to look at
when I am shooting!
tia,
tan.
 

Sigma 12-24

[Bruce Dayton]

I'm in need of an ultrawide for the *istD.  I'm wondering if this lens
is released yet for Pentax mount and can be purchased somewhere?
Indications are that it is not yet available.

Thanks for any info you can give me.

Bruce

Re: big is beautiful

[Peter J. Alling]

Both you and Shel have your shorts in a bunch today?

William Robb wrote:

Well, that was scathing.

I was not in the business of educating less than savvy clients.
I was in the business of taking photographs for profit, not fun.
The average wedding/ portrait client is of the opinion that Nikon
takes the best pictures, end of story.
Nikon sez it's so, and that is enough for the average schmuck.
You use another brand (other than Leica, which is a well enough known
name) at your own peril.
You need to get off the internet and go earn a real living with your
camera for a while.
Regards

William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: big is beautiful

 

... and so is black.  What drivel

Smaller is better, bigger is better, this camera garners
"respect ..."  WTF is that?
Go over to the Leica list and you'll find a lot of pros
using M cameras for certain types of PJ work, or documentary
work, and even in corporate boardrooms.  These same pros
will use Canon digis for some work or the leica R bodies ...
and y'know what, none of these pros pull a "Rodney
Dangerfied" I don't get no respect because of my camera.
These pros are hired for results, and choose the gear they
use based on numerous factors.
Now if some schmuck in a Tuxedo on his wedding day things a
bigger camera is better, maybe he also thinks a bigger penis
is better for the honeymoon.  Perhaps his wife will
"straighten" him out on that point.
True, there are perceptions of what a "pro" camera is
supposed to be, but the savvy clients know that the only
thing that counts are results, not the size of the lens or
the number of frames per second that can be blasted off, or
how big and how black that thing is hanging around your
neck.
Maybe it's not just the clients that need reassurance, but
perhaps the photogs need it as well.
shel



William Robb wrote:

   

OTOH, as soon as you are working directly with a client, often
 

the
 

larger camera garners instant respect.
This, in turn, can actually lead to better photos, as it is one
 

more
 

thing that puts the client at ease about the job.
 



   



 

Spotmatic?

[Bob Blakely]

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/

Regards,
Bob...

"A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
 - Winston Churchill
 

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[John Francis]

> 
> John Francis wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Can someone tell me -
> > > what sort of distance is it from LAX to San Jose?
> > 
> > Around 500 miles.
> 
> I'd say no more than 350 - straight up route 5,
> no?
> Typo?

Perhaps a little more - around 360 miles, I believe.

Not so much a typo as the signposted distance on 101,
which is 448 miles from just south of San Jose, IIRC.
I was thinking of the distance to Long Beach, which
is what I'll be doing in a couple of weeks.

> p. s. IT isn't boring if you take the route along
> the water, or go up the
> east side of the Sierras and then down -- of
> course, tahts a lot longer
> but very pretty.

I'll come up 101 (or even Route 1) if I've got time,
but that's an all-day drive.  But it does have the very
definite advantage that you're driving up through Big Sur
and the Monterey area as the sun sets over the pacific.

Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer

[graywolf]

6 changes are supposed to reduce chemicals in film or RC paper about 1000:1. 
It's boring though, as you know. The hose through the reel into the bottom of 
the tank takes about 15-20 minutes to reach the same level, but uses a lot more 
water as Bill says.

Most efficient. One rinse. Hypo clear. 2 more rinses. That that only save you 
two changes of water, but might be worthwhile if you have to haul water in.

--

Bill Sawyer wrote:

Bill,

Thanks for the insight. What you describe is what I have been doing. Fill &
dump, fill & dump.  I thought there might be a more efficient method.  Maybe
not, huh.
Sure is tough to get a straight answer around here lately, though.

-Original Message-
From:   William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   March 29, 2004 6:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer


No, no, no! You must, absolutely must, buy a $500 "ARCHIVAL" film
washer.

The intersting thing about film washing is how easy and quick it
really can be, with no additional equipment.
A hose running a slow trickle of water into a tank will probably take
a half hour to wash the film, and speeding up the water flow won't
change that time significantly.
You will also run 80-120 liters of water, perhaps more.
This is how most archival washers work, the big difference between it
and running a hose ito the processing tank is that in theory (though
not necessarily in practice) the archival washer works more
efficiently.
OTOH, if one remembers that the soak through time on film emulsion is
around 15 seconds, and that double that effectively removes all the
chemistry that is going to be removed by that tankload of wash, then
all you need to do for archival washing is a fill and dump regimen
where you fill the tank with clear water and gently agitate it for a
half minute, drain and repeat a half dozen times.
You can archivally wash a tank of film in less than ten minutes this
way, and are using far less water (which is too valuable to waste)
than a running water bath.
In the Jobo, I can archivally wash a dozen rolls of film in less than
10 liters of water.
William Robb





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

Re: PAW: The Elite Eight

[Christian Skofteland]

If he was, he wouldn't have had those heads in the foreground! 

Nice shot, BTW

Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> You should be a Professional Sports Photographer.
> 
> -frank
> >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >http://community.webshots.com/photo/93489626/129505072NzdqZn
> >

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Ann Sanfedele]

John Francis wrote:
> 
> >
> > Can someone tell me -
> > what sort of distance is it from LAX to San Jose?
> 
> Around 500 miles.

I'd say no more than 350 - straight up route 5,
no?
Typo?

ann "I"ve been everywhere " san  


p. s. IT isn't boring if you take the route along
the water, or go up the
east side of the Sierras and then down -- of
course, tahts a lot longer
but very pretty.


> 
> > What sort of travel options are available?
> 
> The usual:  drive or fly.  Or even take the train.
> Driving takes anything from six to ten hours.  I've
> done it solo a couple of times - it's a boring drive.
> 
> > Are there any PDML'ers in or around San Jose?
> 
> Yes.  And the San Francisco ones are only 40 miles away.
> Plus the other ones (from Sacramento, etc.) who show up
> at NorCal PDML get-togethers.  You'll meet some at GFM.
> 
> > What about in San Jose - any suggestions
> > for the best place to stay that is near the HP Pavillion?
> 
> If you're not allergic to cats, I'd suggest our spare room.
> We're a mile from the San Jose light rail, which will take
> you to downtown San Jose and the HP Pavilion.
> 
> We're also about a 15-minute drive from San Jose airport (SJC),
> which has regular shuttle flights to Los Angeles.  It also has
> flights to most other parts of the USA, too; if you're flying
> back from the east coast to LAX it might be possible to route
> via SJC for about the same price.  Talk to your travel agent.
> 
> (And the Bay Area has several nice places to visit.  If you can
> add an extra day to your itinerary I'm sure we could find you a
> few nice spots to photograph, quite apart from such classics as
> the Golden Gate).

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[graywolf]

Blabber mouth.

You know what? Bugs Bunny was much funnier 10 foot tall on the big screen than 
he is on TV. And you got to throw pop corn at the girls.

--

frank theriault wrote:
BTW, Tom et all don't know Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd from the Cartoon 
Net.  They saw them when they were new, at the cinema!  That's where the 
Warner Brother's classics were first seen.
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

dust in my view finder...

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

I am having problems with dust and hair looking bits being visible in both
the viewfinder of my *istD and one of my Z-20's.  I have blown them out with
compressed air, but to with no avail.  I am not sure if it is on the mirror
or the pentaprism - any suggestions?  I know that it doesn't affect the
image that comes through the lens, but it is a pain in the butt to look at
when I am shooting!

tia,
tan.

OT: Madonna concert?

[Rfsindg]

Tanja,

You like Madonna?  Oh you poor baby... 
She's so much yesterday's news...

LA sounds like your best bet for several reasons.
1) Yes, it is a hub airport with frequent flights to everywhere else in the 
USA.
2) San Jose is 36 miles south of San Francisco airport, and 
500 miles north of LA.  You could fly Atlanta to San Francisco, then
fly back to LA for departure, but I'll bet they charge you extra for that 
500 miles.

Regards,  Bob S.

Tanja writes:
BTW, back on topic (well, kinda),  it looks like I may be extending my US
trip by a few days.  (I reaally want to see the Madonna Concert whilst I
am over there! Don't laugh, I'm serious! I love her!).  I have the choice of
a ticket either at the Forum in LA (one single crappy seat) on either the 24
or 25 May (so was thinking that I'd leave for the US a day earlier than I
had originally planned) OR in San Jose, California, on the 8 June (so I
would be returning to Australia one day later - tickets haven't gone on sale
yet, so I should be able to get pretty good seats).  Can someone tell me -
what sort of distance is it from LAX to San Jose?  What sort of travel
options are available? Are there any PDML'ers in or around San Jose?  If I
brought it forward (to the 25 May), would this suit any LA PDML'ers?  What
would be the best choice of areas to book accomodation that is close to the
Forum Stadium in LA?  Or would closer to the airport be better?  Do domestic
flights fly out of LAX or is there a different airport I would need to make
my way to to fly to NYC from LAX?  What about in San Jose - any suggestions
for the best place to stay that is near the HP Pavillion?

Re: PAW - birds and long lenses

[Herb Chong]

thanks, Frank.  it's just a roof. no eavestrough here. i don't know if you
did the math and all, but the sparrow was about 60 feet from me when i took
the picture. having an equivalent 2400mm FOV really makes a difference. it's
a House Sparrow, imported from Europe more than a century ago and now very
widespread in North America. i'm sure it was watching trying to figure out
what i was doing.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: PAW - birds and long lenses


> #6, because of the diagonal roof.  It makes a really strong comp, imho.
The
> little sparrow (I don't know birds for sh**, but I know sparrows ) is
> nice and sharp, and I like the way it's about 1/4 turned toward the
camera -
> plays nicely with the roofline.  And, finally, that deep blue sky is
> gorgeous - contrasts very nicely with the white roof - although I just
> looked again, and it might be an eavestrough.  BTW, I really like the
> crackling paint on the trough - nice texture.  A real winner, this one.

Re: Pentax Products

[Kenneth Waller]

I'm sorry I didn't put my email address in the body of the email, I usually
do. By now the Hon. Wm Robb has told you how to overcome my omission. His
response has probably informed a few non Newbes who didn't know either.

Were you interested?

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Hal & Sandra Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Pentax Products


> When you tell us to contact "off list" and your mail isn't included, how
is
> this done?(Newbe)
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 11:55 AM
> Subject: FS: Pentax Products
>
>
> > An good acquaintance of mine has the following 35mm lens he's looking to
> > sell.
> > If interested, contact me off list.
> >
> > SMCP-A 400mm f2.8 ED IF, new in box.
> >
> > Kenneth Waller
> >
> >
>

Re: Pentax sighting

[Stephen Jolly]

Cotty wrote:
Just watched a documentary about French photographer Yann Arthus Bertrand
who specialises in aerial photography and is the mastermind behind 'The
Earth from the Air' a touring exhibition of his work, usually displayed
outside in cities around the world, literally dozens of countries to
date. In fact I saw the exhibition by chance a couple of years ago when
visiting Jostein in Oslo.
The exhibition (or one of them, at least) is currently outside the 
Natural History Museum in London, for any UK PDMLers (or visitors) that 
may be passing.  Fascinating stuff.

S

Re: big is beautiful

[John Mustarde]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:13:06 -0600, you wrote:

>OTOH, as soon as you are working directly with a client, often the
>larger camera garners instant respect.
>This, in turn, can actually lead to better photos, as it is one more
>thing that puts the client at ease about the job.
>
>William Robb
>

Sometimes larger relates to a useful accessory, like a battery
grip/winder, or the added bulk required for a built-in vertical
release.  In my story, 'big' related mostly to a Stroboframe flash
bracket, and I think bigger really was better.

My daughter hired a student photog for her wedding. I showed up at the
rehearsal with PZ1p and AF500FTZ on a Stroboframe flash bracket, with
the curly cord between flash and hotshoe jiggling little exclamation
points each time I lifted this big rig.  The student photog showed up
with a Canon Rebel or Elan, I forget which, but I noticed he had no
flash except the pop-up one. Yuck.  I was worried she would get
nothing but red-eye snapshots instead of wedding photos.

But to his credit he went out that afternoon and bought a decent flash
and Stofen attachment, which he used to good effect for the wedding
photos the next day.  He told my daughter that my camera ("your dad's
big pro camera") shamed him into springing for the flash he already
knew he needed.  

As it turned out, he had some training, a good attitude and way with
people, a list of required shots, and some knowledge of posing and
lighting.  His photos turned out okay, not as perfect as a pro with
more experience, but much better than I expected, considering my first
impression of his 'small' camera.


--
John Mustarde
www.photolin.com

RE: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[frank theriault]

Aric,

Where was I?

I was working, fer gawd's sake!

You know, making a living?  So I can turn around and spend way more money on 
photography than I can afford?  

BTW, Tan, sorry I "bored" you with all that lawyer talk.  I tried to keep it 
to a minimum (remember how I wrote you off list with a bunch of salient 
points, saying that it was getting way too OT? ).  People just kept 
asking questions, or made points that absolutely required my intervention.

Oh well.

Too bad I missed this thread, eh?

BTW, Tom et all don't know Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd from the Cartoon Net.  
They saw them when they were new, at the cinema!  That's where the Warner 
Brother's classics were first seen.

-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]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Ssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:16:12 -0700
> From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

...

> Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!

yeah.  where is frank, anyway?

_
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 Small Claims Court is a Waste of Time-was: something weird...

[frank theriault]

Tom,

I used to send away clients who wanted to hire me to go after people for 
that amount of money, for exactly the reasons that you mention.

At the $200 an hour I charged back then, I would have to put in AT LEAST 10 
hours of time, even in small claims court.  Initial interview, draw up docs 
and review with client, file with court, several court attendances before 
trial, go to trial, wait several hours for case to be heard, get judgment.

Then, all you have is a piece of paper saying that the slug owes you money.  
Collecting is another $1000 or so, and success isn't guaranteed.  Some 
weasels are very adept at judgment-proofing themselves.

So, ~you~, the poor guy who the landlord screwed can't afford a lawyer, and 
even if you could, it would be a money losing proposition anyway.  So you 
represent yourself.  Turns out the landlord's law firm has a law clerk or 
articling student that he can use dirt cheap.  Especially since unlike your 
lawyer, this guy has 10 cases in court, so he wins with the economies of 
scale, at a way lower hourly rate than your lawyer.

You're all nervous, you forget some important documents ('cause you've never 
done this before).  The landlord, who's in court every other month, is a 
real smoothie.  He looks real good on the witness stand.  So's his law 
student/paralegal - they have all their i's dotted and t's crossed, the 
cross-examination makes you look like a goof, and the judge finds for the 
defendant on some stupid technicality.

Even without hiring a lawyer, you've missed about 4 or 5 days of work to do 
this ('cause they kept coming to court asking for adjournments), and you get 
zip.

I don't blame you for not going to court at all, Tom.  Sounds like you 
learned your lesson the hard way, though...  

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




From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: something weird...
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:42:54 -0500
Yep, you have 2 weeks, he has 30 days to respond, you have 2 weeks, he has 
60 days to respond, you have 2 weeks, he has 90 days to respond. If you go 
through all that then you can take him to small claims court. But then you 
will have to find where his accounts are, to collect in all probability. 
Remember he had practice doing this with hundreds of people, you are doing 
it for the first time. And you have moved out of state, or at least the 
county, so you have to run back and forth. (Detroit, Michigan 
landlord/tentant laws)

I find it amazing that folks think you go to small claims court, the guy 
pays and that is it. In reality he does not show up, the judge sees in your 
favor then you deliver that court order to him, or pay the sheriff's 
department to deliver it, if know where he is. He ignors it. You find out 
where his bank account is, or his job. You go back to court and they sign a 
garish, in the mean time he moved his account, and got another job. They 
don't show all this on the TV Court shows, do they?

Oh yes, if you keep following through, you will eventually get your money. 
After about 3 years.

_
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: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer

[Bill Sawyer]

Bill,

Thanks for the insight. What you describe is what I have been doing. Fill &
dump, fill & dump.  I thought there might be a more efficient method.  Maybe
not, huh.

Sure is tough to get a straight answer around here lately, though.

-Original Message-
From:   William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   March 29, 2004 6:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer


- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer


> No, no, no! You must, absolutely must, buy a $500 "ARCHIVAL" film
washer.
>

The intersting thing about film washing is how easy and quick it
really can be, with no additional equipment.

A hose running a slow trickle of water into a tank will probably take
a half hour to wash the film, and speeding up the water flow won't
change that time significantly.
You will also run 80-120 liters of water, perhaps more.
This is how most archival washers work, the big difference between it
and running a hose ito the processing tank is that in theory (though
not necessarily in practice) the archival washer works more
efficiently.

OTOH, if one remembers that the soak through time on film emulsion is
around 15 seconds, and that double that effectively removes all the
chemistry that is going to be removed by that tankload of wash, then
all you need to do for archival washing is a fill and dump regimen
where you fill the tank with clear water and gently agitate it for a
half minute, drain and repeat a half dozen times.

You can archivally wash a tank of film in less than ten minutes this
way, and are using far less water (which is too valuable to waste)
than a running water bath.

In the Jobo, I can archivally wash a dozen rolls of film in less than
10 liters of water.

William Robb

Re: Pentax Products

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Hal & Sandra Davis"
Subject: Re: Pentax Products


> When you tell us to contact "off list" and your mail isn't
included, how is
> this done?(Newbe)

In Outlook Express (your mailer), hit the reply to button and the
senders email is right there.

Sort of like this:

- Original Message - 
From: "Hal & Sandra Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Products

Your email is listed beside your name.

Cut and paste it to the To line, removing any other email addresses
that may already be there.

Thats it.

William Robb

Re: big is beautiful

[William Robb]

Well, that was scathing.

I was not in the business of educating less than savvy clients.
I was in the business of taking photographs for profit, not fun.
The average wedding/ portrait client is of the opinion that Nikon
takes the best pictures, end of story.
Nikon sez it's so, and that is enough for the average schmuck.

You use another brand (other than Leica, which is a well enough known
name) at your own peril.

You need to get off the internet and go earn a real living with your
camera for a while.

Regards

William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: big is beautiful


> ... and so is black.  What drivel
>
> Smaller is better, bigger is better, this camera garners
> "respect ..."  WTF is that?
> Go over to the Leica list and you'll find a lot of pros
> using M cameras for certain types of PJ work, or documentary
> work, and even in corporate boardrooms.  These same pros
> will use Canon digis for some work or the leica R bodies ...
> and y'know what, none of these pros pull a "Rodney
> Dangerfied" I don't get no respect because of my camera.
>
> These pros are hired for results, and choose the gear they
> use based on numerous factors.
>
> Now if some schmuck in a Tuxedo on his wedding day things a
> bigger camera is better, maybe he also thinks a bigger penis
> is better for the honeymoon.  Perhaps his wife will
> "straighten" him out on that point.
>
> True, there are perceptions of what a "pro" camera is
> supposed to be, but the savvy clients know that the only
> thing that counts are results, not the size of the lens or
> the number of frames per second that can be blasted off, or
> how big and how black that thing is hanging around your
> neck.
>
> Maybe it's not just the clients that need reassurance, but
> perhaps the photogs need it as well.
>
> shel
>
>
>
> William Robb wrote:
>
> > OTOH, as soon as you are working directly with a client, often
the
> > larger camera garners instant respect.
> > This, in turn, can actually lead to better photos, as it is one
more
> > thing that puts the client at ease about the job.
>
>
>
>

Re: Pentax Products

[Hal & Sandra Davis]

When you tell us to contact "off list" and your mail isn't included, how is
this done?(Newbe)
- Original Message - 
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 11:55 AM
Subject: FS: Pentax Products


> An good acquaintance of mine has the following 35mm lens he's looking to
> sell.
> If interested, contact me off list.
>
> SMCP-A 400mm f2.8 ED IF, new in box.
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
>

Re: big is beautiful

[Shel Belinkoff]

... and so is black.  What drivel

Smaller is better, bigger is better, this camera garners
"respect ..."  WTF is that?
Go over to the Leica list and you'll find a lot of pros
using M cameras for certain types of PJ work, or documentary
work, and even in corporate boardrooms.  These same pros
will use Canon digis for some work or the leica R bodies ...
and y'know what, none of these pros pull a "Rodney
Dangerfied" I don't get no respect because of my camera.

These pros are hired for results, and choose the gear they
use based on numerous factors.

Now if some schmuck in a Tuxedo on his wedding day things a
bigger camera is better, maybe he also thinks a bigger penis
is better for the honeymoon.  Perhaps his wife will
"straighten" him out on that point.

True, there are perceptions of what a "pro" camera is
supposed to be, but the savvy clients know that the only
thing that counts are results, not the size of the lens or
the number of frames per second that can be blasted off, or
how big and how black that thing is hanging around your
neck.

Maybe it's not just the clients that need reassurance, but
perhaps the photogs need it as well. 

shel



William Robb wrote:

> OTOH, as soon as you are working directly with a client, often the
> larger camera garners instant respect.
> This, in turn, can actually lead to better photos, as it is one more
> thing that puts the client at ease about the job.

Re:Sydney International PDML

[frank theriault]

So you say...



-frank

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




From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Keith WHALEY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:Sydney International PDML
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:20:18 +1000
To those of you who were wondering:-We were attending to the business at
hand and had no time (in between food and drinks)to ear burn any body.In
such convivial surroundings and on such a balmy night our hearts were
pure,our minds clear and we had nothing but goodwill towards all men(and
Tanja).No bad mouthing whatsoever.
Regards Chris Kennedy

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

Re:Sydney Intenational PDML

[frank theriault]

Did I say "trashed"?  I clearly didn't mean that.  I must have meant 
something else.  I just don't know what that would be right now...  

Of course, when you say "it wasn't me that burned your ears", you imply that 
someone else did!  Hmm...

-frank

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




From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

By the way Frank,if I had known you really trashed my
pics,well...,However 'twas not me that burnt your ears.
Regards Chris K

_
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: big is beautiful

[frank theriault]

I agree with everything you say.

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




From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

One of the small camera disadvantages that I ran into from time to
time while playing the wedding game relates to client respect.
We have been programmed to think of bigger as better (hence the term
"go big or go home").
I certainly understand that a large noisey camera would be a
disadvantage for street photography, and honestly, I think the same
disadvantage would apply to photojournalism, for many of the same
reasons.
OTOH, as soon as you are working directly with a client, often the
larger camera garners instant respect.
This, in turn, can actually lead to better photos, as it is one more
thing that puts the client at ease about the job.
William Robb


_
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: Pictures of a young lady friend

[frank theriault]

Only when I type, I assure you, Cotty.

Were I there in person, I'd be stuttering, spit would be flying out of my 
mouth, and I'd be completely at a loss for words.

I'm only suave, erudite and urbane on this list.  Just wait until GFM.  
You'll be most disappointed, I assure you.  

cheers,
frank
ps:  she ~was~ pretty, though, wasn't she?  

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




From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Blimey Frank, what a smoothie ;-)

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

_
Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet 
access. 
https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/

Pentax sighting

[Cotty]

Just watched a documentary about French photographer Yann Arthus Bertrand
who specialises in aerial photography and is the mastermind behind 'The
Earth from the Air' a touring exhibition of his work, usually displayed
outside in cities around the world, literally dozens of countries to
date. In fact I saw the exhibition by chance a couple of years ago when
visiting Jostein in Oslo.

Anyway, he shoots Canon from the air, but on the ground he is also known
for his animal portraiture, and for this he was filmed using a Pentax 645
- the man obviously has some taste ;-)






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

RE: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer

[Bill Sawyer]

Um, thanks!?!?  I was thinking about $35 for something that was designed for
the purpose, and maybe uniform in action. Or, maybe I could save the price
of the garden hose by drinking some beers, then just sticking my.

Well, never mind.

-Original Message-
From:   graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   March 29, 2004 9:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer

No, no, no! You must, absolutely must, buy a $500 "ARCHIVAL" film washer.

Q: What is the difference between a piece of vinyl tubing with a facet
adaptor
on one end that you stick into the developing tank, and a "ARCHIVAL" film
washer?

A: $495.

--

Jens Bladt wrote:
> Why do you need one ?
> I just use a Garden Hose that I screw on to the Tap at one end and put
into
> the Developing Tank at the other...I let the water run through it for
> 20-30minutes.
> All the best
>
> Jens Bladt
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>
>
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Bill Sawyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 29. marts 2004 02:57
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer
>
>
> I'd like to get a film washer for processing 35mm and 120/220 roll film.
> Thus far, I've looked at Calumet, Doran & Watson (both from B&H). Does
> anyone have any thoughts on the subject?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer


> No, no, no! You must, absolutely must, buy a $500 "ARCHIVAL" film
washer.
>

The intersting thing about film washing is how easy and quick it
really can be, with no additional equipment.

A hose running a slow trickle of water into a tank will probably take
a half hour to wash the film, and speeding up the water flow won't
change that time significantly.
You will also run 80-120 liters of water, perhaps more.
This is how most archival washers work, the big difference between it
and running a hose ito the processing tank is that in theory (though
not necessarily in practice) the archival washer works more
efficiently.

OTOH, if one remembers that the soak through time on film emulsion is
around 15 seconds, and that double that effectively removes all the
chemistry that is going to be removed by that tankload of wash, then
all you need to do for archival washing is a fill and dump regimen
where you fill the tank with clear water and gently agitate it for a
half minute, drain and repeat a half dozen times.

You can archivally wash a tank of film in less than ten minutes this
way, and are using far less water (which is too valuable to waste)
than a running water bath.

In the Jobo, I can archivally wash a dozen rolls of film in less than
10 liters of water.

William Robb

Re: SMC-M 135mm f3.5 vs. SMC-M 150mm f3.5

[Keith Whaley]

...but the scans show some very good images!
I see no problem with that.
Which 135mm f/3.5 IS it?

I have several 135s, and am trying to choose...all input is welcomed.

keith whaley

Alan Chan wrote:

I have uploaded 3 pictures temporarily so you might check it out. They 
are 2820dpi scans. Two things I don't like about the M135/3.5 are the 
rather long travel distance (because I am slow on manual focus), and 
1.5m which is not close enough, 1.2m would be so much better.

http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/inbox

Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Does anyone have experience with these lenses? I'm interested in which 
lens produces the nicest bokeh and their other merits as well. I saw 
an example of the bokeh from the 150mm on Valentin's site, but no 
example for the 135mm.

Jim


_
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: PAW: Sunset on Kauai

[frank theriault]

Hi, Fred,

I like it.  I'm trying really hard to love it, but so far, I can't quite go 
that far.

Seems that everything is there - spectacular sky, those gentle curved waves 
(very cool!), the couple walking on the beach, beautiful mountains in the 
hazy distance.

But something just doesn't raise it that extra level for me, and I can't put 
my finger on it (but I'll try anyway ).

Is it that tree in the foreground?  Maybe it's a bit distracting to me.

The couple is definitely a nice touch, but are they in the wrong position?  
I might like them a bit closer?  Of course, I recognize that you didn't 
really have much control of where they were, although maybe you could have 
yelled, "Hey, get back here and walk hand in hand again, I want another 
take!!"  

Again, I want to emphasize, I really like this a lot.  It has amazing 
potential.  It just doesn't push me over the edge (as so many of yours do).

Now, I'll go see what the others have said (and likely look like an idiot in 
the process )

thanks, Fred,
frank
PS:  of course, when you see a wonderful photo op, romance can wait.  Good 
call there!!



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




From: Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PAW: Sunset on Kauai
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:45:41 -0500 (EST)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2242453

Back in February 2000 my wife & I had the great pleasure of visiting the
Hawaiian Islands. One of the islands we visited was Kauai. This shot
was taken one evening on the beach at the Radisson Kauai Beach Resort
outside of Lihue. A warm tropic breeze was blowing, the waves were
lapping the shore, and the setting sun was turning the sand golden. A
perfect time for a romantic stroll on the beach  but I was too
busy taking photographs. Still I did manage to photograph another
couple enjoying a stroll 
Hope you like it.

--
 Fred Widall,
 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall
--
_
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: big is beautiful

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault"
Subject: RE: big is beautiful



> For some styles of photography, big is a downright disadvantage.  I
know on
> the street, more people look at my camera when it's the LX, a
Spotmatic or
> even the MX when I have the Winder MX on it.  I get very few
noticing me
> when I have the Leica CL slung over my shoulder.
>
> Anyway, my main point is that not all pros are PJ's (not that you
said they
> were - I'm just expanding the convo a bit), and that some of those
other
> pros have vastly different needs from their cameras.

One of the small camera disadvantages that I ran into from time to
time while playing the wedding game relates to client respect.
We have been programmed to think of bigger as better (hence the term
"go big or go home").
I certainly understand that a large noisey camera would be a
disadvantage for street photography, and honestly, I think the same
disadvantage would apply to photojournalism, for many of the same
reasons.
OTOH, as soon as you are working directly with a client, often the
larger camera garners instant respect.
This, in turn, can actually lead to better photos, as it is one more
thing that puts the client at ease about the job.

William Robb

Re: PAW #7 - Courier Bph

[frank theriault]

I find tilting morally reprehensible.  If I have 'issues" about cropping, 
then I have to say that tilting is just plain wrong.

That being said, your treatment improves the image immensely, Jostein!  


Huge difference.  The tilt just makes the picture sing.  Kind of like what 
Boris said, in a way.

Thanks for the help, Jostein!!  I appreciate it.

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




From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PAW #7 - Courier Bph
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:55:05 +0200
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Now, Jostein-the-wise  turned it a little so that now he is rolling
> just a little tiny bit downhill. And now everything is cool. The guy's
> having fun, and so is the viewer too.
Well... clock-wise, actually...:-)
Oh, nevermind...
> Now it works!

Thanks, Boris.

Jostein

_
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: PAW #5 - Sludd

[frank theriault]

No more than usual, Boris.  

-frank

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

From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I am afraid if I go on explaining I will loose any semblance of sense
here...
_
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: big is beautiful

[frank theriault]

Hal,

Hmmm.  I guess I did ramble just a tad, eh?  

Yeah, I guess the gist was size matters.  But, more to some than others.  
And, depending on one's use, it can go in different directions.  As Tom and 
DJE said, sometimes a PJ likes big, sometimes for non-photo-specific 
reasons.

I was also commenting on the "big=reliable" comment (although I recognize 
that DJE took pains to point out that was the perception, and he wasn't 
necessarily advocating it).

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




From: "Hal Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: big is beautiful
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:38:08 GMT
Is the gist of this "size does matter"?



>Of course, this conversation seems to be somewhat limited as to what a 
"pro"

>is.
>
>More than a few photographers who make a living at this use, for instance 
M

>series Leicas (Salgado, for one, although he also uses R series slr's, 
and

>they ain't small).
>
>Last summer, I was shooting some frames at Toronto's Gay Pride Parade
>(always a good spectacle), and I noticed a fellow with a truly beat up
>looking M3.  It had been painted olive drab (didn't look like a factory
>job), and had so much brassing that there seemed to be more brass than
>paint.
>
>He told me it had actually been through many war zones, but that it was a
>great street camera, due in part to it's shabby looks.  He assured me it
>still worked like a charm.  H.  A forty year old camera that's been 
to

>war, and still works.  I'd say that is the very definition of 
reliability,

>despite it's small size  .
>
>For some styles of photography, big is a downright disadvantage.  I know 
on

>the street, more people look at my camera when it's the LX, a Spotmatic 
or

>even the MX when I have the Winder MX on it.  I get very few noticing me
>when I have the Leica CL slung over my shoulder.
>
>Anyway, my main point is that not all pros are PJ's (not that you said 
they

>were - I'm just expanding the convo a bit), and that some of those other
>pros have vastly different needs from their cameras.
>
>regards,
>frank
>
>"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The 
pessimist

>fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
>
>
>
>
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: big is beautiful
>>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:12:18 -0600 (CST)
>>
>> >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >Small black cameras do not have the psychological impact with
>> >photographers's
>> >customers that big black cameras do. To a very large percent of the
>> >population's
>> >minds "big black camera" and "pro" are synonymous.
>>
>>I agree that carrying a big black camera and a big black bag tends to 
get

>>respect.  I normally take the camera out of the bag and drape it around
>>my neck when I'm going to sporting events just to make it clear to the
>>guys at the gate why I'm not handing them a ticket.  I find that I get
>>a lot less hassle that way.
>>
>> >You better believe that Nikon and Canon know this, and it is why their
>> >top end
>> >cameras are 1/2 again as large as they need to be.
>>
>>No.  Nikon has been trying damn hard to make their pro cameras smaller,
>>probably a result of getting an earful over the size of the F4 which 
many

>>small-handed photogs disliked and even I will admit was HEAVY.
>>A lot of the extra size is for the extra batteries which are needed to
>>drive the things at warp speed, plus the actual warp motors which are 
not

>>small.  Back in the old days, most of the warp drives were external
>>(just like on the Enterprise) and the Nikon F2 and F3 were not much
>>bigger than the Spotmatics or K-series except the full-frame, high
>>eyepoint viewfinders.
>>The top end Nikon and Canon cameras are bigger because they are tougher
>>and more capable than anything else out there, and you just can't shrink
>>that but so much.
>>
>> >So as a pro camera, yes the small size is a fault. As a user's camera, 
no

>> >it is
>> >not, in fact it is a major benefit.
>>
>>It's not so much that the public doesn't trust pros with small cameras,
>>but that pros don't themselves trust small cameras.  Something that 
small

>>can't be tough enough and capable enough, they think.  I remember one
>>member of the white house press corps describing the Nikon 8008, which 
was

>>the second best camera in the Nikon line at the time, as "a 
lightweight".

>>My own experience tends to confirm the relatively lower durability of
>>small cameras.
>>
>>DJE
>>
>
>_
>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
>
>
>
_
MSN

Re: SMC-M 135mm f3.5 vs. SMC-M 150mm f3.5

[Alan Chan]

I have uploaded 3 pictures temporarily so you might check it out. They are 
2820dpi scans. Two things I don't like about the M135/3.5 are the rather 
long travel distance (because I am slow on manual focus), and 1.5m which is 
not close enough, 1.2m would be so much better.

http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/inbox

Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Does anyone have experience with these lenses? I'm interested in which lens 
produces the nicest bokeh and their other merits as well. I saw an example 
of the bokeh from the 150mm on Valentin's site, but no example for the 
135mm.

Jim
_
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: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

To begin with, Attila and Danilo asked what a "wabbit" is...  Danilo was on
the right track...

Attila then said he was going to read Lord Of The Rings, and Danilo asked
what "Paradise Hotel" is...  This should answer your question Danilo:

http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-18416  - FYI, it
is a sad, sad, reality tv show, and I am a sad, sad person to even consider
watching it.  But, what can I say? It makes me laugh!

Bob Blakely wrote: "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they
aren't out to get ya!", followed by Keith who noted that everyone who was
anyone was off enjoying Aussie weather (lol!)...

Jostein, Peter, and Graywolf all worked out my "Ssh, we're hunting
wabbits..." reference with ease (h, now we know who really does watch
Cartoon Network! lol)

Collin notes that "tan is bored"!

lol to all of the above!

I wouldn't say I was bored though Collin - in fact, quite the opposite, I
had been sitting here for a few hours working on contracts, invoices, orders
and the like, when it occurred to me how "quiet" the night was.  All of my
kids (and hubby) were in bed, tv was off, the sound of me typing was all
that I could hear.  This is pretty much the same every night, until I
realised what it was that "seemed" different - there were no regular "dings"
coming from my Inbox!  In fact, I got more work done last night than I have
in ages! lol.  AND I got to watch Paradise Hotel...!

it's wabbit season!

BTW, back on topic (well, kinda),  it looks like I may be extending my US
trip by a few days.  (I reaally want to see the Madonna Concert whilst I
am over there! Don't laugh, I'm serious! I love her!).  I have the choice of
a ticket either at the Forum in LA (one single crappy seat) on either the 24
or 25 May (so was thinking that I'd leave for the US a day earlier than I
had originally planned) OR in San Jose, California, on the 8 June (so I
would be returning to Australia one day later - tickets haven't gone on sale
yet, so I should be able to get pretty good seats).  Can someone tell me -
what sort of distance is it from LAX to San Jose?  What sort of travel
options are available? Are there any PDML'ers in or around San Jose?  If I
brought it forward (to the 25 May), would this suit any LA PDML'ers?  What
would be the best choice of areas to book accomodation that is close to the
Forum Stadium in LA?  Or would closer to the airport be better?  Do domestic
flights fly out of LAX or is there a different airport I would need to make
my way to to fly to NYC from LAX?  What about in San Jose - any suggestions
for the best place to stay that is near the HP Pavillion?

TIA,
tan.

-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 5:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...


Ah... What's up, Doc?

Jostein wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!
>
>
> Naawww, they're just out photogwaphing boids.
>
>
> Or watching Cartoon Network.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jostein
>
>

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

RE: big is beautiful

[Hal Davis]

Is the gist of this "size does matter"?




>Of course, this conversation seems to be somewhat limited as to what a "pro"

>is.
>
>More than a few photographers who make a living at this use, for instance M

>series Leicas (Salgado, for one, although he also uses R series slr's, and

>they ain't small).
>
>Last summer, I was shooting some frames at Toronto's Gay Pride Parade 
>(always a good spectacle), and I noticed a fellow with a truly beat up 
>looking M3.  It had been painted olive drab (didn't look like a factory 
>job), and had so much brassing that there seemed to be more brass than 
>paint.
>
>He told me it had actually been through many war zones, but that it was a 

>great street camera, due in part to it's shabby looks.  He assured me it 
>still worked like a charm.  H.  A forty year old camera that's been to

>war, and still works.  I'd say that is the very definition of reliability,

>despite it's small size  .
>
>For some styles of photography, big is a downright disadvantage.  I know on

>the street, more people look at my camera when it's the LX, a Spotmatic or

>even the MX when I have the Winder MX on it.  I get very few noticing me 
>when I have the Leica CL slung over my shoulder.
>
>Anyway, my main point is that not all pros are PJ's (not that you said they

>were - I'm just expanding the convo a bit), and that some of those other 
>pros have vastly different needs from their cameras.
>
>regards,
>frank
>
>"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist

>fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
>
>
>
>
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: big is beautiful
>>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:12:18 -0600 (CST)
>>
>> >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >Small black cameras do not have the psychological impact with
>> >photographers's
>> >customers that big black cameras do. To a very large percent of the
>> >population's
>> >minds "big black camera" and "pro" are synonymous.
>>
>>I agree that carrying a big black camera and a big black bag tends to get

>>respect.  I normally take the camera out of the bag and drape it around
>>my neck when I'm going to sporting events just to make it clear to the
>>guys at the gate why I'm not handing them a ticket.  I find that I get
>>a lot less hassle that way.
>>
>> >You better believe that Nikon and Canon know this, and it is why their
>> >top end
>> >cameras are 1/2 again as large as they need to be.
>>
>>No.  Nikon has been trying damn hard to make their pro cameras smaller,
>>probably a result of getting an earful over the size of the F4 which many

>>small-handed photogs disliked and even I will admit was HEAVY.
>>A lot of the extra size is for the extra batteries which are needed to
>>drive the things at warp speed, plus the actual warp motors which are not

>>small.  Back in the old days, most of the warp drives were external
>>(just like on the Enterprise) and the Nikon F2 and F3 were not much
>>bigger than the Spotmatics or K-series except the full-frame, high
>>eyepoint viewfinders.
>>The top end Nikon and Canon cameras are bigger because they are tougher
>>and more capable than anything else out there, and you just can't shrink
>>that but so much.
>>
>> >So as a pro camera, yes the small size is a fault. As a user's camera, no

>> >it is
>> >not, in fact it is a major benefit.
>>
>>It's not so much that the public doesn't trust pros with small cameras,
>>but that pros don't themselves trust small cameras.  Something that small

>>can't be tough enough and capable enough, they think.  I remember one
>>member of the white house press corps describing the Nikon 8008, which was

>>the second best camera in the Nikon line at the time, as "a lightweight".

>>My own experience tends to confirm the relatively lower durability of
>>small cameras.
>>
>>DJE
>>
>
>_
>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: PAW - birds and long lenses

[frank theriault]

I like #'s 3 and 6 the best - but they're all good, imho.

#3, 'cause of the second OOF bird in there.  And the real tight DOF on the 
front bird.  Just real nice.

#6, because of the diagonal roof.  It makes a really strong comp, imho.  The 
little sparrow (I don't know birds for sh**, but I know sparrows ) is 
nice and sharp, and I like the way it's about 1/4 turned toward the camera - 
plays nicely with the roofline.  And, finally, that deep blue sky is 
gorgeous - contrasts very nicely with the white roof - although I just 
looked again, and it might be an eavestrough.  BTW, I really like the 
crackling paint on the trough - nice texture.  A real winner, this one.

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




From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PAW - birds and long lenses
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:18:37 -0500
http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/

the first three were taken with my *istD at ISO 200 using my FA* 400 f5.6
with the Pentax A1.4X-L and then cropped exactly 50%. that means a total
effective FOV of 400mm * 1.4 * 1.5 * 2.0 = 1680mm. the second three were
taken with *istD at ISO 800 using my FA* 400 f5.6 with the Sigma AF APO 2.0
extender and then cropped 50% too. that is an effective FOV of 400mm * 2.0 
*
1.5 * 2.0 = 2400. all were taken this weekend in the Hudson Valley region 
of
NY State.

Herb


_
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: What is the *stD's shutter lag?

[John Francis]

> 
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> >Thats the one reason i went with the D2H for my sports stuff.
> >Huge buffer,up to 8fs and shutter lag of 37ms. WYSIWYG. :-)
> 
> >Dave   
> 
> But also a case of "you get what you pay for".  If Nikon were selling
> D2Hs for what the *istD goes for I'd already have one.  
> 
> Low shutter lag is one of those things that makes a pro camera expensive.
> 
> I bought and resold a number of non-pro Nikons because the shutter lag was
> killing my action timing, and I was used to the more or less instant
> response of the pro cameras.  You don't really appreciate it until you
> see the difference.

That was actually the biggest problem I had when I borrowed a D1 for a day;
I was used to the shutter lag of the PZ-1p, and was slightly mistiming all
my shots until I adjusted to just how fast the D1 responds.

Re: something weird...

[Gonz]

Geesh, what state are you in? LOL.  True that if you move, its a 
problem, but otherwise, unless you live in a state where they drag it 
out like that, its pretty painless.  It was for me in Pennsylvania.  Big 
companies (like the moving company I sued) like to play tricks such as 
hiding their legal agent and name, so that you have a hard time figuring 
out who to actually sue.  This was the only tricky part.  Never tried in 
Texas however, things might be different in TX.

rg

graywolf wrote:

Yep, you have 2 weeks, he has 30 days to respond, you have 2 weeks, he 
has 60 days to respond, you have 2 weeks, he has 90 days to respond. 
If you go through all that then you can take him to small claims 
court. But then you will have to find where his accounts are, to 
collect in all probability. Remember he had practice doing this with 
hundreds of people, you are doing it for the first time. And you have 
moved out of state, or at least the county, so you have to run back 
and forth. (Detroit, Michigan landlord/tentant laws)

I find it amazing that folks think you go to small claims court, the 
guy pays and that is it. In reality he does not show up, the judge 
sees in your favor then you deliver that court order to him, or pay 
the sheriff's department to deliver it, if know where he is. He ignors 
it. You find out where his bank account is, or his job. You go back to 
court and they sign a garish, in the mean time he moved his account, 
and got another job. They don't show all this on the TV Court shows, 
do they?

Oh yes, if you keep following through, you will eventually get your 
money. After about 3 years.

Re:Sydney International PDML

[Chris]

To those of you who were wondering:-We were attending to the business at
hand and had no time (in between food and drinks)to ear burn any body.In
such convivial surroundings and on such a balmy night our hearts were
pure,our minds clear and we had nothing but goodwill towards all men(and
Tanja).No bad mouthing whatsoever.
Regards Chris Kennedy

RE: big is beautiful

[frank theriault]

Of course, this conversation seems to be somewhat limited as to what a "pro" 
is.

More than a few photographers who make a living at this use, for instance M 
series Leicas (Salgado, for one, although he also uses R series slr's, and 
they ain't small).

Last summer, I was shooting some frames at Toronto's Gay Pride Parade 
(always a good spectacle), and I noticed a fellow with a truly beat up 
looking M3.  It had been painted olive drab (didn't look like a factory 
job), and had so much brassing that there seemed to be more brass than 
paint.

He told me it had actually been through many war zones, but that it was a 
great street camera, due in part to it's shabby looks.  He assured me it 
still worked like a charm.  H.  A forty year old camera that's been to 
war, and still works.  I'd say that is the very definition of reliability, 
despite it's small size  .

For some styles of photography, big is a downright disadvantage.  I know on 
the street, more people look at my camera when it's the LX, a Spotmatic or 
even the MX when I have the Winder MX on it.  I get very few noticing me 
when I have the Leica CL slung over my shoulder.

Anyway, my main point is that not all pros are PJ's (not that you said they 
were - I'm just expanding the convo a bit), and that some of those other 
pros have vastly different needs from their cameras.

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




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: big is beautiful
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:12:18 -0600 (CST)
>From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>Small black cameras do not have the psychological impact with
>photographers's
>customers that big black cameras do. To a very large percent of the
>population's
>minds "big black camera" and "pro" are synonymous.
I agree that carrying a big black camera and a big black bag tends to get
respect.  I normally take the camera out of the bag and drape it around
my neck when I'm going to sporting events just to make it clear to the
guys at the gate why I'm not handing them a ticket.  I find that I get
a lot less hassle that way.
>You better believe that Nikon and Canon know this, and it is why their
>top end
>cameras are 1/2 again as large as they need to be.
No.  Nikon has been trying damn hard to make their pro cameras smaller,
probably a result of getting an earful over the size of the F4 which many
small-handed photogs disliked and even I will admit was HEAVY.
A lot of the extra size is for the extra batteries which are needed to
drive the things at warp speed, plus the actual warp motors which are not
small.  Back in the old days, most of the warp drives were external
(just like on the Enterprise) and the Nikon F2 and F3 were not much
bigger than the Spotmatics or K-series except the full-frame, high
eyepoint viewfinders.
The top end Nikon and Canon cameras are bigger because they are tougher
and more capable than anything else out there, and you just can't shrink
that but so much.
>So as a pro camera, yes the small size is a fault. As a user's camera, no
>it is
>not, in fact it is a major benefit.
It's not so much that the public doesn't trust pros with small cameras,
but that pros don't themselves trust small cameras.  Something that small
can't be tough enough and capable enough, they think.  I remember one
member of the white house press corps describing the Nikon 8008, which was
the second best camera in the Nikon line at the time, as "a lightweight".
My own experience tends to confirm the relatively lower durability of
small cameras.
DJE

_
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: BG 10 Grip and FPS on MZ-S

[Feroze Kistan]

Hi Robert,

Never heard that rumour before, but it dosn't work like that on my MZS+BG10.
I only get to use cheaper batteries.

Later
Feroze

- Original Message -
From: "Robert & Leigh Woerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:39 PM
Subject: BG 10 Grip and FPS on MZ-S


> I've read somewhere(can't find it) that the fps rate improves to about 4
on
> an MZ-S equipped with BG10 grip and lithium batteries.  Can anybody
confirm
> this with own experience
>
> TIA,
>
> Robert (Woerner Bros.)
>
>
>

Re: SMC-M 135mm f3.5 vs. SMC-M 150mm f3.5

[Andre Langevin]

Does anyone have experience with these lenses? I'm interested in 
which lens produces the nicest bokeh and their other merits as well. 
I saw an example of the bokeh from the 150mm on Valentin's site, but 
no example for the 135mm.

Jim


If you want a superior lens but don't mind the extra weight, the 2.5 
version is the one to get.  Shel just put one for sale at a bargain 
price. The little looseness in the barrel has no effect on picture 
taking: if all the optics move it is fine; if only a part of the 
optics move it's bad.

Andre

From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FS: SMK Pentax 135mm f/2.5
http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/135mm.html

BG 10 Grip and FPS on MZ-S

[Robert & Leigh Woerner]

I've read somewhere(can't find it) that the fps rate improves to about 4 on
an MZ-S equipped with BG10 grip and lithium batteries.  Can anybody confirm
this with own experience

TIA,

Robert (Woerner Bros.)

FS: SMK Pentax 135mm f/2.5

[Shel Belinkoff]

Not the Takumar version.

Details here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/135mm.html

Please email off list.  Thanks!

shel

Re: Pictures of a young lady friend

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> She is very beautuiful and photogenic. But for portraits I would prefere if
> she didn't smile that much -  not on most photoes, anyway...
 
I think I appreciate your point.
I might add that this particular upload primarily was a way for her to finally and 
conveniently be able to get to them.
For a true portrait series presentation I would have selected only one or maybe two of 
the big laughs. They are very true of her personality though. As are the serious 
looking ones. (There is yet one or two of those that could have gone in there.)
The last two are great, I think ( [in very small letters:] in my humble opinion...) :)

Thanks for telling me your views. They were useful.
Lasse

> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
> 
> 
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:53
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: Pictures of a young lady friend
> 
> 
> I uploaded another set of pictures of a young lady friend.
> We happened to be on the same boat for Aland in late July a few years back.
> I had previously been thinking of asking if I she'd like to model for me,
> why I took the opportunity to ask her if I could finish my half a roll of
> Agfa 200 in a portrait series on the rear deck as there was a nice low sun,
> although a bit windy and not really warm.
> I used the MZ5 and my old M42 Pentacon 135/2.8 at full open at 1/250 s.
> These are consecutive shots from the first to the last, omitting a few where
> she was talking to me.
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386748
> 
> Comments welcome, also on specific shots.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lasse
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Wideangle lens choice

[Jens Bladt]

Yep, Kieth - it must be the one, even though I wrote F3.5 byside the shots
on my web site.
All the best

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


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. marts 2004 19:06
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Wideangle lens choice




Jens Bladt wrote:

> I simply love my SMC A 2.8/20mm. I got a bargain 225$ on ebay - usually
they
> are arround 300$. It's a brilliant lens IMO. Of course it's just a 30mm in
> the *ist D, but that's not too bad either. The 3.5/15mm is rare and very
> expensive (700$ - if it wasn't, I would have bought one).
>
> I had a 19mm (A-lens) Vivitar once (dumped it on ebay). I has a little
more
> distortion than the 20mm Pentax, but it quite nice. You could find one for
> 100$. This photograph was shot with the Vivitar:
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side4.html

Is that anything like Vivitar's f/3.8 19mm lens?
I have one of those, and except for the sides of buildings bent inwards
if I'm taking cityscapes (but all 19mm lenses do that) in most of the
shots it's hard to tell it's a very wide angle...
Sold new for $259.95, I think I bought it for $139.
Unless a fairly new Pentax-A 19mm more or less fell into my lap, I
wouldn't get rid of this one for any reason!
I've come to depend on it.

keith whaley

> all the best
> Jens Bladt
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>
>
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Ramesh Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 26. marts 2004 21:04
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: Wideangle lens choice
>
>
> I am planning to buy *istD and so looking at the wide
> angle lens to replace my 24mm.
> I find replacements are too expensive and have some
> doubts.
>
> I was looking at 15mm lenses. Most of these wide angle
> lenses have bulby front element.
> How this design affects flare?
> How to fit the filters in the front? I usually use
> nuetral graduated filter.
>
> Pentax 16-45mm does not seem to have bulby front
> element and seems more filter friendly. Am I correct?
>
> I have to pick one among  Pentax 16-45mm, Sigma
> 12-24mm and Pentax A 15mm.
> Pentax 16-45mm looks value for money, I heard it has
> abberations at 16mm.  Is it a good idea to use the
> zoom lens at its extreams ends?
>
> Can somebody pls compare Pentax 16-45mm with Pentax A
> 15mm?
>
> Any comparison b/w Pentax 16-45mm, Sigma 12-24mm is
> also welcome.
>
>
> Thanks
> Ramesh
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Pictures of a young lady friend

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A really nice series, Lasse!  She's so very at ease in front of the camera 
> (intended as a tribute to you).  She seems very spontaneous.

Thanks, Frank.
Actually, although she liked being shot, she was a little bit "nervous" (in lack for a 
more precise word), why I probably told her my version of the difference between boys 
and girls or something similar (that's what the laughs reflects) to ease it up. 
However she is indeed spontaneous as well.

> And, pretty, too!

> She has a lovely smile, but I'm more impressed by her "sultry" look, 
> especially in image 1.  For me, it all comes together.  I'm especially 
> impressed by the colours:  bright red lips, that amazing hair, and the 
> beautiful green eyes.

As a matter of fact I actually even (thought I) had to bring down the colours a bit in 
postprocessing. Maybe I should take a second look at what they originally came like.
That shot was actually taken just before she got ready for the shoot, while I was 
telling her I had to get the metering and focusing right.

>The lighting (it looks near sunset, or later in the 
> day?) enhances those colours.

Yes. According to my notes, this would have been late in the evening, around 
9:30-10:00 p.m..
 
> All good, but I like 1 best.

Thanks for your report. Much appreciated. 
Lasse

> thanks,
> frank
> 
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
> fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Pictures of a young lady friend
> >Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:52:32 +0300
> >
> >I uploaded another set of pictures of a young lady friend.
> >We happened to be on the same boat for Aland in late July a few years back.
> >I had previously been thinking of asking if I she'd like to model for me, 
> >why I took the opportunity to ask her if I could finish my half a roll of 
> >Agfa 200 in a portrait series on the rear deck as there was a nice low sun, 
> >although a bit windy and not really warm.
> >I used the MZ5 and my old M42 Pentacon 135/2.8 at full open at 1/250 s.
> >These are consecutive shots from the first to the last, omitting a few 
> >where she was talking to me.
> >http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386748
> >
> >Comments welcome, also on specific shots.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Lasse
> >
> >
> 
> _
> 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: something weird...

[graywolf]

Yep, you have 2 weeks, he has 30 days to respond, you have 2 weeks, he has 60 
days to respond, you have 2 weeks, he has 90 days to respond. If you go through 
all that then you can take him to small claims court. But then you will have to 
find where his accounts are, to collect in all probability. Remember he had 
practice doing this with hundreds of people, you are doing it for the first 
time. And you have moved out of state, or at least the county, so you have to 
run back and forth. (Detroit, Michigan landlord/tentant laws)

I find it amazing that folks think you go to small claims court, the guy pays 
and that is it. In reality he does not show up, the judge sees in your favor 
then you deliver that court order to him, or pay the sheriff's department to 
deliver it, if know where he is. He ignors it. You find out where his bank 
account is, or his job. You go back to court and they sign a garish, in the mean 
time he moved his account, and got another job. They don't show all this on the 
TV Court shows, do they?

Oh yes, if you keep following through, you will eventually get your money. After 
about 3 years.

--

Gonz wrote:

Thats what small claims court is for.  If you have a clear case, its 
easy to win, even without a lawyer, plus the landlord... if he hired a 
lawyer, would be out probably 3x the $1K, so he would probably settle 
for the whole amount rather than risk it.  A moving company once broke 
alot of my stuff and would not pay the damages.  When I threatened to 
sue, they said "go ahead" it was not until the day before the court date 
that they called me and offered to settle.  After what they put me 
through, I asked for 2x damages and they coughed it up.  Thats their 
tactic every time, and they usually wear the other party down.

rg

graywolf wrote:

Only when there is big money involved. I remember when I was trying to 
recover deposits from a previous landlord, I could not find a lawyer 
interesting in trying to get my piddling $1000, even when I offered 
the whole amount as a fee (rather give it to a lawyer than let the 
landlord beat me out of it). I even had papers signed by the manager 
saying that the apartment was in better shape when I moved out than it 
was when I moved in. Now if you are talking $20K or so, you would have 
to beat them off with a stick.

--

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

Phew! Thanks Frank!  I was a bit worried about that - in Australia it is
generally thought that those in the US are extremely litigious 
(sic?), and
that it pays to be very careful...

tan.

-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 28 March 2004 2:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: something weird...
BTW, Tan,

A final note.  I don't think you "majorly broke the law" by 
reproducing that
e-mail in it's entirety.

That weaselly disclaimer statement is just their way of trying to 
say, "You
know what, we screwed up royally by sending an e-mail, in error, to 
someone
to whom we didn't intend to send it.  If, due to our error, that 
receipient
does something with it to screw up our company, we want to try to sue 
him,
even though ~we~ screwed up."

Now, if there's one thing you have to know about the law, it's that 
having a
law means nothing.  Enforcing it means everything.

No one's going to come after you for reproducing the e-mail.  All you 
did,
after all, was send it to the very same group to which they sent it in
error!  Remember, we all got the same "out of office" reply.  And, 
even if
we didn't all get it, there's nothing damaging to Max' company in that
e-mail, so they've suffered no damages, so why would they want to try to
enforce their alleged copyright?  There's nothing to enforce, without
damages.

So, again, relax.  Have a nice cuppa tea (I'd say beer, but I know 
you don't
drink).  Go take more lovely photographs.  And, have a nice day.

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





From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>






Secondly, I just realised that I majorly broke the law by posting that
email
in its entirety with the disclaimer attached, I'll probably get into
"trouble" for that too.  




_
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=htt 

p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines






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

Re: OT: Vuescan or Nikon Scan Software

[P Kong]

At 08:23 AM 3/29/2004, Mike Wilson wrote:
Seriously, this is one piece of software that you really need to rtfm.
Carefully.  Then again.
The Vuescan on-line manual isn't particularly helpful either. I spent the 
better part of a week twiddling w/ the software & have decided I'm not 
qualified to decipher the manual.

Pat in SF

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[graywolf]

Ah... What's up, Doc?

Jostein wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!


Naawww, they're just out photogwaphing boids.

Or watching Cartoon Network.

Cheers,
Jostein

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

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Peter J. Alling]

Elmer Fuddism (Warner Bros. Cartoon Character) Rabbit "hehehe ..." (I 
can't seem to put that into text ;) )"

danilo wrote:

Alle 12:50, lunedì 29 marzo 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography ha scritto:
 

Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!
   

what's a wabbit??? I can't find it in the dictinoary (Only one entry related
to an hack of Elmer Fudd, I don't think it is what you are referring to,
isn't it?)
 

.Or has Frank's lawyer talk put you all to sleep???

..Or have you all black listed me so that you can talk about me behind
my back
   

the latter seems the most realistic, of course ;)

 



WELL, fine, I'm going off to watch Paradise Hotel then!

tan.
   

Can't understand this one too (is it a TV novel?), anyway, have fun!

ciao
Danilo.
---



 

Re: Sydney International PDML meet

[Cotty]

On 28/3/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated:

>Thanks for the pix and organizing the venue Chris, it was an enjoyable
>evening, 
>it's always a pleasure to meet fellow PDMLers and their seldom mentioned 
>partners. It's an interesting experience as the faces are generally
>unfamiliar 
>but there is much familiarity on so many other levels (I bet some ears were 
>burning :-). It's a pity that Stan and Megs visit to our city was so
fleeting 
>however they had good weather and made absolutely the most of it. Stan 
>mentioned that he shot 600 exposures that day so I can't wait to see what he 
>posts when he returns home :-)
>
>My small selection of pics from the eve can be see here:
>
>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386781&display_list=false
>
>Cheers,

Did you toast the rest of us?? ;-)

Nice boats BTW...


Cheers,
  Cotty


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

RE: Wideangle lens choice

[Jens Bladt]

I simply love my SMC A 2.8/20mm. I got a bargain 225$ on ebay - usually they
are arround 300$. It's a brilliant lens IMO. Of course it's just a 30mm in
the *ist D, but that's not too bad either. The 3.5/15mm is rare and very
expensive (700$ - if it wasn't, I would have bought one).

I had a 19mm (A-lens) Vivitar once (dumped it on ebay). I has a little more
distortion than the 20mm Pentax, but it quite nice. You could find one for
100$. This photograph was shot with the Vivitar:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side4.html
all the best
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Ramesh Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 26. marts 2004 21:04
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Wideangle lens choice


I am planning to buy *istD and so looking at the wide
angle lens to replace my 24mm.
I find replacements are too expensive and have some
doubts.

I was looking at 15mm lenses. Most of these wide angle
lenses have bulby front element.
How this design affects flare?
How to fit the filters in the front? I usually use
nuetral graduated filter.

Pentax 16-45mm does not seem to have bulby front
element and seems more filter friendly. Am I correct?

I have to pick one among  Pentax 16-45mm, Sigma
12-24mm and Pentax A 15mm.
Pentax 16-45mm looks value for money, I heard it has
abberations at 16mm.  Is it a good idea to use the
zoom lens at its extreams ends?

Can somebody pls compare Pentax 16-45mm with Pentax A
15mm?

Any comparison b/w Pentax 16-45mm, Sigma 12-24mm is
also welcome.


Thanks
Ramesh


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

RE: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Rothman, Aric]

> From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

...

> Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!

yeah.  where is frank, anyway?

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Bob Blakely]

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get ya!

HAR!

Regards,
Bob...

"A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
 - Winston Churchill

From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!
>
> .Or has Frank's lawyer talk put you all to sleep???
>
> ..Or have you all black listed me so that you can talk about me behind
> my back
>
> 
>
> WELL, fine, I'm going off to watch Paradise Hotel then!

Re: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer

[graywolf]

No, no, no! You must, absolutely must, buy a $500 "ARCHIVAL" film washer.

Q: What is the difference between a piece of vinyl tubing with a facet adaptor 
on one end that you stick into the developing tank, and a "ARCHIVAL" film washer?

A: $495.

--

Jens Bladt wrote:
Why do you need one ?
I just use a Garden Hose that I screw on to the Tap at one end and put into
the Developing Tank at the other...I let the water run through it for
20-30minutes.
All the best
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Bill Sawyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. marts 2004 02:57
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer
I'd like to get a film washer for processing 35mm and 120/220 roll film.
Thus far, I've looked at Calumet, Doran & Watson (both from B&H). Does
anyone have any thoughts on the subject?
Thanks in advance.





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

RE: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer

[Jens Bladt]

Why do you need one ?
I just use a Garden Hose that I screw on to the Tap at one end and put into
the Developing Tank at the other...I let the water run through it for
20-30minutes.
All the best

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


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Bill Sawyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. marts 2004 02:57
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Recommendations: Roll Film Washer


I'd like to get a film washer for processing 35mm and 120/220 roll film.
Thus far, I've looked at Calumet, Doran & Watson (both from B&H). Does
anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

Thanks in advance.

Re: My first PAW

[brooksdj]

Hi Kevin.
This is the type of rural picture i tend to go after on my drives in the GWN on 
weekends.
I like the 
shot,but agree with Bill,it could use a bit more sky.
I think this shot would look good as a B&W picture too.
I know you said in a reply to someone,that you could not time you shooting,but i cannot
help feel a tad 
darker shadow  might help.

Great shot none the less.

Dave 

> I am posting this purely for the purpose of 
receiving critique.  I am hoping for
> lots of suggestions.

RE: Pictures of a young lady friend

[Jens Bladt]

She is very beautuiful and photogenic. But for portraits I would prefere if
she didn't smile that much -  not on most photoes, anyway...

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


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:53
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Pictures of a young lady friend


I uploaded another set of pictures of a young lady friend.
We happened to be on the same boat for Aland in late July a few years back.
I had previously been thinking of asking if I she'd like to model for me,
why I took the opportunity to ask her if I could finish my half a roll of
Agfa 200 in a portrait series on the rear deck as there was a nice low sun,
although a bit windy and not really warm.
I used the MZ5 and my old M42 Pentacon 135/2.8 at full open at 1/250 s.
These are consecutive shots from the first to the last, omitting a few where
she was talking to me.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386748

Comments welcome, also on specific shots.

Thanks,
Lasse

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[danilo]

Alle 12:50, lunedì 29 marzo 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography ha scritto:
> Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!

what's a wabbit??? I can't find it in the dictinoary (Only one entry related
 to an hack of Elmer Fudd, I don't think it is what you are referring to,
 isn't it?)

> .Or has Frank's lawyer talk put you all to sleep???
>
> ..Or have you all black listed me so that you can talk about me behind
> my back

the latter seems the most realistic, of course ;)

> 
>
> WELL, fine, I'm going off to watch Paradise Hotel then!
>
> tan.

Can't understand this one too (is it a TV novel?), anyway, have fun!

ciao
Danilo.

---

Re: Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Boros Attila]

Hello Tanya,

Monday, March 29, 2004, 3:50:56 PM, you wrote:


TMP> Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!
I don't even know what a wabbit is. Hunting? No... Maybe fishing:)

TMP> .Or has Frank's lawyer talk put you all to sleep???
Uppsy, seems that I have skipped that part. Sorry Frank.

TMP> ..Or have you all black listed me so that you can talk about me behind
TMP> my back
Oh, come on, Miss:)

TMP> 

TMP> WELL, fine, I'm going off to watch Paradise Hotel then!
OK, I'll read Lord of the Rings then:) I've seen the movie, but you
know, you just can't compare a book with a movie.

Attila

Ssssssh, It's beeerrry quiet around here...

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Are you all out hunting WABBITS?!?!

.Or has Frank's lawyer talk put you all to sleep???

..Or have you all black listed me so that you can talk about me behind
my back



WELL, fine, I'm going off to watch Paradise Hotel then!

tan.

Re: First Birthday_paw week something

[brooksdj]

LOL.Thanks Ken.
I think i have one with them sitting up i can post.

Dave

> Dave, very cute & well done. But you gotta do 
sumthin about the tilt 
> Kenneth Waller
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: First Birthday_paw week something
> 
> 
> >
> >   http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2239734
> >
> > One of the good ones from Saturdays BD party.D2h and SB80DX flash with
> diffuser.Shot in Av
> > with
> > flash on bounce and AA setting,no comp.
> > Minor tweak in PS.For some reason they all were about 1/3-top under and
> with a goldish
> > tinge.The walls
> > were a yellowy colour so it may be from the bouncing light.
> >
> > Enjoy.
> >
> > Comments welcome
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> 

RE: First Birthday_paw week something

[brooksdj]

>Frank said:   
> That's a sweet shot, Dave.

Thanks.:-)
> 
> Definitely more than an ordinary everyday piccie made by someone's grandma 
> on a p&s at grandchild's first b-day party, that's for sure.

There were a few.Only slr type cameras were mine.lol
> 
> You really captured the joy on both faces.  I like the pose.  Did you tell 
> them to do that, or did you just catch it that way?  Makes for an 
> interesting shot, one way or the other.

Nothing was posed, i just spent the better part of the afternoon on my hands and knees
following kids 
and parents around with my eye to the finder.LOL.Funny other than the hands and
knees,thats how i 
do the horses to
> 
> I like it!!
> 
> BTW, that coach looks real familiar.  Does she work or live in Toronto?  I 
> just get the feeling I've seen her...

Thats not my daughters coach,its her sister,who teaches the Dressage riders at our
place.But they do 
look very much alike. She gets in to Toronto on occasion but lives at the farm.

Thanks for the comments Frank. I have a few others that i like and may post up this 
week.

Dave
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
> fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: First Birthday_paw week something
> >Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:37:44 US/Eastern
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2239734
> >
> >One of the good ones from Saturdays BD party.D2h and SB80DX flash with 
> >diffuser.Shot in Av
> >with
> >flash on bounce and AA setting,no comp.
> >Minor tweak in PS.For some reason they all were about 1/3-top under and 
> >with a goldish
> >tinge.The walls
> >were a yellowy colour so it may be from the bouncing light.
> >
> >Enjoy.
> >
> >Comments welcome
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> 
> _
> 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: Screw mount lens to K-mount body

[Greg Lovern]

Hi Jim,

If you're shooting many different compositions and focusing points at the
same aperature, as for example in aperature-priority mode, what you
describe is the easiest way I've heard of.

But if you're reconsidering and resetting the aperature for each shot, as
for example in manual-exposure mode during slow-paced, non-action
shooting, I find it a little more convenient to leave the A/M switch on M,
and:
 -- compose and focus at the widest aperature
 -- stop down to the desired aperature for metering and shooting.

For that kind of shooting, I think using the A/M switch is just an extra
step that doesn't really buy you anything. Using the A/M switch with the
lens mounted on a K-mount camera essentially uses it as a preset lens. But
they weren't designed to be used as preset lenses, and the A/M switch is
not as convenient as how a preset lens works.

You asked for comments, so here goes:

Are you using that 50mm screwmount as your normal lens for general
shooting? If so, it seems like an inconvenient, frankly painful choice for
such a modern, convenient camera, and I wonder if you'd be happier with an
old screwmount, auto-diaphram camera. Certainly, there are people who
enjoy such pain and consider it macho, and more power to them, but most of
them do not choose a modern, convenient camera such as the ZX-5n.

On the other hand, if you use a K-mount lens for general normal-range
shooting, and picked up the SMC Takumar to get sharper shots for a small
percentage of your shooting, or for slow-paced, non-action shooting
situations, now that I could understand.

I buy old screwmount lenses when I can't or won't pay for similar optical
quality in a K-mount lens. But if I wanted to use a SMC Takumar 50mm for
general shooting, I'd want to avoid unnecessary pain by matching it with
an old screwmount, auto-diaphram camera. In that case, I'd probably have
to keep the cost down by choosing an obscure old Fuji body, rather than a
legendary, collectible old Pentax body.

Greg



>
> I recently bought a late model SMC Takumar 50mm lens and adapter and
> mounted it to my ZX-5n. It seems for focussing you move the switch to open
> the lens and for metering and shooting you have move the switch on the
> lens to the stop down mode? It seems very akward and slow.  Anyone care to
> comment or share some advice?
>
> Jim
>
>

Re: Sydney Intenational PDML

[David Nelson]

Had a great time and am pleased to say I got off fairly lightly with 
that enormous fish - didn't take too much out of my 'saving for 200mm 
macro' piggy bank.
Very impressed with the limited lenses that were present, as well as 
with Stan's grip (even though he was bagging it out all night). More 
wishlist items (-:
Must say I'm surprised with how Rob's pics came out - I have to admit 
that I was a bit dubious at the time (handheld, crappy lighting, no 
flash), but they're great (even WB which never comes out right when I 
try anything like that).

Looking forward to the next one.

David







Chris wrote:

It came out as I thought it might Rob.A1.Love the colour and the depiction
of serenity.
By the way Frank,if I had known you really trashed my
pics,well...,However 'twas not me that burnt your ears.
Regards Chris K


 

Fwd: Re: OT - A computer Question...

[danilo]

Since you have two partitions, and not two physical drives, (if I have
understood it correctly) you can safely ignore that message.
It talks about performance because it thinks you have two distinct drives.
With two drives you can read/write on both in the same time, so having those
large files (The Windows SWAP, and the PS temp) on separate disks will end up
having a performance improvement, without (two drives) you'll not in any
case.
Only, be sure to have at least the double of your physical RAM amount as free
disk space otherwise you'll have some trouble, e.g. cannot save that photo,
because you don't have enough space.
I've had once this kind of problem, I've opend Word, while having a little
space, Windows swapped, and fill the disk, hence I couldn't save my document
because "no space left on device" !!

hope this makes any sense.

Ciao
Danilo.

Alle 06:38, domenica 28 marzo 2004, Shel Belinkoff ha scritto:
> Seems that whoever set up your machine has made it difficult
> for you.  However, it should be fairly simple to change the
> location of the paging file.  I think I did that on my Win
> XP machine.
>
> BTW, if you have enough memory and disk space, having the
> paging file and the scratch disk on the same drive may not
> be a problem.  I've got PS 6 running quite well on one
> drive, which includes the scratch disk and paging file,
>
> There is, BTW, a way to locate the paging file so it doesn't
> move around and get in the way of the scratch disk.  I'll
> check the XP machine and get back to you later.
>
> shel
>
> Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> > *eek* I changed my PS Scratch disks as suggested earlier on to have the
> > primary scratch disk as "D:".  Well, I have just gone in to reopen PS to
> > do some work, and I get this message:
> >
> > "You currently have Adobe Photoshop's primary Scratch and Window's
> > primary paging file on the same volume, which can result in reduced
> > performance.  It is recommended that you set Adobe Photoshop's primary
> > scratch volume to be on a different volume, preferably on a different
> > physical drive".
> >
> > So this kinda puts a spanner in the works!  I thought that the windows
> > file would have been on the C: and thus this is why I went with D: as the
> > Scratch Disk?  Geeez, I am so confused...
> >
> > tan.

---

Re: DSLR sales

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 3/28/2004 10:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of my co-workers, who is adamant that "Canon is better", has a K1000
that he takes mountain biking.  He wound up with my 135/3.5 and 24/2.8.

DJE

-

Well, good to hear it! 

And thanks for the flash card info.

Marnie aka DoeI suspect a lot of K-1000s are collecting dust, though. Not 
knocking it -- it was a great camera to learn on.