Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Someone who knows about this stuff should check Pair.com. They are the host for my new relocated site. I think I pay $20-25 per month, 500mb space, expansion not too expensive, it seems that a user has fair access to the innards of the system if you know what you are doing. I don't... BTW - I would be willing to act as treasurer for this venture if it winds up on a U.S. based host. If it is outside the U.S., I can still be the conduit for funds from those who don't use PayPal but would like to contribute... Stan John Francis wrote: It's OK, I guess. Personally I would suggest their Unix-based hosting, rather than buying into the Windows-specific offering. But then I'd never go for a hosting-only account; I always want shell access to the machine for maintenance activities. I don't want to be forced to use whatever tools are made available for site creation; I sometimes want to log in and edit the HTML. This seems like a good deal for a server, not too much money. http://www.superbhosting.net/winpower.php David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: NEW_PUG - questions I don't know about the bandwidth, since all the statistics info is on the komkon server. I checked the used bandwidth on my server, since the pug is sitting there it seems not so much. I need more time to see whether it increases. The real problem is the space it takes now about 300 MB with all the old stuff and I guess I will need about 500 MB or even more for the future with autopug and more galleries to come. Cheers Adelheid -Original Message- From: David Madsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Samstag, 10. April 2004 19:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: NEW_PUG - questions How much space and bandwidth does the pug use? David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NEW_PUG - questions Hi list, it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the PUG. Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. "pug.net" isn't. If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you tell the list. 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. Cheers Jostein and Adelheid
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
Jens Bladt wrote: Kieth (and others). I know that HFD is (by definition) the distance to the closest sharp point, when the lens is "focused" to infinity (meaning NOT focused). I practice this distance (HFD) is the distance you can focus at, when you still want "infinity" to be sharp - that is maximum DOF. Often I find myself foucussing at infinity, when shooting landscape. But this way I will NOT get maximum DOF!!! Yes, that's true, and I recognize that. For landscape photography, my point is to focus as close as possible, to still get the most distant objects to appear sharp in the photograph. Very often a SHARP FOREGROUND is crutial. Again, true. Professional landscape photographers use 4x5" cameras with tiltable lens and film plane (according to e.i. Outdoor Photography) to get maximum DOF. I can't do that - for economical reasons. So I have to make the best of an ordenary camera (35mm, 6x6). You are of course right, that it doesn't make sence to talk about the distance to infinity, since that is the point, where parallel lines meet, which fo course doesn't exist. That is also not what I'm talking about. I'm conserned about where to focus when shooting scenery. I know I can read the DOF scale. Maybe I've read it before, but just recently I read someone's message that said to put the furthest f/stop mark on infinity and then choose the more open (smaller number) aperture, for the best compromise. In other words, if you were using f/8.0 as the index f/stop, change it to 5.6 and reset the infinity point. I think that's a reasonable approach. Better focus on mid range items. keith
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
On 10 Apr 2004 at 11:58, graywolf wrote: > While Doug Brewer would have to agree, why not "pug.pdml.net", and a simple > redirect from pdml.net? Advantages: 1. No extra cost. 2. Clearly connected to > the list. This would be great if Doug can pull it off, but definitely no hyphens in any name if not. > Might consider a token submission charge via paypal as an alternative to > donations. The problem with donations are they may wind up coming out of the > pugmeister's pocket. Whoever ends up paying for the space should not ever get lumbered with out of pocket costs, everyone should be warned that if it comes to that the plug should be pulled there and then. I would happily make a yearly contribution of around EUR10 or so and I think it's a good idea to indicate who is financial by either via a contributors page or a small indication in their monthly image page. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
In a message dated 4/10/2004 2:28:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is a link for a couple depth of field calculators - including a program, DOFMaster, which will let you choose format and focal length to print a circular slide rule device that you can carry with you to determine the zone of focus. Best of all.it's free. http://dfleming.ameranet.com/ Paul -- Thanks! That's really cool. Marnie aka Doe
istD & FA50/1.4
I just took 200 shots of my son (I love the freedom of digital) using my FA50mm f1.4 lens. Due to close shooting at f2 depth of field was pretty shallow, but image quality was beautiful. It helps that he is cute. A sample of the series is available here - http://davidmadsen.com/paw.htm David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com
Re: DA 14mm
yes. summer is all that is being promised. Herb - Original Message - From: "David Madsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:56 PM Subject: DA 14mm > I can't seem to find the new DA 14mm 2.8 lens anywhere. Are we still > waiting for a release date?
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
great pictures, Mark. do you use the 1.7X because it is a good extender, does AF, or both? have you compared with other Pentax extenders? Herb... - Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:31 PM Subject: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots > I used my standard bird setup > which is the A* 400 f2.8, and 1.7x AF adapter. With the *ist-D I wound up > using the AF360FTG for fill flash.
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
In a message dated 4/10/2004 5:43:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And if you start quoting mathmatical formulae, I am certain to projective vomit over the north pole and into your back yard. William Robb You got to stop drinking coffee or something, William. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
On 10 Apr 2004 at 22:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello. > > I which to know what Pentax *ist D user find about the DSLR to be improved. > > For the few time I can use it, I hope a bigger and faster buffer . And a > immediat histogramme visualisation. (can be done by changing the firmware > ?) > > And You ? I need to update it however from January: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/Pentax_digi_wish-list/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: DSLR: advanced WHITE BALANCE techniques
On 10 Apr 2004 at 16:10, Gonz wrote: > Am I figuring something wrong here. I welcome any corrections. Your reasoning is born out in practice (from my experience shooting products under hot lights) along with the added benefit of more consistent colour fidelity due to improved linearity. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
- Original Message - From: "Adelheid v. K." Subject: RE: NEW_PUG - questions > I don't know about the bandwidth, since all the statistics info is on the > komkon server. > I checked the used bandwidth on my server, since the pug is sitting there it > seems not so much. I need more time to see whether it increases. > The real problem is the space it takes now about 300 MB with all the old > stuff and I guess I will need about 500 MB or even more for the future with > autopug and more galleries to come. When I was doing the PUG, we were using about 4 gig of bandwidth per month on a normal month. I have the galleries up to when I stepped aside on a CD. Increasing the allowable size of the images will increase the amount of disk space the gallery will use very quickly, and, consequently, the amount of funds that will be required to maintain it on a server. William Robb
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Zone Focus - what is it? > >Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. > > Oh, it does. The HFD is the basic math behind defining the zones in order to > ensure overlapping DOF "between" them. And if you start quoting mathmatical formulae, I am certain to projective vomit over the north pole and into your back yard. >From a user point of view, who doesn't take this to the level of rocket science, zone focusing is not the same as hyper focal focusing, since by definition, the hyperfocal distance involves infinity, which zone focusing does not have to. William Robb
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Quite right. It wouldn't necessarily have to be annual. $10 per head might raise enough for two years, or a year and a half. A periodic request for a $10 donation every year or two, with a list of those who have contributed posted somewhere (so everyone knows who has a right to criticise/be rude/be funny, and who doesn't!), should suffice. Payment by Paypal or by cheque to somebody in the same currency area who does have Paypal, who can then pass it on. John On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:48:47 +1000, Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: yeah, but nick, for 1 or 2 dollars, the charges for using paypal would be really silly. I think it would be better to have like an annual fee of 10 dollars or whatever, then it is done, complete, forgotten about until the following year... tan. -Original Message- From: Nick Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 April 2004 9:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions I'd agree about the pdml-pug.net name. Please avoin hyphens (-) in domain names as some email editors take the opportunity to split them across lines so making them unusable. How about PDMLGallery. Regarding funding, as the list is free how about a small charge for each entry to the gallery? I would think 1 or 2 Euros per entry per month would give sufficient funding for the year. That way those who 'benefit' from the gallery also fund it. Paypal would probably be the only practical way to pay. Nick -Original Message- From: "Steve Jolly"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 10/04/04 14:51:33 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions pdml-pug.net is a bit of a mouthful, especially if you're giving someone the link verbally - how about pentaxgallery.net? (It's free, as is pentaxgallery.org, pentaxgallery.com etc...) -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 01:57, John Forbes wrote: > On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:23:40 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hello. > > > > I which to know what Pentax *ist D user find about the DSLR to be > > improved. > > > > For the few time I can use it, I hope a bigger and faster buffer . And a > > immediat histogramme visualisation. (can be done by changing the > > firmware > > > 1 bigger buffer. > 2 move strap lug so it doesn't foul card door. > 3 bigger 4-way knob at back. > 4 offset flash like Z1-P. > 5 auto histogram. > 6 otherwise don't mess with a very good camera. > > John And number 0: improve the flash TTL. -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Thanks so much for the offer John! My client has actually postponed this shoot for now, and I have my AF360fgz back now, so all should be fine. Also, with my record, I am a bit weary of borrowing other people's equipment! lol, but thank you so much once again for the offer. How was your trip? tan. -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 10 April 2004 5:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)... Hi Tan: just got back to read about your problem. If you haven't resolved it by the time you need to go to the coast, and it helps, my AF330FTZ is yours for as long as you want it. Regards John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:43 PM please offer me an answer, cause I am PACKING it here! > > tan. >
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Hi John, Now that is a good deal! Thank you for inquiring for the PUG. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 4:13 PM Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions > > Actually, I've offered precisely that deal to Adelheid/Jostein. > I've got a friend who runs a webhosting site on the side, and > I can get 1GB or more of storage, adequate bandwidth, etc. for free. > I use it for my private website (not this one, which only has 50MB).
Re: PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:23:40 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello. I which to know what Pentax *ist D user find about the DSLR to be improved. For the few time I can use it, I hope a bigger and faster buffer . And a immediat histogramme visualisation. (can be done by changing the firmware 1 bigger buffer. 2 move strap lug so it doesn't foul card door. 3 bigger 4-way knob at back. 4 offset flash like Z1-P. 5 auto histogram. 6 otherwise don't mess with a very good camera. John -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: April PUG - comments - looooong
Frits, is that somebody's bottom? Very cool shot! How clever you are to think of doing that! I LOVE it! tan. -Original Message- From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 April 2004 9:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: April PUG - comments - long On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 22:58, Dag T wrote: > The April PUG has drowned in Easter Holiday (at least in Norway), PAW > and a link that is hard to find, so I think it is my turn to go through > the list. > > Here it is: > > http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/04apr/ > > We´ll se how far I get. > > Frits J. Wüthrich - Double curved > I really like this one. I think I see a part of a body, but I´m not > sure. A little mystery is nice. > > - > > ...and that´s all for today > > DagT > Thanks DagT. I used Photoshop to increase the contrast, to make it as abstract as possible. It is my first submission for the PUG for which I made a photograph, for all previous ones I used a photograph I already had. I also look at this as the start of a project with this technique, I'll see how far I get with this. -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: NEW_PUG - questions
yeah, but nick, for 1 or 2 dollars, the charges for using paypal would be really silly. I think it would be better to have like an annual fee of 10 dollars or whatever, then it is done, complete, forgotten about until the following year... tan. -Original Message- From: Nick Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 April 2004 9:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions I'd agree about the pdml-pug.net name. Please avoin hyphens (-) in domain names as some email editors take the opportunity to split them across lines so making them unusable. How about PDMLGallery. Regarding funding, as the list is free how about a small charge for each entry to the gallery? I would think 1 or 2 Euros per entry per month would give sufficient funding for the year. That way those who 'benefit' from the gallery also fund it. Paypal would probably be the only practical way to pay. Nick -Original Message- From: "Steve Jolly"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 10/04/04 14:51:33 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions pdml-pug.net is a bit of a mouthful, especially if you're giving someone the link verbally - how about pentaxgallery.net? (It's free, as is pentaxgallery.org, pentaxgallery.com etc...)
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
I'd agree about the pdml-pug.net name. Please avoin hyphens (-) in domain names as some email editors take the opportunity to split them across lines so making them unusable. How about PDMLGallery. Regarding funding, as the list is free how about a small charge for each entry to the gallery? I would think 1 or 2 Euros per entry per month would give sufficient funding for the year. That way those who 'benefit' from the gallery also fund it. Paypal would probably be the only practical way to pay. Nick -Original Message- From: "Steve Jolly"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 10/04/04 14:51:33 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions pdml-pug.net is a bit of a mouthful, especially if you're giving someone the link verbally - how about pentaxgallery.net? (It's free, as is pentaxgallery.org, pentaxgallery.com etc...)
Re: April PUG - comments - looooong
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 22:58, Dag T wrote: > The April PUG has drowned in Easter Holiday (at least in Norway), PAW > and a link that is hard to find, so I think it is my turn to go through > the list. > > Here it is: > > http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/04apr/ > > We´ll se how far I get. > > Frits J. Wüthrich - Double curved > I really like this one. I think I see a part of a body, but I´m not > sure. A little mystery is nice. > > - > > ...and that´s all for today > > DagT > Thanks DagT. I used Photoshop to increase the contrast, to make it as abstract as possible. It is my first submission for the PUG for which I made a photograph, for all previous ones I used a photograph I already had. I also look at this as the start of a project with this technique, I'll see how far I get with this. -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: SMC Takumars vs. Pentax K's
Thanks Andre, This one goes to the archives. Lasse From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:33 PM Subject: Re: SMC Takumars vs. Pentax K's > >Lens element and group configurations can be identical, but designs > >may still be significantly different due to different glass formulas > >surface figures. > >Bob... > > Indeed. This is the case of K17/4. > > Pentax public presentations of lenses (as reported in Japanese > english-written Camerart magazine, for example) may be the best > reference on that subject. When Pentax presented the new K mount > equipment (Camerart july 75), they implied K lenses were the same as > previous SMC-Takumar except for the four mentionned previously. > Contrary to the K17/4 case, changes for 28mm 35mm and 300mm lenses > were obvious: more lens elements (28mm, 300mm), different surface > curves (35/2). > > K-series trivia: > > SMCT 20/4.5 never made it to K and was replaced by K20/4. K50/1.2 was > the only other completely new design at the time of the K-series > introduction. K28/2 and 28mm-shift were also announced but it took > almost a year before they were released (mid-76). > > At the end of 1976, the M-series equipment was presented and some K > lenses were dropped soon afterwards: the 24/3.5, 28/3.5, both 35mm, > 105mm, 135/3.5, 200/4, 50/4 & 100/4 lenses were then only available > for about a year. The other original K lenses (50/1.4, 55/1.8, > 85/1.8, 120/2.8, 150/4, 85-210/4.5) were dropped not much time > afterwards. All K lenses are hard to find. Normal lenses are easier > to get by but usually come on a K-series body. > > K55mm f2 is a special case, it was only available with the first > K1000 bodies, for maybe a few months at the end of 76. It is the > same lens as the 55/1.8, it just does not open to 1.8. You may be > able to take out a ring inside the lens to get the 1.8 aperture, but > I would not do that as the lens is a "collectible". > > K50/4 is a very sturdy lens with a deeply recessed front element > while the M version is much lighter with less internal baffling. For > studio work, the K version is worth having. > > 100/4 was the only lens that was made it unchanged optically from > pre-SMC Takumar (bellows) to A-series. Mechanically, the M and A > lenses are nearly as good as the K version. > > It has been said by Pentax that for the K-series lenses, SMC was > added between the elements of a group. This was a very very thin > improvement... But good enough for some adds. > > Andre
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Actually, I've offered precisely that deal to Adelheid/Jostein. I've got a friend who runs a webhosting site on the side, and I can get 1GB or more of storage, adequate bandwidth, etc. for free. I use it for my private website (not this one, which only has 50MB). > I do all of my editing in Dreamweaver My situation is a little weird > because I own my domain name (or at least rent it), but my server space is > piggy-backed onto a friend's space because he has more than he needs. I > have full access to the space but I don't know how much it costs because he > doesn't charge me. The PUG needs a friend with too much web space. > > David Madsen > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.davidmadsen.com > > -Original Message- > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions > > > > It's OK, I guess. Personally I would suggest their Unix-based > hosting, rather than buying into the Windows-specific offering. > > But then I'd never go for a hosting-only account; I always want > shell access to the machine for maintenance activities. I don't > want to be forced to use whatever tools are made available for > site creation; I sometimes want to log in and edit the HTML. > > > > This seems like a good deal for a server, not too much money. > > http://www.superbhosting.net/winpower.php > > > > David Madsen > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.davidmadsen.com >
RE: NEW_PUG - questions
I do all of my editing in Dreamweaver My situation is a little weird because I own my domain name (or at least rent it), but my server space is piggy-backed onto a friend's space because he has more than he needs. I have full access to the space but I don't know how much it costs because he doesn't charge me. The PUG needs a friend with too much web space. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions It's OK, I guess. Personally I would suggest their Unix-based hosting, rather than buying into the Windows-specific offering. But then I'd never go for a hosting-only account; I always want shell access to the machine for maintenance activities. I don't want to be forced to use whatever tools are made available for site creation; I sometimes want to log in and edit the HTML. > This seems like a good deal for a server, not too much money. > http://www.superbhosting.net/winpower.php > > David Madsen > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.davidmadsen.com
DA 14mm
I can't seem to find the new DA 14mm 2.8 lens anywhere. Are we still waiting for a release date? David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com
PENTAX *ist D : Things to improve
Hello. I which to know what Pentax *ist D user find about the DSLR to be improved. For the few time I can use it, I hope a bigger and faster buffer . And a immediat histogramme visualisation. (can be done by changing the firmware ?) And You ?
Re: MZ-S Limited
Pål_Jensen écrit: > Personally, the possible limitation of the MZ-S with possible future lenses doesn't > really bother me that much. I want another MZ-S to primarily be used along with the > Limited lenses and a couple of older K mount lenses; all with aperture rings. As my > Limited lenses are chrome and my current MZ-S is black, I want a chrome MZ-S this > time. I hope the MZ-S Limited will also be available in chrome finish. The volume of > 5000 units may perhaps indicate that Pentax will sell it outside Japan or is the > demand that high in Japan alone? Pity though if they don't sell the Limited body > alone without the 43mm lens; some of us already have all the Limited lenses! > > Pål > > Sorry, I miss the thread... Anybody can give a working link to this news with pictures ? I heard that some FA lens might be stopped (such as 80-200mm f/:2.8 FA ) and be replaced. May be it is the beginning of the stablisation and the new motorized lens ?
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
On 10/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] discumbobulated: >> it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor >> for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the >> PUG. [snip] Hi guys and girls and indeterminate cross-gendered beings, Er, the Digest has been down for 24 hours or so and Listmeister brewer has kindly kicked it back in, but not before an obviously important thread such as this had been started. Please sign me up for a generous amount towards server / domain name / whatever. I'm not chomping at the bit, but if nobody else will take over, and Jostein and/or Addy have had enough, I will look after the PUG - but will need lessons and coaching. Consider me a 'last resort', but I will do it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
It's OK, I guess. Personally I would suggest their Unix-based hosting, rather than buying into the Windows-specific offering. But then I'd never go for a hosting-only account; I always want shell access to the machine for maintenance activities. I don't want to be forced to use whatever tools are made available for site creation; I sometimes want to log in and edit the HTML. > This seems like a good deal for a server, not too much money. > http://www.superbhosting.net/winpower.php > > David Madsen > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.davidmadsen.com > > -Original Message- > From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: NEW_PUG - questions > > > I don't know about the bandwidth, since all the statistics info is on the > komkon server. > I checked the used bandwidth on my server, since the pug is sitting there it > seems not so much. I need more time to see whether it increases. > The real problem is the space it takes now about 300 MB with all the old > stuff and I guess I will need about 500 MB or even more for the future with > autopug and more galleries to come. > > Cheers > Adelheid > > > > -Original Message- > From: David Madsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Samstag, 10. April 2004 19:40 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: NEW_PUG - questions > > How much space and bandwidth does the pug use? > > David Madsen > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.davidmadsen.com > > -Original Message- > From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: NEW_PUG - questions > > > Hi list, > > it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor > for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the > PUG. > > Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". > Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain > and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: > > 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It > means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? > I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after > 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. > ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. > > 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. > "pug.net" isn't. > If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you > tell the list. > > 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a > "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain > to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We > think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a > cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a > considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a > provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. > > 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold > together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup > a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If > somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. > > I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. > > Cheers > Jostein and Adelheid >
Re: DSLR: advanced WHITE BALANCE techniques
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'd disagree with the premise here. Sticking a blue filter on the > > front of your lens to balance tungsten light to a daylight sensor > > isn't going to do anything to improve the blue channel noise. In > > fact all it will do is reduce the amount of light falling on the > > red and green sensors, thus lowering the signal-to-noise ratio > > in the red and green channels. > > > That only is true if all the other factors in the exposure remain the > same, but if you change the exposure time to compensate, his premise > should be true. Don't forget that with room-temperature digital sensors the amount of thermal noise increases with exposure time.
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
Here is a link for a couple depth of field calculators - including a program, DOFMaster, which will let you choose format and focal length to print a circular slide rule device that you can carry with you to determine the zone of focus. Best of all.it's free. http://dfleming.ameranet.com/ Paul - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:04 PM Subject: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? > In a message dated 4/10/2004 11:36:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > If anybody is interested, I have made a spreadsheet (Excel) on HFD and NL > for common 6x6 and 35mm focal lengths. > All the best > Jens > -- > Yeah, I'd like to see it. And I know exactly what you are talking about -- > ending up with landscape shots where near stuff isn't always in focus. Or sharp > focus. (Even if I don't always use the correct terms for things.) So I'd love > to see it. > > Marnie aka Doe > >
Re: Bird and Moon Shots
Mark, The Moon shot is really powerful! The bird is nice, but the Moon is WOW! I think I'm beginning to see something from digital. You guys were good before the digital camera. Now, you are very good and prolific! Very enabling...$$$:-( Regards, Bob S.
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
- Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > the link is: > > http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ > > - MCC Wow. The sharpness and detail are amazing. You've done it again... Christian
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
Marnie: I get an error message mailing to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so it my spreadsheet didn't reach your computer! Is there annother email address? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 22:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? In a message dated 4/10/2004 11:36:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anybody is interested, I have made a spreadsheet (Excel) on HFD and NL for common 6x6 and 35mm focal lengths. All the best Jens -- Yeah, I'd like to see it. And I know exactly what you are talking about -- ending up with landscape shots where near stuff isn't always in focus. Or sharp focus. (Even if I don't always use the correct terms for things.) So I'd love to see it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: DSLR: advanced WHITE BALANCE techniques
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd disagree with the premise here. Sticking a blue filter on the front of your lens to balance tungsten light to a daylight sensor isn't going to do anything to improve the blue channel noise. In fact all it will do is reduce the amount of light falling on the red and green sensors, thus lowering the signal-to-noise ratio in the red and green channels. That only is true if all the other factors in the exposure remain the same, but if you change the exposure time to compensate, his premise should be true. Take for example a situation where you post process the blue channel to compensate for the lack of blue in a tungsten lit scene. Since the blue channel has not gotten enought light, you post-amplify it and increase the noise by the same factor. This is no different from the way high iso's work, except that the quantization is better than multiplication. S/N ratio is quoted from the best signal to the basically constant noise. If your signal is reduced because your source is weaker, then the S/N ratio is also reduced. Thats why high isos have high noise, the signal is smaller but the noise remains constant. So lets do an example assuming an 8 bit a/d, first say we have a tungsten light source and a single blue pixel is illuminated by a level of 128, which is half its potential. The R and B channels are at higher levels because they have a better lit scene as far as they're concerned. Say the noise level is at a level of 10, then your S/N ratio is about 12.8 (not using db here just absolute). You multiply the blue channel by two to get it to the R/G levels and the noise goes up by two also. The R/G channels S/N ratio is 256/10 which is 25.6, but the blue channel s ratio is 256/20 which is 51.2, which is higher. If you put the appropriate filter to reduce R and G, then if you decrease the shutter speed to compensate, you should get a exposure where the RGB levels are all high, and the S/N ratio should be at nominal for all three channels. Am I figuring something wrong here. I welcome any corrections. rg Digital 'amplification' doesn't introduce noise, either. It will amplify existing noise as well as amplifying signal, leaving the signal-to-noise ratio unchanged. Applying analog amplification on the sensor before the A-to-D stage, however, will introduce some additional noise to the signal, thus decreasing the signal- to-noise ratio. I don't believe any sensor is capable of applying different analog gains to the separate colour channels (switching transients would be a nightmare at typical pixel scan-out rates); analog gain can be used to change the overall sensitivity of the sensor (although only to a limited degree), uniformly in R/G/B. The only artifact that analog pre-amplification helps with is in the reduction of quantization effects. These are only noticeable in the darkest parts of the image. With a 12-bit sensor and a properly exposed image you're going to get more than ten bits of signal in the brightest parts of the image, even with a multiplier applied (a typical white balance multiplier will be in the range of 0.85 - 2.2, according to my observations). That's enough for quite a bit of post-exposure manipulation before any effects show up in an image after conversion to 8 bits per component (which is all that most displays and printers are capable of accepting). Hi, I have few thoughts on white balance with DSLRs, and I would like to discuss them to hear your opinions. I have two sort-of questions: 1) White balancing is IMO done by increasing the gain of R or B channel. At least DCRAW and most OEM raw conversion software works in this way. I don't know, however, if in-camera jpeg or raw WB is done after the AD conversion, or somehow before it. If it was done before (on the _analog_ signal), setting correct WB in camera would be better than just correcting it in raw conv. software in computer. If it was done on the already AD converted signal (_digital_, quantitised signal), there would be no difference between in-camera WB and raw conv. software WB correction. (of course, in-camera WB is still useful when shooting JPG). In the first case, correctly setting WB in camera would probably leave the RAW file less colour noisy than with correcting wrong WB in raw conv. software. Anybody knows more? Or the answer? Or a way to test it? This is pretty important if one wants the cleanest possible files. 2) IMO, every chip & its RGB filter set is calibrated for one type of light, probably D5000 or D6500 daylight. If the scene is lit by another light source, the camera (software) must increase the gain of some channels to get the balance right. This means, when shooting under tungsten light with ~3200K, setting the WB (either in camera or in software, see [1]) for 3200K will mean it (camera or software) is increasing the gain of the BLUE channel to make it look like ~5000K lit scene. A
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
It's funny, when I saw your first mail on this, my first thought was that 1000 was too little. The book of Hawkins ans Avon (the source of "my" formula) mentions, that the CoC comes from assumptions as to which angle the human eye can detect - the CoC from a viewing distance where this angle will appear. I see your point of using D, so I kept your formula om my computer. all the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 21:11 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? I do not have a 70mm lens to check against. However, I just checked my M50/1.7 at f22 my formula gives 2.2 meters, however the DOF scale give 1.5 times that or 3.3 meters. That would be using a 1500 multiplier which is being conservative, but matchs your .021 CoC figure. Where the 1000 comes from is that for most people the eye can distinguish a 1/100th inch (.25mm) point viewed from 10 inches (250mm), 10in/0.01in, or 250mm/.25mm = 1000. The 1500 (your .021mm) comes from what almost no one can distinguish. Which value to use is simply a choice of how critical you want to be (most people, or everybody). 10 inches is the closest distance most people with normal vision can focus. Thus we come up with an 8x10 print viewed at 10 inches for our basis. The CoC on film is that number divided by the magnification required to make an 8x10 print. In the case of 35mm film, about 8x. 0.25 / 8 = 0.03mm my formula, or 0.17 / 8 = 0.021mm yours. It seems to me easier to forget the film and figure for the print thereby reducing a couple of variables and being able to use the same formula for all formats up to 8x10 film, even digital. So using 1500 * D for a 70mm at f22 should give a number matching yours. It does not, it gives 4.77 meters. I have been thinking for some time of doing some experiments to prove or disprove the various formulas for DOF, and hyperfocal distance, that seem to be out there. However, 1000 * D has always worked to my satisfaction. Do note that I have seen a lot of formulas, especially on the web, that have N (f-stop) in them when it should have been D (aperture). Comes from mistakenly using thinking they mean the same thing, I believe. I know that for years I tried using such a formula and it never seemed to work, until I had that "Ah ha!" experience, and plugged in aperture where it said f-stop. Actually that particular formula was correct, but where it said A=aperture, I applied my own ignorance and inserted f-stop. I am sure others have done the same, and then clarified it as A=f-stop in their version. Now I use D for "aperture Diameter", N for "f-stop Number to avoid that confusion. Your formula is: F^2 --- that gives 5.4 meters for the M50/1.7 at f22 mentioned above. 0.021*N -- Jens Bladt wrote: > So in my example with 70mm f22 H = 1000 * (70/22) = 3182mm (3.2m) which is > considerably less than 10.6m...? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: OT: PS Shadow/Highlight Tool and my canyon pic
You're right. PS can only diminish the blacks in the shadows, it can't diffuse the edges. I could blur them a little by hand, but that might be an example of over-manipulating. In the end, the shot was taken with the sun high in the sky, which is the only way one can photograph this canyon. However, after setting aside my prejudices and stuborness, I do think the current version is better than the original. Paulo On Apr 10, 2004, at 2:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/10/2004 6:26:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The new version is here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2275762&size=lg I'm quite impressed with the way the PhotoShop tool works, although I'm not sure it improves this image. In working with the tool my experience suggests that one must use both the shadow and highlight controls, and bring the highlights down after the shadows have been reduced. Paul - I do like that better. Though truthfully now it looks unnatural. I would, hmmm, never having used PS only PSP, not sure how to put it, blur the edges of the shadows? A tinge? If the shadows were actually softer when the photo was taken, the edges of the shadows would also be more diffuse, not just the interior more light. If you follow me. Anyway, if nothing else it makes for a good practice session with PS. ;-) Because probably in this situation one can't really PS it to make the shadows look softer and natural too. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
In a message dated 4/10/2004 11:36:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anybody is interested, I have made a spreadsheet (Excel) on HFD and NL for common 6x6 and 35mm focal lengths. All the best Jens -- Yeah, I'd like to see it. And I know exactly what you are talking about -- ending up with landscape shots where near stuff isn't always in focus. Or sharp focus. (Even if I don't always use the correct terms for things.) So I'd love to see it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Nice work Mark. All three images perfect - IMHO. Thanks, Ken! With the effective focal length of the bird shots being 1020mm, how has it affected your stalking? Were these all posted full frame? The effectively longer focal length made stalking much easier. It still requires getting pretty close to the birds, but the extra reach can be just enough to put you beyond their personal zone so they did not get spooked. Both bird shots were cropped to square up the aspect ratio. The first bird shot was shot vertically and I composted it with the full cattail head in the frame. But that made it look a bit top heavy, so I just cropped off a bit of the bottom to put it at the aspect ratio of an 8 x 10 print. It was not cropped horizontally. The second shot was composed horizontally, with the bird close to the center. I cropped a bit off both sides to get the more square aspect ratio and move the bird more off center, but it was not cropped vertically. These days I pretty much open up everything at the largest interpolation in Photoshop CS, and then do adjustments from there. The first image is about 13.5 x 16 inches at 300 dpi, the second is about 13.5 inches square - plenty big compared to the scans I get from 35mm! The moonshot is full frame. - MCC Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots > Yesterday I went to a nearby park and decided to try the *ist-D with some > serious bird photography. The red winged blackbirds were out in force, and > while these birds are pretty common, they can be elusive and their jet > black color really wreaks havoc on metering. I used my standard bird setup > which is the A* 400 f2.8, and 1.7x AF adapter. With the *ist-D I wound up > using the AF360FTG for fill flash. > > I was a little worried about the flash and *ist-D combo. It's important not > to stop down too far when birding, but with a minimum ISO of 200 and > maximum X Synch speed of 150, the *ist-D really forces you to either stop > down or use the high speed flash. Since high speed mode takes a pretty big > hit out of the flash power, I was worried that it would lack the strength > to be effective. Ultimately, the flash worked fine when shooting at 1/250th > or less (of course, it was set at either -0.5 or -1 for fill.). > > The only drawback with the *ist-D was the pause when the buffer filled up. > I don't use the motor drive in film bodies, but I do shoot friarly rapidly > when the opportunity presents itself. from time to time the *ist-D would > pause and leave me jabbing at the shutter button in frustration > > In addition to two bird shots, I'm posting a shot of Monday's full moon > setting over Lake Michigan. I had meant to shoot it with a lighthouse in > the foreground, but mis-judged where it would ultimately set and wound up > on the wrong side of the channel. So I just shot it with the waves as a > foreground. Perosnally, I like it better without the lighthouse... This too > was shot with the *ist-D. The lens was a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. > > Comments are appreciated - > > the link is: > > http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ > > - MCC > > - > > Mark Cassino Photography > > Kalamazoo, MI > > http://www.markcassino.com > > - > > - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
At 06:32 PM 4/10/2004 +0100, you wrote: You've got just the right shutter speed for the water in the moon shot. The waves are reasonably crisp until they break, at which point the motion is blurred. Looks great. Thanks, John - the water does have a cool 'molten metal' look to it. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
RE: DCPDML Outing #10
Outing #10 went pretty well. We had Christian, Stephen, Amita, Nate and #7 show up at Buffalo Billiards, and though the noise level was pretty high, I think we had a good time of it. At least I did... Once again, list folks are nice people in real life too. :) Hopefully someone took some pictures. Looks like #11 will take place on Thursday 6/3 right before gfm when Cotty and Tanya are in town. Assuming of course Tanya doesn't decide to hitchhike to Mexico to cliff dive or something... tv
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
The red tick is the infrared focus offset for the lens. With infrared film you focus the lens. Note the distance. Then move that distance to the red tick. The red f-stop and red distance sets hyperfocal on the WA lenses. -- Andre Langevin wrote: I didn't understand the thing with the red tic mark on the lens, explained by Dough?? Jens Bladt On their WA lenses (since the Super-Takumar lenses), Pentax have a number on the distance scale that is red, as is also the "8" on the aperture ring. If you align the two red numbers, you are set at hyperfocal distance for f8. Check where is the infinity mark and you'll understand. Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. (William Robb) Well, hyper-focal focusing is one way of doing zone-focussing, no? Andre -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
Yes, you are right. Hyperfocal distance is by definition the focus distance where the far DOF limit is infinity. DOF can be calculated without referring to it, but using it makes the formulas simpler. -- Keith Whaley wrote: Correct a possible misconception for me, please? I've always thought that, strictly speaking, any hyperfocal distance "range" had it's 'far end' anchored at infinity, by definition, regardless of what the rest of the line segment looks like, where the nearest distance point lies, etc. If that's not true, I need to know now, so I don't further mess up my fragile brain memory cells! Get me that answer, and I'll work out the rest for myself. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
I do not have a 70mm lens to check against. However, I just checked my M50/1.7 at f22 my formula gives 2.2 meters, however the DOF scale give 1.5 times that or 3.3 meters. That would be using a 1500 multiplier which is being conservative, but matchs your .021 CoC figure. Where the 1000 comes from is that for most people the eye can distinguish a 1/100th inch (.25mm) point viewed from 10 inches (250mm), 10in/0.01in, or 250mm/.25mm = 1000. The 1500 (your .021mm) comes from what almost no one can distinguish. Which value to use is simply a choice of how critical you want to be (most people, or everybody). 10 inches is the closest distance most people with normal vision can focus. Thus we come up with an 8x10 print viewed at 10 inches for our basis. The CoC on film is that number divided by the magnification required to make an 8x10 print. In the case of 35mm film, about 8x. 0.25 / 8 = 0.03mm my formula, or 0.17 / 8 = 0.021mm yours. It seems to me easier to forget the film and figure for the print thereby reducing a couple of variables and being able to use the same formula for all formats up to 8x10 film, even digital. So using 1500 * D for a 70mm at f22 should give a number matching yours. It does not, it gives 4.77 meters. I have been thinking for some time of doing some experiments to prove or disprove the various formulas for DOF, and hyperfocal distance, that seem to be out there. However, 1000 * D has always worked to my satisfaction. Do note that I have seen a lot of formulas, especially on the web, that have N (f-stop) in them when it should have been D (aperture). Comes from mistakenly using thinking they mean the same thing, I believe. I know that for years I tried using such a formula and it never seemed to work, until I had that "Ah ha!" experience, and plugged in aperture where it said f-stop. Actually that particular formula was correct, but where it said A=aperture, I applied my own ignorance and inserted f-stop. I am sure others have done the same, and then clarified it as A=f-stop in their version. Now I use D for "aperture Diameter", N for "f-stop Number to avoid that confusion. Your formula is: F^2 --- that gives 5.4 meters for the M50/1.7 at f22 mentioned above. 0.021*N -- Jens Bladt wrote: So in my example with 70mm f22 H = 1000 * (70/22) = 3182mm (3.2m) which is considerably less than 10.6m...? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: NEW_PUG - questions
This seems like a good deal for a server, not too much money. http://www.superbhosting.net/winpower.php David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: NEW_PUG - questions I don't know about the bandwidth, since all the statistics info is on the komkon server. I checked the used bandwidth on my server, since the pug is sitting there it seems not so much. I need more time to see whether it increases. The real problem is the space it takes now about 300 MB with all the old stuff and I guess I will need about 500 MB or even more for the future with autopug and more galleries to come. Cheers Adelheid -Original Message- From: David Madsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Samstag, 10. April 2004 19:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: NEW_PUG - questions How much space and bandwidth does the pug use? David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NEW_PUG - questions Hi list, it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the PUG. Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. "pug.net" isn't. If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you tell the list. 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. Cheers Jostein and Adelheid
RE: NEW_PUG - questions
I have a backup of all the data that is not a problem. But I forgot the statistics part Cheers Adelheid -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Samstag, 10. April 2004 20:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions > > Hi list, > > it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from > Igor for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new > home for the PUG. That's a shame, although not entirely unexpected. Will we be able to retrieve the "previous galleries" from backups? If not, do the pugmeisters (or anyone else) have copies anywhere?
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
I didn't understand the thing with the red tic mark on the lens, explained by Dough?? Jens Bladt On their WA lenses (since the Super-Takumar lenses), Pentax have a number on the distance scale that is red, as is also the "8" on the aperture ring. If you align the two red numbers, you are set at hyperfocal distance for f8. Check where is the infinity mark and you'll understand. Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. (William Robb) Well, hyper-focal focusing is one way of doing zone-focussing, no? Andre
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
Correct a possible misconception for me, please? I've always thought that, strictly speaking, any hyperfocal distance "range" had it's 'far end' anchored at infinity, by definition, regardless of what the rest of the line segment looks like, where the nearest distance point lies, etc. If that's not true, I need to know now, so I don't further mess up my fragile brain memory cells! Get me that answer, and I'll work out the rest for myself. Thanks! keith whaley Jens Bladt wrote: Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. Oh, it does. The HFD is the basic math behind defining the zones in order to ensure overlapping DOF "between" them. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 14:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? Hi! Thanks! Jens, I think I knew about the hyper focal distance and Pentax manual lens markings... I just did not know it was called also the zone focus. Thanks for the formulas. I need to memorize them may be... Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. Well, I've got now "The Negative" and I am going to read it very thoroughly... That will teach you about film exposure and development, not about how to focus a camera. I suppose that zone focusing requires certain optical qualities of the lens to be present... No. A lens is a lens is a lens. William Robb
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
And to add confusion to the mess and to be pedantic about it, there IS no such far off distance as "infinity," folks... Practically speaking you might say that 200 feet, for some lenses, is as close to representing infinity for whatever effect you're looking for, and maybe 500 feet for other lenses will easily pass for that widely accepted misnomer - the 'infinity' setting. In the strictest sense, "Halfway between 10.6 meters and infinity" is a statement without meaning. From a practical standpoint, you might say 'halfway between 10.6 meters and 150 meters' because number one, you'll have a measurable distance instead of an imaginary number (woops!) and either way, there's no way you could set your camera lens as precisely as that careful operation might suggest, even if you DID choose some actual distance as "halfway." Too many imperfections in the chain of elements. Just a few thoughts to muddy the waters... (and keep the thread alive?) All the end point of this discussion will provide us will be to end up with a setting that eases our mind, not one makes better pictures. For most of us, that is... keith whaley Jens Bladt wrote: Sorry - Error. It should have been: 10.6 - 5.3 = 5.3 is less than 1/3 of the distance between 10.6 and infinity :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 08:56 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: SV: Zone Focus - what is it? ...Well 29 meters are sertainly much less than 1/3 of distance to infinity, isn't it ? :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. april 2004 20:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? - Original Message - From: Subject: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? I wish you could put that in inches and feet then I *might* get it. It's one of the things I never quite *got* in the photography classes I took. (And not getting still shows up sometimes in my landscape shots.) I've sort of been going with the "focus 1/3 of the way into the scene" bit. Works sometimes, others, it doesn't. What really stumps me is when I want something close-up in focus and also want infinity in focus. I don't think it's always possible, but it does seem to be possible sometimes. I think it depends a great deal on the lens (mm -- what it can focus on), but it also seems to depend on *where* you focus. (I.E. A landscape shot framed by fairly close-up a tree or a tree branch.) Give or take a bit, 300mm = 1 foot. Not exact, but probably close enough for DOF calculations in landscape photography. Didn't you buy a Canon SLR? Do they still have the depth of field program mode built in? William Robb
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
I didn't understand the thing with the red tic mark on the lens, explained by Dough?? all the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 18:34 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Zone Focus - what is it? >Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. Oh, it does. The HFD is the basic math behind defining the zones in order to ensure overlapping DOF "between" them. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 14:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? > Hi! > > Thanks! > > Jens, I think I knew about the hyper focal distance and Pentax manual > lens markings... I just did not know it was called also the zone > focus. Thanks for the formulas. I need to memorize them may be... Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. > > Well, I've got now "The Negative" and I am going to read it very > thoroughly... That will teach you about film exposure and development, not about how to focus a camera. > > I suppose that zone focusing requires certain optical qualities of the > lens to be present... No. A lens is a lens is a lens. William Robb
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
>Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. Oh, it does. The HFD is the basic math behind defining the zones in order to ensure overlapping DOF "between" them. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 14:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? > Hi! > > Thanks! > > Jens, I think I knew about the hyper focal distance and Pentax manual > lens markings... I just did not know it was called also the zone > focus. Thanks for the formulas. I need to memorize them may be... Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. > > Well, I've got now "The Negative" and I am going to read it very > thoroughly... That will teach you about film exposure and development, not about how to focus a camera. > > I suppose that zone focusing requires certain optical qualities of the > lens to be present... No. A lens is a lens is a lens. William Robb
PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Yesterday I went to a nearby park and decided to try the *ist-D with some serious bird photography. The red winged blackbirds were out in force, and while these birds are pretty common, they can be elusive and their jet black color really wreaks havoc on metering. I used my standard bird setup which is the A* 400 f2.8, and 1.7x AF adapter. With the *ist-D I wound up using the AF360FTG for fill flash. I was a little worried about the flash and *ist-D combo. It's important not to stop down too far when birding, but with a minimum ISO of 200 and maximum X Synch speed of 150, the *ist-D really forces you to either stop down or use the high speed flash. Since high speed mode takes a pretty big hit out of the flash power, I was worried that it would lack the strength to be effective. Ultimately, the flash worked fine when shooting at 1/250th or less (of course, it was set at either -0.5 or -1 for fill.). The only drawback with the *ist-D was the pause when the buffer filled up. I don't use the motor drive in film bodies, but I do shoot friarly rapidly when the opportunity presents itself. from time to time the *ist-D would pause and leave me jabbing at the shutter button in frustration In addition to two bird shots, I'm posting a shot of Monday's full moon setting over Lake Michigan. I had meant to shoot it with a lighthouse in the foreground, but mis-judged where it would ultimately set and wound up on the wrong side of the channel. So I just shot it with the waves as a foreground. Perosnally, I like it better without the lighthouse... This too was shot with the *ist-D. The lens was a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Comments are appreciated - the link is: http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: SMC Takumars vs. Pentax K's
Lens element and group configurations can be identical, but designs may still be significantly different due to different glass formulas surface figures. Bob... Indeed. This is the case of K17/4. Pentax public presentations of lenses (as reported in Japanese english-written Camerart magazine, for example) may be the best reference on that subject. When Pentax presented the new K mount equipment (Camerart july 75), they implied K lenses were the same as previous SMC-Takumar except for the four mentionned previously. Contrary to the K17/4 case, changes for 28mm 35mm and 300mm lenses were obvious: more lens elements (28mm, 300mm), different surface curves (35/2). K-series trivia: SMCT 20/4.5 never made it to K and was replaced by K20/4. K50/1.2 was the only other completely new design at the time of the K-series introduction. K28/2 and 28mm-shift were also announced but it took almost a year before they were released (mid-76). At the end of 1976, the M-series equipment was presented and some K lenses were dropped soon afterwards: the 24/3.5, 28/3.5, both 35mm, 105mm, 135/3.5, 200/4, 50/4 & 100/4 lenses were then only available for about a year. The other original K lenses (50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, 120/2.8, 150/4, 85-210/4.5) were dropped not much time afterwards. All K lenses are hard to find. Normal lenses are easier to get by but usually come on a K-series body. K55mm f2 is a special case, it was only available with the first K1000 bodies, for maybe a few months at the end of 76. It is the same lens as the 55/1.8, it just does not open to 1.8. You may be able to take out a ring inside the lens to get the 1.8 aperture, but I would not do that as the lens is a "collectible". K50/4 is a very sturdy lens with a deeply recessed front element while the M version is much lighter with less internal baffling. For studio work, the K version is worth having. 100/4 was the only lens that was made it unchanged optically from pre-SMC Takumar (bellows) to A-series. Mechanically, the M and A lenses are nearly as good as the K version. It has been said by Pentax that for the K-series lenses, SMC was added between the elements of a group. This was a very very thin improvement... But good enough for some adds. Andre
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
I find that to be true myself. BTW the hyperfocal distance is fixed for a given f-stop on a given focal length. You can easily memorize it for your most used combinations. Say, f8, and f16 at 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm (that is only 6 to remember) which should do for most landscape work. Just manually set the lens to that memorized hyperfocal distance and everything from about 1/2 of that distance to infinity will be sharp. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know, the DOF preview actually doesn't do much for me. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Exhibit
Hi Ken - Did you physically send 49 images? Yes - prints only though. Boris and his compadre's prepared them for exhibition. Can you post a web version? H... that would require a level of organization I have yet to demonstrate But I'll see if I can pull it together. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
I agree with John. I can send a check, as I don`t do PayPal either. Since the site will be paid for by us, could the maximum photo size be increased to 100 KB? One last thought, think Pentax might host it? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:24 AM Subject: Re: NEW_PUG - questions > On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:30:23 +0200, you wrote: > > > >I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. > > > >Cheers > >Jostein and Adelheid > > I too appreciate your continuing commitment and efforts. > > I can live with "pdml-pug.net". > > Other suggestions: "pugphoto" and "photopug" are available. > > I am willing to leave the final decision in the capable hands of > Adelheid and Jostein, and will support them fully. > > As for helping with the annual costs for a new PUG server, count me > in. I don't send a photo to pug very often, but it is something I > enjoy and support. However, I don't use PayPal, so I would appreciate > an alternate method of transferring an annual contribution. > > I would like to vote for an uncluttered, clean, fast interface that > simply frames and enhances the photos, with space for a bit of > descriptive text. Leave off any extra graphics from the photo display > pages - no need for a PUG logo at the top or blinking gifs or any of > the distracting elements seen at photo.net and other photo display > sites. In other words, please stay close to the current PUG. > > -- > John Mustarde > www.photolin.com >
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Yes as Paul and others have said,any name is fine with me. As far as payment,i dont have PP or any other form of e bank,but that can be worked out when the time comes.$10.00 per is not out of the qestion i think. Having a financial stake in the PUG, JUST, might make me pay more attention to the due dates.LOL Dave > I will be happy to contribute to a PUG fund. Paypal would make it easy. > Any name is fine with me. > Paul > On Apr 10, 2004, at 11:24 AM, John Mustarde wrote: > > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:30:23 +0200, you wrote: > > > > > >> I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Jostein and Adelheid > > >
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
While Doug Brewer would have to agree, why not "pug.pdml.net", and a simple redirect from pdml.net? Advantages: 1. No extra cost. 2. Clearly connected to the list. Also there are far cheaper alternatives than 250 euros. Check out http://detailhosting.com that is where my website is. They are in Canada and only $5.95 US a month ($72) for 250mb (a bit higher for more space and bandwidth). They have MySQL and Postgress databases included in the price. I am sure there are others in the same price range. Might consider a token submission charge via paypal as an alternative to donations. The problem with donations are they may wind up coming out of the pugmeister's pocket. Donations would probably be better than advertising however. Another possibility is seeing if Pentax or one of its importers would be willing to provide a small annual grant. Maybe even to the extent that the pugmeisters get a bit for their efforts. After all they do benefit if indirectly from the existence of the PUG. Thanks to you both for all your efforts over the past couple of years. -- Adelheid v. K. wrote: Hi list, it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the PUG. Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. "pug.net" isn't. If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you tell the list. 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. Cheers Jostein and Adelheid -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
I will be happy to contribute to a PUG fund. Paypal would make it easy. Any name is fine with me. Paul On Apr 10, 2004, at 11:24 AM, John Mustarde wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:30:23 +0200, you wrote: I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. Cheers Jostein and Adelheid
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:30:23 +0200, you wrote: >I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. > >Cheers >Jostein and Adelheid I too appreciate your continuing commitment and efforts. I can live with "pdml-pug.net". Other suggestions: "pugphoto" and "photopug" are available. I am willing to leave the final decision in the capable hands of Adelheid and Jostein, and will support them fully. As for helping with the annual costs for a new PUG server, count me in. I don't send a photo to pug very often, but it is something I enjoy and support. However, I don't use PayPal, so I would appreciate an alternate method of transferring an annual contribution. I would like to vote for an uncluttered, clean, fast interface that simply frames and enhances the photos, with space for a bit of descriptive text. Leave off any extra graphics from the photo display pages - no need for a PUG logo at the top or blinking gifs or any of the distracting elements seen at photo.net and other photo display sites. In other words, please stay close to the current PUG. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: OT: PS Shadow/Highlight Tool and my canyon pic
Hi Shel. Thanks for the comments. Glad to spread a bit of sunshine. We have plenty of sun in Detroit, but it's chilly at about 50F. I'm not seeing any burnt out highlights on my monitor. (This feels like deja vu all over again :-). I'm running my color space at Generic RGB because both my printer and my stock house like that. In any case, it's always hard to compare images on different monitors. Paul On Apr 10, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Previous discussions of my PAW from La Jolla Canyon pointed out the relative harshness of the sahdows. I had mentioned that they could be reduced with the PhotoShop Shadow/Highlight tool. Here's an example. I also added a bit of warmth to complement the softer light. The original is here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2266882&size=lg The new version is here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2275762&size=lg I'm quite impressed with the way the PhotoShop tool works, although I'm not sure it improves this image. In working with the tool my experience suggests that one must use both the shadow and highlight controls, and bring the highlights down after the shadows have been reduced. Paul
Re: SMC Takumars vs. Pentax K's
For some lenses, yes, for others, no. FYI, the "optical formulas" presented on Boz's site are interesting and give some insight into the lens's design, but they are not complete optical formulas. Lens element and group configurations can be identical, but designs may still be significantly different due to different glass formulas surface figures. Regards, Bob... “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” - Winston Churchill From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is it safe to say that the late SMC Takumar lens formulas became the early SMC Pentax or "K" lenses? I've been looking around trying to find out and have seen a few references, but not for every lens. Boz's site has the "K" optical formulas, but I haven't seen a similar site showing the late SMC Takumars. Any help would be appreciated.
Re: Sydney International PDML meet
Chris - thanks for posting these! And thanks for arranging the evening. Good venue, good food, good company - what else could we ask for! Frank - I will verify that Rob was in fact hand-holding his shots that evening, nor any flash in sight. I think it must be that those with a clear conscience have steady nerves... Stan Chris wrote: Well here they are ,hot off the press(*istD),the first photos of our get together in Sydney Sunday Night.Rob S.and Stan Halpin will probably post better shots,these were taken by the waiter.In attendance were Ger and Rob Studdert,Stan and Meg Halpin,Chris Kennedy(moi)and Marika and David Nelson.Altough it was a small turnout it wasanextremely enjoyable one with the seafood at Doyles up to scratch.Stan and Meg seemed quite sprightly considering they had been traipsing around Sydney for two days following a long journey over.They brought the good weather over with them and we hope it continues for them as they are a delightful couple and most welcome here.We all were meeting for the first time (Except partners of course.)and hit it off well.Remarkable when you have a commonality.There were three *istD's in evidence and all were used.No doubt to be posted later. Check out the attendees: http://www.pbase.com/image/27362425 http://www.pbase.com/image/27362433 http://www.pbase.com/image/27362482 We all look forward to the next one with a (hopefully)larger turnout.Mr. Farrs apologies in advance accepted. Regards Chris Kennedy
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Hi! My thoughts are between the lines... AvK> 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It AvK> means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? AvK> I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after AvK> 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. AvK> ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. Sorry, no help here . AvK> 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. AvK> "pug.net" isn't. AvK> If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you AvK> tell the list. For me any domain would do AvK> 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a AvK> "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain AvK> to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We AvK> think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a AvK> cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a AvK> considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a AvK> provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. Count me in. Whatever would be necessary would be paid. I prefer PayPal but other options exist. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OT: PS Shadow/Highlight Tool and my canyon pic
Hi Paul ... I prefer the adjusted pic because, to my eyes, it looks more like the scene would in reality, and, more important, the lighter shadows "soften" a photo needs a softer look. I also prefer the warmer colors. However, I cannot stand the burnt out highlights that are noticeable on some of the yellow flower petals and on a couple of spots on the hillside. You can correct those with judicious application of the healing brush. IAC, nice to look at the warm, southern California pics while we're shrouded in a cold, grey fog up here. Warms me up as much as my morning coffee. shel Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Previous discussions of my PAW from La Jolla Canyon pointed out the > relative harshness of the sahdows. I had mentioned that they could be > reduced with the PhotoShop Shadow/Highlight tool. Here's an example. I > also added a bit of warmth to complement the softer light. > The original is here: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2266882&size=lg > > The new version is here: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2275762&size=lg > > I'm quite impressed with the way the PhotoShop tool works, although I'm > not sure it improves this image. In working with the tool my experience > suggests that one must use both the shadow and highlight controls, and > bring the highlights down after the shadows have been reduced. > Paul
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
OK, much easier. But it's difficult to see when infinity will actually be sharp. I only involve myself in the math in order to get better photographs. I often miss out on the close by sharpness in a landscape photograph, by setting the distance to near infinity, which is not at all necasarry. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. april 2004 21:56 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? In a message dated 4/9/2004 12:44:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An even simpler formula is use the DOF preview on the camera and look through the viewfinder. When in doubt, stop down a stop or two. My desire is to make pictures, not get involved with mathematics. Bill -- Agreed. I've been waiting for a math update for my brain. But one has never arrived, so I guess I am stuck with the original defective and buggy wetware I was born with. Marnie aka Doe I don't know, the DOF preview actually doesn't do much for me. I really, really wanted it when I didn't have it, but now I hardly ever find myself using it. OTOH, maybe I am not really seeing what it's supposedly telling me. I'll try it again.
Re: Stan does Melbourne
"Older brother" you say? "Older?" I resemble that remark! Stan Cotty wrote: On 5/4/04, THE ALLINGATOR discumbobulated: Stan looks horribly distinguished, how'd he get into this group? LOL. He's *very* well travelled and looks a bit like Indiana Jones' older brother... Too damn handsome. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Stan does Melbourne
Leon - thanks for posting these shots. Melbourne was the third of three PDML stops on this trip. Good talk, good vibes in Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne. Thanks to all! We got back late Thursday night, 'tis now Saturday morning as I write this. Since getting back I have dealt with 2500 spam messages, 1000 of the 2300 PDML messages, and 3 real emails. I have also begun to organize and file the 2000± images I took on the trip. That was going to be Claudia's job (the miniature Asian lady who rides along in my backpack) but she stayed behind in Melbourne - said it seemed to be a fine place and she was tired of traveling... Stan William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "David Nelson" Subject: Re: Stan does Melbourne Wow! http://www.bluering.org.au/leon/stan-1.htm Stan didn't show us the miniature asian lady he carries around in his backpack. She may be trying to escape. Funny picture. The Asian backpack lady is taking a picture of the lady in the blue sweater. Odds are, she and Stan are photographing the same thing. She is also blissfully unaware of the bus that is slowly bearing down on her. William Robb
Re: SV: Zone Focus - what is it?
...Well 29 meters are sertainly much less than 1/3 of distance to infinity, isn't it ? :-) Jens Bladt To figure out that distance, one needs: A: A powerfull CPU... B: A call to the NASA... C: A little taoist thinking... Andre
Re: SMC Takumars vs. Pentax K's
Is it safe to say that the late SMC Takumar lens formulas became the early SMC Pentax or "K" lenses? Jim Most are; the few SMC takumar optical formulas that have been modified are K28/3.5, K35/2 and K300/4. I've read the K17/4 is also modified but I cannot see the difference from the optical diagrams. Andre
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
pdml-pug.net is a bit of a mouthful, especially if you're giving someone the link verbally - how about pentaxgallery.net? (It's free, as is pentaxgallery.org, pentaxgallery.com etc...) As far as funding goes, EUR250 sound perfectly feasible given the number of regular contributors. You could make it an "official suggestion" that people who plan to submit on a regular basis contribute EUR10 if they can afford it - that would probably be enough IMO. S Adelheid v. K. wrote: Hi list, it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the PUG. Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. "pug.net" isn't. If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you tell the list. 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. Cheers Jostein and Adelheid
OT: PS Shadow/Highlight Tool and my canyon pic
Previous discussions of my PAW from La Jolla Canyon pointed out the relative harshness of the sahdows. I had mentioned that they could be reduced with the PhotoShop Shadow/Highlight tool. Here's an example. I also added a bit of warmth to complement the softer light. The original is here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2266882&size=lg The new version is here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2275762&size=lg I'm quite impressed with the way the PhotoShop tool works, although I'm not sure it improves this image. In working with the tool my experience suggests that one must use both the shadow and highlight controls, and bring the highlights down after the shadows have been reduced. Paul
Re: Zone Focus - what is it?
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? > Hi! > > Thanks! > > Jens, I think I knew about the hyper focal distance and Pentax manual > lens markings... I just did not know it was called also the zone > focus. Thanks for the formulas. I need to memorize them may be... Hyper focal distance nothing to do with zone focusing. > > Well, I've got now "The Negative" and I am going to read it very > thoroughly... That will teach you about film exposure and development, not about how to focus a camera. > > I suppose that zone focusing requires certain optical qualities of the > lens to be present... No. A lens is a lens is a lens. William Robb
Re: K 18mm f/3.5 and Self Introduction
"Ordinary" or not, your timing was very good, and it's well-exposed. All of which carries it out of the ordinary into the unique. Apparently no-one else came up with an image that captured the sense of the moment like you did. You deserved the award... Good job, keith whaley Oh Cheng Yu wrote: Hi everybody, The winning picture was actually taken at a preview before the actual parade. The events are exactly the same as the actual day, except that the VIPs do not turn up. I won the 2nd Prize, the 1st being an Ixus V2 with CP-100 and the 3rd Prize is a Canon Powershot A40. The winning photos were never used for any publicity or published and the prizes were collected from the office of the entertainment magazine in which the contest was published. The picture can be seen here. It is rather average and I wasn't expecting to win. The performers were supposed to run with the balloons to form a criss cross pattern before releasing the balloons. I missed that moment though. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2274773&size=lg - Original Message - From: "Oh Cheng Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 2:35 PM Subject: K 18mm f/3.5 and Self Introduction Hi everybody, . I won a Canon Ixus V2 with a picture I took of our National Day celebration in 2002. . Regards, Oh Cheng Yu
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Hi Cory, On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:12:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >There IS also the idea that we could have a sponsor or two on the main page, >but I think I like it better if it's self supported. So do I! Please, no commercial stuff on the PUG if it can be avoided. (and I think it can) Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Finally, a PAW
By the way that cactus is not a cactus. It's a member of the Liliaeace, Aloineae (an aloe) -- Haworthia fasciata and it's native to the Karroo in SA. D ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See Extra Pages 'The Cement Company from HELL!' Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:44 PM Subject: Re: Finally, a PAW > Interesting shot. I like it. The minimal depth of field combined with > placing the point of focus at the edge of frame makes it a unique way > of looking at this little cactus. Very nice. > Paul > On Apr 9, 2004, at 4:23 PM, William Robb wrote: > > > Taken with the 31mm at fairly close focus and close to wide open. > > It is a bit of a crop, and it was processed with Neat Image. > > > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP2646.html > > > > William Robb > > > >
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Hi Adelheid, On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:30:23 +0200, Adelheid v. K. wrote: >2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. >"pug.net" isn't. >If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you >tell the list. 'pdml-pug.net' is fine with me ... > >3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a >"proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain >to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We >think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a >cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a >considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a >provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. Wise decision. I'd be happy to share in the cost, and I guess a lot of others are too, so it should probably be 10 dollars or less per person ... (PayPal preferred :-) Regards, JvW PS: Thanks for your PugMeister efforts the last couple of years, you're doing a great job! -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
Hi I am not knowledgebale enough to undertake request number one,but i enjoy the pug each month,and appreciate the hard work you both do,but would be willing to assist in part two(donations). Dave > Hi list, > > it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor > for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the > PUG. > > Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". > Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain > and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: > > 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It > means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? > I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after > 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. > ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. > > 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. > "pug.net" isn't. > If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you > tell the list. > > 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a > "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain > to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We > think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a > cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a > considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a > provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. > > 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold > together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup > a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If > somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. > > I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. > > Cheers > Jostein and Adelheid >
Re: NEW_PUG - questions
First I want to thank you for your time and all your efforts as the PUG meister. I'm quite certain now that contributions from the members of this list could support the hosting of the gallery. If it's really only 250e, that's well within whit I imagine our means would be. With a paypal account, an initial call to arms, a link on each month's page and the main page, and some gentle reminders on the list every few months, I'm sure we could keep up the funding with relatively little added hassle. We could have a dedicated treasurer to worry about the funding while the other meisters worry about the content. There IS also the idea that we could have a sponsor or two on the main page, but I think I like it better if it's self supported. Cory Waters committed to contributing. - Original Message - From: "Adelheid v. K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:30 AM Subject: NEW_PUG - questions > Hi list, > > it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor > for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the > PUG. > > Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". > Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain > and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: > > 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It > means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? > I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after > 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. > ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. > > 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. > "pug.net" isn't. > If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you > tell the list. > > 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a > "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain > to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We > think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a > cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a > considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a > provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. > > 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold > together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup > a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If > somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. > > I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. > > Cheers > Jostein and Adelheid > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.655 / Virus Database: 420 - Release Date: 4/9/2004
PAW: Sleeping In
Another one off a neg; please excuse any wonky colours. I prefer scanning slides but as I'm short of time I chose something from a pile of 10 prints lying on my desk. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=10-Apr-2004 I am *this* close to buying a dedicated monitor for the PC so I can reliably colour-correct within the scanner driver. Cheers, - Dave (the housework never ends...) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
SMC Takumars vs. Pentax K's
Is it safe to say that the late SMC Takumar lens formulas became the early SMC Pentax or "K" lenses? I've been looking around trying to find out and have seen a few references, but not for every lens. Boz's site has the "K" optical formulas, but I haven't seen a similar site showing the late SMC Takumars. Any help would be appreciated. Jim
NEW_PUG - questions
Hi list, it seems that the komkon server will not come back. I didn't hear from Igor for quite a time now and I think we have to think about a new home for the PUG. Jostein and I are already in the process of defining a "new PUG". Before we go any further in this process which includes reserving a domain and buying webspace I have some questions to the list: 1: Does anybody else want to take over the resposibility for the PUG. It means: does anyone else wants to be the new PUGmeister? I am now PUGmeister for over two years. The former PUGmeisters changed after 18 monts so it might be that somebody else desperatly wants to take over. ;-) Volontiers should apply to Jostein and me directly please. 2: The new domain name: I checked "pdml-pug.net" that's still free. "pug.net" isn't. If you want another name, please check whether it is still free before you tell the list. 3: If Jostein and I are going to handle PUG in the future we insist on a "proper" provider. We don't want to have the hassle with changing the domain to another provider every other day. So the webspace will not come cheap. We think about 250 Euro per year. That's the upper end, there might be a cheaper one saw one today but have to investigate..., but we need a considerable amout of space that's the expensive part. And we want a provider with regular backups etc. - a professional setup. 4: Jostein and I discussed a databased setup, where autopug and PUG are hold together. How this will be accomplished is not very clear yet. I will setup a prototype and start testing in the near future if I stay PUGmeister. If somebody else will help with this task, please write Jostein and me offlist. I think these are enough questions to start the ball rolling. Cheers Jostein and Adelheid
Re: Sale of Pentax Gear
It's almost always best to sell things separately. Just because somebody wants one item, doesn't mean he'll want all of them, and you are raising the bar price-wise by lumping them all together, which will exclude lots of potential bidders. I have two surplus cameras which I bought on Ebay in "job lots". I bought because I wanted one particular item, and I paid hardly any more than I would have done if I had bought that item alone, becasue nobody wanted to bid. In other words, the cameras effectively went for nothing. If I were you, I'd cancel the auction and relist separately. John On Mon, 10 May 2004 13:31:49 +1000, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To any list members,particularly in OZ who are interested I have most of my Pentax gear up for auction on EBay including my *istD.Item no:for the *ist D + Sigma Kit etc. is #3809076148.Check out the Sellers other items for the rest of the gear which includes: :-AF-500-FTZ Flash As New(Used Twice) :-Pentax SMC FA 50mm 1:1.7 lens with Rubber Hood and UV Filter :-Sigma AF 170-500 mm F5-6.3 APO Telephoto Lens with built in hood plus UV Filter and includes padded carry case with strap :-Pentax SMC 28mm Manual 2.8 The Cam kit includes 3 Sigma lenses + A zenitar 16 mm F2.8-22 Fish Eye lens.A/C converter- 256 mb cf card-cable remote. All pieces except the 28 mm manual lens(it is in excellent condition) are less than 6 months old from new and in pristine condition. All prices are in $AUD. Email if Interested Regards Chris Kennedy -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
Sorry - Error. It should have been: 10.6 - 5.3 = 5.3 is less than 1/3 of the distance between 10.6 and infinity :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. april 2004 08:56 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: SV: Zone Focus - what is it? ...Well 29 meters are sertainly much less than 1/3 of distance to infinity, isn't it ? :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. april 2004 20:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? - Original Message - From: Subject: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? > I wish you could put that in inches and feet then I *might* get it. It's one > of the things I never quite *got* in the photography classes I took. (And not > getting still shows up sometimes in my landscape shots.) I've sort of been > going with the "focus 1/3 of the way into the scene" bit. > > Works sometimes, others, it doesn't. > > What really stumps me is when I want something close-up in focus and also > want infinity in focus. I don't think it's always possible, but it does seem to > be possible sometimes. I think it depends a great deal on the lens (mm -- what > it can focus on), but it also seems to depend on *where* you focus. (I.E. A > landscape shot framed by fairly close-up a tree or a tree branch.) > Give or take a bit, 300mm = 1 foot. Not exact, but probably close enough for DOF calculations in landscape photography. Didn't you buy a Canon SLR? Do they still have the depth of field program mode built in? William Robb
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
So in my example with 70mm f22 H = 1000 * (70/22) = 3182mm (3.2m) which is considerably less than 10.6m...? All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. april 2004 20:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? A much simpler formula is: H = 1000 * D, where H is Hyperfocal-distance, and D is diameter-of-the-aperture. (1000 * D assumes an 8x10, or 8x12 print regardless of the format.) You can determine D from: D = f / N, where f is focal-length, and N is f-stop. (Note: f and N are used only to determine the aperture. They have no direct affect on DOF or H.) DOF can be determined from: Dn = H * Ds / H + Ds, and Df = H * Ds / H - Ds, Where Ds is subject-distance (or focus-point), Dn is near-distance, Df is far-distance. Advanced cameras usually have a DOF scale based upon an 8x10 print, thus these formulas have direct application. Many snapshot cameras used 5x7 since they are less likely to have large prints made. You can simply change the f-stop opening up one stop for 5x7 and two stops for 4x6 prints. Normally you do not have to close down for larger images because they are intended to be viewed from farther away. ZONE FOCUS is nothing more than setting the camera so that the anticipated action is within the DOF range. In other words some place between Dn & Df. Then to take the photo you do not have to adjust the focus when shooting. As others have mentioned you can simply use the DOF scales on your lens, if it has them, some zooms do not. Otherwise a table generated from the above tables will work very well. -- Jens Bladt wrote: > Hyperfocal distance (H) is a way to dertemine the distance to focus the lens > for a given aperture and focal length to ensure maksimum DOF, when you want > sharpness to infinity (e.i. landscape photograph): > > H = FxF/fc > F being Focal length > f being f-number (aperture) > c being the diameter of Circle of Confusion (CoC could be 0.021mm for 35mm > negs enlarged to a 8x10 print). > > At 70mm lens f8 "H" would be (35mm neg): > 70x70/8x0.021 = 29167 mm = 29.2 meter > > This means, that if you set the distance to 29.2m, > you will get sharpness (on a 8x10 inch print) from infinity to as close as > you can get at f 1:8 > > If you are a landcape photographer, you should have a table in your camera > bag giving "H" for the most used focal lengths at let's say f22 or 32. > > At f22 the math should be: "H" = 70x70/22x0.021mm = 10.6 meter > The near limit of sharp focus is: > > Fu(F+cf)/FxF+ufc > (u being the used distance in mm) > > 70X10606(70+22x0.021)/70x70+10606x70x0.021)= 5338mm = 5.3m. > The image (8x10) will appear sharp from 5.3m to infinity at f22 when focus > distance is set to 10.6m > Source: Andrew Hawkins & Dennis Avon; "Photography", UK 1979. > > all the best > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 9. april 2004 06:33 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? > > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 07:25:27 +0200, Boris Liberman wrote: > > >>Please enlighten the ignorant, as usual... > > > Using the hyperfocal distance of the lens, possibly modified, to make > sure that everything you're likely to shoot is in focus. For example, > take your lens and figure out what f-stop you want to use. The turn > the focus ring until the infinity mark lines up with the "tic mark" for > the f-stop you're using. The "tic mark" on the other side of center > will tell you what's going to be in focus. So, just to pull some > numbers out of thin air, you pick f/5.6. When you line up the infinity > mark on the focus ring with the "5.6" tic on the barrel you might find > that the opposite tic indicates 10m. That means everything from 10m to > infinity will be in focus. So you don't worry about focusing unless > the target is closer than 10m. You can shift it closer if you're not > worried about things at "infinity" distance. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)...
Hi Tan: just got back to read about your problem. If you haven't resolved it by the time you need to go to the coast, and it helps, my AF330FTZ is yours for as long as you want it. Regards John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:43 PM please offer me an answer, cause I am PACKING it here! > > tan. >
RE: Zone Focus - what is it?
It shouldn't be a big problem. c should be 1/1200 inch (0.021mm) Then you simply put in all the values in the formula in inches. After calculating, transform inches into feet - I think one foot (12 inches) is 304,8 mm (if 1 inch = 25.4mm) or close to that. For 6x9 negs CoC (c) should be 1/450 inch (0.055mm). The same value can be used for 6x6 or 6x7 since the height is the same. Alle the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. april 2004 20:00 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Zone Focus - what is it? In a message dated 4/9/2004 4:37:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyperfocal distance (H) is a way to dertemine the distance to focus the lens for a given aperture and focal length to ensure maksimum DOF, when you want sharpness to infinity (e.i. landscape photograph): H = FxF/fc F being Focal length f being f-number (aperture) c being the diameter of Circle of Confusion (CoC could be 0.021mm for 35mm negs enlarged to a 8x10 print). At 70mm lens f8 "H" would be (35mm neg): 70x70/8x0.021 = 29167 mm = 29.2 meter This means, that if you set the distance to 29.2m, you will get sharpness (on a 8x10 inch print) from infinity to as close as you can get at f 1:8 If you are a landcape photographer, you should have a table in your camera bag giving "H" for the most used focal lengths at let's say f22 or 32. At f22 the math should be: "H" = 70x70/22x0.021mm = 10.6 meter The near limit of sharp focus is: Fu(F+cf)/FxF+ufc (u being the used distance in mm) 70X10606(70+22x0.021)/70x70+10606x70x0.021)= 5338mm = 5.3m. The image (8x10) will appear sharp from 5.3m to infinity at f22 when focus distance is set to 10.6m Source: Andrew Hawkins & Dennis Avon; "Photography", UK 1979. all the best Jens Bladt I wish you could put that in inches and feet then I *might* get it. It's one of the things I never quite *got* in the photography classes I took. (And not getting still shows up sometimes in my landscape shots.) I've sort of been going with the "focus 1/3 of the way into the scene" bit. Works sometimes, others, it doesn't. What really stumps me is when I want something close-up in focus and also want infinity in focus. I don't think it's always possible, but it does seem to be possible sometimes. I think it depends a great deal on the lens (mm -- what it can focus on), but it also seems to depend on *where* you focus. (I.E. A landscape shot framed by fairly close-up a tree or a tree branch.) Marnie aka Doe Unfortunately, my head doesn't translate meters into anything.
