RE: 16-45mm DA
What is CA problems? Regards Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Dr. Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 18. maj 2004 08:16 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: 16-45mm DA Hi Shaun, on 18 May 04 you wrote in pentax.list: >Has anybody got/used the new 16-45mm DA F4.0? What do we know about it? I've used it. It is a really good lens. Very sharp, no CA problems (at least I didn't notice one) and good built quality. It's plastic, but feels better than a FA 24-90. The optical quaity is comparable with that of the 24-90 and much better than that of the 18-35. And - 16mm are nice wideangle for your *istD. I would have bought it, but I'm waiting to see the first results of the smc-DA 14 as it might be a better addition to my 24-90. Cheers, Heiko
RE: Pentax Signpost
I love the *ist D gallery. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Dr. Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. maj 2004 17:05 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Pentax Signpost Hi, I`ve updated my website and the "Pentax Signpost". The biggest update was moving to GoLive 6 for easier future updates. I hope you will find the link-lists useful and would be glad if you inform me about broken or missing links. www.mycroft.de Cheers, Heiko
istD for $799? A and M photo world?
Hi gang As my goal of obtaining a istD draws closer to reality, I did some web searching for prices. A place called A & M Photo World has the body listed at $799 (US retailer). I tried to go through the entire order process up to the very end where it says "click here to finalize" to see if there were any surprises in store, but other than a higher than average shipping cost ($40) ; and they claimed it was "in stock" but since it is $200 less than any other retailer, I still feel funny about it-- like maybe it would show up with no battery or something like that. Has anyone paid this amount or less lately? What about this retailer? Anyone else have dealings with them before? It just feels fishy-- Greetings from CajunLand USA South Louisiana Sid Barras
RE: flash question
You're welcome. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. maj 2004 00:53 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: flash question Hi Jens, Ah (a lightbulb moment for sure) , I did confuse the two terms. Thanks for the explanation. Feroze - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:54 PM Subject: RE: flash question > Feroze > I think you may be confusing coverage and giudenumber??? > Coverage does usually not have anything to do with ISO or f-stops. The > "coverage" you descibe here is not, as it is commom practice, the measure of > the side of the rectangular square of light, that the flash will make on, > let's say, a wall. Coverage usually describe an angle of view or a focal > length (35 mm equiv.), meaning what you get in the viewfinder. > > Guide number means aperture at the distance of 1 foot at ISO 100. For this > flash the guidenumber is 18. > Guidenumber 18 will at 100 ISO give f 18 at one foot and appr. f 8 at 2 > feet, appr. f 4 at 4 feet - or f 32-45 at 0.5 foot (15 cm). > I'm not shure this applies the same way to a macro flash, as it does to > ordenary flashes, though. > > > I guess in this case it (coverage) referes to the maximum distance to the > subject. 98 cm is almost 3 feet. Guidenumber 18 should be just about > sufficient/enough power to give you f 5.6 at a three feet distance (as it > gives you a little more than f 4 at 4 feet= 124 cm (more because my table is > derived from GN 16). > > What you do in practice is this: > Use A-setting to automatically adjust light for the aperture set at the > camera (if there are more than one to choose from). > Don't go beyond 3 feet distance to subject, as you do not want aperture > larger than f 5.6 for macros anyway. > > Otherwise use manual setting and a aperture/distance table, like the one > described above. I wouldn't shoot macros at less than f 8. > > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 20. maj 2004 21:27 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: flash question > > > Hi Jens, > > Thanks, unfortunately this one is not a pentax flash, its a vivtar > macroflash 5000, a very base line model. I downloaded the manual which was > all of 2 pages. The part I didn't understand its gives you the table for a > 100/105mm lens, so for eg I'll get on ISO100 @5.6 coverage to 98cm, how do I > calculate or convert this table if I was using a 50mm lens, is there a > formula or something conversion table. Is there a standard?? > > Thanks > Feroze > > - Original Message - > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:09 PM > Subject: RE: flash question > > > > Hello Feroze > > The flash light spreads at an angle. Most flashes will cover an angle > > equivalent to that of a 28mm lens for a 35mm camera system. The userguide > > for diffent flashes will give you the vertical and horizontal coverage > > (angles) for different lenses/focal lengths/angle of view. > > > > The espression coverage for this and that lens has to to with flashes that > > will zoom (achange angle of view) when you zoom the lens/change the angle > of > > view. > > > > Please see user giuides for Pentax falshes at > > Pentax USA: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 > > Or Bojidar Dimitrov's Homepage (angle of view for Pentax lenses): > > http://www.bdimitrov.de/ > > > > All the best > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 20. maj 2004 20:26 > > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Emne: flash question > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > Hate to disturb you guys with a photographic question, but could someone > > direct me to a site or link that explains in simple terms what flash > > coverage means. For eg. if it says that a particular flash covers 80 deg > > with a 105mm lens then will it not cover then same amount of area with a > > 50mm lens. > > > > Thank You > > > > Feroze > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: OT: Virus Taxonomy
*cough* Don't argue semantics with me!! You know, HACK is a derogatory term and so is hacker in its origin. (To be a hack, is to be someone who solves problems through trial and error with limited thought or strategy... IE brute force hacks.) And it's not the small group of law abiding people who call themselves "hackers" that determine what the word will mean out in the wild. Therefore, I will continue to use hacker to describe the few nitwits who make life so hard for the rest of us. Some hackers like to wave curiosity around like a banner proclaiming their honor. This attitude is fairly prevalent and I've seen it first hand. These hackers with their curious badges tend to berate a law abiding citizen who wants to see a hacker who got caught breaking the law brought to justice. IE the UK idiot who hacked into an American nuclear power plant computer. All the things the government should have done aside, this kids defense basically was "I didn't know it was a government computer." That simply doesn't matter. Hacking another computer and using it to store stolen videos is illegal, doing it on a government computer just means you should be made an example of. Of course, the shitty UK judge let the kid off pretty easy. Why?? Because he probably thought the kid had some talent or ability if he could hack a computer, and was just suffering from a bad case of curiosity, which is more honorable than it is bad as we all know *sarcasm*... Of course I admire the Linux people, the GIMP people, the IRC people, I've used all these and they work well enough. But, if they're hackers what are the people at Microsoft? At Adobe?? See my problem is with this sense of honor that hangs around the word hacker like a foul stench. The whole curiosity thing is a big part of that. Thing is, these people really believe their delusions, that because they are curious, it's okay the law doesn't apply anymore, they're part of the uber elite class of "hackers" now, and if you get one of their viruses, it's because your an idiot newbie, just plain stupid, or maybe hackers are just that damn good... Although I concede, these people are products of our shitty educational system in the end. -Shawn -Original Message- From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 1:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT: Virus Taxonomy Shawn K. wrote: > Hmm, I don't understand that "wonder if..." aspect of virus writing. Set your way-back machine to the early days of networking, when the idea of a self-propogating program sounded like either a science fiction plot device or a mathematical puzzle, and that "wonder if" aspect makes more sense. It just doesn't make so much sense _now_, when such things are everyday nuisances. > think the value of curiosity is over stated constantly. I know a lot of > "hackers" consider themselves on the side of good because they are acting > out of "curiosity" and they use that to justify their actions. *cough* _Who_ do? The hackers I know are in fact motivated by curiosity and challenge. Then again, they don't generally go breaking into systems or writing viruses and worms. For most of them, the most ethically questionable things they've done as part of being hackers are to want to be able to play a legally-purchased DVD on a computer running Linux, and to illustrate the idiocy of a government policy by printing T-shirts that (at the time) were legally classified as munitions (solely by virtue of what was printed on them). You may have two different groups confused. _Hackers_ do explain a lot of their motivation as curiosity. They also tend to look down on crackers and script-kiddies. Hackers are the people who brought us Usenet, IRC, Linux, gcc, Emacs, GIMP, and at least some of the popular blogging tools. The hacking urge is inherently creative, not destructive. > I think the > real answer is that it's sheer idiocy combined with an undeserved talent > that results in all this criminal activity. Uh, not even ... From what I've read, it turns out that there are "virus kits", and apparently a significant number of the people creating viruses aren't really even all that talented or skilled. "Sheer idiocy combined with [...] talent" might describe the RTFM worm, which was supposed to stay contained to a campus network (to demonstrate a vulnerability0 but escaped due to a bug in it -- we can call that hubris. But the author was properly embarrassed at the result; he didn't take delight in causing destruction or think it earned him l33tness points the way script-kiddies seem to. I don't think most of the people writing worms today are doing so because they're curious. At least not the ones who release them into the wild. -- Glenn
Re: Pentax MX battery problem
Remove the whole bottom plate then. Piece of cake. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Update: The guy selling the camera apparently can't open the battery hatch. He says it's just plain stuck, and hard as hell. Leaking battery that has jammed it up maybe? No wonder it's not working though, a decade old battery in there. :-) _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: PAW - Mi Amor
Hi Mark ... I like what you're trying to do with this one, however, a tighter crop might work better. Get rid of the people in the background, they distract from the relationship between the boy and his mother. Something like this, perhaps: http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/mark.jpg The conversion to B&W was accidental, but when I saw it, I liked it. It seems to make the wrist band stand out a bit more. You can still see the relationship very clearly, and there's a nice diagonal created by the boy holding hid mother's hand and running up to the upper right of the photo. Whaddaya think? Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: Mark Dalal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/20/2004 4:00:27 PM > Subject: PAW - Mi Amor > > Hey Folks, > > Here's one for the peanut gallery (comments appreciated): > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2376602&size=lg > > Mark
RE: rumor on dpreview: FA 50/1.7 discontinued
Which is why I'm beginning to think buying new is for people with money to burn... -Shawn -Original Message- From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:54 PM To: pdml Subject: Re: rumor on dpreview: FA 50/1.7 discontinued It's a wonderful lens, so of course it will be discontinued. I would guess that a number of years ago Pentax manufactured a bunch of these, and have been selling them ever since. Pentax is retrenching in their traditional offerings. Good lenses, as I suggested earlier today, are going away, or are at least not so easy to get. They have apparently slashed their manufacturing capacity. Lenses are no longer stocked, but shipped from the Philippines in only enough quantity to fill orders. It's a new econonic world in photography. Joe
RE: PAW - Mi Amor
Well, I usually don't reply if I'm not to interested in the photo, but, this would be a great picture if it wasn't of the back of that kids head. So maybe that means something, I dunno, its up to the viewer I suppose. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:59 PM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: PAW - Mi Amor Hey Folks, Here's one for the peanut gallery (comments appreciated): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2376602&size=lg Mark
RE: OT: Virus Taxonomy
Shawn K. wrote: > Hmm, I don't understand that "wonder if..." aspect of virus writing. Set your way-back machine to the early days of networking, when the idea of a self-propogating program sounded like either a science fiction plot device or a mathematical puzzle, and that "wonder if" aspect makes more sense. It just doesn't make so much sense _now_, when such things are everyday nuisances. > think the value of curiosity is over stated constantly. I know a lot of > "hackers" consider themselves on the side of good because they are acting > out of "curiosity" and they use that to justify their actions. *cough* _Who_ do? The hackers I know are in fact motivated by curiosity and challenge. Then again, they don't generally go breaking into systems or writing viruses and worms. For most of them, the most ethically questionable things they've done as part of being hackers are to want to be able to play a legally-purchased DVD on a computer running Linux, and to illustrate the idiocy of a government policy by printing T-shirts that (at the time) were legally classified as munitions (solely by virtue of what was printed on them). You may have two different groups confused. _Hackers_ do explain a lot of their motivation as curiosity. They also tend to look down on crackers and script-kiddies. Hackers are the people who brought us Usenet, IRC, Linux, gcc, Emacs, GIMP, and at least some of the popular blogging tools. The hacking urge is inherently creative, not destructive. > I think the > real answer is that it's sheer idiocy combined with an undeserved talent > that results in all this criminal activity. Uh, not even ... From what I've read, it turns out that there are "virus kits", and apparently a significant number of the people creating viruses aren't really even all that talented or skilled. "Sheer idiocy combined with [...] talent" might describe the RTFM worm, which was supposed to stay contained to a campus network (to demonstrate a vulnerability0 but escaped due to a bug in it -- we can call that hubris. But the author was properly embarrassed at the result; he didn't take delight in causing destruction or think it earned him l33tness points the way script-kiddies seem to. I don't think most of the people writing worms today are doing so because they're curious. At least not the ones who release them into the wild. -- Glenn
Re: A 15mm (ASP and non-ASP)
Miy 15mm does feature the 4 feet mark and the front lens diameter is 69 mm (measured with a caliper). It's a K SMC PENTAX 1:3.5/15, sn 5068171. Ciao Fabio - Original Message - From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:50 PM Subject: Re: A 15mm (ASP and non-ASP) > Dario wrote: > > >Interesting to me, Andre. You were sure such a topic will have raised my > >ears, weren't you? > > I was checking your ears and as predicted... > > But don't you already know this group? > > >You can also notice different name lettering on lenses. smc (lower case) > >followed by wider PENTAX is obviously a late type. However, how can we be > >assured that 3 insted of 4 and/or smc instead of SMC will mean > >non-aspherical instead of aspherical? There were several cases when Pentax > >applied step-by step changes during the manufacturing period of a product, > >with no sure combinations between different features (the LX is a case > >history in this field). > > Indeed, I wouldn't bet on these differences as a sure way to know > what we have. From your article in Spotmatic, we know that very few > K lenses were aspherical. Probably a lot more were smc (small type) > AND non-aspherical. > > > > But there could be a better way to know which lens is ASP: > >> > >> http://www.ucatv.ne.jp/~tweety/Report/Comparison15mm/Comparison15mm.htm > > > >This lens reflection proof is related to lenses, hence more reliable to me. > >The problem could be how to repeatedly produce proper reflections, useful > >for on-field tests. > > It would be easier with both lenses side by side. But it looks like > some reflections are ovalish instead of roundish... So there may be > a better way than what we tried in september 2002: > > > > >Andre, > >> My "SMC Takumar 1:3.5/15" front element inside the retaining ring > >>measures about 69.85mm. The distance from the tulip hood to the front > >>element measures about 5.56mm. Hope this helps. > >> > >>Bob Rapp > > > >Now that's interesting. The few measures we had until now were > >around 68,5mm, but Bob seems to have a Takumar with a different > >diameter. It looks like you might have the aspheric lens, Bob... > > > > > >Andre (SMC-T 8014040) : 68mm (approx.) > >Stephen (SMC-K 7368xxx) between 68 & 69mm > >Rod (SMC-A) 68,6mm (with a caliper) > > > >Antti-Pekka (SMC-K 505) ? > >Vic (SMC-K 7367862) ? > > > >Bob (SMC-T 8013862) 69.85mm > > > >For the moment, our best hypothesis is: > >Diameter of front element of non-aspheric lens: 68,6mm > >Diameter of front element of aspheric lens: 69,85mm > > > > > > > >Previous discussion: > > > >>are you all sure there are too versions of this > >>lens? > > > >It has been ascertained not long ago. There is an article in > >Spotmatic about it. There are two versions of the 15mm design. Only > >400 lenses has the aspheric element: 300 Takumar (out of 900) and 100 > >K-series Pentax. No A-series has the aspherical element. > > > >>Wouldnt the change from aspheric to non aspheric cause > >>the need for a total design of the optics? > >>JCO > > > >The way I understand it, the aspheric element was used to get zero > >distorsion on an otherwise low-distorsion lens. Asahi indeed > >modified the lens once they decided to do without the aspherical > >element, but (again, if I understand) the only VISIBLE difference is > >in the front element diameter and curvature. The diameter is easy to > >calculate. The curvature ? Well, Bob proposed to measure the > >distance from the top of the glass to the border of the hood (we > >assume both versions have the same hood. > > > >If the un-aspherical lens is known to have very low distorsion it > >could be because the original design was basically a low-distorsion > >one and also because they tweaked the design a bit to do without the > >aspherical element. No need for a complete redesign of the lens. > >The aspherical element probably had the sole benefit of cutting what > >remained of distortion. But I might be wrong. >
Re: OT: Irony is alive and well ...
ok, but "rm -rf ~" is pretty destructive too! decode for non unix users: ~ is a wildcard that substitutes for the current user's home directory, whatever that is. On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 17:00, Anders Hultman wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2004, John Francis wrote: > > > Anyone can *try* rm -rf / > > The root user would succeed in deleting everything. A regular user > > wouldn't be able to delete the OS itself, but would be able to wipe > > out all their own data files. That's devastating enough :-( > > A regular user wouldn't actually be able to delete anything with the > infamous "rm -rf /" command. Not even her own files. The delete-everything > attempt starts at the top directory, but a regular user has no permissions > to delete anything in that directory, so the recursion stops there. > > The user won't get to delete files in /home/username since she can't > delete /home to begin with. > > anders > - > http://anders.hultman.nu/ > med dagens bild och allt! >
Re: Pentax MX battery problem
Antonio Aparicio wrote: > Personally I would never buy any camera gear with known faults - > chances are it will have other issues too. ... to Henri Toivonen's - >> I have been offered to buy a Pentax MX for a very small amount of >> money (about $15), and it is in good condition apart from one thing. >> The meter doesn't work and the LED's don't light up. For $15 all that matters is the mechanicals - is it working true to form? . We don't need no steenking meters! !8^D Bill
WTB: Yashicamat
Hi! Dear fellow PDMLer , if you have Yashicamat camera whose back part (all but the lens ) is in good __operational__ condition, then we might have subject for off-list conversation. Thanks in advance. Boris
with a heavy heart -- FS friday
Cesar saw this baby - and I think he will attest to it's condition... The Nikkormat FT with 135, 28 and 50mm primes and a flash. THis is a late 60's or early 70's beastie. I am really broke and the blasted thing is heavy as all get out -- I keep messing up using it because of how diferently things work between this old gem and my Pentaxes and because I can hardly lift it. If anyone is interested in this at all write me off list and I'll get into more detail and scan it , etc... but I'd like not to have to do that unless there is serious interest. This is a great outfit - the only flaw I can see is a small dent in the baseplate which is just a matter of cosmetics... I shot a few rolls with it, I love it, I hate to part with it, but I'd rather have money to travel with. Thanks to Mark Roberts for selling me his M E (spaced so as not to confuse with the windoze thread.) I would like to get at least $300 for this outfit. I'll be happy to entertain offers for the body alone, or any of the lenses... There is also a Nikon polarizing filter. As I said, this is collectable stuff, but I really msut be pragmatic annsan
Re: OT: She's Her Father's Daughter
Actually, she borrowed my ears! -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Now I see where you got the rabbit ears Norm _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Why don't you all just fu*k off. was: Re: Anyone still using windows ME
You can't reform a narcissist. From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Are there any mailing lists out there dedicated to dumping on > Microsoft, praising the virtues of Linux, and generally being > obnoxious in general? > > Perhaps these idiots could seek out that mailing list, go where > people actually are interested in this shit, and let those of us who > are interested in Pentax cameras and photography get on with our > lives, withput having to download megabytes of peckerheaded blather. > > Heck, they could even send us a link to it, labeled OT, and those who > are so inclined could get onto that list as well. > > It solves the problem of so much uninteresting and OT dreck being > posted here, without invoking the dreaded censorship word.
RE: Taiwan
Hi John, The place is called Yeh Liu. It is located north east of Taipei. BTW, the natural sculptures are still standing!!! Cheers Andy > -Original Message- > From: JohnMB at hotmail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Taiwan > > Hi Andy Chang, > > What is the name of the beach near Taipei that has the sandstone sculptures. > The famous one called Nefertiti? I lived in Taiwan in the late 60's and > went to TAS. A friend with an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic introduced me to > photography. > > John > > _ > MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page ?FREE > download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ >
Re: what would you do?
You seem to be missing a 135mm. What gives? On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 17:19, William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Amita Guha" > Subject: what would you do? > > > > > > > > Anyway, what would you guys do? I'd love to hear some other > thoughts > > before I make up my mind on this. > > > > Since I am not a big fan of zoom lenses, I sold my 18-35 to a list > member for a mutually agreeable sum, and bought an A 15mm f/3.5. > This complements my 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 31mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, > 77mm, 85mm, 100mm, 105mm, 150mm, 200mm ,300mm, 400mm, and 500mm focal > lengths quite nicely. > > > William (never met a Pentax prime I didn't buy) Robb > > > >
Re: what would you do?
I wouldn't put any bets on any lens that only costs $115. If it was really good, Sigma would probably be charging more. See if you can try the lens first at a shop and fire off a few frames of you *ist D to compare with the Vivitar. On this issue of a full frame DSLR - if Pentax does release one and you want it, having your $239 2 lens kit not work with it won't be the least of your financial worries. -Scott On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 16:39, Amita Guha wrote: > My acquisition of the istD has revealed that my Vivitar 17-28mm is > unacceptably soft; only about the middle vertical third of the frame is > sharp. Therefore I'm looking for a replacement. Nate tracked down the > Sigma DC 18-50mm and 55-200mm kit for US $239.00 at B&H: > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&; > Q=&sku=304152&is=USA > > These are really tempting, but they're digital lenses, so they'll be > useless when Pentax finally comes out with a full frame DSLR (although I > realize that's a few years away). Also, most of my bodies are film, so > it seems kind of silly to get these. But, they're supposed to be sharp > edge to edge, and the price is pretty tempting. But there are lots of > good reasons to wait and get some better quality full frame lenses as > well. > > Anyway, what would you guys do? I'd love to hear some other thoughts > before I make up my mind on this. > > Thanks, > Amita > >
RE: Taiwan
Hi Andy Chang, What is the name of the beach near Taipei that has the sandstone sculptures. The famous one called Nefertiti? I lived in Taiwan in the late 60's and went to TAS. A friend with an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic introduced me to photography. John _ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
RE: OT: Virus Taxonomy
Hmm, I don't understand that "wonder if..." aspect of virus writing. I think the value of curiosity is over stated constantly. I know a lot of "hackers" consider themselves on the side of good because they are acting out of "curiosity" and they use that to justify their actions. I think the real answer is that it's sheer idiocy combined with an undeserved talent that results in all this criminal activity. People make the mistake of assuming that intelligence is a function of skill, when a person can become skilled through pure repetition of an action, any action... We still can't accurately define intelligence, but I think if you were going to go out on a limb with it, I would say foresight is the most powerful indicator of intelligence. People who attempt to destroy or exploit the world of computers out of curiosity fail to see how ultimately their action could take away the thing they are so curious about. The same way people have to be idiots for using Nuclear power, and dropping nuclear bombs... And on that note I realize this is about to turn into a "people are idiots" rant so I'll just quit while I'm ahead (and before I inadvertently call myself an idiot) -Shawn -Original Message- From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT: Virus Taxonomy Graywolf wrote: > Well, we can be kind of glad. You see trojans are pretty innoctuous, > you have to be an internet idiot to get them. Well ... yes and no. The thing is, _any_ trojan relies on "social engineering" to convince victims to run it, and setting aside for a moment the question of whether "Internet idiot" is an appropriate term for someone merely naive as opposed to dense, sometimes that social engineering can be quite clever. Early trojans, back in the days when a) malware was rare and b) what malware that existed was mostly practical jokes, all a trojan needed was a sign saying, "I'm fun. Run me." Users got more sophisticated, and trojans needed to be more enticing, or even _do_ something cool in addition to whatever nefarious acts they were there for. Various tricks were devised (such as giving the trojan the same name as a system command and hoping that sooner or later a sysadmin would type that command while in the same directory as the trojan, thus running the trojan without being aware he or she had done so). Each time the idea of a trojan comes into a new environment or a new population of potential victims, the malware writers seem to reinvent the old techniques, using each until the victim population learns it then moving on to the next. So early in "permanent September", and even as recently as a few years ago, naive users were falling for "This is cool; run it and find out what it does!" Then enough people grew wary that the technique shifted to, "Check out this new screen saver I made!" Remember that this was at a time when _most_ of the population of Internet users was still naive enough not to be aware how dangerous it is to execute untrusted code. Somewhere along the line, users learned not to run .EXE, .COM, or .PIF attachments. So the writers figured out that many users had a Windows feature turned on which hid the filename extension, so if you named a file NAJORT.GIF.EXE, the recipient would only see NAJORT.GIF and think "A GIF file is safe to open, right?" Once enough users learned to turn off that feature, new tricks were needed. How about a message saying, "I love you"? The trick is to _engage_the_target's_curiosity_and/or_fear_ before they remember to be suspicious. Someone who _knows_ about trojans, viruses, and worms can still be caught off guard by someone who's better at making use of _human_psychology_ get their reactions out of order. Not fooled by "I love you" or an offer of a naked picture of the celebrity of the month? What about, "Order confirmed: 158.57 charged to your Visa card"? I didn't order anything recently, so there must be some mistake! I'd better check this out before it's too late! Users starting to catch on to that? How about reinventing the fake-login trick for stealing passwords, from the 1960s, using a message like, "Your PayPal account will be suspended unless you update your information"? Get the FEAR reaction going first, and you just might be able to get the victim to react before they remember to check for a trojan. Even if the victim knows better ... maybe they missed their coffee that morning. Eventually you wind up with a majority of users knowing not to trust _or_get_spooked_by_ that sort of trick. But as long as there are _enough_ users naive enough or sleepy enough, trojans _are_ a Real Problem because enough people will run them to make them a problem. They're not a threat to the individual educated (and _properly_ paranoid) user, which is probably what you meant, but they're still a major problem in general. > Worms are worse, In general, yes, but in particular
Re: Comparison: 77 on 35 vs. 50 on APS sensor
They should print that in magazine ads instead of some silly ads which went nowhere. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Above statement is apparently quite true (of course, as it has come from one of our prime lens gurus :-), and reminded me of some interesting exchanges between Pentax QC Dep't and lens Design Dep't (it showed up in certain lens forum). It went something like this. Pentax QC Dep't (Hereinafter QC): The 50/1.4 has slight flare (CA, not due to backlight) at max aperture, and might not be suitable for use with *istD. Lens designers (hereinafter LD) : The lens was deliberately designed so (I assume the same design principle with LTD lenses). QC: It's an excuse that cannot be accepted in the digital era. A programme line which does not use max aperture must be designed. LD: OK then, we can easily prototype the same 50/1.4 but with less flare (CA). This could be the future FA*50/1.4 Proto was produced. QC: Good, still some CA remaining but it is now less than 50%. Let's test it for chart, general scenery and night scene etc. Test results were satisfactory. Design improvement was well reflected. Might have to change to the new design. And some time later QC: We have closely evaluated the results of the test. Well, the current one shows much better gradation and produces much subtler impression. We much prefer the current one. LD: We told you so. Now we are vindicated. We are not pursuing just the crispness, and that differentiates our lenses from others. Got it? Well, if we would proceed with the new version of 50/1.4, the current 50/1.4 might fetch a premium price, just like A*85/1.4. Above is a true story. It tells the present design philosophy of Pentax lenses well. For example, if they ever wish to produce Nikkor type lenses (often too crisp), they can easily do so, but they chose not to. That's why there are so many Pentax lens enthusiasts. Limited lenses are true Pentax ones, producing excellent 3D effect in a compact package. Well, folks, if you do not have an FA50/1.4 yet, secure it now before it becomes one of the legendary lenses :-). _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: OT: She's Her Father's Daughter
Now I see where you got the rabbit ears Norm frank theriault wrote: ...Or, The Apple Doesn't Fall Very Far from the Tree... My daughter Claire, on Easter: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2376852
FS Friday: Some Neat Items
Well, the time has come to part with some fine gear that I am just not using. It will be like watching the kids leave home. With regret I offer the following. All prices are U.S. and do not include shipping (which will be at cost). FA PowerZoom 28-105 F4.0-5.6. This is one of my favorites, but I have two. (The other one will be taken, as the saying goes, from my cold, dead hands.) It's a wonderful, sharp lens, and the best 28-105 that Pentax had made. It's large and a bit heavy on MZ/ZX bodies, wonderful on the (P)Z-1 or 1p. Ex or EX+ by KEH standards. KEH sells them for $126. This one is $100. It is truly a lot of lens for $100. Pentax AF 400T turnip-masher flash, with bracket. GN 130 (in feet). This is a big, professional flash, that tilts, swivels, and twirls in all directions. If you can't illuminate your subject with this, wait until daylight. Can also be used to club spouses who change the settings on color-calibrated monitors. EX or EX+. KEH sells them from $189 to $205. Yours for $150. Sigma 70-300 AF APO Macro F4.0-5.6. This is the apochromatic version, and it yields quite sharp images. The macro capability if quite handy. KEH has one in EX+ for $133. This one is like new with original box, bag, shade, papers, all for $100.00 Olympus Varimagni Right Angle Finder. This one fits Pentax cameras (at least since the PZ-1p, including the *ist D). It has 1.2 and 2.5x magnification, and shifts between landscape and portrait mode. I'd keep it, but since I wear glasses it is just too difficult for me. $125, or make me a reasonable offer. And the surprise: Arsat 35 mm. F2.8 shift/tilt in K-mount. This one came directly from the factory in the Ukraine (where the K-mount attachment was put on specifically to fill my order) and is still in like new condition. Here's your chance to own a genuine tilt/shift lens for a fraction of the price of a Japanese one. It is sharp, sturdy, and well made. These go for over $400 on eBay. Yours for $300, or make me a reasonable counteroffer. If interested please contact me off-list at: jtainter at mindspring dot com In a few days anything not sold will go to KEH. Thanks, Joe
RE: Anyone still using windows ME
Someday your delusions will have to stand up to reality. The question is will you also face reality?? Macintosh hasn't had more than 3% of the market of personal computers in the last decade. And it often dips below 2%, and that's in recent years, a decade ago Macintosh was in truly dire straights indeed. So let me ask you again, do you really think that it's feasible for virus writers to attack less than 2% of the computing community??? Not to mention the fact that the VAST majority of Mac users are NOT running mission critical applications, like web servers. You can argue this all you want, but it wont EVER change the fact that you ARE FLAT OUT WRONG. WHEN WILL YOU UNDERSTAND?? -Shawn -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Anyone still using windows ME How many millions of users does a system need before it becomes a worthy population would you say? There are plenty of OSX users out there - more than enough to produce a few viruses if they wanted. All the evidence however seems to point to the fact that it ain't easy. In fact it is so hard there hasn't been one yet. I imagine one day there will be one, nothing is perfect. But compared to the swiss cheese that windows has become OSX is a veritable fort Knox. Moving away from the security side though there are lots of other aspects of the OS that I prefer from a digital photography perspective. The integration of iPhoto with all the other iApps and even Photoshop (which itself has been optimized for the new G5 processors) gives a really good user experience. And real multi-tasking is something the OS takes in in stride - something I was having real problems with on my windows box. And if you are a traveling photog. nothing beats the 12" PowerBook as a light weight and versatile traveling companion. Don't want to take a laptop with you? Just take along an iPod (which syncs with both Macs and PCs) and you have an ultra light weight mass photo storage system that lets you listen to music on the road too. Antonio On 20 May 2004, at 17:29, Bob Blakely wrote: > Who wants to write a virus for such a small population? Where's the > glory? > > Regards, > Bob... > --- > "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in > session." > -- Mark Twain > > > From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> And lack of viruses. > >>> On 20 May 2004, at 09:01, Nick Clark wrote: >> >>> Because viruses don't need to be installed, they just use >>> capabilities >>> of already installed programs (OS, email client, etc). The same is >>> true of Windows PCs, Macs, or whatever. The only real protection Macs >>> have is the lack of numbers. >
Re: FA 77 Limited
I have several long-standing orders through my local dealer. He tells me that Pentax seems unable to deliver anything, large or small. Camera, lens, accessory - it doesn't matter, he can't get them to fill the order. He is as frustrated as I am. Stan jtainter wrote: Does anyone know a place that has it? Online it seems to be out of stock everywhere. The disappearance is so complete that I wonder if Pentax has discontinued it. It is, though, still listed on web sites. At B&H, the 43 and 31 limiteds are out of stock. The FA 28 is listed as special order. At Adorama the FA 24 is backordered. No one seems to be able to fulfill orders for the DA 16-45 from stock. Other DA lenses will apparently dribble out. Either (a) there is suddenly enormous demand for quality Pentax lenses and Pentax cannot meet that demand; (b) there has been so little demand that places like B&H and Adorama just don't bother to restock the higher-cost items; or (c) Pentax is remaining solvent by drastically cutting its manufacturing capacity. As I've posted here before, I admit that I know little of business matters. The signs, though, have made me suspect that (c) may be the case. If so, if there's a Pentax lens you like, best to buy it while you can. Joe
RE: OT : Camera Fanny Pack (GFM)
Heehee, I still keep giggling at the name of this thread! I just bought this Tamrac one... http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3816530065&ssPageName=ADME :B:EOAB:AU:6 I went right through B&H's website, and also Adorama, Keh, Tamrac, Lowepro, and even the Pelican website, and for its size, this one was the best value for money. Up until now, I have been using a little consumer bum bag, but thought I'd get this one for GFM (and the rest of my trip, plus, I really need one for my weddings). I didn't want anything too big, but all of the smaller Lowepro ones seem to open against your body, whereas this one actually opens away from the body which is pretty cool. Also, the people auctioning it, have more of them listed, if you are still interested. They also have the Lowepro "Offtrail" that somebody on list mentioned. It is here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15201&item=3815887900 And the Orion that Andre mentioned is here - good price too: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15201&item=3815952261 I went to their website as well, and found this fantastic deal: http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/PageDisplay?dest=frames.jsp&; currency=USD&storeId=10001 The same thing is almost 20 bucks from B&H!! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&s ku=248148&is=REG So, I effectively got it for half price! tan.x. -Original Message- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT : Camera Fanny Pack (GFM) I use the Lowe-Pro "Orion" model. Simple and effective fanny pack with tightening side straps. I can run with it if the straps are well tightened. Untight the straps to unpack and repack stuff. I manage to carry two small bodies (LX, M, MZ), with a short lens attached, at the pack's ends (standing vertically with the dividers adjusted close to the bottom of the bodies) and have still room in the center compartment for 1, 2 or 3 other lenses depending on their size, or 1 or 2 lenses plus a flash. I also need a soft pouch or two as only one "free" lens can be without protection against friction in the bag. If I use a lens longer than "normal" on a body, I cannot pack it as it is, I need to put a smaller lens on the body to slip it in its place. That suits me as I use mostly 20mm to 50mm optics plus one tele macro for special occasions. This year's model has an external pocket. If you don't need or like it, you can buy last year's model for $20. on eBay. Bigger PZ-1 & SF bodies are too wide to fit vertically in the pack. Andre
Re: Why can't they just... was Re: Anyone still using windows ME
Tom C wrote: or just at least go to some other OT subject before we all die of boredom or frustration? Sooo.. What do you guys think about the Iraq-war? How about Bush? /Henri PS. It's a joke, please do not talk about politics ;-)
Re: M 85mm f/2
Tests speak louder than words. Good Job John. Nice to know Vic
RE: OT: She's Her Father's Daughter
I don't see any apple trees in the pic, Frank. Did you put up the wrong photo? Nice family shot for the album. Show it to her boyfriend when she's about 16yo. I'm sure she'll love you for it Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/20/2004 6:49:33 PM > Subject: OT: She's Her Father's Daughter > > ...Or, The Apple Doesn't Fall Very Far from the Tree... > > My daughter Claire, on Easter: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2376852 > > Believe it or not, I do have two other daughters, both of whom despise the > camera. Thank goodness for Claire! > > cheers, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > _ > MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months > FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: rumor on dpreview: FA 50/1.7 discontinued
It's a wonderful lens, so of course it will be discontinued. I would guess that a number of years ago Pentax manufactured a bunch of these, and have been selling them ever since. Pentax is retrenching in their traditional offerings. Good lenses, as I suggested earlier today, are going away, or are at least not so easy to get. They have apparently slashed their manufacturing capacity. Lenses are no longer stocked, but shipped from the Philippines in only enough quantity to fill orders. It's a new econonic world in photography. Joe
Re: M 85mm f/2
On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:23:24 -0600, you wrote: > >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: A 15mm-85F2 (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for >portraits/canndids) > > >> Portrait >> lenses don't have to be sharp!!! > >This is not to imply that the M85mm is soft, I hope. >What I don't understand is the insistence of extremes that this list >is so fond of. >The M85 may not be as sharp as the K585, for example, but this >doesn't mean it isn't a good sharp lens, it just means that the K is >sharper. >Apparently, the M 28mm suffers from the same crisis of quality. >Perhaps there are better lenses out there, but it's not like as if >the M is crap. > >William Robb The*istD and idle hands make for some easy comparisons. Please flame away all you like about how bad this is for a lens test, it pleases me, so that heck wit ya, na na na na naaa. I chose a subject distance suitable for the lens in question, i.e. 3.3 meters for the 85mm, which gives a full head-and-shoulders shot. I used Rob's excel spreadsheet to calculate lpmm for three lenses at available apertures f2-f8: the M85/2, FA 100/2.8 Macro, and a manual focus Vivitar VS1 28-105/2.8-4 (fairly new cheap lens, not some old cult classic). Shots were manually focused. I used the *istD mounted on a nice stable Ries wooden tripod, 2-sec mirror prefire, actuated by the cable release I modified from PZ to istD using PDML instructions (thanks guys). Numbers such as 0,3 show the group and pair resolved. The test target is one I keep pasted on the rec room wall for just such misadventures as this. The short story - from f2 through f4, the M 85 at 3.3 meter subject distance is the clear winner, and maintains a slight edge at f5.6 and f5. This was surprising to me, but heck I saw it with my own eyes. The 100/2.8 Macro resolves one small increment more at f8, being Group 0, Pair 6, but the spreadsheet penalizes it a bit for 100mm length vs 85mm, so the lpmm value is smaller. M85/2 2 0,3 48.9 2.8 0,3 48.9 3.5 0,3 48.9 4 0,4 54.9 5.6 0,4 54.9 8 0,5 61.6 FA 100/2.8 Macro 2 2.8 0,4 46.7 3.5 4 0,4 46.7 5.6 0,5 52.4 8 0,6 58.8 Vivitar Series 1 28-105/f2.8-4 at 105mm 2 2.8 3.5 4 0,4 46.7 5.6 0,5 52.4 8 0,5 52.4 -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
RE: Why can't they just... was Re: Anyone still using windows ME
Bill, Calm down man... IMO, these guys are just chattering... it should be taken off-list, I agree. It's tedious deleteing every Windows ME thread. Worse than Mafud? That's probably just because he'd always hand us a loaded gun with the trigger cocked and we'd pull it to watch what happened. :) So, can the list members please stop talking about Macs, OSX, and Windows and get back to Pentax, or just at least go to some other OT subject before we all die of boredom or frustration? Tom C. Even Mafud at his worst wasn't this insufferable William Robb
OT: She's Her Father's Daughter
...Or, The Apple Doesn't Fall Very Far from the Tree... My daughter Claire, on Easter: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2376852 Believe it or not, I do have two other daughters, both of whom despise the camera. Thank goodness for Claire! cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Sears lenses...
:-P tan. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 9:01 AM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Sears lenses... On 20/5/04, TMP, discombobulated, offered: >TIA, >tan. (with yet another parcel being delivered to tv!) Trying to bloody upstage me! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: PAW - Kathy and Her Niece
Beautiful!! Just a quick look, likely more comments to follow... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - Kathy and Her Niece Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:33:33 -0700 It was the summer of 1968, and I was living in a small apartment in San Francisco. Across the panhandle, on Cole Street , lived Dick and Kathy, the Haight-Ashbury's most middle class couple. I'd just gotten my Spotmatic ... my very first real camera. I'd had it for but a week or two when Kathy's niece arrived for a visit. They spent a few hours fooling around (you may see more of their hi jinks later) for the camera. What we have here is just a little family snap. I hope you like it. Working on it brought back some fond memories. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/paw/kathy_and_niece.html Shel Belinkoff _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
M 85mm f/2
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: A 15mm-85F2 (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids) > Portrait > lenses don't have to be sharp!!! This is not to imply that the M85mm is soft, I hope. What I don't understand is the insistence of extremes that this list is so fond of. The M85 may not be as sharp as the K585, for example, but this doesn't mean it isn't a good sharp lens, it just means that the K is sharper. Apparently, the M 28mm suffers from the same crisis of quality. Perhaps there are better lenses out there, but it's not like as if the M is crap. William Robb
Why don't you all just fu*k off. was: Re: Anyone still using windows ME
Are there any mailing lists out there dedicated to dumping on Microsoft, praising the virtues of Linux, and generally being obnoxious in general? Perhaps these idiots could seek out that mailing list, go where people actually are interested in this shit, and let those of us who are interested in Pentax cameras and photography get on with our lives, withput having to download megabytes of peckerheaded blather. Heck, they could even send us a link to it, labeled OT, and those who are so inclined could get onto that list as well. It solves the problem of so much uninteresting and OT dreck being posted here, without invoking the dreaded censorship word. Just curious William Robb - Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" Subject: Re: Anyone still using windows ME > aaggh h > >
Re: Sears lenses...
On 20/5/04, TMP, discombobulated, offered: >TIA, >tan. (with yet another parcel being delivered to tv!) Trying to bloody upstage me! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
PAW - Mi Amor
Hey Folks, Here's one for the peanut gallery (comments appreciated): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2376602&size=lg Mark
Re: OT: Virus identified.
Hi, > Ever dealt with a real computer virus, Bob? yes, I have, although not on any machine of mine. I know what they're like. I didn't say you shouldn't worry about viruses, I said you shouldn't be complacent about trojans. > [...] > detect it at the time. It scared the hell out of me. As I said, trojans are > innocuous. One of these days a bunch of Greeks are gonna climb out of a big wooden horse and bite yer ass. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: flash question
Hi Jens, Ah (a lightbulb moment for sure) , I did confuse the two terms. Thanks for the explanation. Feroze - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:54 PM Subject: RE: flash question > Feroze > I think you may be confusing coverage and giudenumber??? > Coverage does usually not have anything to do with ISO or f-stops. The > "coverage" you descibe here is not, as it is commom practice, the measure of > the side of the rectangular square of light, that the flash will make on, > let's say, a wall. Coverage usually describe an angle of view or a focal > length (35 mm equiv.), meaning what you get in the viewfinder. > > Guide number means aperture at the distance of 1 foot at ISO 100. For this > flash the guidenumber is 18. > Guidenumber 18 will at 100 ISO give f 18 at one foot and appr. f 8 at 2 > feet, appr. f 4 at 4 feet - or f 32-45 at 0.5 foot (15 cm). > I'm not shure this applies the same way to a macro flash, as it does to > ordenary flashes, though. > > > I guess in this case it (coverage) referes to the maximum distance to the > subject. 98 cm is almost 3 feet. Guidenumber 18 should be just about > sufficient/enough power to give you f 5.6 at a three feet distance (as it > gives you a little more than f 4 at 4 feet= 124 cm (more because my table is > derived from GN 16). > > What you do in practice is this: > Use A-setting to automatically adjust light for the aperture set at the > camera (if there are more than one to choose from). > Don't go beyond 3 feet distance to subject, as you do not want aperture > larger than f 5.6 for macros anyway. > > Otherwise use manual setting and a aperture/distance table, like the one > described above. I wouldn't shoot macros at less than f 8. > > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 20. maj 2004 21:27 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: flash question > > > Hi Jens, > > Thanks, unfortunately this one is not a pentax flash, its a vivtar > macroflash 5000, a very base line model. I downloaded the manual which was > all of 2 pages. The part I didn't understand its gives you the table for a > 100/105mm lens, so for eg I'll get on ISO100 @5.6 coverage to 98cm, how do I > calculate or convert this table if I was using a 50mm lens, is there a > formula or something conversion table. Is there a standard?? > > Thanks > Feroze > > - Original Message - > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:09 PM > Subject: RE: flash question > > > > Hello Feroze > > The flash light spreads at an angle. Most flashes will cover an angle > > equivalent to that of a 28mm lens for a 35mm camera system. The userguide > > for diffent flashes will give you the vertical and horizontal coverage > > (angles) for different lenses/focal lengths/angle of view. > > > > The espression coverage for this and that lens has to to with flashes that > > will zoom (achange angle of view) when you zoom the lens/change the angle > of > > view. > > > > Please see user giuides for Pentax falshes at > > Pentax USA: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 > > Or Bojidar Dimitrov's Homepage (angle of view for Pentax lenses): > > http://www.bdimitrov.de/ > > > > All the best > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 20. maj 2004 20:26 > > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Emne: flash question > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > Hate to disturb you guys with a photographic question, but could someone > > direct me to a site or link that explains in simple terms what flash > > coverage means. For eg. if it says that a particular flash covers 80 deg > > with a 105mm lens then will it not cover then same amount of area with a > > 50mm lens. > > > > Thank You > > > > Feroze > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: PAW: Woody Guthrie
Hi, Gonz, I like Woody Guthrie, too. Roll on, Columbia, roll on! The backdrop in the photo almost hurts my eyes. It doesn't fit Woody Guthrie's personality to hurt poor farmers (perceived) like me :-) Yefei > > Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:26:44 -0500 > From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: PAW: Woody Guthrie > > Well, not a pic of him But a pic of a play about him. > For those who > don't recognize the name, Woody Guthrie was a folk song composer that > wrote songs about everyday life in small town America mainly > during the > depression, he is kind of a musical version of photographers > like Shel & > Frank, capturing special moments, but in music instead of pictures. > Here is a nice bio: > > http://www.woodyguthrie.org/biography.htm > > and here is a pic of a very interesting scene in the play when he is > supposed to be on top of a train inebriated. I liked the > backdrop and > the resultant silhouette: > > http://home.austin.rr.com/randj/pics/_IGP0599-web.jpg > > Comments, critiques, OT discussion, etc., welcome. > > Gonz >
Re: OT: Safelight question
I never had a problem with a dark red bulb fogging paper. But ... ... is the fogging consistent across the paper, including the border? -- suspect your paper of heat/age damage. ... is the fogging in swirls? -- suspect the light. The swirls come when swishing the developer in the try, so the liquid acts as a fluid lens and makes the patterns. Do a print in total darkness (obviously except for the paper exposure) to diagnose further. I've also had some "fast" papers that didn't like amber, so I had to go back to dark red. Collin
Re: OT: Safelight question
There used to be special red bulbs to be used for safe lights, others that look the same aren't. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some may remember i had a problem in my darkroom with a greyish tint to my prints,that i was not getting in my darkroom class. I was talking to a friend the other day,spotmatic user and darkroom guy,(but not a pdmler)about this and i mentioned i was now concerned maybe my safe light was to bright for the small room.He asked what i had and when i mentioned it was a low watt red bulb,he fiqured that was the problem. I use RC multi grade paper,and Jim mentioned this paper was sensitive to magenta,and red was close enough. 1) Does this sound like it could be my problem. 2) Will an amber bulb be better/ok. Thanks in advance Dave Brooks
Re: OT: Safelight question
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Some may remember i had a problem in my darkroom > with a greyish tint to my prints,that i > was not > getting in my darkroom class. > > 1) Does this sound like it could be my problem. > > 2) Will an amber bulb be better/ok. > Old bits of wisdom keep on being useful take a sheet of photo paper expose it for a short while under the enlarger, just a few seconds at a small aperture will do. (This gets the paper "started") Then place an opaque object on it (a credit card for instance) leave it emulsion side up in your darkroom with the safelight on for 10 mins, if your light is really safe you should not see any significant image of the object when you develop the sheet... This is useful for checking if it really is DARK in there too, only leave it for at least half an hour!... Yes you have to stay in there with it, and you can't read a book, take a tape recorder/minidisk with you and try composing a love song for someone(grin).. Time for bed here in Devon, G'night folks. Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Re: Sears lenses...
The 80-200/4 sears model 202 series (made in Korea) is a pretty good lens to get your hands on. I also had one of the 135/2.8 units. Not bad either. The later ones have "A" contacts had a greenish cast to the coatings. They look very Fujinon. The early K/M-class ones have a bluish cast, like A lenses have, and produce pleasing and contrasty results. They're all pretty good. I contacted Sears several years ago so see if they could tell me who made the lenses for them. They couldn't. Records were gone. Bummer. Collin
Swiss cheese is innocent - Backup is the word!
Hi Antonio now you have gone much too far for me. ;-) would you please not accuse the innocent Swiss cheese in your ongoing off topic monotone and useless OS comparisons. I will immediately *backup* my cheese supply (Commonly known as the *only real* protection) > will be one, nothing is perfect. But compared to the Swiss cheese that > windows has become OSX is a veritable fort Knox. > Antonio
Re: Pentax MX battery problem
Well, parts are not available to repair the meter if that is the problem. However, an MX works fine with out the meter, you just need a hand held meter, or an exposure guide. If someone offered it to me for that price I would buy it. -- Henri Toivonen wrote: I have been offered to buy a Pentax MX for a very small amount of money (about $15), and it is in good condition apart from one thing. The meter doesn't work and the LED's don't light up. My guess that it doesn't get any battery connection. It doesn't work even with a fresh battery. Are these models known to get problems with the battery? Or is it likely that it could be something else? I'm not interested in buying something that will just give me hassle, but if it's a small fix it would be a nice buy. /Henri -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax MX battery problem
Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The guy selling the camera apparently can't open the battery hatch. He > says it's just plain stuck, and hard as hell. > > Leaking battery that has jammed it up maybe? > > No wonder it's not working though, a decade old battery in there. :-) > Hi Henri, As already stated by Pat, at that price even if the meter is not repairable anymore I wouldn't let it go (and if it is, how much could a repair be, btw? Working MXs are still sold at a price range from 120 to 200 euro here in Italy). $15 is like 12 Euro... Who needs a meter anyway? :-) Ciao, Gianfranco = To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage. ---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
Re: OT: Virus identified.
Looky here, Bob. I never accept gifts from my enemies. Never, I say! I also habitually trash any message that looks like it is "official". You see I have a problem with "authority". So when I get a message from my ISP saying there is a virus on my computer, I trash it. When I get a message from you with a subject of "I love you" and an attachment. I trash it. When I get a message saying my account is past due. Especially, I trash it. Ever dealt with a real computer virus, Bob? It does not need you to run it. It does not need the operating system to run it. It gets into the network and attaches itself to every thing. Every time you open a file it runs and copies itself to another file. It writes directories to hide in. It captures passwords and stores them in hidden directories to send out when you are connected. Your software starts crashing and your data becomes trashed because it is writing itself all over memory. At least these are the things the first one I had to deal with did. Luckily that LAN was not connected to the Internet or the company's business would have been everywhere. Furthermore, none of the available anti-virus software had a clue about it, much less being able to detect it at the time. It scared the hell out of me. As I said, trojans are innocuous. -- Bob W wrote: Hi, Thursday, May 20, 2004, 1:42:16 PM, graywolf wrote: Well, we can be kind of glad. You see trojans are pretty innoctuous, you have to be an internet idiot to get them. Worms are worse, and true viruses are a real bitch to deal with as they can latch themselves onto about any bit of data and get into your system without you having a clue and they usually do real damage. if I were you I'd be very worried about trojans. These are precisely the type of programs that can intercept credit card numbers and passwords and send them to the bad guys. Complacency is the biggest security risk of all. During WWII some German officers were so confident that their codes were secure from cracking that they failed to take elementary precautions, and gave the codebreakers at Bletchely precisely the break they needed. You should assume that your system is breakable and take appropriate precautions. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: flash question
Feroze I think you may be confusing coverage and giudenumber??? Coverage does usually not have anything to do with ISO or f-stops. The "coverage" you descibe here is not, as it is commom practice, the measure of the side of the rectangular square of light, that the flash will make on, let's say, a wall. Coverage usually describe an angle of view or a focal length (35 mm equiv.), meaning what you get in the viewfinder. Guide number means aperture at the distance of 1 foot at ISO 100. For this flash the guidenumber is 18. Guidenumber 18 will at 100 ISO give f 18 at one foot and appr. f 8 at 2 feet, appr. f 4 at 4 feet - or f 32-45 at 0.5 foot (15 cm). I'm not shure this applies the same way to a macro flash, as it does to ordenary flashes, though. I guess in this case it (coverage) referes to the maximum distance to the subject. 98 cm is almost 3 feet. Guidenumber 18 should be just about sufficient/enough power to give you f 5.6 at a three feet distance (as it gives you a little more than f 4 at 4 feet= 124 cm (more because my table is derived from GN 16). What you do in practice is this: Use A-setting to automatically adjust light for the aperture set at the camera (if there are more than one to choose from). Don't go beyond 3 feet distance to subject, as you do not want aperture larger than f 5.6 for macros anyway. Otherwise use manual setting and a aperture/distance table, like the one described above. I wouldn't shoot macros at less than f 8. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. maj 2004 21:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: flash question Hi Jens, Thanks, unfortunately this one is not a pentax flash, its a vivtar macroflash 5000, a very base line model. I downloaded the manual which was all of 2 pages. The part I didn't understand its gives you the table for a 100/105mm lens, so for eg I'll get on ISO100 @5.6 coverage to 98cm, how do I calculate or convert this table if I was using a 50mm lens, is there a formula or something conversion table. Is there a standard?? Thanks Feroze - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: RE: flash question > Hello Feroze > The flash light spreads at an angle. Most flashes will cover an angle > equivalent to that of a 28mm lens for a 35mm camera system. The userguide > for diffent flashes will give you the vertical and horizontal coverage > (angles) for different lenses/focal lengths/angle of view. > > The espression coverage for this and that lens has to to with flashes that > will zoom (achange angle of view) when you zoom the lens/change the angle of > view. > > Please see user giuides for Pentax falshes at > Pentax USA: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 > Or Bojidar Dimitrov's Homepage (angle of view for Pentax lenses): > http://www.bdimitrov.de/ > > All the best > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 20. maj 2004 20:26 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: flash question > > > Hi All, > > Hate to disturb you guys with a photographic question, but could someone > direct me to a site or link that explains in simple terms what flash > coverage means. For eg. if it says that a particular flash covers 80 deg > with a 105mm lens then will it not cover then same amount of area with a > 50mm lens. > > Thank You > > Feroze > > > >
Re: Pentax MX battery problem
Personally I would never buy any camera gear with known faults - chances are it will have other issues too. A. On 20 May 2004, at 23:28, Henri Toivonen wrote: Henri Toivonen wrote: I have been offered to buy a Pentax MX for a very small amount of money (about $15), and it is in good condition apart from one thing. The meter doesn't work and the LED's don't light up. My guess that it doesn't get any battery connection. It doesn't work even with a fresh battery. Update: The guy selling the camera apparently can't open the battery hatch. He says it's just plain stuck, and hard as hell. Leaking battery that has jammed it up maybe? No wonder it's not working though, a decade old battery in there. :-) /Henri
Re: FA 77 Limited
He had a FA 85 too. Good feedback, but people went for the bidding first. A. On 20 May 2004, at 23:06, Andre Langevin wrote: I saw one on ebay as a BIN for about $300 a few weeks ago - lasted about 4 days. Antonio 4 days! The seller must have had a bad pedigree, or this 77mm showed some use. Andre
RE: OT: badger badger badger
Collin, Name is just a guise. But it's true I ain't hog-farmin' any time soon! Philip -- is that better? > > Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:35:35 -0400 > From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: OT: badger badger badger > > .Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:03:36 -0500 > .From: "Yefei He" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ..Yeah, these pesty critters are all very confusing. Ferocious > .rodents and weasels and all. > ..I like what graywolf said though. University of Michigan Gluttons! > .That will be as confusing as the Ohio State Buckeyes. > ..Yefei > . > > H. "Yefei He" or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Doesn't sound like the name of a typical hog-farmin' Iowegian! > > Collin > > > --- > > 'Tautology is' >
Re: Pentax MX battery problem
Henri Toivonen wrote: I have been offered to buy a Pentax MX for a very small amount of money (about $15), and it is in good condition apart from one thing. The meter doesn't work and the LED's don't light up. My guess that it doesn't get any battery connection. It doesn't work even with a fresh battery. Update: The guy selling the camera apparently can't open the battery hatch. He says it's just plain stuck, and hard as hell. Leaking battery that has jammed it up maybe? No wonder it's not working though, a decade old battery in there. :-) /Henri
Sears lenses...
What can you guys advise about the quality etc of Sears lenses and in particular this one here? I just bought this one to play with (for the macro feature, mainly), the seller described it as: "135mm f2.8 Macro lens auto Sears Model Number 202-7368100" The url to the auction is: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3816005586&ssPageName=ADM E:B:EOAB:AU:6 It was listed under "autofocus" but I can't see the contacts on mount properly to see if it actually is or not. If it is not autofocus, it won't worry me cause as I said, I only really want it for the macro feature and would never shoot macro with autofocus anyways. I have a feeling that the "auto" part in the name isn't to indicate autofocus. BUT, at US$26.50, I have no right to complain! I could always pull the glass out and have a nifty looking pen holder for my desk if it turns out to be a piece of crap! lol. TIA, tan. (with yet another parcel being delivered to tv!)
Re: Safelight question
Mine's amber and I never have problems. Norm (I had to laughwe're now labeling photo related threads OT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some may remember i had a problem in my darkroom with a greyish tint to my prints,that i was not getting in my darkroom class. I was talking to a friend the other day,spotmatic user and darkroom guy,(but not a pdmler)about this and i mentioned i was now concerned maybe my safe light was to bright for the small room.He asked what i had and when i mentioned it was a low watt red bulb,he fiqured that was the problem. I use RC multi grade paper,and Jim mentioned this paper was sensitive to magenta,and red was close enough. 1) Does this sound like it could be my problem. 2) Will an amber bulb be better/ok.
Re: Anyone still using windows ME
> > With all due respect: you are biased. You are incompletely informed. And I > think I speak for the majority of the Pentax Discuss community when I say > that I'm tired of seeing your digest-filling posts on this topic. You've > ridden this horse far far too long. It's time to get off the horse and give > us all a rest. I think I can safely predict that this will be treated as a personal attack, and engender yet another unwanted and self-indulgent posting. Not that those of us with working killfiles will see it, of course.
Re: OT: Safelight question
Dark amber (Watten OC, IIRC) is the proper safelight for use with multi-contrast papers. Your friend is probably correct that the red bulb is fogging the paper. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some may remember i had a problem in my darkroom with a greyish tint to my prints,that i was not getting in my darkroom class. I was talking to a friend the other day,spotmatic user and darkroom guy,(but not a pdmler)about this and i mentioned i was now concerned maybe my safe light was to bright for the small room.He asked what i had and when i mentioned it was a low watt red bulb,he fiqured that was the problem. I use RC multi grade paper,and Jim mentioned this paper was sensitive to magenta,and red was close enough. 1) Does this sound like it could be my problem. 2) Will an amber bulb be better/ok. Thanks in advance Dave Brooks -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: FA 77 Limited
I saw one on ebay as a BIN for about $300 a few weeks ago - lasted about 4 days. Antonio 4 days! The seller must have had a bad pedigree, or this 77mm showed some use. Andre
Re: FA 77 Limited
On 5/20/04 4:30 PM, "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (c) Pentax is remaining solvent by drastically cutting its manufacturing > capacity. > > As I've posted here before, I admit that I know little of business matters. > The signs, though, have made me suspect that (c) may be the case. Or the possibility d). Imminent renewal of lens design/series :-). Pentax seem to be making a record profit this year, and riding the digital tide quite well. So, let's hope they now have enough money and can afford to take risk in bringing out updated products. However, if 31mm LTD is disappearing from the market, that concerns me, as I want it. Cheers, Ken
Re: Let's stop (was: Anyone still using windows ME)
Hi Ken, Thanks for your comments. Antonio On 20 May 2004, at 22:33, KT Takeshita wrote: On 5/20/04 3:13 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is what happens in free speech loving democracies. Hi Antonio, No, PDML is not the place for exercising the right of free speech. I think this is becoming too much. Each list (like PDML) has its own culture nurtured over the years. What I (and most others) cherish in this list, besides being force fed all kinds of misc non-Pentax knowledge you care to know, ranging from Australian Vegemite to a never-heard-of beer brand (beer is another no-no subject, BTW. If you really want to turn otherwise legitimate thread into OT, just a drop a word beer and that will do :-), is remarkable tolerance and self-control. PDML is one of rare lists of this kind where male as well as female (and anyone in-between :-) can safely participate in. Newcomers are usually very warmly welcomed and accommodated. Yes, they discuss OTs (and most threads for some reasons, drift away and end up in some sort of OT :-) but normally the self-control kicks in and they make natural death. This is because people know by experience what to do, what not to do and when to stop. I think the reason why people here resent you is not what you say (they care less whether Mac is better than PC or vice versa) but the fact that you react to each post bearing your name and continue the argument for the sake of the argument. Besides, the youngest member here is Coty (and at 70, he is still kicking :-). And when people look like verbally abusing each other, they are usually old timers, having nothing better to do, and just exchanging jabs. So, Antonio, go slow. When people here feel threatened that someone new brought in a new culture which might alter the current culture, and might change the traditional and tacit rules, they react. Sticking to your gun to the end in OT thread is a definite no-no. If you felt that you muddied the water inadvertently, make a quiet and honourable exit, and you lose nothing. Only the experience tells you. I for one will exit the list quickly if this list becomes like any other (like rec.photo) You articulate your point well, and would be a good contributor to the list, but for God's sake, please do not attempt to have the last word which will drag the thread on and on, you are picked on for that, and you react. Never stops. Yes, I know Mac is a better tool :-), yes, I am a Mac worshipper, yes, I have a 12" PowerBook, and yes, I too throw in "Mac's the best" remark once in a while (with tongue in cheek, of course) just for the fun of muddying the water (and get a lot of flaks of course), but if you are SERIOUS in trying to convince people that Mac is better, you are basically telling PC users that they are stupid, and there are better forums to do it. Besides, not even Mac has been very successful in getting the point across, and how can you :-). I feel sorry for watching you alienated by sticking to your gun. OK, Mac is better. The end of story and move on! Cheers, Ken
Re: FA 77 Limited
Joe, I saw one on ebay as a BIN for about $300 a few weeks ago - lasted about 4 days. Here in UK there is a 4-6 week wait on it at a lot of places but not showing as discontinued. Antonio On 20 May 2004, at 22:30, jtainter wrote: Does anyone know a place that has it? Online it seems to be out of stock everywhere. The disappearance is so complete that I wonder if Pentax has discontinued it. It is, though, still listed on web sites. At B&H, the 43 and 31 limiteds are out of stock. The FA 28 is listed as special order. At Adorama the FA 24 is backordered. No one seems to be able to fulfill orders for the DA 16-45 from stock. Other DA lenses will apparently dribble out. Either (a) there is suddenly enormous demand for quality Pentax lenses and Pentax cannot meet that demand; (b) there has been so little demand that places like B&H and Adorama just don't bother to restock the higher-cost items; or (c) Pentax is remaining solvent by drastically cutting its manufacturing capacity. As I've posted here before, I admit that I know little of business matters. The signs, though, have made me suspect that (c) may be the case. If so, if there's a Pentax lens you like, best to buy it while you can. Joe
Re: OT: Virus Taxonomy
Hi, > Well ... yes and no. The thing is, _any_ trojan relies on "social > engineering" to convince victims to run it, and setting aside for > a moment the question of whether "Internet idiot" is an appropriate > term for someone merely naive as opposed to dense, sometimes that > social engineering can be quite clever. there are far more subtle ways of doing it than relying on social engineering, and they are part of the standard toolboox of every programmer. Instead of hiding inside something that the user executes directly and explicitly it is more effective to hide inside something that the software executes, such as a DLL in Windows. It's a trick that is used everywhere. I first used it back in the early 80s when I was writing machine code on ICL mainframes. The same techniques apply to every environment I've seen since that uses dynamic linking rather than static compile-time linking (or consolidation, as we knew it). You write a subroutine and give it the same name and interface as one that's well-known and commonly used. At link time the linker/loader searches a list of libraries for the named subroutine. If you've put yours earlier than the original in the library search sequence then the system will link your subroutine rather than the original. Depending on the search algorithm and whether or not you've statically linked the original in yours, your subroutine can then call the original to carry out the expected task as normal, and subsequently do its own dirty work. In DOS we used to do it by intercepting interrupts. There are many, many perfectly valid reasons for doing it. In the days when I was a full-time programmer we often talked about how easy it would be to do nefarious stuff, and one guy I worked with was prosecuted because something he'd been mucking around with in the test environment at his previous company was inadvertently released into production after he'd left the compnay, and brought down every terminal in every branch of a national bank. He had to work in Saudi Arabia for 2 years to earn enough to pay back the loan he'd taken out to pay the fine. Personally I'd have prosecuted the release management team, not the programmer. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Safelight question
Kodak Wrattan filter "OC" works just fine in the darkroom here, Dave. Red's a no-no for variable contrast papers, iirc. Shel Belinkoff > > Some may remember i had a problem in my darkroom with a greyish tint to my > prints, > and when i mentioned it was a low watt red bulb,he fiqured that > was the > > problem. > > I use RC multi grade paper,and Jim mentioned this paper was sensitive to > magenta,and red > > was close > > enough. > > > > 1) Does this sound like it could be my problem. > > > > 2) Will an amber bulb be better/ok. > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > Dave Brooks > > > > > >
Re: Safelight question
Hi Dave, When I started out darkrooming quite some time ago, I also used a little red bulb. Tho' I don't remember how, I found out that it wasn't entirely "safe". I ended up picking up a "premier" safelight that has an amber filter (along with a couple others, what color and what for escape me now) for about $20 that served me well until I inherited a Kodak safelight. Hope that helps, William in Utah. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 10:09 AM Subject: OT: Safelight question > > > Some may remember i had a problem in my darkroom with a greyish tint to my prints,that i > was not > getting in my darkroom class. > I was talking to a friend the other day,spotmatic user and darkroom guy,(but not a > pdmler)about this > and i mentioned i was now concerned maybe my safe light was to bright for the small > room.He asked > what i had and when i mentioned it was a low watt red bulb,he fiqured that was the > problem. > I use RC multi grade paper,and Jim mentioned this paper was sensitive to magenta,and red > was close > enough. > > 1) Does this sound like it could be my problem. > > 2) Will an amber bulb be better/ok. > > Thanks in advance > > Dave Brooks > > >
Re: Let's stop (was: Anyone still using windows ME)
On 5/20/04 3:13 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is what happens in free speech loving democracies. Hi Antonio, No, PDML is not the place for exercising the right of free speech. I think this is becoming too much. Each list (like PDML) has its own culture nurtured over the years. What I (and most others) cherish in this list, besides being force fed all kinds of misc non-Pentax knowledge you care to know, ranging from Australian Vegemite to a never-heard-of beer brand (beer is another no-no subject, BTW. If you really want to turn otherwise legitimate thread into OT, just a drop a word beer and that will do :-), is remarkable tolerance and self-control. PDML is one of rare lists of this kind where male as well as female (and anyone in-between :-) can safely participate in. Newcomers are usually very warmly welcomed and accommodated. Yes, they discuss OTs (and most threads for some reasons, drift away and end up in some sort of OT :-) but normally the self-control kicks in and they make natural death. This is because people know by experience what to do, what not to do and when to stop. I think the reason why people here resent you is not what you say (they care less whether Mac is better than PC or vice versa) but the fact that you react to each post bearing your name and continue the argument for the sake of the argument. Besides, the youngest member here is Coty (and at 70, he is still kicking :-). And when people look like verbally abusing each other, they are usually old timers, having nothing better to do, and just exchanging jabs. So, Antonio, go slow. When people here feel threatened that someone new brought in a new culture which might alter the current culture, and might change the traditional and tacit rules, they react. Sticking to your gun to the end in OT thread is a definite no-no. If you felt that you muddied the water inadvertently, make a quiet and honourable exit, and you lose nothing. Only the experience tells you. I for one will exit the list quickly if this list becomes like any other (like rec.photo) You articulate your point well, and would be a good contributor to the list, but for God's sake, please do not attempt to have the last word which will drag the thread on and on, you are picked on for that, and you react. Never stops. Yes, I know Mac is a better tool :-), yes, I am a Mac worshipper, yes, I have a 12" PowerBook, and yes, I too throw in "Mac's the best" remark once in a while (with tongue in cheek, of course) just for the fun of muddying the water (and get a lot of flaks of course), but if you are SERIOUS in trying to convince people that Mac is better, you are basically telling PC users that they are stupid, and there are better forums to do it. Besides, not even Mac has been very successful in getting the point across, and how can you :-). I feel sorry for watching you alienated by sticking to your gun. OK, Mac is better. The end of story and move on! Cheers, Ken
RE: Anyone still using windows ME
Norm, just do what I did and filter out his messages. If we ignore the troll, he will go away... > -Original Message- > From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Anyone still using windows ME > > > ggghh
RE: OT: Virus Taxonomy
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: Another interesting post, comments interspaced: > Malcolm Smith wrote: > > There is a mindset for the creation of viruses, that I just don't > > understand. I can't understand vandalism either, wanton > destruction of > > public and/or private property for no purpose makes no sense to me. > > I understand *part* of it. I understand the "I wonder whether > it's possible to...?" part. I understand the math-cool and > SF-cool aspects of self-propogating code. But the "is it possible?" > question was answered long ago, I don't understand the desire to > have these things do damage, and an awful lot of them are written > using "virus construction kits" or by slightly modifying someone > else's virus, suggesting that the only really interesting parts > of the matter are not what motivate the people writing most of > them. I can certainly understand the need to try and break code by the developers of such code - hopefully on an internal network, as part of the development process, keeping such programmes or O/Ss one ahead of those of a malicious nature. I see those caught on television for causing damage and/or creating viruses and think what a waste of talent and how they could well have been using such knowledge for good uses and probably a very nice salary too. > Email address harvesters are icky but make economic sense. > Password stealers are icky but make power-trip sense. Credit > card stealers are icky but make criminal sense. Zombie installers > are icky but sort of make sense *if* you assume that whatever > the controller wants to use the zombies for makes any sense > (but unless they're used as spam remailers, zombies are usually > used to do more vandalism elsewhere, such as launching a DDoS > attack, which brings us back to the "I don't understand vandalism" > problem). Again, this is a mindset I don't understand, but sadly accept it is part of life. > Pointless destruction of information, causing random grief to > strangers, and DoS-ing the entire net or popular important > sites (thus making the net work less well for the attacker as > well as for all the victims) make no sense to me at all. I used to work for a company where a good 35-40% of budget was spent on repairing damage to infrastructure, where a good 90% of that was through vandalism, rather than accident/collision. What an incredible waste. Think what the money could have been used for over the years. I dread to think how much time and money is wasted due to man made computer problems, which, at the end of the day is passed on to the consumer of whatever the product is... Malcolm
Re: smc-DA 14/2.8 pricing
Interesting point. Some future end Pentax may have a chip like the 1D Mark II with a samller crop factor but not yet FF. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/20/04 12:25PM >>> Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote: > Hi Collin, > > on 20 May 04 you wrote in pentax.list: > > >But what's the coverage? > >Is it good for film and digital? > > It's an DA-lens, i.e. it has a reduced image circle. It should be good > for DSLRs up to a crop factor of 1.3, I guess. Barely, judging by the viewfinder view when attaching it onto a film camera (tried mounting it on a MZ-10 at Pentax Day). Dario
FA 77 Limited
Does anyone know a place that has it? Online it seems to be out of stock everywhere. The disappearance is so complete that I wonder if Pentax has discontinued it. It is, though, still listed on web sites. At B&H, the 43 and 31 limiteds are out of stock. The FA 28 is listed as special order. At Adorama the FA 24 is backordered. No one seems to be able to fulfill orders for the DA 16-45 from stock. Other DA lenses will apparently dribble out. Either (a) there is suddenly enormous demand for quality Pentax lenses and Pentax cannot meet that demand; (b) there has been so little demand that places like B&H and Adorama just don't bother to restock the higher-cost items; or (c) Pentax is remaining solvent by drastically cutting its manufacturing capacity. As I've posted here before, I admit that I know little of business matters. The signs, though, have made me suspect that (c) may be the case. If so, if there's a Pentax lens you like, best to buy it while you can. Joe
Re: PUG Autosubmit page
Thanks. It worked fine. I must have had an older address. I even got the confirmation page. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/20/04 12:50PM >>> Steve, It may be caused by a lot of things, but one factor could be that the script that do the actual handling of the file upload is memory intensive. In addition, the Autopug resides on a server that is shared with many other applications, so I suspect that requests can queue up some times. Especially around the 20th each month...:-) Please keep trying, the application is definately online. Jostein Quoting Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I can't seem to get to this page. Is anyone else having trouble? IT > keeps timing out. > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Street Photography ... A Stranger a Day
All you have to do is declaim with a superior snear, "You wouldn't know a great picture if it bit you" when someone says something negative about one of your photos. Another great line is, "Shel, you're full of crap..." Oops! (sheepish grin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/19/2004 6:18:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasn't being serious. Actually, my pix totally rock. Even the ones no one likes. They still rock. I just rarely admit it in front of a large audience; you know, humility and all... cheers, frank --- LOL. Maybe that is the attitude I should take. Instead of apologizing that I am still a photography newbie still not sure what I am doing 1/2 the time, and being deferential and self-effacing, I should just say I ROCK MAN, I ROCK! LOL. Somehow I don't think I can carry it off as well, though, frank. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
OT: Safelight question
Some may remember i had a problem in my darkroom with a greyish tint to my prints,that i was not getting in my darkroom class. I was talking to a friend the other day,spotmatic user and darkroom guy,(but not a pdmler)about this and i mentioned i was now concerned maybe my safe light was to bright for the small room.He asked what i had and when i mentioned it was a low watt red bulb,he fiqured that was the problem. I use RC multi grade paper,and Jim mentioned this paper was sensitive to magenta,and red was close enough. 1) Does this sound like it could be my problem. 2) Will an amber bulb be better/ok. Thanks in advance Dave Brooks
Re: Anyone still using windows ME
Brian, The 3% you refer to is for all computers - POS, servers, cash machines, etc. etc. etc. I think you will find that in the domestic/home market it is more like 10-15%, and in certain creative sectors more like 70-80%. iPods made a nice profit for the company but so did desktops and portables. They break even on music sales. As far as I am aware (and I stand to be corrected if wrong) there are no viruses for Mac OSX. Vandals will spray anywhere. If you are saying virus writers are the same then they should have hit OSX by now - it has been out since 91. Nice sig. I am also the Editor of a magazine, that doesn't mean that I am inherently right about everything. Most of the PC press is notable anti-Apple - looks like you are just another one of many. I really don't understand your hostility - the products are really A+. With all due respect I have an opinion that I am voicing and prepared to defend just like anyone else. Obviously the thread will end when people stop posting to it - you included - like all threads on this list. Antonio On 20 May 2004, at 21:29, Brian Dipert wrote: Antonio, Apple's worldwide computer market share is less than 3% and has been on a steady slide for a number of years. Most of the growth in the computer market going forward will be in so-called 'Third World' countries where Apple's elevated pricing versus Linux- and Windows-powered alternatives (despite your protests to the contrary) will increasingly limit its success. Last quarter, the company sold more iPods than it sold computers, and generated all of its profit from the music side of the business. Yesterday, Apple announced that the iPod group was being split out into a distinct division of the company. Recent studies indicate that there are now more copies of Linux running on client (notice, I'm not including servers) computers than there are copies of the Mac O/S, and this disparity will only grow in the future. Do you see the writing on the wall? And before you go off on a tirade of a response: 1) look at my email sig. And think to yourself..hmmm, maybe this guy knows something about what he's saying. And 2) realize that I have 12" iBook and 15" PowerBook units sitting here that I'm reviewing, and that I've had numerous lengthy conversations with Apple over the past few months on these topics. Virus writers are no different than vandals with spray cans. They target where they can do the most visible damage, where they get maximum return on their investments. The Mac O/S is not inherently more secure than Windows. It's simply less commonly used. So it's generally (note, as has been pointed out to you in past days, there ARE viruses and worms that target it) ignored by the virus-creation community. With all due respect: you are biased. You are incompletely informed. And I think I speak for the majority of the Pentax Discuss community when I say that I'm tired of seeing your digest-filling posts on this topic. You've ridden this horse far far too long. It's time to get off the horse and give us all a rest. == Brian Dipert Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Memory, Multimedia, PC Core Logic and Peripherals, and Programmable Logic EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 454-5242 (voice), (617) 558-4470 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: PAW - There heeere..
On 20/5/04, THE ALLINGATOR, discombobulated, offered: >>I was class of 78, but I'm doing okay - I've booked my crisis for 2008. >Sportscar, Blond or both? Sportscar, blond, AND redhead 8-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax MX battery problem
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: If the meter is not dead (which happens on occasion) I've found that the terminals beneath the baseplate sometimes require a cleaning. Check for a cold solder joint as well. I've cleaned the contacts mechanically, simply scratching the surface with a pin tip to remove some oxidation and allow better contact. If it's a wiring or solder issue then a service center may be the most practical way to go. As always, be careful and have fun. Collin The problem is that the person with the camera lives quite a bit away from me, so I have no way of looking at it beforehand. So, If it's just the meter, the LED's would come on, right? Service center sounds like a hassle, that would require shipping it away somewhere etc etc. Naah, then I don't want it. ;-) /Henri
Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids
On Wed, 19 May 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > The M 75~150, while, IMO, worthless in many situations, is also a good > choice for traditional portraits. Relatively small and light, good focal > length range. I just P/EXed my M80-200/4.5 for a F70-210. While my heart bleeds for the loss of a near-perfect example, my old and tired 75-150 is going nowhere. Kostas
Re: PAW - Kathy and Her Niece
Kathy's niece was great fun to have around. Of course, she and Kathy got along great - see the next pic of them - as Kathy was just a big kid herself, very guileless, open, and accepting. Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/20/2004 8:42:11 AM > Subject: Re: PAW - Kathy and Her Niece > > Really captures a lost time. Kathy looks like she is getting ready for > Woodstock and her niece exudes a kind of confidence that you dont see > often in kids anymore, like we've lost a kind of optimism in the > future. Must be the internet. > >http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/paw/kathy_and_niece.html
RE: PUG: how strict?
The Autopug rejects files which are over 80 KB I think. That's the reason that some people here on the list have problems submitting. When I get the files by mail they are too big. Cheers Adelheid -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Donnerstag, 20. Mai 2004 20:08 To: pentax list Subject: Re: PUG: how strict? On 20/5/04, GONZ, discombobulated, offered: >How strict are the submission rules for the PUG gallery? Last night I >submitted my PUG entry, and what I thought was a 74k pic, was sized by >the PUG autosubmit software as 76k. Is it going to automatically throw >it out? I guess I can resubmit, unless thats also a problem. Mine was 76.5 k but I don't think Adelheid will mind too much. She will readily resize if it's much over though. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Birding questions vs. Cat security (was Re: OT 8-) Wasting film on birds)
Gonz wrote: Collin Brendemuehl wrote: d) put a high voltage wire around the tree and feed the resultant chicken-fried cat to the jays Wouldn't that be "sudden" fried? Your opinions please. ;=) Collin --- 'Tautology is' Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Infrared photo / other things
> lots of stuff snipped ot: > > As I've understood, film IR is a pain in the ***! > Digital too is not so immediate, but at least you don't have to care about > heat (!), light, black bags, etc... > Not to mention the fact that you can shot a lot of test photos without wasting > film (that I believe is quite expensive in this case, right?) > AND, If I've been able to achieve some results, then all of you should be > able, trust me. No,not really a pain in the butt.I load at night in my bathroom with windows blacked out(its my darkroom too.lol I use a lab,or Aaron,both know what to do with IR film and will not open it in the store to put it in a bag.Still i tape the tube shut and write on the out side. Film is dear,but with the advice of Bill,Aaron Reynolds and Sid,i shot a roll with recommended settings then a bracket shot.They were correct. > The program I use does not gives me the full information (crwinfo, in linux). > It is written for a canon D60 it gives me this info: > > ISO 400 (I thought It was set to 100) > f/11 (seems correct) > shutter speed was something like 3,2 / 6 seconds (it does not say this, it > gives me an error! but I remember this two values) > Anyway, after some failure tests, I've founded out that I must overexpose by 5 > Exposure stops, against what it says with the filter on. (this could depends > on which camera you use, mine is an EOS 300D) Ok i think Larry was around 4-5 seconds on his shots.I'll bank that info. > > > About your photos, they are a lot of white. > Is an Infrared photo meant to be *so* white? (I know it depends on *my* taste > but...) > Next time I'll try to include more trees, the high contrast between wood and > leaves (in your photos) is really attracting... Thanks.Yes i think IR is pretty white.I found at f11 i get nice whites,at f 8 they are blown out and at f 16 starting to go grey.I try now to frame a building with leaves or find a barn or house with a tree(s) and that gives good contrast. > > BTW, I'm forced to use my 50mm lens 'cause the 18-55 of the canon kit just > gives crappy photos in IR (everyone has a white circle in the center...) and > I haven't any other wide lenses, otherwise I'd like to do some wide angle IR > shot... (no I'm not going to buy one of those ultra-wide / ultra-expensive > lenses just to shot IR) > > Thank you for your attention. > and thank to all of you who commented, I've really appreciated. My pleasure.Its not often i can contribute something meaning full here. Dave Brooks > > now I can go back lurking... > > > Ciao > Danilo. > > > >
Re: smc-DA 14/2.8 pricing
$799.00 Canadian? Get a binding contract! Send them a check now. David Nelson wrote: A couple of possibles (dunno about these dealers) found through Froogle (froogle.google.com): $799 USD: http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php3?sid=oj4rpwvg&sku=PENDA1428&cs=store.php3&store=3&levels=00290276&st=0 $799 Canadian: http://www.mcbaincamera.com/digital/digitalpen.htm Time shall tell... David Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi Sylwester, on 20 May 04 you wrote in pentax.list: Wow! Damn cheap for this kind of lens! Yes, I had expected something around 900,- Euro, dropping to 800 somewhen. But better this way than another - I've already reserved one ;-) Cheers, Heiko
Re: Anyone still using windows ME
aagghh Antonio Aparicio wrote:
Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids
Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my opinion, the 85 is not really bad for landscapes/scenery > > (made recently a side by side test, comparing it to a Summicron > > M 90/2: almost the same performance at infinity, and quite good > > even wide open...), > > Is the Summicron so bad? I tested three different samples of the 85/1.4 FA*, > and they all worked well under average at infinity (and very, very > god! within portrait range) Hi Dario, I have the discontinued version, not the late Aspherical Apo (which seems to be THE 90mm, at least according to the users' opinions). My Summicron is marginally better at wide apertures (I recall I compared the two at f/4, 5.6 and 8, but some time ago I compared the FA* to another 85mm starting from 1.4 and find it definitively usable, and not bad at all). I made few shots with the 90 at f/2 and infinity and it is ok, although probably not the best lens for that. A couple of years ago I tested several primes and a zoom at infinity at around 100mm and, surprise!, the winner was the M 100/2.8, almost astonishing wide open! Maybe I own a lucky sample... I still have a couple of Technical Pan in the fridge, maybe a more scientific comparison is due. Ciao, Gianfranco = To read is to travel without all the hassles of luggage. ---Emilio Salgari (1863-1911) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
Re: PAW - There heeere..
Sportscar, Blond or both? Cotty wrote: seventeen years -- wow, that would be 1987. Has it really been SEVENTEEN YEARS since my graduation?? Where has the time gone? What have I DONE with my life? Oh my! Is it time for a midlife crisis?? ERN I was class of 78, but I'm doing okay - I've booked my crisis for 2008. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: PAW - Kathy and Her Niece
That's a very nice portrait Shel, very nice. Shel Belinkoff wrote: It was the summer of 1968, and I was living in a small apartment in San Francisco. Across the panhandle, on Cole Street , lived Dick and Kathy, the Haight-Ashbury's most middle class couple. I'd just gotten my Spotmatic ... my very first real camera. I'd had it for but a week or two when Kathy's niece arrived for a visit. They spent a few hours fooling around (you may see more of their hi jinks later) for the camera. What we have here is just a little family snap. I hope you like it. Working on it brought back some fond memories. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/paw/kathy_and_niece.html Shel Belinkoff
Re: OT: Virus identified.
Bob W wrote: > you might to think about installing a spam filter in your mail client. > These use a technique called Bayesian probability to work out > from the contents whether or not a message is spam. You can > set actions to invoke according to the probability of the > message being spam, most notably: Delete. > http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html > > I use The Bat! mail client with its own Bayesian filter and > it has been very accurate at identifying spam. So far it has > had no false positives and I now see no more than about 3 > spams per day - a massive improvement. In addition to the filter by Waitrose (!), I use Norton Internet Security 2004, which also incorporates a Spam filter. I have to say I am hugely unimpressed by this as it seems to have it own censorship issues. I currently run Windows XP Pro, but I don't know for how much longer and will think again (I am not far off having all the cash for a Mac laptop anyway now) how I protect a different OS - probably Red Hat Linux. This is not because I don't like Windows as such, if it hadn't been for W3.1 on, I wouldn't have really been interested in returning to having a computer and XP has been an utterly reliable system for me. I'm just a little tired of all these viruses being directed mainly at Windows systems, so if I no longer run one (although I will still need and use anti-virus and Spam filtering) it shouldn't cause me so much alarm. Malcolm
RE: PAW - There heeere..
> > > >78 what? > > 1978. Class of 1978. In the US it's the year of graduation from high > school > > > Cheers, > Cotty Oh. Cotty: 1987 was my university graduation. Not high school (that was 1980.) ERN
OT: Camera Fanny Pack (GFM)
On Thu, 20 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anyone use one that they like? And why? Marnie, This is not really a camera bag, but I like it. See www.eaglecreek.com and under products the Milano It is 9x8x3 inches with 2 zippered pockets (lenses vs film) and outside pockets for cellphone and water bottle. I picked it up in at a mall luggage store while on vacation. I carry 2 limited lenses, an A20mm, film, spare batteries, etc. and an LX in it. The LX comes out when shooting. It is very small and compact and forces you to stay light. Regards, Bob S.
flash question
Hi All, Hate to disturb you guys with a photographic question, but could someone direct me to a site or link that explains in simple terms what flash coverage means. For eg. if it says that a particular flash covers 80 deg with a 105mm lens then will it not cover then same amount of area with a 50mm lens. Thank You Feroze
Re: Anyone still using windows ME
How many millions of users does a system need before it becomes a worthy population would you say? There are plenty of OSX users out there - more than enough to produce a few viruses if they wanted. All the evidence however seems to point to the fact that it ain't easy. In fact it is so hard there hasn't been one yet. I imagine one day there will be one, nothing is perfect. But compared to the swiss cheese that windows has become OSX is a veritable fort Knox. Moving away from the security side though there are lots of other aspects of the OS that I prefer from a digital photography perspective. The integration of iPhoto with all the other iApps and even Photoshop (which itself has been optimized for the new G5 processors) gives a really good user experience. And real multi-tasking is something the OS takes in in stride - something I was having real problems with on my windows box. And if you are a traveling photog. nothing beats the 12" PowerBook as a light weight and versatile traveling companion. Don't want to take a laptop with you? Just take along an iPod (which syncs with both Macs and PCs) and you have an ultra light weight mass photo storage system that lets you listen to music on the road too. Antonio On 20 May 2004, at 17:29, Bob Blakely wrote: Who wants to write a virus for such a small population? Where's the glory? Regards, Bob... --- "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Mark Twain From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And lack of viruses. On 20 May 2004, at 09:01, Nick Clark wrote: Because viruses don't need to be installed, they just use capabilities of already installed programs (OS, email client, etc). The same is true of Windows PCs, Macs, or whatever. The only real protection Macs have is the lack of numbers.
Re: Infrared photo / other things
> > Very interesting photo.I think you did a very good job on it. > I shoot IR film but have yet to try working with digital.I believe it was > Larry from Prescott,has dabbled > in this aswell, with some dramatic results.. As I've understood, film IR is a pain in the ***! Digital too is not so immediate, but at least you don't have to care about heat (!), light, black bags, etc... Not to mention the fact that you can shot a lot of test photos without wasting film (that I believe is quite expensive in this case, right?) AND, If I've been able to achieve some results, then all of you should be able, trust me. > > > The things I've discovered, and that you hardly find in all the sites > > that talk about it (I mean that you MUST go out, shooting, and testing, > > following the suggestions gathered on internet) are: > > How long was the exposure time and what shutter f stop combo. I shoot my > film at PDML recommended, 125 shutter and f 11 aperature. No meter > readings.Out of 36 at least 32-33 are usable > using that combo. > The program I use does not gives me the full information (crwinfo, in linux). It is written for a canon D60 it gives me this info: ISO 400 (I thought It was set to 100) f/11 (seems correct) shutter speed was something like 3,2 / 6 seconds (it does not say this, it gives me an error! but I remember this two values) Anyway, after some failure tests, I've founded out that I must overexpose by 5 Exposure stops, against what it says with the filter on. (this could depends on which camera you use, mine is an EOS 300D) About your photos, they are a lot of white. Is an Infrared photo meant to be *so* white? (I know it depends on *my* taste but...) Next time I'll try to include more trees, the high contrast between wood and leaves (in your photos) is really attracting... BTW, I'm forced to use my 50mm lens 'cause the 18-55 of the canon kit just gives crappy photos in IR (everyone has a white circle in the center...) and I haven't any other wide lenses, otherwise I'd like to do some wide angle IR shot... (no I'm not going to buy one of those ultra-wide / ultra-expensive lenses just to shot IR) Thank you for your attention. and thank to all of you who commented, I've really appreciated. now I can go back lurking... Ciao Danilo.
Re: OT: Virus identified.
Hi, Thursday, May 20, 2004, 1:42:16 PM, graywolf wrote: > Well, we can be kind of glad. You see trojans are pretty innoctuous, you have to > be an internet idiot to get them. Worms are worse, and true viruses are a real > bitch to deal with as they can latch themselves onto about any bit of data and > get into your system without you having a clue and they usually do real damage. if I were you I'd be very worried about trojans. These are precisely the type of programs that can intercept credit card numbers and passwords and send them to the bad guys. Complacency is the biggest security risk of all. During WWII some German officers were so confident that their codes were secure from cracking that they failed to take elementary precautions, and gave the codebreakers at Bletchely precisely the break they needed. You should assume that your system is breakable and take appropriate precautions. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PUG: how strict?
On 20/5/04, GONZ, discombobulated, offered: >How strict are the submission rules for the PUG gallery? Last night I >submitted my PUG entry, and what I thought was a 74k pic, was sized by >the PUG autosubmit software as 76k. Is it going to automatically throw >it out? I guess I can resubmit, unless thats also a problem. Mine was 76.5 k but I don't think Adelheid will mind too much. She will readily resize if it's much over though. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: Virus identified.
Hi, Thursday, May 20, 2004, 12:55:17 PM, Malcolm wrote: > Jostein wrote: >> As I just wrote in another mail, what probably happened is >> that someone with your address in their address book was >> infected by a virus that propagated your email address to an >> address collector. > Noted. Such e-mails are now reviewed by 'Mr Delete-Key'. you might to think about installing a spam filter in your mail client. These use a technique called Bayesian probability to work out from the contents whether or not a message is spam. You can set actions to invoke according to the probability of the message being spam, most notably: Delete. http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html I use The Bat! mail client with its own Bayesian filter and it has been very accurate at identifying spam. So far it has had no false positives and I now see no more than about 3 spams per day - a massive improvement. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Tithtening Front Surround on K50mm 1.2
On 20/5/04, VARIOUS PDML TINKERERS, discombobulated, offered: >The three screws system is common to "A" lenses but I've not seen a "K" >lens that it applies to. > >The best bet is to take the whole thing apart. :) Thanks guys. I've sorted it. Basically, twirling the front element does not remove it. I suspect it's trying to disengage from the next group or something, but can't because the groups are all still in situ in the lens body. I went in through the back end, which was pretty easy. The hard part was putting it back together :-( The three screw are there, but they are below the level of the focussing ring - so even at closest focus, they don't 'surface' from behind the focus ring. Loosening the screws that hold the 'guides' in place inside - they keep the inner barrel laterally stationary while focussing takes place, means that on focussing closer than normally permitted, the screws become visible from behind the focus ring. In fact I had three screw recesses but only 2 screws! Nothing rattling around inside so it must have been left out on a previous strip down (not by me I hasten to add!) - fortunately I have a box of spare screws and found a match. This gave me a good opportunity to clean off some of the internal elements as well - removing some dust in the process. The spring that keeps tension on the aperture blades was weak - I re-sprung it and after a few goes found the sweet spot. I'm just waiting for the EOS - K adapter plate to dry - I've painted the visible edges black from silver for a nicer match when mated to the body. Should look rather good. I've just saved myself a few quid doing that - took about 2.5 hours so not bad. Thanks for the thoughts from those who responded. Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
agg Antonio Aparicio wrote: Here we go, more controversy I am afraid
