date:20040606

- Original Message - 
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras

 William Robb wrote:

 ...and photography is now pretty much a point and shoot game.

 I know what you intended Bill... but disagree as stated.  :) One
can have
 technology do everything but compose the shot, and composing the
shot is
 where it's mostly at when it comes to a good photo.

When you take the sentence out of context, it does look pretty
disagreeable.
OTOH, camera technology has brought us to the point where composing
the photo is pretty much the only choice left to the user, if the
user is so inclined to take advantage of the technology in the box.
You don't need to know all the things that used to seperate the
craftsman or professional from the schmuck, and now that schmucks are
using the same equipment, more or less, as pros, anyone can be a
professional photographer.

 Having the photographic knowledge certainly helps... i.e., knowing
what one
 can do with aperture, shutter speed, filters, etc., opens up
endless
 creative possibilities that a point  shooter type of person will
not
 attempt or know of.

It helps, sure, but OTOH, if you are shooting portraits, you can use
the portrait program, landscapes? use the landscape program, and for
action, use the action program (Canon users get this option, we
don't), so there goes needing to know about aperture and depth of
field, or shutter speed and freezing action, the camera will do it
for you.
The wannabe pro (who is the person being discussed in the post you
answered), then only needs to know a bit about filters, and may end
up with a polarizer or a couple of grads or soft focus filters,
probably because that is what the person in the camera store (or on a
mailing list somewhere) tells them they need to solve a particular
problem.

I shot a wedding last winter (I don't do them often, anymore). While
at the location we had chosen for our portraits, another photographer
was also working.
She had a couple of cheap studio flash units, I think they were the
low end Photogenics that aren't actually called Photogenic) in a
couple of umbrellas, and a point and shoot digital firing them with a
slave.
Her total equipment outlay was probably less than what I paid for the
lens I was using.
I didn't think much of her light placement, but I also didn't see her
pictures.

This is the new professional.

William Robb

Re: Zoom90WR error message


- Original Message - 
From: mike wilson 
Subject: Zoom90WR error message


 Hi,
 
 Anyone know what the H3 error message signifies?
 

I have a pretty good idea.
Does the camera function at all?

William Robb

Re: Really, Really OT: Paper Size

- Original Message - 
From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 2:44 PM
Subject: Really, Really OT: Paper Size

 Would one of our subscribers in Canada let me know what size of
letter
 paper is standard there. Is it A4 or 8-1/2 x 11?

8 1/2 x 11 is standard letter.

William Robb

Re: Zoom90WR error message

2004-06-06 Thread Michel Carrre-Ge

William Robb a crit :
- Original Message - 
From: mike wilson 
Subject: Zoom90WR error message

Hi,
Anyone know what the H3 error message signifies?

I have a pretty good idea.
Does the camera function at all?

http://www.pentax.be/fr/1foto/05_klantendienst/01displaycodes/displaycodes.html
H + lettre/chiffre = porter lappareil en rparation
H + letter/figure = to carry the vamera in repair
Sorry !

Re: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm

2004-06-06 Thread Dario Bonazza

I'm used to shoot best quality jpegs, and then crop (when necessary), color
balance (when necessary), add some proper USM (always) and so on.

I understand the Photoshop CS plugin works better than any RAW converter
(standalone or plugin) using the damn Pentax algorithm, but is it possible
that buying Photo$hop 8 is the only way for getting acceptable RAW
conversion?

However, yesterday I took some pictures with the DA 16-45 in Verona, and I'm
pleased with the results. Good sharpness in direct sunlight (1/250 f11
ISO200 and all the Saints in Heaven helping the lens performance) and great
nighttime results (slow speeds f/4.5 800 ISO).

Dario Bonazza
(not so unhappy with the *ist D ;-)

- Original Message -
From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm


 What is your flow like?  When I first started, I used the *istD with jpg
 best, so I had to jack up the sharpen, saturation, and contrast settings
 to avoid a PS fixup afterwards.  I was not happy with the results, so I
 switched to RAW.  But the Pentax convertor was a pain, and the only way
 to get 16 files was in TIFF, another pain.  Just recently I purchased an
 upgrade to my PS, the new PhotoShop-CS (creative suite or version 8).
 This is a much better tool, and I have noticed that not only is the
 final result sharper, but the colors are truer also.  But the best part
 is the fact that it can import Pentax RAW directly, without going
 through the crappy Pentax convertor.

 rg


 Dario Bonazza wrote:

 Undoubtably. Some time ago I took some pictures with the *ist D and the
 F717, and I was really disappointed by the softness of the *ist D
compared
 to the sharpness of the F717 :-)
 
 However, some of you will recall for sure how much (and how alone) I
 complained for the *ist D softness here in PDML some months ago. Then I
got
 tired of repeating myself again and again (and bothering you so much on
that
 subject). Nevertheless, the *ist D keeps taking soft pictures.
 
 So, why the hell did I buy an *ist D at the end? I must be crazy, or
 masochist. Yes, enough a plausible explanation.
 
 Dario Bonazza
 (owning so many Pentax lenses and being so much stuck to Pentax for
daring
 to buy a Canon)
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:05 PM
 Subject: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
 
 
 Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm:
 http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html
 
 This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717,
 published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html
 
 Jens Bladt
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt

Re: photography vs cameras

- Original Message - 
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras

 I use _my_ Lear Jet as a dust blower to keep the Van Goghs clean
...

One of the local Indian bands near where I live has a Lear sitting in
a quonset on the reservation.
The thing has never been flown, but apparently, some former chief
decided that if the white man's government could have private jets,
then the Indian governments should be entitled to them as well.
Politics at it's finest

 There's also a certain amount spent on stuff that looks like a good
 idea when you buy it, but somehow never really ends up being used.
 Many years (and a couple of kitchens) ago we bought a microwave
oven
 that used magnetic cards to store cooking programs.  You just
picked
 the card you wanted, stuck it in the slot, and pushed start.
There
 was even a way to program your own cards.
 By the time we replaced it, some 15 years later, I don't think we'd
 ever used the capability.  It was just easier to enter the time.

Remids me of the stupid Minolta camera that had the interchangable
ROM chips to allow the photographer to photograph varying situations
without having to worry about any camera settings at all, or the
Canon for Dummies® that came with a little book of pictures with a
bar graph under each one.
For a few dollars more, you could even get volumes 2 and 3 of the
little picture books.
Look up the scene type, scan the bar graph point the reader at the
camera and download whatever information was being passed to the
camera, thereby allowing the photographer to take the picture with
correct (one presumes) exposure.
All this so that the photographer (and I use the term very loosely
here) doesn't have to have the photo technical knowledge that should
have been included in the owners manual anyway.

William Robb

Re: photography vs cameras

- Original Message - 
From: Bob W
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras

 Hi,

  Photography seems to be the only profession where it is accepted
that
  one needs little or no technical knowledge to practice the trade.

 I think IT has you beat by a very, very large margin.

Just testing you.

William Robb

I survived GFM!!

2004-06-06 Thread frank theriault

I have no idea if anyone else who was @ GFM has posted yet, 'cause I just
re-subbed.

It all wound down a few hours ago. I'm at a cabin near West Jefferson North
Carolina, spending the night before heading up to Pittsburgh with Mark
Roberts, thence to Toronto.

'T'was a great weekend! Everyone who said they'd be there was. I won't
list everyone, but the overseas contingent were there: Cotty, Tan, Jostein,
Adelheid. Lots of Yanks, too.

They mostly tolerated me and my meanderings, along with my phuzzy photos.
In fact, I think I ~didn't~ win a prize in the
nature/landscape/flower/wildlife photo contest, only because the judges
weren't attuned to my style (such as it is). What is it with these
outdoors types and their fetish for sharpness? Not to mention, I had to
shoot the contest in colour (horrors!) vbg

Seriously, I can't begin to tell y'all how much fun I had. Everyone I met
from the list was terrific - just like on the list, only moreso. And, yes,
Cesar really does have that many cameras, and yes, two LXen really are
snakeskin covered.

So, tell me, anyone from GFM post yet?
Anyway, Mark and I may try to get some pics posted tonight (but may not be
able to), however, tomorrow night from Pittsburgh for sure.

cheers,
frank

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

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

RE: Dpreview - New SLR

2004-06-06 Thread Jens Bladt

This is great news. Hopefully this new camera can make high qualitay
pictures - like the Nikon D70, which - in some respects  - beats more
expensive models?


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


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juni 2004 22:07
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Dpreview - New SLR


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04060601pentax900dslr.asp

I don't know if this is already old news, haven't been following you
guys today,.

/Henri

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

2004-06-06 Thread David Nelson

*prays*
Please Pentax, don't let it be silver.
Silver cameras are just so uncool. Unless it looks like an old chrome 
pentax, of course, retro is definitely cool (-:

Seriously, I think that this camera could be good for pentax right now. 
When it gets more definite I'll do the rounds of the local camera stores 
and try and get them excited about it. I'm sick of discovering that a 
store does indeed stock the *ist D but has it tucked away in the corner 
somewhere.
David

Jens Bladt wrote:
This is great news. Hopefully this new camera can make high qualitay
pictures - like the Nikon D70, which - in some respects  - beats more
expensive models?
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juni 2004 22:07
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Dpreview - New SLR
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04060601pentax900dslr.asp
I don't know if this is already old news, haven't been following you
guys today,.
/Henri

PAWS Trip to Mt. Rainier

From Friday's trip to Mt. Rainier when I was playing hookey, and Saturday 
too.  As usual for this time of year, the main subject of the park is 
difficult to glimpse.

Comments and critiques welcomed.  All taken with *istD and various lenses.
I unhappily learned that my Zenitar 16mm fisheye will not work on the *istD. 
 No 'A' setting on aperture ring.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=250048
Tom C.

Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)

2004-06-06 Thread Doug Franklin

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:22:55 -0500, Treena wrote:

 I'm right-handed but left-eye dominant. It hasn't been terribly important
 with cameras, but on the shooting range it does make a pronounced
 difference. I really don't think camera-users notice it much, but when
 you're trying to sight down a barrel, there is an issue of parallax - same
 as with point-n-shoot viewfinders. (I had to learn to shoot left-handed,
 too. I'm too near-sighted in my right eye to make it work!)

I'm not sure which of my eyes is dominant.  I never thought twice about
using my right eye for shooting guns.  In fact, it's really weird to me
to try to use my left eye for shooting (pistols, of course, it'd be
tough to do that with a rifle). But the camera prism naturally ends
up in front of my left eye, though I use either one depending on my
position.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: photography vs cameras

2004-06-06 Thread Doug Franklin

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:41:53 -0600, William Robb wrote:

 I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of
 some sort. I like fixing things.

Well, if you get a Miata, you'll have a reliable British sports car. 
That's the upside and the downside.  You'll get a lot of the British
sports car experience (minus Lucas electronics and oil wherever it
goes) but the bugger will be pretty darned reliable, so you won't have
anything you have to work on most of the time.  But there's plenty of
aftermarket stuff for them, up to turbos.  Or you could stuff a small
block V8 in it (most people who do this seem to use Fords for some
reason, usually a 302 or 5.0).

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: photography vs cameras

- Original Message - 
From: Doug Franklin 
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras

 On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:41:53 -0600, William Robb wrote:

  I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of
  some sort. I like fixing things.

 Well, if you get a Miata, you'll have a reliable British sports
car.

I thought they missed the boat when they put an inline 4 instead of a
Wankel into the Miata.
They fixed that issue with the RX-8 though.

William Robb

Back home again

2004-06-06 Thread Bill Owens

Just got home from a fantastic weekend with PDML'ers on Grandfather
Mountain.  There will be more later (we're exhausted) and I'm sure over the
next few days more attendees will be signing on with comments.  We have to
unpack, but here is a link to yesterday's group photo.

http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=80

Bill

Re: An image for list appraisal

2004-06-06 Thread John Coyle

Thanks Jose, I'll try that.  I got the manual out last night for the first
time too!

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Jose R. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:57 AM
Subject: RE: An image for list appraisal

 John,

 I have the same video card on an IBM P76 Monitor and I notice the same
 banded look the other day.  I have since changed the settings on the
display
 settings to True Color (32 Bit) and it now displays correctly.  You may
want
 to check your settings and make sure it is not set at High Color (16 Bit)
or
 lower.

 Regards,

 Jose R. Rodriguez
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Pflugerville, TX

 -Original Message-
 From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 12:44 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: An image for list appraisal

 Haven't yet read anyone else's views, but I like the image very much Rob.
 On my Hitachi LCD screen with an NVIDIA GeForce4 MX440 adapter, the image
of
 the sun looks a little 'banded', with distinct separation at the colour
 boundaries (hope this make sense!).  The image as a whole doesn't come
 across as super sharp, although it doesn't pixellate at higher
 magnification.  Photoshop LE had a problem with the JPEG algorithm, and
 refused to open it: I think this is due to it's being an older version of
 the program though.

 HTH

 John Coyle
 Brisbane, Australia
 - Original Message -
 From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:46 PM
 Subject: An image for list appraisal

  I've just finished tweaking an image (I think), if you have the time
 please let
  me know what you think?

  http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp3715.jpg

  Tech: *ist D, 31/1.8, f8, 1/800th, ISO200. Gamma adjusted with curves
 tool,
  local contrast increased using USM (radius 10). (file size about 250kB)

  Cheers,

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

Re: photography vs cameras

2004-06-06 Thread Doug Franklin

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:01:38 -0600, William Robb wrote:

 I thought they missed the boat when they put an inline 4
 instead of a Wankel into the Miata.
 They fixed that issue with the RX-8 though.

I agree about the rotary in the Miata.  I've heard of 12A and 13B swaps
into a Miata, and lots of people use diffs from 2nd gen RX-7s in
Miatas.  I think Mazda avoided it in the Miata for fuel economy
reasons.  Rotaries, Mazda rotaries, anyway, aren't known as paragons of
fuel economy.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

6x7 Lens Recommendations

I'm pretty close to wasting some money on a 67II system, despite my better 
judgement regarding the future of film.

I'd like some lens recommendations.  I know the 105 is a normal lens.  I'd 
also like at least a wide angle to start.  Is there any difference in build 
quality/image quality between a brand new off the shelf lens and one 
manufactured 10+ years ago for use on a 6x7?

Thanks,
Tom C.

Re: An image for list appraisal

On 5 Jun 2004 at 18:05, Kenneth Waller wrote:

 Not sure what you were trying to achieve, but that sun doesn't look like any sun
 I've ever seen.

Hi Ken,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. If you glance at the sun it's only ever 
an abstract that you see unless you are using appropriate filtration don't you 
agree? So help me to understand you comments: what does the sun look like or 
better why doesn't the sun in my image look like a representation of the sun 
from your perspective? 

Cheers.

On 6 Jun 2004 at 6:56, Boris Liberman wrote:

 Nonetheless, Rob, personally, I really don't like the whole of the sun
 dominating the image. I think I would crop out most of it. But this is
 how I see it. You see it differently.
 
 As such, it is very interesting, very strong technically...
 
 Just my photons g.

Hi Boris,

Your comments and opinion are much appreciated. There seems to be a definite 
polarity of opinions regarding this image, the discussion of which is very 
interesting to me.

Cheers.

On 6 Jun 2004 at 15:43, John Coyle wrote:

 Haven't yet read anyone else's views, but I like the image very much Rob.
 On my Hitachi LCD screen with an NVIDIA GeForce4 MX440 adapter, the image of 
the
 sun looks a little 'banded', with distinct separation at the colour 
boundaries
 (hope this make sense!).  The image as a whole doesn't come across as super
 sharp, although it doesn't pixellate at higher magnification.  Photoshop LE 
had
 a problem with the JPEG algorithm, and refused to open it: I think this is 
due
 to it's being an older version of the program though.

Hi John,

Thanks for taking the time to check and comment on my image. The sun shouldn't 
look banded with hard edges however it does show distinct colour bands. The 
image was saved for web presentation using the PS7 save for web option which 
creates a standard progressive JPG so I'm not sure why your system displayed it 
as you describe, maybe you have a problem with your drives or desk-top colour 
depth?

Back to the image, I think the bands are a product of sensor saturation, maybe 
the image would appear more realistic if the colour in the sun was unified? I'm 
also not sure why the image looks unsharp to you as I really can't see any 
problems here. You should be able to see the first and second sprinkler heads 
pretty clearly and tree branches far into the background?

Cheers.

On 6 Jun 2004 at 13:08, Jens Bladt wrote:

 Brilliant, awesome photograph. Interesting that yoy can get the sun as well 
as
 the special delicat light in the water spray rendered nicely at the same 
time.

Hi Jens,

Thanks, the intention was to try to combine these elements which are pretty 
much inseparable in this context. I just didn't know what was possible using 
digital media so technically it looks successful I guess.

Cheers.

On 6 Jun 2004 at 8:45, Larry Hodgson wrote:

 Very nice image Robb. I don't normally like really bright areas in images,
 but the sun works well in this one. Nice job. Well done.

Hi Larry,

Thanks for the feedback, I value your opinion as a landscape photographer.

Cheers to all,


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

RE: PAWS Trip to Mt. Rainier

2004-06-06 Thread Amita Guha

 I unhappily learned that my Zenitar 16mm fisheye will not 
 work on the *istD. 
   No 'A' setting on aperture ring.

Thanks for letting me know that before I bought the lens, Tom! :)

You might be interested to know that I tried Adorama's fisheye
attachment in the store, and it does indeed look like a true fisheye at
around 28mm or wider. However, on the istD you'd probably have to put it
on something like an 18mm or wider.

Amita

Baby D...

2004-06-06 Thread Dr. Shaun Canning

Hot off  the Press...
http://www.dpreview.com/
Cheers
Shaun

Dr. Shaun Canning
Archaeologist
Cultural Heritage Services
P.O. Box 21, Dampier,
6713.
0414-967644
Http://www.heritageservices.com.au

Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

2004-06-06 Thread Mark Dalal

From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 I'm pretty close to wasting some money on a 67II system, despite my better
 judgement regarding the future of film.

 I'd like some lens recommendations.  I know the 105 is a normal lens.  I'd
 also like at least a wide angle to start.  Is there any difference in
build
 quality/image quality between a brand new off the shelf lens and one
 manufactured 10+ years ago for use on a 6x7?

The latest 55/4 is the cat's meow. You can find them used fairly easily.

Mark

Re: photography vs cameras

2004-06-06 Thread Paul Stenquist

Touche.
On Jun 6, 2004, at 2:57 PM, Shawn K. wrote:
Yes, of course you are all exactly right.  It's funny though, I've  
never
seen a shot as good as this one in an online gallery despite all the  
new
gadgets:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/ 
adams_clearing_winter_storm_fu
ll.html

And then there is this shot, of course, the person is clearly using an
inferior camera, I mean look at it, I can think of a million ways USM  
would
have made this 10x better:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_mckinley_full.html
Or, if only the camera had automatically scratch your rear while you  
scratch
your head and groan mode, this shot could have been vastly improved:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/gallery/gal_ansel_10.html

Now, I dare you to find a better shot here:
http://www.pbase.com/galleries
Have fun!!!
-Shawn


-Original Message-
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras

I knew _someone_ was going to say that.  I had a good idea who, too.
Personally I think there is a far closer parallel between contemporary
image capture technology and the new oven we've just installed.  We'll
use most of the capabilities - different 'exposure modes' (bake, broil,
convection, temperature probe, and various combinations thereof), the
faster frame rate (or is that double exposure?) possible with a twin
oven, etc.  There are a few bells and whistles we'll never use; it has
a handful of 'green' cooking modes (and even has 'exposure  
compensation'
in case you're cooking in unusual conditions, or if your recipes were
developed working with a stove with an inaccurate temperature setting).

Sure, it's possible to produce great meals using a wood-fired stove.
But it's a whole lot easier to take advantage of what modern technology
offers.  The best dishes still come from someone who can use experience
to know when to stray from the rote following of a recipe.  But there's
little you can do with the old equipment that you can't do with the  
new,
and a great deal of new opportunities the new technology provides.


And maybe there's a corollary in contemporary photo imaging LOL
Shel Belinkoff

[Original Message]
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Many years (and a couple of kitchens) ago we bought a microwave oven
that used magnetic cards to store cooking programs.  You just picked
the card you wanted, stuck it in the slot, and pushed start.  There
was even a way to program your own cards.
By the time we replaced it, some 15 years later, I don't think we'd
ever used the capability.  It was just easier to enter the time.

Regarding Zenitar NON-A lenses on *istD

W. Robb kindly informed me of the following...
Tom, upgrade the camera's firmware to the most recent (I think it is 
rev1.11). This allows the camera to operate quite nicely with non A 
lenses, as it makes metering possible. Also, make sure that the custom 
function to allow shutter release with the lens off A is enabled.
With that said, I'm pretty happy with the quality from the Zenitar... not 
the best I'm sure, but a lot of bang for the buck.


Tom C.


From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PAWS Trip to Mt. Rainier
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:39:58 -0400
 I unhappily learned that my Zenitar 16mm fisheye will not
 work on the *istD.
   No 'A' setting on aperture ring.
Thanks for letting me know that before I bought the lens, Tom! :)
You might be interested to know that I tried Adorama's fisheye
attachment in the store, and it does indeed look like a true fisheye at
around 28mm or wider. However, on the istD you'd probably have to put it
on something like an 18mm or wider.
Amita

RE: An image for list appraisal

On 5 Jun 2004 at 23:12, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

 Hi ...
 
 I sometimes don't know what you're looking for in the way of comments, Rob. This
 photo is an example of that confusion.  Are you wanting a comment on the
 technical merits of the photo, or the artistic and photographic value? When you,
 and others, post all the technical information about a photo, the details often
 get in the way of seeing the photo.

Hi Shel,

As always I value your comments, you've no problem cutting to the chase. I 
simply asked for opinions yours is as valuable as any other persons. If you 
want to discuss technicalities or composition I'm all ears, I wasn't specific 
in my request so as not to stifle comment. I always try to include technical 
information as I'm often asked if I don't. I certainly don't see it as getting 
in the way of seeing a photo, this isn't a gallery it's a photography 
discussion forum, if you in particular aren't interested in the technicalities 
I'd suggest you try to read past them. Other people may well be interested, 
they might not have considered it possible or may want to try something 
similar, the technical details can only help in those instances don't you 
think?

  Here we have a technical problem, dealing
 with the sun, which you seem to have handled pretty well. Yet it's the sun that
 ruins what might have been a fine photograph.  The pattern of the sprinklers
 catching the sun is the photograph.  The sun, as a visual element, is a major
 distraction, and technically the flare degrades the best part of the photo. 
 What I'm trying to say is that the sprinklers are strong enough to stand alone
 as a photo.  The sun, in every way, artistically and technically relegate the
 photo to little more than a snapshop.  

OK I can definitely see where you are coming from here, I would definitely 
liked to have walked away with more photos with the sun in and out of the frame 
however what you see is pretty much what I had time to get so unfortunately I 
can't do a great deal about it now. I don't mind the flare so much as I feel 
that it imparts a degree of reality on the image, looking into the sun without 
the camera I saw pretty much the same thing.

 And, since I mentioned it, and speaking just for myself, the technical info
 means nothing and often takes away from the image.  Good art should be seamless.
  The viewer should only be concerned with the image, not all the details and
 work that went into making it.  It's the final result that counts.  When i see a
 fine piece of carpentry, it matters not a whit what hammer and grit sandpaper
 was used.  What matters is the result.

Along the lines of my previous comment, this ain't no art gallery :-)

 What I sometimes feel is that by posting all the technical stuff, the
 photographer is saying Look at how clever I am, how I was able to use this tool
 or technique to make this photo.  And, I suppose, for some people that's
 important.

Do you not do just that WRT photo technique by showing us how clever you are 
with your people photography? Often for me you photos contain little more than 
an indication that you are more willing than I to violate other peoples 
personal space, this is just my perspective of course. Other of your images I 
really enjoy and I tell you so.

 Anyway, lose the sun.

Too late in this case.

Cheers,


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

Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

- Original Message - 
From: Tom C
Subject: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

 I'm pretty close to wasting some money on a 67II system, despite my
better
 judgement regarding the future of film.

 I'd like some lens recommendations.  I know the 105 is a normal
lens.  I'd
 also like at least a wide angle to start.  Is there any difference
in build
 quality/image quality between a brand new off the shelf lens and
one
 manufactured 10+ years ago for use on a 6x7?

They are all pretty good.
The old Tak 75mm f/4.5 is prone to flare, but is very sharp, the new
75mm f/2.8 is most excellent, according to Aaron Reynolds (former
list member from Ontario).
I don't know about the 55mm lenses, the SMC 45mm f/4 is superb,
though Rob Studdert didn't think it was as good as he would have
liked.
I don't recall what it was he didn't like.
The 135 macro is excellent, as is the 150mm in either of it's
emulations.
The 165mm LS and 90mm LS are also both excellent lenses.
The 200mm Tak isn't the greatest, the new SMC one is apparently very
good indeed, as is the SMC 300mm f/4.

William Robb

Re: Regarding Zenitar NON-A lenses on *istD

- Original Message - 
From: Tom C
Subject: Regarding Zenitar  NON-A lenses on *istD

 With that said, I'm pretty happy with the quality from the
Zenitar... not
 the best I'm sure, but a lot of bang for the buck.

I was quite impressed with the Zenitar. I thought it was quite sharp,
and it didn't seem at all prone to flare. My only complaint was that
it's colour rendition was almost cartoonlike.
Very contrasty lens.
I found a Tak 17mm fisheye, and sold the Zenitar, as I couldn't
justify keeping two fisheye lenses.

William Robb

Re: Holy Latte Grande

2004-06-06 Thread Kenneth Waller

Paul, a recent article in Autoweek explained that there were several of
these in existence and even mentioned an outfit that would make one for you.
I saw this one in Northville a few weeks ago.
BTW, channel 4, at 6 pm, talked about the capture, at that carnival, of a
suspected murderer from out of state that was turned in by a visitor to the
carnival that recognized his face  from a most wanted TV show.

Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: PAW: Holy Latte Grande


 I drove to Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon to shoot a few pictures
 at a carnival. I stopped at Starbucks first, as is my custom, for my
 cup of dark roast. I was joined by an unexpected visitor.
 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2421815

Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

On 6 Jun 2004 at 17:54, William Robb wrote:

 I don't know about the 55mm lenses, the SMC 45mm f/4 is superb,
 though Rob Studdert didn't think it was as good as he would have
 liked.

It was pretty good for sure it's just not as sharp or as light as my current 
43mm/4.5 Mamiya 7 glass. It definitely wasn't as sharp as my 50mm/1.2 lens when 
used on the 35mm body with adaptor, and we know that lens is a dog :-)

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/mfv35lenstest/

I used my A50/1.2 on the *ist D quite extensively over the weekend, they make a 
great combo.

Cheers,


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

Re: photography vs cameras

On 6 Jun 2004 at 19:52, Paul Stenquist wrote:

 Touche.

I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't images to rival St. Ansels in on-
line galleries (considering the capabilities of the media). 

Why there seems to be such a belief that only the past photographers like Ansel 
and HCB were capable of art is beyond me?


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

RE: An image for list appraisal

To me the sun was an integral part of the image, funny looking or not!  
Actually I like the way it looks.  It reinforces the 'story', if there is 
one...  Hot sun = Need for Water...

Looks like a commercial water conservation photo, or more a Water Utility 
promo... We bring you what you need... H20, it's good for life.


Tom C.


From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: An image for list appraisal
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:53:57 +1000
On 5 Jun 2004 at 23:12, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
 Hi ...

 I sometimes don't know what you're looking for in the way of comments, 
Rob. This
 photo is an example of that confusion.  Are you wanting a comment on the
 technical merits of the photo, or the artistic and photographic value? 
When you,
 and others, post all the technical information about a photo, the 
details often
 get in the way of seeing the photo.

Hi Shel,
As always I value your comments, you've no problem cutting to the chase. I
simply asked for opinions yours is as valuable as any other persons. If you
want to discuss technicalities or composition I'm all ears, I wasn't 
specific
in my request so as not to stifle comment. I always try to include 
technical
information as I'm often asked if I don't. I certainly don't see it as 
getting
in the way of seeing a photo, this isn't a gallery it's a photography
discussion forum, if you in particular aren't interested in the 
technicalities
I'd suggest you try to read past them. Other people may well be interested,
they might not have considered it possible or may want to try something
similar, the technical details can only help in those instances don't you
think?

  Here we have a technical problem, dealing
 with the sun, which you seem to have handled pretty well. Yet it's the 
sun that
 ruins what might have been a fine photograph.  The pattern of the 
sprinklers
 catching the sun is the photograph.  The sun, as a visual element, is a 
major
 distraction, and technically the flare degrades the best part of the 
photo.
 What I'm trying to say is that the sprinklers are strong enough to stand 
alone
 as a photo.  The sun, in every way, artistically and technically 
relegate the
 photo to little more than a snapshop.

OK I can definitely see where you are coming from here, I would definitely
liked to have walked away with more photos with the sun in and out of the 
frame
however what you see is pretty much what I had time to get so unfortunately 
I
can't do a great deal about it now. I don't mind the flare so much as I 
feel
that it imparts a degree of reality on the image, looking into the sun 
without
the camera I saw pretty much the same thing.

 And, since I mentioned it, and speaking just for myself, the technical 
info
 means nothing and often takes away from the image.  Good art should be 
seamless.
  The viewer should only be concerned with the image, not all the details 
and
 work that went into making it.  It's the final result that counts.  When 
i see a
 fine piece of carpentry, it matters not a whit what hammer and grit 
sandpaper
 was used.  What matters is the result.

Along the lines of my previous comment, this ain't no art gallery :-)
 What I sometimes feel is that by posting all the technical stuff, the
 photographer is saying Look at how clever I am, how I was able to use 
this tool
 or technique to make this photo.  And, I suppose, for some people 
that's
 important.

Do you not do just that WRT photo technique by showing us how clever you 
are
with your people photography? Often for me you photos contain little more 
than
an indication that you are more willing than I to violate other peoples
personal space, this is just my perspective of course. Other of your images 
I
really enjoy and I tell you so.

 Anyway, lose the sun.
Too late in this case.
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PAWS Trip to Mt. Rainier

On 6 Jun 2004 at 16:48, Tom C wrote:

 I unhappily learned that my Zenitar 16mm fisheye will not work on the *istD. 
   No 'A' setting on aperture ring.

Why is this, can't you use it with the new firmware green button kludge?

 http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=250048

Damn photo.net seems to be on one of it's go-slows at the moment.


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

PAW, of sorts.

Well, not a PAW, per se.
A local fellow learned a lesson about Canada Geese though.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/goose_attack.jpg 

William Robb

Re: An image for list appraisal

2004-06-06 Thread Kenneth Waller

Rob,
If you glance at the sun it's only ever an abstract that you see unless you
are using appropriate filtration don't you agree?
No. I have shot many sunrises and sunsets without filters and  achieved good
representations of the sun under those conditions.

Unfortunately I no longer have the URL to your photo and need to look at it
again to completely answer
what does the sun look like or better why doesn't the sun in my image
look like a representation of the sun from your perspective?
However I can say that from what I remember of your image, that overall it
was not an abstraction and there fore I expected the sun to have a more
realistic appearance.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: An image for list appraisal


 On 5 Jun 2004 at 18:05, Kenneth Waller wrote:

  Not sure what you were trying to achieve, but that sun doesn't look like
any sun
  I've ever seen.

 Hi Ken,

 Thanks for taking the time to comment. If you glance at the sun it's only
ever
 an abstract that you see unless you are using appropriate filtration don't
you
 agree? So help me to understand you comments: what does the sun look
like or
 better why doesn't the sun in my image look like a representation of the
sun
 from your perspective?

 Cheers.

Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

- Original Message - 
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

 It was pretty good for sure it's just not as sharp or as light as
my current
 43mm/4.5 Mamiya 7 glass. It definitely wasn't as sharp as my
50mm/1.2 lens when
 used on the 35mm body with adaptor, and we know that lens is a dog
:-)

There are fewer design compromises in the Mamiya lens, no surprise it
is better.
The A50/1.2 is a very good lens, once stopped down a wee bit, as your
test shows.
Wide open, it is better than the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2.
I find it a wonderful lens on the istD as well, although I did buy an
FA50mm f/1.4 so as to be able to take advantage of some of the istD
features that the A series can't access.

William Robb

PAW - My first

2004-06-06 Thread Henri Toivonen

I thought I'll throw in some PAW's myself too.
These are some recent scans of some b/w ones I have developed and copied 
myself.
Scanned in with a lowsy flatbed scanner, so don't whine about the 
quality. :-)

http://www.bicekru.org/~eatfrog/pics/newpics/pentax/bw/
Thanks,
  Henri

Re: Back home again

2004-06-06 Thread graywolf

There will be a prize for anyone who can identify Frank in that image.
--
Bill Owens wrote:
Just got home from a fantastic weekend with PDML'ers on Grandfather
Mountain.  There will be more later (we're exhausted) and I'm sure over the
next few days more attendees will be signing on with comments.  We have to
unpack, but here is a link to yesterday's group photo.
http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=80
Bill

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

I'm Back!

After ten days in Florida, two days home, and four days at Grandfather
Mountain (henceforth to be known as The Great PDML Gathering of 2004 at
Grandfather Mountain), I'm back on the list.

Photos to be linked laterMANY of them.

Cory


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004

Re: What I asked for

2004-06-06 Thread Herb Chong

my *istD's shutter release fires even when the memory card is full. it seems
to do everything except actually save the image because there is no memory.
my Nikon PS digital cameras refuse to release the shutter when the memory
card is full.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: George Sinos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: What I asked for

 Earlier  Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  the Nikon cameras...if
 the memory card is full, the camera tells you by not allowing you to take
 the picture, unlike the *istD, which requires you to look at the back
panel
 LCD to see the Memory Full message.

 I'm not sure what you're getting at Herb.  When the memory card is full,
 the frame counter in the *istD viewfinder indicates 0.  It also flashes
 when you can't take a picture due to a full buffer.  In both situations
the
 shutter release is disabled.  There isn't anything that makes you believe
 you're taking a picture when you can't.

Re: I'm Back!

TEST
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 9:03 PM
Subject: I'm Back!

 After ten days in Florida, two days home, and four days at Grandfather
 Mountain (henceforth to be known as The Great PDML Gathering of 2004 at
 Grandfather Mountain), I'm back on the list.

 Photos to be linked laterMANY of them.

 Cory

 ---
 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
 Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
 Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004

Re: I'm Back!

Testing a new filter...sorry
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: I'm Back!


 TEST
 - Original Message - 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 9:03 PM
 Subject: I'm Back!


  After ten days in Florida, two days home, and four days at Grandfather
  Mountain (henceforth to be known as The Great PDML Gathering of 2004 at
  Grandfather Mountain), I'm back on the list.
 
  Photos to be linked laterMANY of them.
 
  Cory
 
 
  ---
  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004
 
 


 ---
 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
 Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
 Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004

Re: I'm Back!

Last time, I promise.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004

RE: PAW, of sorts.