RE: PESO: Grace...
Hi Tim that's an easy one for me: Enlarge *all* of them and some more, they are al good. She will really love you for that later greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:38 PM To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: PESO: Grace... Hello all... Last month, I had my youngest daughter spend some time in front of the camera with the intention of giving an enlargement to my wife as an anniversary present. I've gotta hand it to pros to do this for a living: the patience of a saint is required to get good photos of babies. Anyway, the time seems to have been well spent, and now I need some help choosing which frame I enlarge: http://www.sherb.org/family/grace/ There's I've narrowed it down to three, although I'm probably not going to pick the more humorous one. Let me know which you think is the best of the bunch. Tech specs: ZX-M, SMC-A 50/1.4, Portra 400 BW, natural lighting, Noritsu hi-res scans. t -- Tim Sherburne Director of Technology 360-260-1995 or 800-833-4678 HOSTS Learning - www.hosts.com
RE: PAW - Best Friends
Hi Shel glad you are still or again here. Without your description this picture does not tell me a lot and for an arranged shot it is not well composed too. sorry, not this time ;-) Markus -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - Best Friends Another portrait from the series on Shattuck Avenue. This woman recently lost her husband, her kids are scattered about the globe, and many of her friends and immediate family have moved away or passed on. Yet her best friend is always there for support and comfort. Maybe this portrait captures a little of that bond. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/shattuck/bestfriend.html Shel
RE: PAW - Gail
Hi Shel Interesting profession, palm reading. Are they tolerated to do that on the streets in Berkley? I would like to see the writing better and less off the right background. You missed the angle a bit for me but the subject is indeed interesting and well seen. thanks for sharing it Markus -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - Gail http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/shattuck/palm01.html Part of an ongoing series of life on Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley.
RE: PAW - My Son's First
Hi Norm Hey, I just eye witnessed how those great photographers careers probably start. Or maybe that photo gene virus in your family gets active now. greetings to Lukas from chocolate country. Markus -Original Message- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - My Son's First This is the first picture taken by my son. I put it on the tripod, but he insisted on setting up the flash, composition, focus and subject (his twin sister). I think Frank will like this one. http://home.earthlink.net/~nbaugher/Lukas1st.html Norm (Please keep in mind he just turned three yrs. old)
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
I cant see any point in you tryingf the M 135/3.5 Don if like with the Takumar you will only take your own impressions if they are backed up by those of others as you have done here. A. On 7/8/04 8:39 am, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Fred, good answers. I noticed that the M 135/3.5 is pretty inexpensive, I'll try one some day. BTW: Don't let you know who bother you, I don't. It seems the longer you're on this list the more he dislikes you. Don -Original Message- From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 Hi, Don. Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens Christian seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people being fond of it. I think that both extremes that you mention are fairly common. I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, contrast and sharpness seem good though. And, because of these factors, it can make a pretty decent lens for portraits, except for certain outdoor situations, perhaps. I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this. I'd rather use the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 than the A 135/2.8. The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of course handle sun in its face much better. I did some comparison shooting with the K 135/2.5 (my second favorite 135) and the Tak Bayonet 135/2.5, and it was actually not too easy to find a situation where the cheapie 135/2.5 was woefully worse for flare. There is a difference in coatings (and, perhaps, internal blackening, and/or baffling - I don't know), but the Tak Bayonet is not an uncoated piece of Coke bottle glass, either. I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a cheaply built consumer lens, the build quality seems excellent to me. It's really not too bad, all in all, but the K 135/2.5 simply feels a lot nicer in the hand, for my tastes. (YMMV) Have I just not experienced a Great 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? It's easy to kick around an inexpensive lens, simply because it's not a premium lens. However, considering the price that they are going for, I think that the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 gives a lot of bang for the buck. If only it didn't have those silly multicolored markings on the barrel... g Fred
Re: first question
Hello there, I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I might learn a lot more from using film. I just bought a K 1000 off ebay with the 50/1:2 lens. I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round things out. Hi Paul and welcome. I have not read all the replies,but i have several K1000 cameras in the Lowepro and really like them. I used the 80-200 f 4.5-5.6 for a number of years and got great results from it. Its not overly expensive and should be worth checking out. I also have the SMC A 70-210 F4 which works well and does a decent job at macro to. I have the M 135 f 3.5 and find i dont mind that one for closeups. These cameras are little tank.I think you;ll like it. Dave Brooks www.caughtinmotion.com And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens? My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks Paul
Re: Interesting article
film camera figures for Japan show that over there, film camera sales have dropped over 50% since last year and show every sign of dropping even faster. the fastest drop, as expected, are in PS cameras. Pentax, the 5th largest in sales, lost over 2% of its film camera market share to just over 7%. that means they sold just about 100K film cameras of all types in Japan last year since total domestic sales by all vendors was just over 1.4M. Herb... - Original Message - From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 1:59 AM Subject: Interesting article http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04073002camerasales.asp
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Don askes: Have I just not experienced a Great 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? Don, I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 was best, followed by the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last place. I could see the differences on 4x6 prints. I think the issue is that the M135/3.5 is so good and cheap, why waist your time with the Takumar bayonet? Some folks have stumbled into these lenses and use them as their 135mm prime. The results are OK if that's the only 135mm prime you have and probably beat that zoom everyone else is using. Regards, Bob S.
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don askes: Have I just not experienced a Great 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? Don, I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 was best, followed by the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last place. I could see the differences on 4x6 prints. I think the issue is that the M135/3.5 is so good and cheap I got one for about $22 last week. :-) /Henri
RE: Interesting article
Yes, thanks for sharing that article. Look who the players are: The top vendors in the digital camera market are Sony, Canon, Kodak, Olympus, Fuji, HP, and Nikon, ranked in terms of 2003 U.S. unit share. Each of these players captures more than 5% market share, and other players capture individual market shares of less than 5%. Sony and Canon are the market leaders with nearly equal unit shares. These players are expected to remain the leaders through 2004 Several electronics companies that were never in photography before. And Sony shares the lead with Canon. John Power Racehorse in the desert -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Interesting article http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04073002camerasales.asp
feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5
I have the SMC 500/4.5 K mount version of the SMC Takumar 500/4.5, and I'm very happy with it. AFIK, it is exactly the same as the Tak version, and since it has a manual aperture (not controlled by the body), it makes little difference which you get. I use my SMC 500/4.5 straight up, and with the Rear Converter-A 2X-S, 2X-L and 1.4X-L teleconverters. The images are excellent. I don't have experience with APO/ED big glass lenses, but those who do rate the 500/4.5 very highly, see: http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/equipment_review.html http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/ SPLOSdb (at www.jcolwell.ca) has three prices from $500 [E] to $790 [M] for the SMCT 500/4.5 over the past six months, and the SMC 500/4.5 is selling for $560 [E] to $890 [M], and you can still get it new for $2314.95 at BH. The lens does not have apochromatic glass (i.e. usually called ED or APO) which means that different wavelengths don't focus at the same plane (the film). One consequence is that an intense and small white light in the image can become partially separated into its constituent colours, and show a 'rainbow' effect. The only time that I have ever seen this is when I tested the 500/4.5 with extension tubes to see how close I could get it to focus; normal Dmin = 10m, you can get it down to about Dmin = 2.6m with 107mm of tube. When the tubes get longer than about 50mm, you start to see the light fractionation - it gets kind of bizarre (and really cool) with 107mm of tubes (it has a magnification greater than 1 - a superduper macro). It is not a problem for me. At f/4.5, the finder image is bright and easy to focus on LX, SuperProgram, MZ-5N and MZ-7 bodies. I have not used it with a *istD, but would be happy to if you send one to me. You have to remember to focus wide open and then 'stop-down' (if required) to take the pic, but this should not be a problem - you have to be deliberate with a lens this big - no PS snapshots (well, I've done a few ...). I normally use mine on a Manfrotto 055GS tripod with a Manfrotto 3421 heavy lens support gimbal head, and the big 3272 quick release plate (BTW the picture of this head at BH is wrong, the internal swing-frame should be down, inside the fixed external frame). It works really well, but you have to take care to level the tripod if you want to pan. Try it a few times on a ball head (with caution) and you'll see why a different support solution is required. The only drawback with the moving rear element focus is if you use a camera support as well as the lens tripod mount. I sometimes use the Manfrotto 3252 long lens support, with a quick release on the micro ball, for additional support when using one or two teleconverters - you have to loosen the strut when focusing. BTW, you have to be careful with the 'basket mount' filter holder, lest your camera or worse hits the ground (see the MZ-5N on my site). This lens is a great way to get into super telephotos. This type of lens has many more uses than simply 'things that move' (which it can do). The narrow angle of view image compression and shallow DOF are fascinating. Jim www.jcolwell.ca
RE: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Thanks Bob, apparently the 135/2.8s I've tried have been SO bad that it made this one look good. ;-) That's why I threw this question out there. Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 6:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 Don askes: Have I just not experienced a Great 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? Don, I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 was best, followed by the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last place. I could see the differences on 4x6 prints. I think the issue is that the M135/3.5 is so good and cheap, why waist your time with the Takumar bayonet? Some folks have stumbled into these lenses and use them as their 135mm prime. The results are OK if that's the only 135mm prime you have and probably beat that zoom everyone else is using. Regards, Bob S.
Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)
I have great results with a Manfrotto joystick head (222) on my Manfrotto compact monopod (479-4/LA24). The joystick does not produce gentle smooth movement, but gives all of the motion required. If you need long exposure times, you can get better support by angling the monopod towards you - place the foot of the monopod about 12 in front of your feet - the top of the pod leans against your chest and the head itself gives the camera attitude you want. The joystick head also allows you to carry relatively big/heavy lenses with ease. The head will go to 90 deg from the monopod, and so the lens becomes parallel with the monopod. You use the joystick head as the handle, and both the pod and lens hang straight down. Jim www.jcolwell.ca
Pentax 1.7X AF Adapter
Hello, I have a friend who is considering moving into AF Pentax film SLR from MF Super Program. She has the excellent A 35-105 f3.5, A 50 f2.0 in addition to a Gemini 28 f2.8. I have recommended the ZX-L due to budget constraints (otherwise I'd recommend the MZ-S). My question is: How well will the Pentax 1.7X AF adapter work with these lenses? She is considering purchasing this instead of buying AF lenses at this time. I assume there will be a light loss making an f2.0 into an f4.0, etc. What are opinions good/bad about the ZX-L? From my reading it has impressive specs. Thanks in advance, Robert
RE: PESO:more from my journeys on the MS Silvretta 1981
Markus: I have always been interested in ships in general, and the people who crew them. It is fascinating, to me, to see the large ships ply the seas. Now, if you have some pictures from, oh, say, the early 1800s, that would be good, too very big grin. Seeing your pictures from your point of view was great on two counts: from a personal interest level, and from the picture's point of view (which I think are pretty good). As for cropping grin, it is YOUR picture; you should decide how it should be presented, and everyone else can either like it or not, at their will. grin (I shall be purchasing a scanner within a couple of weeks; then I can return the PESO.) Thanks! david -Original Message- From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 12:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PESO:more from my journeys on the MS Silvretta 1981 Hi David Glad you like them. Soon more.., I have to retouch the colors and sharpness, but no cropping here :-) I asked because I have such a strong personal relationsship with the photos than I can not really jugde how interesting they really are for this audience. And, whe recently had the dubious pleasure of been forced of sorts to read some really strange stuff here What exactly do you mean by point of view you are interested in ? Some example pics to show your views? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: David Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PESO:more from my journeys on the MS Silvretta 1981 Markus: I, for one, really enjoyed the pictures. You captured a point of view I have long been interested in, and, well, I found them very well done and interesting. So, my answer is yes! (besides: you have a captive audience, of sorts grin) david http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588518 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004
RE: Pentax 1.7X AF Adapter
Hi Robert. It will turn the 50 into an 85 F3.4, and the 28 into a 47 F4.8, both should work fine. The 35-105 becomes an F6 and may not autofocus very well, anything over 5.6 seems iffy. I just tried the converter on a 70-210/3.5 and wasn't pleased, sometimes it focused OK, sometimes not. This was on a ZX-5n, the ZX-L mileage may vary. It's a great converter but you do need to pre-focus to get in the ballpark, it will take over from there. My favorite use for it was to turn a 50/1.4 into a sort of 85/2.4 macro. The ZX-L (MZ-6) has recieved good reviews but I've never tried one. Keep in mind the 1.7x is usually rather hard to find and pricey. Don -Original Message- From: Robert Woerner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax 1.7X AF Adapter Hello, I have a friend who is considering moving into AF Pentax film SLR from MF Super Program. She has the excellent A 35-105 f3.5, A 50 f2.0 in addition to a Gemini 28 f2.8. I have recommended the ZX-L due to budget constraints (otherwise I'd recommend the MZ-S). My question is: How well will the Pentax 1.7X AF adapter work with these lenses? She is considering purchasing this instead of buying AF lenses at this time. I assume there will be a light loss making an f2.0 into an f4.0, etc. What are opinions good/bad about the ZX-L? From my reading it has impressive specs. Thanks in advance, Robert
Re: cost per mm
- Original Message - Subject: Re: cost per mm The Pentax 15mm f/3.5 that I just enabled myself with was right in the US$100/mm range. Good stuff ain't cheap. William Robb Depends. A number of Pentax's good old lenses are expensive primarily because of rarity. Similar lenses in Nikon mount are more readily availible, and thus noticeably cheaper. The Nikkor 15/3.5 is a ready example. Compare also K105/2.8 (if you can find one) to the equally legendary Nikkor 105/2.5 (which is still availible new, plus readily availible used). To an extent I was speaking figuratively. I paid Can$125.00 for my K105 a few years back. William Robb
Re: first question
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: first question The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the subject. I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my 125/135mm lenses, portraiture included. I generally try to use the longest lens possible for portraits (within reason). One of the things I like about our new studio is that I can back off and use the 150mm lens (on 35mm) and do half lengths with it. William Robb
Re: first question
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: first question Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a 25mm so it looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal length does not change perspective). I believe DOF is very improtant in portraits, being one of the reasons for using short telephotos for portraits, where you don't want too much DOF, like a perfectly sharp nose or ears. Jens, the post was regarding perspective. Short telephotos for portraits are to keep the subject from suffering from the wonky distortions that you get from shooting too close with a short lens (feature streatching). Try this: stand in the same place and shoot with a short lens, then change to a long lens, using the same aperture on both. Crop the picture from the short lens to match the view of that from the long one. See if they are all that different regarding perspective and depth of field. Hint: They won't be. Anyway, try it yourself. I already have. William Robb
Test
Sorry.
RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5
I disagree about the k and screwmount versions being the same optically and both with same manual aperture and it makes little difference which you get quote. It is much more preferrable to get the screwmount version in that case as it can be used on BOTH screwmount and K-mount bodies, whereas the K version is limited to K bodies only. JCO -Original Message- From: Jim Colwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 8:26 AM To: pdml Subject: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5 I have the SMC 500/4.5 K mount version of the SMC Takumar 500/4.5, and I'm very happy with it. AFIK, it is exactly the same as the Tak version, and since it has a manual aperture (not controlled by the body), it makes little difference which you get. I use my SMC 500/4.5 straight up, and with the Rear Converter-A 2X-S, 2X-L and 1.4X-L teleconverters. The images are excellent. I don't have experience with APO/ED big glass lenses, but those who do rate the 500/4.5 very highly, see: http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/equipment_review.html http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/ SPLOSdb (at www.jcolwell.ca) has three prices from $500 [E] to $790 [M] for the SMCT 500/4.5 over the past six months, and the SMC 500/4.5 is selling for $560 [E] to $890 [M], and you can still get it new for $2314.95 at BH. The lens does not have apochromatic glass (i.e. usually called ED or APO) which means that different wavelengths don't focus at the same plane (the film). One consequence is that an intense and small white light in the image can become partially separated into its constituent colours, and show a 'rainbow' effect. The only time that I have ever seen this is when I tested the 500/4.5 with extension tubes to see how close I could get it to focus; normal Dmin = 10m, you can get it down to about Dmin = 2.6m with 107mm of tube. When the tubes get longer than about 50mm, you start to see the light fractionation - it gets kind of bizarre (and really cool) with 107mm of tubes (it has a magnification greater than 1 - a superduper macro). It is not a problem for me. At f/4.5, the finder image is bright and easy to focus on LX, SuperProgram, MZ-5N and MZ-7 bodies. I have not used it with a *istD, but would be happy to if you send one to me. You have to remember to focus wide open and then 'stop-down' (if required) to take the pic, but this should not be a problem - you have to be deliberate with a lens this big - no PS snapshots (well, I've done a few ...). I normally use mine on a Manfrotto 055GS tripod with a Manfrotto 3421 heavy lens support gimbal head, and the big 3272 quick release plate (BTW the picture of this head at BH is wrong, the internal swing-frame should be down, inside the fixed external frame). It works really well, but you have to take care to level the tripod if you want to pan. Try it a few times on a ball head (with caution) and you'll see why a different support solution is required. The only drawback with the moving rear element focus is if you use a camera support as well as the lens tripod mount. I sometimes use the Manfrotto 3252 long lens support, with a quick release on the micro ball, for additional support when using one or two teleconverters - you have to loosen the strut when focusing. BTW, you have to be careful with the 'basket mount' filter holder, lest your camera or worse hits the ground (see the MZ-5N on my site). This lens is a great way to get into super telephotos. This type of lens has many more uses than simply 'things that move' (which it can do). The narrow angle of view image compression and shallow DOF are fascinating. Jim www.jcolwell.ca
Pong Was: [ping]
PONG Bob W wrote: ping
Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
Doug Franklin wrote: On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:53:59 -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: I don't know whether to try to find a gallery that's hip enough to be in on the joke or to try to pass it off seriously at some really pretentious place. Seriously. There's more money in serious. :-) Which just goes to prove the adage Seriousness is stupidity sent to school. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
SB And one guy from Magnum, expressing a personal opinion, now gives rise to a SB generalization of the man's character? Most people, especially successful SB and creative people, have detractors. To bring such a comment into a SB conversation such as this - a conversation about a man's work and SB creativity - tells more about you than HCB. Speak of what you know, of your SB experiences, rather than spread tales told by unnamed characters. Shel, in case you didn't notice, there was a big smiley at the place where I wrote about old fart. Perhaps you should take email lists more lightly, as different people have different kinds of humour. That's what the smileys are for. If you really think I was generalizing about HCB, well, I can't help your opinion. Read my post again. Anybody falling for that tale about HCB and drawing 100% conclusion about HCB from it would be IMNSHO stupid. It's clear that it's a light comment used to pepper the discussion about an Icon. What was the my post about, in case you didn't notice, is how the religiosity around HCB is detrimental to perception of his work. Perhaps you would like to discuss this, what I wrote about? Frantisek
Re:Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]
PING Peter J. Alling wrote: PONG Bob W wrote: ping
Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
On 7 Aug 2004 at 17:22, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: What was the my post about, in case you didn't notice, is how the religiosity around HCB is detrimental to perception of his work. Perhaps you would like to discuss this, what I wrote about? I hope the controversial cropping issue won't delay his beatification. 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: Tokina 80-200/2.8
F I've heard that the Tamron is quite nice (although I'm quite happy F enough with my AT-X 80-200/2.8). The only thing that keeps me from F the Tamron Adaptall 2 lenses is the Ka version of the mount - while F I've found the K version to be quite rugged and foolproof (as in F Fred-proof) to use, I've also found the Ka version to be less than F reliable. (YMMV) Hi Fred, I had the same (unfortunate) experience. The K-A adaptall-2 isn't too good, I had frequently lost contacts when the lens was even slightly twisted. Good light! fra
Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
Too late. Frank has already deified him, so beatification and sactification are both now redundant. John On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 01:36:41 +1000, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7 Aug 2004 at 17:22, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: What was the my post about, in case you didn't notice, is how the religiosity around HCB is detrimental to perception of his work. Perhaps you would like to discuss this, what I wrote about? I hope the controversial cropping issue won't delay his beatification. 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 -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Re:Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]
This is a young man's game. Too fast for me. John On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 10:36:15 -0500, Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PING Peter J. Alling wrote: PONG Bob W wrote: ping -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]
Swish..Darn I missed! -Original Message- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]] PING Peter J. Alling wrote: PONG Bob W wrote: ping
Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)
Whilst on the subject of Manfrotto monopods, What heads are folks out there using, and why that particular head? I am using a normal medium ball head. But if you intend to use it for superteles (like 2.8/300 and similar), I just screwed them directly onto the 'pod, without any head, the few times I had access to such a lens. When I was shooting with PJs from wealthier papers with such lenses in their lenspool, they did the same (or the other way around, I did the same as them g). It works nicely for such long lenses. For concerts, where I used a 'pod with 80-200 zoom, I used the ballhead though. Good light! fra
RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5
JCO, If you have a M42 camera then it may make sense to consider that the Takumar is an advantage. Do you have any information that suggests the K and Takumar versions have different optics and/or apertures ? My comments are based on the following quotation from Alex Nemerovsky's site: K500/4.5 feature very good optical design as well as a preset aperture. It's quite heavy and, unless you want to strain your back and get a fuzzy shot, it should be tripod mounted most of the time. This lens has the same design as the previous Takumar version of 500mm. K500/4.5 lens has a 52mm rear filter. (http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/pentax_primes.html#500) Jim www.jcolwell.ca P.S. the SMC 500/4.5 has a manual aperture, not preset - maybe the other comments are also incorrect(?).
my first PESO: The Champion
I'm finally getting around to posting some pictures on here for y'all to see. :) http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~jm34966/photography/CHAMPION.JPG It's an Electro-Motive Division of General Motors (EMD) E-6 locomotive, formerly belonging to the Atlantic Coast Line Railway. It was probably built in the 1940s, now is preserved at the North Carolina Transportation Musuem. Behind, you can see the old backshop which is currently undergoing renovation to become an expansion to the museum. My scanner sucks, hence the cross-hatchy lines in darker areas. Other than that, what do you think? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: first question
Hi, if you do get a zoom for your K1000, do get one with constant aperture (that is, like 80-210/4, not 70-210/4-5.6). Otherwise, your exposure will change when you zoom, and you will have to forever adjust for it. Good light! fra
RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5
No, the lenses are NEARLY identical except for mount. The screwmount is more versatile and has better resale market because it fits way more cameras , not only pentax K, but even other makes like Canon AF with an adapter. Hence given a choice between the two for same price and condition, you are better off getting the screwmount version. There is one other small difference other than the mount, the screwmount version takes 49mm rear filters instead of 52mm rear filters. You also need to be careful buying the screwmount version because the screwmount version came with and without SMC so if you buy the non-SMC version you better save some money as it is still very good but should sell for quite a bit less than the SMC version. JCO -Original Message- From: Jim Colwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 12:15 PM To: pdml Subject: RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5 JCO, If you have a M42 camera then it may make sense to consider that the Takumar is an advantage. Do you have any information that suggests the K and Takumar versions have different optics and/or apertures ? My comments are based on the following quotation from Alex Nemerovsky's site: K500/4.5 feature very good optical design as well as a preset aperture. It's quite heavy and, unless you want to strain your back and get a fuzzy shot, it should be tripod mounted most of the time. This lens has the same design as the previous Takumar version of 500mm. K500/4.5 lens has a 52mm rear filter. (http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/pentax_primes.html#500) Jim www.jcolwell.ca P.S. the SMC 500/4.5 has a manual aperture, not preset - maybe the other comments are also incorrect(?).
PESO: The bridge to...
I am interested in thoughts and comments on this one. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0023.htm *istD, DA 16-45/4 Thanks, Bruce
Re: first question
Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before. -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 7 Aug 2004 at 0:42, Fred wrote: The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the subject. I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my 125/135mm lenses, portraiture included. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: SMC K 55mm 1.8
Different standards I suppose, or different lenses. I will agree that it becomes razor sharp at f8.0. Fred wrote: It's very good, it follows the usual Pentax normal lens characteristics, a bit soft, (by prime lens standards), wide open. Very sharp when stopped down to 5.6 or 8. I would basically agree, but I would say that the very high sharpness starts at f/8. My impression is that the 55/1.8 is only average up through f/5.6, but then it does become super-sharp ~all-of-a-sudden~ at f/8 and above - perhaps the most schizophrenic lens I've ever used - g. http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/resolutn.htm Fred
RE: lens testing !
Now you've gone and shattered MY frail ego! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: fra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 1:38 PM To: PDML; PUGW Subject: lens testing ! The excellent lens testing resource is http://cameraquest.com/lenstest.htm I can recommend it to anybody asking how good is this lens I just bought and how much lp/mm has *** lens? ;-) fra
Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
I always make fun of Frank and never make fun of Shel. But that's just me. John Francis wrote: I don't know - peer pressure (or just fear of appearing stupid) can be a pretty compelling thing. I would imagine it would take a fairly bold poster to speak out here against a photograph from Shel or Frank, say, especially after a dozen or so posts saying stunning!, brilliant!, and the like. I don't see how the marketing of photojournalism as art or otherwise has anything to do with the merit of the photographer, HCB or anyone else. Any reasonably discerning viewer would know to judge the piece in question based on what it is, not what it is claimed to be. Do you really believe what the ads tell you? How does it matter if the consuming majority or the media or the pretentious little photographer himself calls it the next best thing after the Mona Lisa? You can resent it but should it affect your judgement of the artwork? I know the evaluation of art is subjective, but I thought that means it depends on the what the viewer 'feels' about it, not what he or she thinks of the artist. Badri On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:08:55 +0200, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, but that doesn't prevent such images being prized and judged on artistic merrits. At photographs are being marketed or published as art in spite of being accidental snapshots, not a product of an unique or sensitive vision, the whole thing becomes highly speculative, as often is the case with excessive violence in the media. Pål
Re: Test
Why apologize, be proud, damnit!! William Robb wrote: Sorry.
RE: The new baby's here!
$102.01 with shipping. ;-) Na Ner Na Ner Na Ner! (Oops, sorry! I meant, I was just lucky.) (It's that inner childish..., I mean, inner child thing ) :-( Don -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The new baby's here! Damn that's pretty. How much did you pay for those again??? Don Sanderson wrote: The new MX got here today! I can tell it from new by a few light brights on the bottom and it needs a mirror foam. The 135 I can't tell from new! (OK it's not in a factory box) ;-) Here she is: http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/baby.htm Don
PPP00NNGGG was [Re: Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]]
PPPOONNGGG!!! Norm Baugher wrote: PING Peter J. Alling wrote: PONG Bob W wrote: ping
Re: The new baby's here!
Don Sanderson wrote: $102.01 with shipping. ;-) Na Ner Na Ner Na Ner! (Oops, sorry! I meant, I was just lucky.) (It's that inner childish..., I mean, inner child thing ) :-( Don I got my MX for $60 with shipping. My SMC-M 135/3.5 I got for $25 with shipping. The K28/3.5 for $40 with shipping. M50/1.4 for $55 with shipping. Are these good deals? /Henri
Re: my first PESO: The Champion
My God, it's a powerful throbbing purple... Jon M wrote: I'm finally getting around to posting some pictures on here for y'all to see. :) http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~jm34966/photography/CHAMPION.JPG It's an Electro-Motive Division of General Motors (EMD) E-6 locomotive, formerly belonging to the Atlantic Coast Line Railway. It was probably built in the 1940s, now is preserved at the North Carolina Transportation Musuem. Behind, you can see the old backshop which is currently undergoing renovation to become an expansion to the museum. My scanner sucks, hence the cross-hatchy lines in darker areas. Other than that, what do you think? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PUG - comments from the PUGmeister
Adelheid, ( Jostein) thanks for all your thankless efforts on behalf of the PUG. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Adelheid v. K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PUG - comments from the PUGmeister Hi folks, I saw this discussion about PUG vs PAW. I think Bernd put it very nicely, saying that PUG lasts as a gallery where you can enjoy the pics and the PAWs are short lived and are gone after some days. Both should be there. On the technical side, the komkon server is back, so i put the gallery back where it belongs. But i keep a copy of the last two months on my own website. So if the komkon server goes down again you can go there and have at least the two last months. That's the idea for the time being. Jostein and I are working on the new PUG, but this needs some time, espacially since we can't work fulltime on this project. As soon as we get results we'll let you know. Cheers Adelheid
Re: The bridge to...
Bruce, the scene looks like it has possibilities, the railings running off into the distance really grab my attention. Your image doesn't do much for me - centered makes it static the lighting is harsh (try this again around sunrise or sunset), also a different point of view (higher or lower camera height would help make it more interesting). Hope it is close by so you can easily return and work it. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The bridge to... I am interested in thoughts and comments on this one. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0023.htm *istD, DA 16-45/4 Thanks, Bruce
RE: PESO: The bridge to...
No offense meant, certain things just get to me. We have a couple of beautiful covered bridges up north, they put Chain Link Fence :-( over the windows so no one would jump out! Might's well have painted the beautiful aged oak purple! You are of course 100% correct, just my (old hippie) hangup about steel and concrete in otherwise attractive settings. The railing just happened to be the first thing that caught my eye. Someone else was distracted by the background, with me it was the railing. Sorry Bruce, certainly an excellent photo, just not to my (questionable) taste. Don -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO: The bridge to... Heck, it is what it is, Don! You certainly wouldn't expect a bridge over a chasm withOUT a railing, would you? keith whaley Don Sanderson wrote: Great perspcective and depth, awesome colors, but I'm afraid the iron pipe railing blows it for me. Not your fault, just the subjet. Don -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 11:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The bridge to... I am interested in thoughts and comments on this one. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0023.htm *istD, DA 16-45/4 Thanks, Bruce
Re: Test
- Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling Subject: Re: Test Why apologize, be proud, damnit!! I am Canadian! William Robb
RE: PPP00NNGGG was [Re: Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]]
Swish...Darn I missed! Don -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PPP00NNGGG was [Re: Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]] PPPOONNGGG!!! Norm Baugher wrote: PING Peter J. Alling wrote: PONG Bob W wrote: ping
Re: PPP00NNGGG was [Re: Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]]
GOOLLL!! Peter J. Alling wrote: PPPOONNGGG!!! Norm Baugher wrote: PING Peter J. Alling wrote: PONG Bob W wrote: ping
RE: The new baby's here!
No, they're not. They're GREAT deals! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The new baby's here! Don Sanderson wrote: $102.01 with shipping. ;-) Na Ner Na Ner Na Ner! (Oops, sorry! I meant, I was just lucky.) (It's that inner childish..., I mean, inner child thing ) :-( Don I got my MX for $60 with shipping. My SMC-M 135/3.5 I got for $25 with shipping. The K28/3.5 for $40 with shipping. M50/1.4 for $55 with shipping. Are these good deals? /Henri
ReSkema for 7.b 2004/2005: The new baby's here!
Not a bad deal, na na na na na Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. august 2004 21:41 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: The new baby's here! No, they're not. They're GREAT deals! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The new baby's here! Don Sanderson wrote: $102.01 with shipping. ;-) Na Ner Na Ner Na Ner! (Oops, sorry! I meant, I was just lucky.) (It's that inner childish..., I mean, inner child thing ) :-( Don I got my MX for $60 with shipping. My SMC-M 135/3.5 I got for $25 with shipping. The K28/3.5 for $40 with shipping. M50/1.4 for $55 with shipping. Are these good deals? /Henri
Re: PESO: The bridge to...
Hello Don, I truly appreciate comments. This is a case where I am unsure about my overall feelings concerning this one. So I figured on putting it up and getting some feedback from others, who's opinions I value. Thanks for all input, good, bad or otherwise. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, August 7, 2004, 12:36:36 PM, you wrote: DS No offense meant, certain things just get to me. DS We have a couple of beautiful covered bridges up north, DS they put Chain Link Fence :-( over the windows so no one would jump out! DS Might's well have painted the beautiful aged oak purple! DS You are of course 100% correct, just my (old hippie) hangup about DS steel and concrete in otherwise attractive settings. DS The railing just happened to be the first thing that caught my eye. DS Someone else was distracted by the background, with me it was the railing. DS Sorry Bruce, certainly an excellent photo, just not to my (questionable) DS taste. DS Don -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO: The bridge to... Heck, it is what it is, Don! You certainly wouldn't expect a bridge over a chasm withOUT a railing, would you? keith whaley Don Sanderson wrote: Great perspcective and depth, awesome colors, but I'm afraid the iron pipe railing blows it for me. Not your fault, just the subjet. Don -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 11:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The bridge to... I am interested in thoughts and comments on this one. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0023.htm *istD, DA 16-45/4 Thanks, Bruce
Re: The bridge to...
Thanks for the suggestions. Fortunately it is somewhat close. I'm guessing it will be better with morning light, as it sits 1000 feet down in the bottom of the canyon. Not much sunset light to speak of. I'll have to get up early a couple of mornings and see what it looks like. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, August 7, 2004, 12:35:38 PM, you wrote: KW Bruce, the scene looks like it has possibilities, the railings running off KW into the distance really grab my attention. Your image doesn't do much for KW me - centered makes it static the lighting is harsh (try this again around KW sunrise or sunset), also a different point of view (higher or lower camera KW height would help make it more interesting). KW Hope it is close by so you can easily return and work it. KW Kenneth Waller KW - Original Message - KW From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] KW Subject: PESO: The bridge to... I am interested in thoughts and comments on this one. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0023.htm *istD, DA 16-45/4 Thanks, Bruce
Re: my apologies
I wanted to apologize for my apologies, but with this offer I am not sure I will still get my spanking... On Thursday 05 August 2004 23:38, Bob Blakely wrote: FJW Maybe one of the girls on the list can give you your spanking. FJW FJW Regards, FJW Bob... FJW FJW From: Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW FJW FJW I want to offer you all my sincere apologies. I am not aware of anything I FJW said could have offended anyone, but I got cicked off the list and I don't FJW know why. So I must have misbehaved badly. I am bad, for which I am sorry. FJW Bad boy. FJW FJW FJW FJW -- Frits Wüthrich
On list for a day
Hi all, I'm back for a day or so, just in time for the ping pong thread and an HCB flame war. I'm doing fine. I'm writing freelance at YR. That's going very well and may become permanent. I shot two cars this morning. I used a glass walled building as a background rather than the usual empty meadow, field, desert, etc. It seemed to work well. I'll post one of them in a subsequent PAW. Paul
Re: first question
I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
PAW: 1978 25th Anniversary Corvette
The guy who owns this car bought it new. I chose to shoot it in front of a glass walled building instead of the usual void background. The camera was the *ist D, the lens was the SMC Pentax 135/2.5, f11 at whatever on a tripod. The lens was fitted with a polarizer to control reflections a bit. Paul http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2591529size=lg
RE: ReSkema for 7.b 2004/2005: The new baby's here!
Hey! SMILE when you say that. ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ReSkema for 7.b 2004/2005: The new baby's here! Not a bad deal, na na na na na Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. august 2004 21:41 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: The new baby's here! No, they're not. They're GREAT deals! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The new baby's here! Don Sanderson wrote: $102.01 with shipping. ;-) Na Ner Na Ner Na Ner! (Oops, sorry! I meant, I was just lucky.) (It's that inner childish..., I mean, inner child thing ) :-( Don I got my MX for $60 with shipping. My SMC-M 135/3.5 I got for $25 with shipping. The K28/3.5 for $40 with shipping. M50/1.4 for $55 with shipping. Are these good deals? /Henri
PAW: Shirley
Americans probably know Shirley, maybe even the Canadians. If anyone else would like to know her, rent the movie called Heart Like a Wheel. Bonny Badalia plays Shirley. Good story. I had the pleasure of meeting Shirley several times over the years, and my race car even came up against her once when she was still running funny cars. That was 1974. She's a very special lady. Here she is at Englishtown, New Jersey some twenty years ago in the pink car. By then she was a top fuel world champion. The camera was a Fuji 801, but at least it had an M42 mount. The lens was probably my venerable Vivitar 200/3.5. After a dragster made a burnout, I would clean the molten rubber off of it with my t-shirt. Whatever works. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2572049size=lg
Re: first question
There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored). Have fun. -- Keith Whaley wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Shirley
Good movie, great photo, love the foreground detail with the crowd/background. My second 35mm was an 801, tough old beast, just gave it away (still working) a few years ago. Don -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW: Shirley Americans probably know Shirley, maybe even the Canadians. If anyone else would like to know her, rent the movie called Heart Like a Wheel. Bonny Badalia plays Shirley. Good story. I had the pleasure of meeting Shirley several times over the years, and my race car even came up against her once when she was still running funny cars. That was 1974. She's a very special lady. Here she is at Englishtown, New Jersey some twenty years ago in the pink car. By then she was a top fuel world champion. The camera was a Fuji 801, but at least it had an M42 mount. The lens was probably my venerable Vivitar 200/3.5. After a dragster made a burnout, I would clean the molten rubber off of it with my t-shirt. Whatever works. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2572049size=lg
RE: On list for a day
There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but not a flame war. Welcome. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: On list for a day Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:39:53 -0400 Hi all, I'm back for a day or so, just in time for the ping pong thread and an HCB flame war.
Re: first question
Keith, I think that Tom lost the artument regarding focal lengh and perspective/AOV some time ago and just keep arguing so as not to loose face, digging an ever deeper hole for himself. A. On 7/8/04 10:40 pm, Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
Re: first question
I see you have given up argument yet again Greywolf and feel somehow insult will win you the argument. A. On 7/8/04 11:08 pm, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored). Have fun. -- Keith Whaley wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
CLA in USA/Canada recommendations
Hello everyone, I need to send out my K1000, ME Super, and Program Plus for cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment. I've found Phil's Camera Service (www.philscamera.com) and Premier Camera (www.premier-camera.com) through search engines. Does anyone have any experience and feedback on either of these two or recommendations for others? Thanks, Marc
Re: Pentax Zx-D in Korea
--- Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly... (Pentax Marketing Strikes Again!) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax has marketing? __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: CLA in USA/Canada recommendations
I've dealt with Eric at Premier, seems fair, reasonable and very knowledgable. I believe he was with Pentax for quite some time. He's helped me with a couple of nasty ME Super problems via e-mail, for free! Nice guy too. Don -Original Message- From: Pentax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 4:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CLA in USA/Canada recommendations Hello everyone, I need to send out my K1000, ME Super, and Program Plus for cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment. I've found Phil's Camera Service (www.philscamera.com) and Premier Camera (www.premier-camera.com) through search engines. Does anyone have any experience and feedback on either of these two or recommendations for others? Thanks, Marc
Re: On list for a day
Looked like you were being plretty flamey to me Tom. A. On 7/8/04 11:29 pm, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but not a flame war. Welcome. Tom C.
Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:25:54 -0400, Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always make fun of Frank and never make fun of Shel. But that's just me. That's because Frank can, and does, make fun of himself. John -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Test
Good grief. Treasure the moment! John On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:31:31 -0400, Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why apologize, be proud, damnit!! William Robb wrote: Sorry. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: I'm back - was OT- Annsan is with a tough crowd
And here she is, bloodied but unbowed. Somewhat to my dismay, you can actually see EXACTLY how poorly I did by going to the NSA website. Ugh. for the quick version - I was 14-16 in Division 2 (of 7 divisions) Played a lot of people I didn't know. I pulled only 6 blanks out of 22 (in 11 games) and was pretty demoralised by that, which kinda cut into my concentration factor - nonetheless had I won only 3 more games I would have probably raised my rating and 4 more games might have gotten me some cash. Sigh. On the brighter side, I may have a worthwhile photo or two, and I did witness the BIG CONTROVERSY over LEZ which gave us more coverage for this tourney than anyone could have imagined. (if you don't know what I'm talking about do follow that link Norm posted :) ) I did have Chicory coffee and a number of Beignets (the best were actually at the airport!) and lots of fabulous food, lovely walks in interesting neighborhoods, and lots of re-bonding with SCrabble friends from all over the world... I gave three of the Thai's - two of whom I had played many years ago in tourneys - Winners calendars. I was sorry I didn't play up into the first division - I don't think I would have fared any worse than I did in Division 2. ALso very sad to hear of HCB's demise from a friend - I hardly read papers or looked at TV during the tourney - and sorry not to jump in sooner to the discussion on his greatness. (I guess I'll have to respond to one of those posts - he certainly is at the very top of my list of photographers whose work I most admire - the very tippy top, actually. ) I see Shel is back, too. Will post something PESO a bit later. Watch the TOday show on Monday to see the tiles I played with in the tourney - Borrowed from former National Champ Rita Norr when I found I had left mine at home! She left New ORleans before I did so I still had the tiles with me when one of the NSA staff , who had been on the same Jet Blue flight coming home yesterday, asked if I had yellow tiles. Since yellow ones were used during the finals they wanted the same tiles for the Today show interview with Trey Wright. I was, personally, rooting for David Gibson, who I know a bit better than Trey and who I played in the first major tourney he ever won. travellin' annsan
Re: PESO: The bridge to...
Hi Bruce I like the composition - simple and very effective. A classic lead the eye into the picture composition. I'd like to have seen the same image photographed later in the day - I think the colours in the vegetation and soils in the distance might have had a bit more impact then? I didn't pick up on the apparent tilting of the bridge until John mentioned it but I can see what he means. Cheers Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia On Sat Aug 7 10:54 , Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: I am interested in thoughts and comments on this one. http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0023.htm *istD, DA 16-45/4 Thanks, Bruce Introducing Spymac MailPro: http://www.spymac.com/mailpro/
Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)
This one time, at band camp, fra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whilst on the subject of Manfrotto monopods, What heads are folks out there using, and why that particular head? I am using a normal medium ball head. But if you intend to use it for superteles (like 2.8/300 and similar), I just screwed them directly onto the 'pod, without any head, the few times I had access to such a lens. When I was shooting with PJs from wealthier papers with such lenses in their lenspool, they did the same (or the other way around, I did the same as them g). It works nicely for such long lenses. For concerts, where I used a 'pod with 80-200 zoom, I used the ballhead though. I guess what I need is a head for the monopod that is basic. Quick Release and the ability to turn the camera for portrait type shots. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: first question
Okay, okay...let's try to get rid of the paranoia, alright? No, I mean you... I suppose I could have just said, Huh? Whaddya mean? But, I tried to talk to what you said... Just assume I'm an old fart and sometimes just don't get it, if the comments are a bit obscure. I wasn't funnin' you. It's obvious (to you anyhow) that I really don't know what you're trying to say. I thought I might have explained how *I* view it, but that explanation was obviously way out in left field. If you still think I'm being a troll, just drop it, okay? keith graywolf wrote: There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored). Have fun. -- Keith Whaley wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
Re: A whopper of a WOW...
Here's my (first) attempt. http://www.oksne.net/wow/tanWow.html Suggestions for further improvements? Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tanyamayer.com/wowforweb.jpg
One more to go!
Found a nice A 35-105/3.5 the other day. Just got this 135, 19 minutes after it listed: http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/135_35.jpg (No, I won't say the price this time, but it was better than KEH):) Thanks for all your help deciding which one was the best bang for the buck. All I'm after now is the K 35/3.5 and I take a bit of time off, pack the Blazer, the Bassett Hound, and the backpack, and go see what I can do with them. Hopefully I'll be able to put put all I've learned here to good use and get some decent shots to show all of you. I've recently been accused of: quote seeking the opinion of others in order to validate your own experience. end quote However I think you've all very gently got the point across that I was being rather stupid for expecting great results from a proven less than great lens. I'm glad I asked. I've learned that I have a natural talent for being stupid, but that this can be avoided by asking, and listening to, others with more experience than I. Gee, maybe that's what growing up means? Long as I never lose touch with my inner child(ish). ;-) Don
Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)
KW I guess what I need is a head for the monopod that is basic. Quick Release KW and the ability to turn the camera for portrait type shots. Hi Kevin, it's the other mentioned one - I don't recall the number, but it's just a thing that can rotate in only one direction - vertical/horisontal, 90 degrees. It's fairly sturdy but I don't think enough for superteles (as it has only the small rectangular QR plate). I used it a lot with lenses which do not rotate, and it's fine. Good light! fra
Re: One more to go!
Hey, that's the exact same 135 I bought after asking about the exact same Takumar 135. :) Does the hood on that one stay out fine? Mine doesn't like to stay in the extended position, it sags or falls back in. I've been happy with the results from it tho. I lack a bit more than just a 35... I'm still looking for something around a 17-20 prime, a 28, an 85, and maybe 200 300, plus a few misc zooms. Then I'll be happy... for a while. ;) Just a shame that the 85s are so danged expensive and uncommon. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Test
Oh, yes. I forgot. Carry on as before. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling Subject: Re: Test Why apologize, be proud, damnit!! I am Canadian! William Robb
RE: One more to go!
I know what you mean about the 85, I'm just going to use the 35-135 for now. I do have a 19, 28, 200 and 300 but the 300 isn't very good. Don't know about the hood yet, I'll let you know when it arrives in a few days. Don -Original Message- From: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 7:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: One more to go! Hey, that's the exact same 135 I bought after asking about the exact same Takumar 135. :) Does the hood on that one stay out fine? Mine doesn't like to stay in the extended position, it sags or falls back in. I've been happy with the results from it tho. I lack a bit more than just a 35... I'm still looking for something around a 17-20 prime, a 28, an 85, and maybe 200 300, plus a few misc zooms. Then I'll be happy... for a while. ;) Just a shame that the 85s are so danged expensive and uncommon. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Pentax Zx-D in Korea
If you can call it that... Brendan wrote: --- Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly... (Pentax Marketing Strikes Again!) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax has marketing? __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Pentax 1.7X AF Adapter
the only lens worth using it on is the 35-105/3.5, but it is marginal even in bright light because of the loss of light in the adapter. i think anything slower than a 2.8 isn't worth it. also, an extender magnifies the center portion of the lens circle and so if you are using it on a less than superb lens, you'll get nothing but magnified softness and distortion. Herb... - Original Message - From: Robert Woerner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:08 AM Subject: Pentax 1.7X AF Adapter Hello, I have a friend who is considering moving into AF Pentax film SLR from MF Super Program. She has the excellent A 35-105 f3.5, A 50 f2.0 in addition to a Gemini 28 f2.8. I have recommended the ZX-L due to budget constraints (otherwise I'd recommend the MZ-S). My question is:
Re: On list for a day
No Tom, I think there was a flame war and you started it, you bastard! Norm Antonio wrote: Looked like you were being plretty flamey to me Tom. On 7/8/04 11:29 pm, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but not a flame war.
Re: PESO:second wave - Working on the MS Silvretta 1981
Keep them coming Markus, as a travel junkie I love this stuff. Thanks for sharing. Norm Markus Maurer wrote: Please have a look at the presentation at: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=256444
Re: On list for a day
I hope, think that I was just expressing a wish and an opinion... I thought Paul S. started it :) Tom C. From: Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On list for a day Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:06:57 -0500 No Tom, I think there was a flame war and you started it, you bastard! Norm Antonio wrote: Looked like you were being plretty flamey to me Tom. On 7/8/04 11:29 pm, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but not a flame war.
Re: Caveman goes digital
C'mon. I still have an LX and an ME Super and I'll keep the old Oly PS too (somewhere in the car's glove box). But no way I'll pay any more film processing printing for the daily snapshots. And ah, the instant gratification factor imagine how easy I could produce gazzilions of PESOs, PAWs and whatever Only things that bugs me is why it must be so difficult to transfer the images to the computer. I mean, I have either to plug an USB cable or pull out the memory card and insert it in a reader. Why no IR port, so that I could just put the camera in front of the computer and that's all ? Norm Baugher wrote: Digihead Commie. Norm Caveman wrote: he's gone digital
Re: On list for a day
I'm a dork and am mixing up things... please help me... I'm caught in a temporal anomaly, please Mr. Spock... Tom C. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On list for a day Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 22:13:18 -0600 I hope, think that I was just expressing a wish and an opinion... I thought Paul S. started it :) Tom C. From: Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On list for a day Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:06:57 -0500 No Tom, I think there was a flame war and you started it, you bastard! Norm Antonio wrote: Looked like you were being plretty flamey to me Tom. On 7/8/04 11:29 pm, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but not a flame war.
Re: CLA in USA/Canada recommendations
Marc, Like Don says, Eric at Premier is a good resource. He repaired/CLA'ed numerous cameras for me. He apparently worked for Pentax at one time. He 'retired' to Tennessee a year or two ago after living in suburban Chicago. He revived KX's and ES's/ESII's with bad meters for me, no problem. Same thing with sticky K2's... Also cleaned up some lenses for me too. He's got a number of items he's fixing for me now. CLA's for MX's and ME Supers. Regards, Bob S. Hello everyone, I need to send out my K1000, ME Super, and Program Plus for cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment. I've found Phil's Camera Service (www.philscamera.com) and Premier Camera (www.premier-camera.com) through search engines. Does anyone have any experience and feedback on either of these two or recommendations for others? Thanks, Marc
Re: Caveman goes digital
I find the USB connection to be much faster than IR... and far faster than even a 1-hour place... Tom C. From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Caveman goes digital Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 00:25:29 -0400 C'mon. I still have an LX and an ME Super and I'll keep the old Oly PS too (somewhere in the car's glove box). But no way I'll pay any more film processing printing for the daily snapshots. And ah, the instant gratification factor imagine how easy I could produce gazzilions of PESOs, PAWs and whatever Only things that bugs me is why it must be so difficult to transfer the images to the computer. I mean, I have either to plug an USB cable or pull out the memory card and insert it in a reader. Why no IR port, so that I could just put the camera in front of the computer and that's all ? Norm Baugher wrote: Digihead Commie. Norm Caveman wrote: he's gone digital
Re: Caveman goes digital
How easy do you want it to be, what Norm said plus lazy bum... Caveman wrote: C'mon. I still have an LX and an ME Super and I'll keep the old Oly PS too (somewhere in the car's glove box). But no way I'll pay any more film processing printing for the daily snapshots. And ah, the instant gratification factor imagine how easy I could produce gazzilions of PESOs, PAWs and whatever Only things that bugs me is why it must be so difficult to transfer the images to the computer. I mean, I have either to plug an USB cable or pull out the memory card and insert it in a reader. Why no IR port, so that I could just put the camera in front of the computer and that's all ? Norm Baugher wrote: Digihead Commie. Norm Caveman wrote: he's gone digital
RE: Caveman goes digital
Why are your lenes unusable on a ist D. If I owned no dedicated (Pentax) lenses, bellows, flashes etc., I would definitely go for a Canon 10D. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 8. august 2004 03:29 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Caveman goes digital Ok, I did it. It was time to replace the Olympus Mju II PS with something that doesn't eat film, and after considering Canon S60, Sony V1 and Pentax Optio 555, I've decided on the Canon. Before you cry foul, you should hear that the main arguments were the sliding cover design and the zoom starting at 5.8mm (28mm equivalent). So now I have some questions - not brand specific. I've read that some people preffer to use these digi PS with a low sharpening setting and the lowest ISO, and do the sharpening later in Photoshop or whatever. Their claim is that the sharpening is more gently done this way and the noise is kept to a minimum. Is anyone here using a similar technique ? Could you comment on it ? Second question - is there any point in buying high speed CF cards for PS digicams ? Third question - has anyone compared the RAW output with the finest JPEG setting ? is it worth to shoot in RAW ? And the final question. Since now I'm on a shopping spree, I'm also looking at something more serious, like a DSLR. In my price range are the Nikon D70, Canon 10D and digirebel, and the *ist D. Which one should caveman buy ? (in its infinite wisdom Pentax made my current lenses unusable on the *ist, so I'm open to any suggestion). cheers, caveman
PAW - Rainbow
I think you guys may have seen this one before. I had an 18x12 print made recently but the machine printed the whole thing a little dark due to the large area of cloud. Next time I'll send them a digital file. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=8-Aug-2004 Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
