Re: PAW - Rainbow
On Aug 27, 2004, at 4:34 AM, Caveman wrote: Nice pic, but LOL here's how Dave goes digital just because of the incompetent printing industry. I have some bad news for you. Their machines will still correct exposure all even when printing from a file. Bwahahaha. I hate'em. The D-Lab kiosk that my lab uses has a button that you can press to disable Agfa Image Enhancement. I make sure I do exactly that every time I order a print from a digital file. Either way that machine isn't exactly a fine art custom printer so I can't go expecting too much. Your first sentence is correct but only as applied to the high volume consumer market: I wouldn't paint the entire printing industry with that brush. My requirements have now mandated getting myself a decent inkjet printer so from now on it'll be my own fault that my prints are crap :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
Well actually yes, the LP12 I used did have a top notch pickup cartridge, etc. No discernable difference in quality. Too close to call. A. On 27/8/04 1:41 am, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all a LINN LP12 is no where near the the current state of the art and unless you also used a top notch cartridge, tonearm, phono stage, preamp, amp, loudspeakers, and most of all RECORD, you will not get or hear the superiority of vinyl. I suggest you go listen to a top end playback vinyl playback system TODAY and bring along your best CD to listen to afterwards, if you don't hear the dropoff in fidelity you must have sub normal hearing. I am not kidding, it really is not close. JCO -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. --- Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rubish, I have compared records played back on a LP12 and CD on a top of the line LINN CD player with DAC and there really was no discernable quality difference. When CD frist came out perhaps you could have argued there was a difference - but nowadays things are a lot better. snipped personal message to JCO I think (hey, lookie here, he's bringing it back to photography! vbg) that the sad truth is that it's the software that in the vast majority of cases, is the limiting factor in sound quality. Most mass produced CD's and vinyl just sounds bad. Period. It sounds bad on lousy equipment, it sounds bad on good equipment. I also think (does anyone really care what I think? VBG) that the medium (ie: film or digital sensor) in ~most~ cases doesn't make much difference in the quality of the final image, especially for the average consumer. Please, all you MF and LF guys, don't jump all over me, I merely said that for ~most~ people (including many pros) for ~most~ applications both media work just fine, and aren't limiting. So, it's really about storage, handling and convenience, and again, for ~most~ people digital is the way to go. That doesn't mean it's better. Just different. I prefer film for all sorts of reasons, not the least which is that I don't have a digital capture system, and quite frankly, I'm just comfortable with film, having used it for about 40 years now (I think I was around 8 or 10 when I got my first Brownie Starflash). For 90% (or more) of the applications right now, quality isn't an issue, IMHO. Okay, now you can all jump all over me, and tell me I'm wrong! vbg cheers, frank = Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst Of course it's all luck -- Henri Cartier-Bresson __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: A3 prints from *istD
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Don Sanderson wrote: Jostein what's the size in MM (or inches) of A2/A3? A4210 x 297 mm 8.3 x 11.7 in A3297 x 420 mm11.7 x 16.5 in A2420 x 594 mm16.5 x 23.4 in A4 is the standard sheet of writing, copy etc paper in this part of the world. A3 is the double size and A2 is the double of that. The A paper system is defined so that A0 is exactly one square meter with the height/witdh ratio of one to the square root of two. Fold an A0 in half and you get A1, fold an A1 in half and you get A2 etc. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: A3 prints from *istD
Jostein wrote: So I got curious. I asked a pro-lab in Oslo to go as large as _they_ considered reasonable quality, and told them the file was from a 6 Mpix DSLR. They print on a Epson Pro 9600. What I got back was an A2 enlargement. At this size, it was easy to spot the blurring of details less than 3 pixels across. The Pentax way of anti-aliasing made them blend together. There were no artificial coloring or moire, though. Another gripe was that contrast got a bit out of hand, so that dark detail became jagged edges or little squares, 2-3 pixels across. They (you) had to interpolate the file up before printing, just to keep 200 to 300 dpi! That way you can ALWAYS get rid of visible pixelation (no extra detail though). Dario Bonazza
Re: black and white
GI The same here in Italy: dia, short for diapositiva. The word GI invertibile (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent GI past. Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? What about chromes? Good light! fra
Re: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance
Thursday, August 26, 2004, 11:54:47 AM, Lon wrote: LW Anyone wanna tell me how to stuff a dry plate into an MX? Let me think... that would be around 1/16 size plate, wouldn't it? I will check with my drogist, if he stocks these. Would you like orthochromatic, the latest fancy, or good old fashioned unsensitised stuff? He even should have some Autochrome from Lumiere brothers. BTW, the chemicals are still easy to get here in Europe. Especially if you have a business license. I do mix my own developers time to time. Even in the States, you could probably make them yourself. Find some silver mine, nitrate - from shit (the same way KNO3 for gunpowder is made), gelatine would come from your cow herd or the remains of the FBI agents ;-) would be messy... Good light! fra
Re: New Member - ME SE restoration question
HI Chad, welcome to the list! Sorry I can't help you with the seals, but some other list members should be able to give you advice. With that kit you are well prepared to get going in photography. Please report how the restoration goes/went. Good luck! Thanks, Lasse From: Chad Kealey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 5:35 PM Subject: New Member - ME SE restoration question Hi, new member of the list here, trying to get up to speed. Anyhoo, I'm also very new to the world of photography. I've been wanting to get into it for some time and got the shove when a neighbor of my parents gave me a box of old camera stuff that her late husband had used. Inside was a mostly well-preserved ME SE along with a nice little collection of lenses, including two SMC lenses (a 40mm f3.5 and a 50mm f1.7), two Sigma lenses (a 28-84mm f4 and a 75-200mm f5.6) and some other seemingly generic 135mm lens. Anyway, after getting it checked out at the local camera place, I loaded up some film and went on vacation to Southern Cali and Las Vegas. After getting the vacation pictures processed at the same shop, though, it turns out that the ME has some serious light leakage issues. Upon further inspection, the counter guy noted that the light seals around the back of the camera and the mirror cushion were decomposed to a icky, black, gooey state. Since I have some somewhat-related experience (I worked as an electro-mechanical tech for more years than I care to recall, fixing photocopy fax machines and also microfilm cameras readers) I figured I'd try replacing those seals myself. I ordered a universal kit from MicroTools and should have it in a few days, but I'm looking for someone who's done this before to be sure that I replace *all* the seals that I need to fix the problem. Other than the two noted (the back cover mirror cushion), are there any other seals that should be replaced? Any tips, advice, or warnings I should be aware of? Thanks for any help that you can provide. -Chad Kealey
FS: my auctions, too
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItemsinclude=0userid=dpconsult.comrows=50since=-1rd=1 Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl - 'Every one of us is, even from his mother's womb, a master craftsman of idols.' -- John Calvin (1509-64) ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: Slow night. Posting a self-portrait
Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OMG, you must be the only person I know with such a tidy office! Ooh, I'm gonna have to print that out and show it to Lisa! She's constantly on about what a mess it is. You don't even have any drawing on the walls, or yoghurt mashed into your floor... Oh, wait, not everyone has 3 kids under 6yo do they?!? I have cat vomit stains on the carpet, just out of the frame in that image. BTW, didn't your mama teach you to tie your shoelaces?! Yes, and how to untie them as well. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Still use a Weston Master V for incident metering and a Pentax 1 degree spotmeter with the 645 and when I can't get to the subject with the Weston. John
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
I have, and use quite often,at least with the 6x6 and 6x7's, a Minolta iv F and also have the Minolta Spot Meter,but not used as much. Mostly for winter BW but have not tried it out on slide film yet. The iv F is deadly on bright snow exposures. Dave This one time, at band camp, Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still metering with my L398, it's a trusty tool. When? Whenever situation calls for incident metering :) I just lurve my Pentax 1 Degree Spot Meter Kevin - __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Polarizer
Amazing! Seems that more and more photography is done in Photoshop these days. Is this REALLY photography, or Photoshopography? Never mind that what one gets from diddling in Photoshop is usually only similar to the effects achieved by a competent photographer using a camera and appropriate accessories. As for POL filters, I like the Multi-Coated B+W filters best Hoya multi coated would be an acceptable second choice. Shel From: Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway!
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Absolutely. Pentax Spotmeter V. Even with 135 on occasion. Averaging meters don't always cut it. Being 1/2 stop off on 135 can be tolerated but being 1/2 stop off on 4x5 or 8x10 makes a diff in the neg. Even makes a diff with 120. Why? Because 135 loses enough shadow detail and highlight detail that it's less critical. But with any larger format you can get as much as you can meter and adjust for. Any flm format bigger than 135 is a good thing. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl - 'Any flm format bigger than 135 is a good thing.' -- John Calvin (1509-64) (hey, works for me) ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re:Identical posts,was PAW - Rainbow
What identical posts Keith. Yesterday at lunch i replied to about 8-9 Paws from a few weeks ago to just recently submitted. As i mentioned in a reply to Franks post of 'were are his messages',none have shown up. As of this writing only one of the 8-9 have shown up on my screen. This one was sent by hitting the send button before i even typed anything,so i'll take responsabilty for this one.:-) Dave Brooks What's going on with you, Dave? Are all these identical posts necessary? keith whaley * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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/
Re: Polarizer
Incidentally, someone wrote to a current issue of Digital Photography questioning the absence of filter rings on a lot of digital, non-SLR cameras. While the response touched issues such as some mid-range digital cameras allowing screw-on adapters, it also echoed that (though some might say that there's nothing you can do with a filter that you can't PS) the effects of a polariser were hard to duplicate. Also, it was pointed out that one of the worst things in digital photography was the tendency for skies to blow out- not even Photoshop can bring back detail that the sensor didn't record in the first place- however, the benefit of digital is obviously that you can just bracket and contrast mask later on.. B+W and Singh Ray? exy! :) But I reckon Singh Ray makes a variety of interesting polarisers which could come in handy for creating dramatic landscapes. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:44 PM Subject: Re: Polarizer AFAIK, it's difficult to dupe all the effects a polariser can have with software. When shooting landscapes, the effect you will benefit most from is how the filter remove reflexes in foliage and water (or wet surfaces). You may also use it as a grey filter to get longer exposures and drawn-out streaks in moving water. Based on experience, I would suggest Hoya's multicoated series, B+W, or SinghRay. The latter also deliver the filters in system mounts like Lee and Cokin, which allow you to buy cheap adapters for each lens, and make do with only one filter. I recommend _against_ Cokin's polariser. Mine developed a green colour cast after only a couple of years. Make sure to buy a circular polariser, not a linear. The latter will fool the light meter in *istD, and under some conditions also fool the AF. Jostein If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway! Cheers Shaun arnie wrote: Hi guys, Quick question. I'm going on vacation next weekend and hope to do some nature photography (waterfalls, etc...) Should I be shooting with a polarizer? If yes, what brand do you recommend? Equipment: *IstD, Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, Sigma 20mm 1.8 (if it gets here before I leave), Pentax FA 135 2.8 Thanks arnie -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
I was about to say yes until I paid attention to the word 'analog'. So, NO. I use a Gossen Luna Pro Digital F. I like this meter because it will tell me the flash and incident light readings simultaneously, making it really easy to balance fill flash. Dave
RE: Back from vacation
Its a thin concrete mix coating applied to bare poured concrete or block foundations.Mostly used to hide imperfections but also acts as a waterproofing agent,to some degree. Similar texture as in brick layers mortar. Most older homes in Canada have it but not so much the newer ones(i have the older home).It falls off due to water, wind, freeze/warm cycles and needs to be touched up on occasion. Thats my vacation project,and why i thought it would be a poor PAW project.. OR will it. Bwaaa haaa haaa Dave Brooks parging -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Back from vacation Welcome back and glad your trip went well. My week off starts tomorrow,but i dont know if people want to see parging and tree chopping pictures as Paw's .LOL
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
I use a Gossen Luna Pro from time to time, I use a Minolta flash meter in the studio (except when shooting digital, and a Zone VI modified Pentax digital spot meter (not analogue, I realize) when shooting large format. William Robb
Re: black and white
Paul Stenquist wrote: Slide film is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers to it as positive transparency film, while what we commonly call negative film is designated negative transparency film. Paul Isn't negative transparency only used if it's mounted for projection? If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, it's just a negative. No? keith whaley On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote: GI The same here in Italy: dia, short for diapositiva. The word GI invertibile (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent GI past. Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? What about chromes? Good light! fra
Re: Polarizer
- Original Message - From: Dr. Shaun Canning Subject: Re: Polarizer If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway! You can remove reflections easily in Photoshop? Wow. I don't think so. William Robb
Re: Polarizer
SinghRay and Cokin both have several fancy polarisers. The effects you can create with them are mostly romantic cliché or surrealism... :-) From SinghRay I only have the plain, regular circular polariser. What I really like about it is that it is absolutely neutral in colour, and made to fit the Cokin P adapter system which is easily available and have cheap parts (adaptor rings costs about USD 5 in these parts). Jostein Ryan wrote: B+W and Singh Ray? exy! :) But I reckon Singh Ray makes a variety of interesting polarisers which could come in handy for creating dramatic landscapes.
Re: Back from vacation
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 3:37 AM Subject: RE: Back from vacation Its a thin concrete mix coating applied to bare poured concrete or block foundations.Mostly used to hide imperfections but also acts as a waterproofing agent,to some degree. Similar texture as in brick layers mortar. Most older homes in Canada have it but not so much the newer ones(i have the older home).It falls off due to water, wind, freeze/warm cycles and needs to be touched up on occasion. Thats my vacation project,and why i thought it would be a poor PAW project.. OR will it. Paint the wall with a mix of white glue and water prior to parging. The stuff will stay on through an earthquake after that. William Robb
RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Dave M said: I was about to say yes until I paid attention to the word 'analog'. So, Oh boy. Missed that completely.D'oh. However the iv F has an anolog scale which i do look at.lol Dave Brooks
ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..
I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I actually have it in hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or Tuesday. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be shooting anything on Monday or Tuesday.. I'm currently also trying to procure a Lexar 2GB WA 80x CF card and a Sigma EX 70-200 2.8, a Sigma EX 2X teleconverter, and probably a 77mm UV filter too, from Hugo So (good reviews from various sources) in Hong Kong. However, because Hugo doesn't stock Pentax (or compatible) lenses, he's taking a while to get back to me. Hence the premonished water-water-everywhere-and-not-a-drop-to-drink scenario. Anyway. Unless one of you wants to bring my attention to a better source.. or post me all your old little CFs now that you've upgraded to 8gb cards (Come on, you were planning to. Be impulsive every now and then! Do something every day that scares you! Treat yourself!) Cheers, Ryan (slowly getting there)
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Three Norwood Directors around here somewhere plus one or two stripped down for parts. One went successfully through calibration a couple of years ago. Works just fine. Keep them mostly for the memories --- first one came into the family in 1949 --- for use with the vacation film camera (Spotmatic Fs and ESIIs) kit. Day-to-day a Sekonic L-508 carries the load for the very few requirements that arise with digital cameras these days. Hard to beat the info in the histograms. Otis Wright Keith Whaley wrote: Frantisek wrote: Thursday, August 26, 2004, 11:29:27 PM, Markus wrote: MM This is my second post... MM I got a Gossen Sixtar 2 meter for $5 and wonder, how good the metering MM actually will be compared to the camera metering. MM I need to replace the batteries before I can test it, but welcome any MM comments from the group :-) MM Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when? Dunno about your Sixtar, I don't know that model. Still metering with my L398, it's a trusty tool. When? Whenever situation calls for incident metering :) Hah! How about my trusty L-28c2? NO batteries! g I use it when my subject is in drastically different light than my camera's in. If I can. Such as when I'm standing in full sunlight, and my subject is under a tree being shaded. Get out my Sekonic and put the hood on the lens... Good light! fra keith whaley
Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..
Hi Ryan. Good news. I'd be interested in how you view the Sigma F2.8 when you receive it and have some trials with it. When i get around to getting a *isD,i was thinking of the Sigma 70-210 f2.8 Dave I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I actually have it in hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or Tuesday.
Re: black and white
Negative film is just negative film in most every context. But Epson does refer to it as a negative transparency, which is actually a very accurate description. Paul Paul Stenquist wrote: Slide film is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers to it as positive transparency film, while what we commonly call negative film is designated negative transparency film. Paul Isn't negative transparency only used if it's mounted for projection? If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, it's just a negative. No? keith whaley On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote: GI The same here in Italy: dia, short for diapositiva. The word GI invertibile (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent GI past. Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? What about chromes? Good light! fra
Re: black and white
From a scanning POV, I guess anything that requires the light to be shone through to scan it is a transparency, whether it's a photographic film or not. I think it's just in a scanning context it makes sense to talk about a negative transparency. Mounted or not. And I can't really imagine why anyone would want to project a negative...? Paul, I don't really have a clue about the general state of the phrase slide film, but I have often heard both American and European business people refer to their powerpoint presentations as slide shows...:-) Jostein Keith Whaley wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: Slide film is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers to it as positive transparency film, while what we commonly call negative film is designated negative transparency film. Paul Isn't negative transparency only used if it's mounted for projection? If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, it's just a negative. No? keith whaley On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote: GI The same here in Italy: dia, short for diapositiva. The word GI invertibile (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent GI past. Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? What about chromes? Good light! fra
Re: Polarizer
I've got a 77mm Singh Ray gold and blue polariser (slim for wide angle), and it's pretty interesting. Unfortunately, it seems to give clouds a pinkish hue sometimes. It's pretty useful for sunsets and sunrises though. Here's a link to an image I shot at both extremes (those specks in the mist are ducks which get their bottoms wet way too early in the morning): http://home.iprimus.com.au/heygoose/SRGBpol.jpg Not yet got my USD310 (+shipping..) worth, but I'll get there :) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 11:40 PM Subject: Re: Polarizer SinghRay and Cokin both have several fancy polarisers. The effects you can create with them are mostly romantic cliché or surrealism... :-) From SinghRay I only have the plain, regular circular polariser. What I really like about it is that it is absolutely neutral in colour, and made to fit the Cokin P adapter system which is easily available and have cheap parts (adaptor rings costs about USD 5 in these parts). Jostein Ryan wrote: B+W and Singh Ray? exy! :) But I reckon Singh Ray makes a variety of interesting polarisers which could come in handy for creating dramatic landscapes.
Re: black and white
Hi Paul, One last thought... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Negative film is just negative film in most every context. But Epson does refer to it as a negative transparency, which is actually a very accurate description. Paul I've always thought of a transparency as a piece of film you view as is. You aren't required to print it to view it as you would have seen it, had you been there at the time. In other words, you put a transparency in a projector or look at it after it's inserted in a viewer. But, you do NOT print it. A negative on the other hand has all the light and dark tones reversed and needs to be printed onto print paper for the image to be as it was seen in person. A negative is a negative. If you have a different definition of a transparency please tell me. Thanks, keith whaley Paul Stenquist wrote: Slide film is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers to it as positive transparency film, while what we commonly call negative film is designated negative transparency film. Paul Isn't negative transparency only used if it's mounted for projection? If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, it's just a negative. No? keith whaley On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote: GI The same here in Italy: dia, short for diapositiva. The word GI invertibile (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent GI past. Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? What about chromes? Good light! fra
Re: PESO: What is this stuff?
I should have known better. --- Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh come now did you really think he wouldn't? Brendan wrote: EEEGAADDD!! VAL!!! how could you!!! --- Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Care for some Chock full of nuts with your Spotted Dick? How'bout a rusted one ? http://www.pbase.com/image/33058201 __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: A3 prints from *istD
I have yet to try a a3 off the *istD on my 2200 but the A4's look very good! from what I have seen a 36x24 won't be too difficult to do once proper care ( and a good original shot! ) --- Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jostein wrote: So I got curious. I asked a pro-lab in Oslo to go as large as _they_ considered reasonable quality, and told them the file was from a 6 Mpix DSLR. They print on a Epson Pro 9600. What I got back was an A2 enlargement. At this size, it was easy to spot the blurring of details less than 3 pixels across. The Pentax way of anti-aliasing made them blend together. There were no artificial coloring or moire, though. Another gripe was that contrast got a bit out of hand, so that dark detail became jagged edges or little squares, 2-3 pixels across. They (you) had to interpolate the file up before printing, just to keep 200 to 300 dpi! That way you can ALWAYS get rid of visible pixelation (no extra detail though). Dario Bonazza __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..
there's a 70 210 2.8? Ryan - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:49 PM Subject: Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta.. Hi Ryan. Good news. I'd be interested in how you view the Sigma F2.8 when you receive it and have some trials with it. When i get around to getting a *isD,i was thinking of the Sigma 70-210 f2.8 Dave I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I actually have it in hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or Tuesday.
Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..
Ah.. I just checked it up.. interesting- I was just making the decision based on more recent catalogues. Pretty hard to find the 70 210 2.8 I'd think.. no? Ryan - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:19 AM Subject: Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta.. there's a 70 210 2.8? Ryan - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:49 PM Subject: Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta.. Hi Ryan. Good news. I'd be interested in how you view the Sigma F2.8 when you receive it and have some trials with it. When i get around to getting a *isD,i was thinking of the Sigma 70-210 f2.8 Dave I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I actually have it in hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or Tuesday.
Re: new to list
Welcome, although you can see what you've gotten yourself into. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2004 7:36:22 AM frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About the only piece of advice you haven't received (and I might as well say it before Mark Roberts does... vbg): Don't believe anything I say. LOL Right. Don't believe anything Frank says. Even that. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: black and white
Frantisek a écrit : GI The same here in Italy: dia, short for diapositiva. The word GI invertibile (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent GI past. Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? In France diapo ! Michel
Re: new to list
Should it not have said don't believe what anyone says, especially FRANK! --- Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Welcome, although you can see what you've gotten yourself into. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2004 7:36:22 AM frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About the only piece of advice you haven't received (and I might as well say it before Mark Roberts does... vbg): Don't believe anything I say. LOL Right. Don't believe anything Frank says. Even that. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
FS Friday: PZ-1p, FA 28-70
PZ-1p, KEH EX+ condition, includes grip strap, extra battery, everready case, instruction manual, neckstrap, body cap, etc. Beautiful condition and works beautifully. $325 including shipping/insurance in the continental U.S. FA 28-70 f/4, EX+ condition, this one is the made in Japan one and feels smooth and well put together. Includes front and rear caps and Pentax soft case. $90 including shipping/insurance in the continental U.S. If you want both as a kit, $400 including shipping/insurance will do. Joe -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Communication and Marketing Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873
RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
A Gossen Lunasix 3s for incident readings (it's spot on, no pun intended) and a (digital) Gossen SpotMaster for spot readings and flash (when I'm not letting the LX take care of the flash) AB -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
Re: Slow night. Posting a self-portrait
I have an office just like this buried under a bunch of stuff. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Tom, I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then again there's the problem of repeated messages. I think there must be more than one problem at work here... If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding, that could explain many of the problems we observe on the list in one go. Messages can be delayed for a variable amount of time, depending on the load of the victim server, and may loose messages while flooded. If it uses Sendmail to propagate the messages, it may also loose track (during floods) of which messages are sent, and start all over again from the top of the queue. Resends can also occur if the victim server fails to send a confirmation of reception back to the previous server in the chain. Then the previous server will assume it lost and resend it after a while. Then, when the server gets on top of the load again, both messages are propagated. This may of course happen with messages destined TO the PDML server as well. It would give much the same results, but to fewer users. I'm also sure Doug is aware of this and keeps the path clean as far into cyberspace as he can. Jostein I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: PESO - This Weekend at Mt. Hood
(Just catching up on some old threads...) On 8/9/04 22:39, Tom C wrote: It was my first time to Mt. Hood. I didn't have enough time to research the details, trails, etc. There's a renowned stock photo that was taken at Lost Lake in winter that I have admired for over 20 years. I used to keep it at my desk and escape for several minutes each afternoon. Quite therapeutic. Although many have photographed the mountain, the image you're referring to may be something by Ray Atkeson, a prolific and distinctive landscape photographer who captured Oregon on film from the late twenties through the eighties. I couldn't find a decent website commemorating his work, but some of his images are available here: http://208.56.96.178/ and Powell's has a summary of his books here: http://www.powells.com/search/DTSearch/search?author=Ray%20Atkeson One interesting comment from him that I'll never forget came from an interview he did in the seventies. During the interview, he comments on how the air quality has really degraded and that there are only a few months out of the year that he can get good images of Mt. Hood. Now, some 30 years later, the situation is much worse. It is simply impossible to see the mountain from Portland without some trace of smog or haze. I'm sure he's spinning in his grave. t
Re: Polarizer
It can be done, not so sure how easy it is depends on one's skill and which version of PS is being used. I've got a tutorial on it in one of the PS books, but never tried it. Shel If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway! You can remove reflections easily in Photoshop? Wow. I don't think so. William Robb
thanks for the welcome + 4sale
thanks for the warm welcome! and answering my questions. understand about ebay now grin. well, lasse, you see it's this way. way back when i bought i think my first SF camera i kept picking it up to find film used, settings changed etc. finally told my husband get yer own so he did. we just kind of kept leap frogging up the newer release ladder over the years. he bought the first digital camera (fuji 2900), i bought the next (fuji 5900) and he got the next (fuji 4900). he still has the 2900 and uses it at work, but as i get older that super nice little 5900 was just to physically small and i really missed that 35mm feel so i got the first *istD and as we go a few months later he got his. we then found that my theory of naturally going to the pentax DSLR (not that i would want to tote our daughters huge canon around) is because we already had so much pentax equipment. didn't take long to figure that the lenses that did a SUPER nice job with film wasn't going to give us the quality we wanted with the *istD so we've both purchased newer lenses in the past few months: the sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO and tamron 28-75 2.8. jim also uses several of his older manual pentax and takumar lenses, i did buy a super takumar 135 2.5 but as i have difficulty visually focusing it (miss that split focusing screen on the MX) i don't use it much now. hopefully my last lens purchase (who's that ROTFL out there!!!) was made last week when i purchased through ebay the pentax 100mm f2.8 macro as i do enjoy macro photography. regarding the subject of film vs digital -- i have no problem with people that prefer film, did that for many years ourselves, we will be keeping one of our film cameras as i do need slides of my paintings to enter art shows occasionally. but i sure do enjoy knowing on the spot if i have the shot i wanted and might not have a chance to get again for a long time if ever again. plus i find myself being more willing to try some things i might not try with film due to the cost of experimentation (laughing, yeah, cuz i do know it's gonna take a while to balance the cost of the new equipment vs the rolls of film!) thanks for the info re sale day, i'll try to get a definite list together for next friday as there is a lot we won't be keeping any longer, at least a PZ1 and maybe my PZ1P if jim's old honeywell will do the slides, a couple of nice zoom lenses (70-200 and 28-300 sigmas), a couple of other fixed lenses, data back F, at least one flash, filters etc. please email privately if you can't wait till i get the list officially together. oh, and if anyone is interested in a compete darkroom setup jim is letting his go, just ask privately about it. someone asked where we are in california? atascadero which is on 101 half way between LA and SF, think they were in sacramento which is about 5 hours driving time for us. if ya'll meet somewhere half way let us know or if anyone is more our direction give a yell. i still have a lot of animals so hard for us to get away together for more than a day. karen Welcome to the list, Karen! You've got two *istD:s? Please give me one of them... Lasse Quick question. I'm going on vacation next weekend and hope to do some nature photography (waterfalls, etc...) Should I be shooting with a polarizer? If yes, what brand do you recommend? Equipment: *IstD, Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, Sigma 20mm 1.8 (if it gets here before I leave), Pentax FA 135 2.8
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Me too. I really like the meter. Mostly use it for studio flash work, but some ambient readings outdoors, too. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, August 27, 2004, 6:35:54 AM, you wrote: DM I was about to say yes until I paid attention to the word 'analog'. So, DM NO. I use a Gossen Luna Pro Digital F. I like this meter because it DM will tell me the flash and incident light readings simultaneously, DM making it really easy to balance fill flash. Dave
Re: ENABLEMENT! Well sorta..
Ryan, Congrats! Sort of... :) -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, August 27, 2004, 6:48:14 AM, you wrote: RL I've been trying to hold back my little shout out til I actually have it in RL hand, but after a day, I've decided that having already paid, it's close RL enough. So, what's in the mail.. Well, how about an *ist D, a D BG-1, and a RL CS205- straight from the distributor. Should be arriving on Monday or RL Tuesday. RL Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be shooting anything on Monday or RL Tuesday.. I'm currently also trying to procure a Lexar 2GB WA 80x CF card RL and a Sigma EX 70-200 2.8, a Sigma EX 2X teleconverter, and probably a 77mm RL UV filter too, from Hugo So (good reviews from various sources) in Hong RL Kong. However, because Hugo doesn't stock Pentax (or compatible) lenses, RL he's taking a while to get back to me. Hence the premonished RL water-water-everywhere-and-not-a-drop-to-drink scenario. RL Anyway. Unless one of you wants to bring my attention to a better source.. RL or post me all your old little CFs now that you've upgraded to 8gb cards RL (Come on, you were planning to. Be impulsive every now and then! Do RL something every day that scares you! Treat yourself!) RL Cheers, RL Ryan (slowly getting there)
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Gossen LunaPro F. I've got the 15/7.5 degree attachment for pseudo-spot readings, but I use it mostly as an incident meter. Vital equipment when I'm out with the 4x5... -Mat
Re: Polarizer
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Polarizer It can be done, not so sure how easy it is depends on one's skill and which version of PS is being used. I've got a tutorial on it in one of the PS books, but never tried it. I can see it for large areas, such as a window, but not for complicated scenes. Too much fiddling, not enough photography. I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who try to find a software solution to everything (The don't worry if the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop mentality), but really, there are better solutions out there. I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place. If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing filter. That's just what I think. William Robb
Re: Polarizer
Agreed. Your point about trying to fix lots of small reflections is well taken. The reflections used as an example in the tutorial I mentioned were relatively large and quite localized - reflections off the lens of a subject's eye glasses. For nature and scenics, the subtle changes that are made to a scene when photographed thru a POL filter cannot really be duplicated in PS. One of the things that a POL can do well is get PAST the reflections in water, enabling one to see below the surface. No amount of fiddling in PS is going to make that happen. Shel Belinkoff Sig line for CRB: People who hate cats will come back as mice in their next life. [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 8/27/2004 9:21:34 AM Subject: Re: Polarizer From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Polarizer It can be done, not so sure how easy it is depends on one's skill and which version of PS is being used. I've got a tutorial on it in one of the PS books, but never tried it. I can see it for large areas, such as a window, but not for complicated scenes. Too much fiddling, not enough photography. I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who try to find a software solution to everything (The don't worry if the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop mentality), but really, there are better solutions out there. I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place. If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing filter. That's just what I think. William Robb
Re: More 15/3.5 samples - seeking opinions
Absolutely. http://mk37.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821246.21.jpg http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821247.22.jpg http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821249.24.jpg http://mk29.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821248.23.jpg http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821243.16.jpg http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982020.13.jpg http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982021.15.jpg http://mishappa.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982022.16.jpg http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982023.19.jpg http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982024.20.jpg http://mishopi.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982025.30.jpg http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u20/wlachan/upload/32982027.36.jpg Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan unfortunately, I can't download the full scans (which, contrary to what others say, would tell us something about the lens, as they are not 72 dpi but big scans at 2800 dpi or so), because my browser crashes. Could you post the direct link to the files? Frantisek _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
FS: Cameras and lenses
I have the following cameras and lenses for sale: Pentax Z-1 AF SLR + FDP Gripstrap + F electronic cable release + instruction manual, in Spanish. I will also include 2 unused 2CR5 lithium batteries, each one lasts about twenty-five 36-exposure films. The camera is in excellent condition, both mecanically and electronically, but there is some mist into the eyepiece, barely visible except against strong light. It doesn't have any influence on the performance of the camera or the metering, but it is somewhat annoying when shooting backlit scenes. I suppose it is quite easy to clean, but I don't dare to disassemble the eyepiece, and as I want to sell the camera, it doesn't make to much sense to have it cleaned. I want 200 euros for everything, a cheap price due to the eyepiece issue. Pentax MZ-5 AF SLR + Fg AA battery grip + Spanish instruction manual. Both the camera and the battery grip are in LN condition (I don't have the neckstrap, though). 200 euros. SMC-Pentax FA 80-320 mm. 4.5-5.6 AF zoom (black version) + Pentax plastic clip-on hood (designed for the K-series 85-210 mm.) 135 euros. In excellent+ condition. 100 euros. Kenko SHQ 1.5x AF teleconverter + case. Like new and boxed, it has the contacts needed for Pentax powerzoom lenses. 50 euros. If you are interested in one of these items, please send a message to my email box, not the list. Shipping expenses are not included in these prices. Thank you for your attention.
Re: Polarizer
You can do some things. like enhancing colours, but you can´t remove reflections from surfaces because then you have to distinguish between what is reflected and what was under the surface. No program can do that, but by guessing a person can do a little bit more. DagT På 27. aug. 2004 kl. 17.42 skrev Shel Belinkoff: It can be done, not so sure how easy it is depends on one's skill and which version of PS is being used. I've got a tutorial on it in one of the PS books, but never tried it. Shel If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway! You can remove reflections easily in Photoshop? Wow. I don't think so. William Robb
Re: More 15/3.5 samples - seeking opinions
Look at the window and group just behind the old lady with red pants. IMHO that's were you have actually focused. And the lens is soft on corners (which is suggested by details at left of old man, should be at about same distance as group and window). All in all the image has the same look as those from my dog lens (the non-SMC A 28-80, especially at 80 wide open). Alan Chan wrote: http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u8/wlachan/upload/32821247.22.jpg
Re: Polarizer
Amazing! Seems that more and more photography is done in Photoshop these days. Is this REALLY photography, or Photoshopography? Never mind that what one gets from diddling in Photoshop is usually only similar to the effects achieved by a competent photographer using a camera and appropriate accessories. They're both ways to achieve a desired effect. And if anything can make Photoshop look cheap, it's a set of two or three different types of filters in sizes to fit a variety of lenses. Just a polarizer and 2x/4x neutral density filters for the common 58mm plus the 77mm of my 80-200/2.8 can cost more than a full retail copy of Photoshop. That said, it's really better to deal with the issue *before* the image gets recorded (on film, in digital memory, or whatever ...), if you can. I think the *ist-D benefits from a polariser far more than most film. I certainly plan to have one before I visit Hoover Dam in a few weeks. As for POL filters, I like the Multi-Coated B+W filters best Hoya multi coated would be an acceptable second choice. Any opinions on the Pentax filters? (And, for that matter, what's a Kaesemann polaris/zer?)
Re: Polarizer
I agree. The filter removes information coming into the image plane, if you dont filter it, once the unfiltered light gets blended in, there is no information in the bits that say: this bit is polarized at such and such angle. Photoshop stuff is a fudge at best to duplicate the look. Color filterization simulation is easier in photoshop, but at the expense of noise, a real filter is still better. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Polarizer It can be done, not so sure how easy it is depends on one's skill and which version of PS is being used. I've got a tutorial on it in one of the PS books, but never tried it. I can see it for large areas, such as a window, but not for complicated scenes. Too much fiddling, not enough photography. I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who try to find a software solution to everything (The don't worry if the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop mentality), but really, there are better solutions out there. I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place. If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing filter. That's just what I think. William Robb
Re: Polarizer
On 27/8/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Too much fiddling, not enough photography. I realize that there is a whole contingent of people out there who try to find a software solution to everything (The don't worry if the shot is buggered up, we'll fix it later in Photoshop mentality), but really, there are better solutions out there. I think the best solution is to shoot it right in the first place. If the scene needs polarization, then the camera needs a polarizing filter. That's just what I think. William Robb I agree absolutely. BTW digital is a new method of recording pictures but really there is nothing new in what can be done to the image that hasn't been done before by nifty darkroom work or awesome retouching. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: I enjoy film
You are a class act Shel. Glad you're still around. Robert - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:21 PM Subject: Re: I enjoy film For me the issue is quality results in conventional BW and quality processing and achieving a certain look and feel from the color work that I do. The digital workflow does not give me what I want, and those mini-labs don't come close to what I consider is good color work. And while some of the pro labs here do much better work - some of it exquisite and beyond reproach - some of them are not much better than the cheap mini labs. But at least I have a choice, some people don't, or not a choice that's as easily made or attainable. By the time I scan a neg and then have the results processed and printed, I've spent way too many hours for too little result. The current crop of high end consumer scanners suck, I don't care what any techie and digi-workflow proponent on this or any other list or web site says. The ONLY scans I've ever gotten that meet my standards (and I'll admit they are high) have come from the higher end Imacon and even higher end Tango drum scanners. Truth is, I don't even find the new Nikon scanners satisfactory for posting images to the web in many instances. But I use the scanner to share what is some semblance of my work with others, and it provides some fun and diversion during the small hours of the night when I can't sleep. So, what the hell am I doing jerking around trying to conform to the new technology and photographic workflow if i can't get the results I want? Makes no sense whatsoever. back to doing more conventional work, and refreshing those skills. If you think digital will give you what you want, then by all means, make the move. I'm not one to tsalk because I may get a baby istD, or pick up a used istD Grande, at some point. I like the digi stuf for some things, and want more than what my Sony camera will give me. I think the CONVENIENCE of digital is wonderful, but, speaking as a BW shooter, there's nothing in the digital marketplace that will replace film. Don't waste your time trying to make your own chemicals, at least not in the beginning. Learn - really learn - the process first. While it's easy, there are many layers of subtlety that you may wish to explore. Once you really know what you're doing, and really know what results you want and how to achieve them, then it may be a lot of fun to mix your own chemicals, even make your own paper. My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. Then go see some exhibition quality work by the great photogs and printers. And just because a work is on exhibition does not mean it's exhibition quality. See real prints. Reproductions in books are not even close to good quality. You MUST know what a good print looks like (and you must be familiar with the various styles and types of printing) before you can start making your own prints and start developing (literally) your own style. You must also learn how to properly expose your film. Just getting a perfect exposure based on meter readings is not good enough. You must be able to understand light well enough to be able to creatively over or under expose based on meter readings, and to be able to properly develop the film for those modified exposures. This takes a little experience and practice. It's not rocket science, but a proper exposure is paramount in obtaining the results you want. Shel From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, Shel... I've read your mail and I understand what you're saying. But try to think from my point of view... First, I'm a programmer. I work with computers every day, downloading/printing/CD burning/whatever is trivial for me (well... Photoshop processing is not... but I could learn that easily if I want to). I have a computer; however, it needs an upgrade (already planned). As my old printer doesn't work anymore, I may as well buy another one... just fine for digital prints. I have a film camera, because I couldn't afford a good digital one... but Baby-D will appear soon. I'm tired of scratched films and dull prints I get from minilabs. I pay allot of money for them! (I think most minilabs here don't change the chemicals. Ever :( ) And I never get what I want... Because of that, I can say I don't enjoy film... not this way. So, what I can do? Well... of course I want to set-up a classic darkroom grin (even if I'll have to use the bathroom for that), in fact I'm looking for enlargersstuff like that. If you want a job done right, do it yourself... And I'm sure I'll enjoy doing this! Problem solved. No need to go digital... I know I'm able to cope with the
Statistics (was Re: I enjoy film)
Hmmm. Let's do some statistics. Supposing that 80% of the camera owners are boneheads (in respect to photography) and 50% of the lab operators are boneheads (in respect to their work). What is the probability that when a customer enters a random lab, at least one of them client/operator is a bonehead ? It is just as likely that there is a large group of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs.
Re: Prodigal returns
Sounds like typical English weather. . .
PAW - The last one
OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 PAW´s). I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time to stop :-) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908size=lg DagT
Re: I enjoy film
Vic ... Time to burst your bubble: not every lab is going to give you the same quality results when processing slide film. As with all labs, there are those that are poor, those that are good, and those that are superior. Try this experiment: get a few short rolls of your favorite slide film, all from the same emulsion batch. Expose each frame on every roll in the same manner (you may need a neutral or controlled lighting environment for this). Include a Kodak grey Card or Macbeath Color Chart in the scene. Bracket your exposures as fine as you can within a two (or preferably, three) stop spread. 1/4 or 1/3 stop brackets are best for this little test. Be sure the camera is mounted on a tpod or a secure, solid base. Use no filters, but use a good lens hood. Now take the rolls of slide film and deliver it to several labs, including your favorite lab. Pick the other labs at random, although try to include any lab you've heard is great or awful. Do not have the slides mounted. View them thru a good quality loupe on a properly calibrated and color corrected light pad or box, or thru a slide projector on a quality screen in a properly dark room. Then decide for yourself if there's no difference in lab quality and results. Experience here tells me that there can be substantial differences in the results. Substantial is, BTW, subjective. My substantial may be your inconsequential. However, I'll bet you a couple of rolls of your favorite slide film that you will see differences. One other thing: if all you shoot is slide film, you may well be losing the creative opportunities available from other types of emulsions. maybe that's a non-issue for you, but it is something to consider. Shel From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Again, another reason to shoot slide film. You get what you shoot. If the images don't come out right, 99 per cent of the time it's your fault... No need to blame the printer. It's also the one of the best ways (along with shooting digital) to learn proper exposure. Too many negative shooters just get close enough and then blame the prints on the printer... Vic
RE: PAW - The last one
Great shot love the composition. Simple, direct. Shel From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 PAW´s). I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time to stop :-) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908size=lg DagT
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and will be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still be a huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or money to buy film, in such places? We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it will probably be able to support digital. Since the industry as an entity wants the marketplace to switch to digital, that is where developing markets will be led. Yeah, I see what you mean. OTOH, film is always going to be simpler in many ways, and thus ought to be easier to introduce, and as long as it's lower-cost, or requires a lower one-time investment, anyway, I guess some companies might find it viable to push it on markets where they would never expect to sell (higher-priced) digital - or if you like, dump some old technology in markets where the new one cannot be sold. (Perhaps that was what other people said?) The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease of use, or any quality factors. It's about an manufacturing sector that wants you to stop using film because there is no money in it for them. OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy, and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper. Yes. That's more or less what's I've been thinking, too - which it's what making me somewhat sceptical. I guess I'd like to live in a world where technology development is lead by quality or functionality considerations. Also, I hate to see another group of products becoming throwaway items. However, I've seen this claim that nobody is actually making money on digital cameras, either. Hard to believe, perhaps, based on what you are saying above, which I think is completely true, but of course there *is* an increase in development cost involved, too. Anyhow, if this is true, and it continues like that for a while, I'm wondering what will happen next... - T
Re: K30 vs M28/2
DJE, I'd take the M28/2.0. I recently acquired the K30/2.8 and like what results I have seen, but the M28/2.0 seems just as good to me. Mind you, I haven't done any formal testing, but the M28/2.0 seems to be as good as any wide Pentax makes from the K28/3.5 to the K30/2.8 or either 24/2.8. I've never had a K28/2.0, but don't think much of the big, clunky design. Take the M28/2.0 and be happy with those 49mm filters. England is dark and wet anyway... ;-) Regards, Bob S. DJE wrote: ... I can't decide between my K30 and the M28/2 that I unexpectedly stumbled across too cheap to resist. I haven't shot much with either lens and I'm not sure I'm going to get much of a chance to shoot with them before next year's planned trip to England, so I figured I'd ask for advice.
Re: Prodigal returns
8-) Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Sounds like typical English weather. . . In its changeability, yes. In its extremity, no. At one point there was just over 1 of rain in 2 hours. Not severe by the standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK. As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across the Atlantic. mike
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Hi, Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when? Yes. I have a Sekonic L-608 (electronic, flash, spot, etc) and a Sekonic L-208 Twinmate (analogue, incident and reflected light). I use the L-208 all the time for incident readings when I shoot with my Leicas, which don't have built-in meters, and recently I haven't shot with anything but my Leicas. The L-608 is very good, but it is almost bigger than the cameras and doesn't really go with the Leica way of doing things, in my opinion. I also have a Sekonic L-398M, but I no longer use it. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: black and white
Hi, Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? they are slides in the UK too. They slide into the projector. Dia and diapositive don't make sense either - techie jargon. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Looseness in front of lens
Hi Jon, I have a tool for 49mm and 52mm lenses. It is a metal cylinder with a gum rubber ring inside, works great. Before I got that I used a wooden disc cut slightly smaller than the filter size and a piece of the new non-slip rubber shelf liner. Not as convenient but worked OK. The trick is to get a grip without having to exert so much pressure as to jam the threads, this is self defeating. If you'd like to see a pic of the tool to get an idea of what to make let me know. Don -Original Message- From: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Looseness in front of lens I can't seem to loosen it using my fingers or small objects pushing on that ring. I don't know where on earth I could find a rubber stopper big enough to fit around that front element to be able to unscrew the ring that way. Anyone have any other ideas? Got to looking at my M135/3.5, it looks like it could use some work too if I could get its filter ring off... the hood doesn't like to stay in the extended position. What would fix that? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: I enjoy film
Shel wrote: My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. I couldn't agree more. When I returned to darkroom work after a twenty year hiatus, I read those books cover to cover, then reread them. Like Shel said, even if you don't subscribe to all of the zone system particulars, you will understand the exposure/darkroom equation if you fully comprehend Adams' writings. And you'll find that you incorporate elements of his thinking in your work. You'll find yourself analyzing shadow and highlight areas of a scene with a new understanding of how they will transfer to film. In the darkroom, you'll develop a strategy for dodging and burning a print that might never have occurred to you had you not been exposed to the Adams methodology. Paul
Re: Prodigal returns
On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: 8-) Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Sounds like typical English weather. . . In its changeability, yes. In its extremity, no. At one point there was just over 1 of rain in 2 hours. Not severe by the standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK. As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across the Atlantic. There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: PAW - The last one
I really like this. You've captured the sky in all its glory and your subject is also well exposed. The framing and composition are very artful and the subject is interesting. Great work. Don't stop posting your PAWs. We enjoy them. Paul From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 PAW´s). I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time to stop :-) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908size=lg DagT
Stupid question
Just wondering. When I display a good pic on my monitor, it looks sharp bright and contrasty. Now my monitor is small and has a resolution of only 72 dpi, so I can't display at 1:1 pixels but only a small part of a lets say 6 MP image from the *istD. Now suppose that I could buy a monitor with a bigger screen, and same 72 dpi resolution. With a 40x30 inch screen, I would be able to display the whole 6 MP image. It would look as great as a smaller part of it on the smaller screen, at same dpi. Now just think about trying to print the same 6 MP image on 40x30 inch paper. Methinks it would look soft and muddy. How comes it looks great on the low 72 dpi monitor and bad on the 300 dpi printer, at same final size ?
Re: PAW - The last one
Excellent, DagT. Very original. Too bad it's your last! :) t On 8/27/04 12:31, DagT wrote: OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 PAW´s). I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time to stop :-) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908size=lg DagT
RE: PAW - The last one
Very nice and taken with a DA14. So one has been manufactured. Great photo! -Original Message- From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - The last one OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 PAW´s). I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time to stop :-) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908size=lg DagT
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when? I still use a Pentax Spotmeter V from time to time. It's invaluable when you want to nail a specific part of a scene -- such as the sky at sunset. It's also great for determining the exposure range of a scene, and the sweeping needle is somehow more telling than a digital readout. It's a wonderful tool. In addition I have the original Pentax analog meter mounted on my H3v. If you know how to analyze what you see theret, it's quite accurate and useful. Paul
Re: Prodigal returns
Cotty wrote: On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: 8-) Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Sounds like typical English weather. . . In its changeability, yes. In its extremity, no. At one point there was just over 1 of rain in 2 hours. Not severe by the standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK. As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across the Atlantic. There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming? It feels like I've camped through them all. I think I've gone rusty. Had a similar experience in 1986 with the remnants of hurricane Charlie. mike
Re: Prodigal returns
What was the hurricane that hit London almost full force in 87 or 88? I was in a room on about the 20th floor of the hotel that sits at what must be the southwest corner of Hyde Park. I woke up in the middle of the night and the window was pushing in and out. It must have been moving an inch or two. I told myself it was just a storm and went back to sleep. When I awoke in the morning and looked out the window, I saw that dozens of the huge Plane trees in the park were uprooted and tossed about. Several buildings adjacent to the park had lost their roofs and some cars were overturned. My colleagues told me that they had spent the night cowering in the bathtub, which I suppose provided some sanctuary. For the next several days I had to walk all the way to Soho for some work meetings because the taxis couldn't get through the rubble. Paul On Aug 27, 2004, at 5:22 PM, mike wilson wrote: Cotty wrote: On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: 8-) Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Sounds like typical English weather. . . In its changeability, yes. In its extremity, no. At one point there was just over 1 of rain in 2 hours. Not severe by the standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK. As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across the Atlantic. There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming? It feels like I've camped through them all. I think I've gone rusty. Had a similar experience in 1986 with the remnants of hurricane Charlie. mike
RE: I enjoy film
Great post Shel, I'm getting inspired to do BW again. All the way from exposure to final print. Fortunately all I'll need is film, paper and chemistry. The rest just fell in my lap the other week in the form of 6 big boxes of darkroom stuff and a decent enlarger. It was given to a friend and he didn't want it! I used to have the Adams books, they were lost in a flood. Time to replace them. Hope I can pick your brain once in a while, I've forgotten an awful lot in 25+ years. Don -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I enjoy film snip My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. Then go see some exhibition quality work by the great photogs and printers. And just because a work is on exhibition does not mean it's exhibition quality. See real prints. Reproductions in books are not even close to good quality. You MUST know what a good print looks like (and you must be familiar with the various styles and types of printing) before you can start making your own prints and start developing (literally) your own style. You must also learn how to properly expose your film. Just getting a perfect exposure based on meter readings is not good enough. You must be able to understand light well enough to be able to creatively over or under expose based on meter readings, and to be able to properly develop the film for those modified exposures. This takes a little experience and practice. It's not rocket science, but a proper exposure is paramount in obtaining the results you want. Shel
RE: PAW - The last one
I love it! DON'T stop! Just switch to PESOs. ;-) Don -Original Message- From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - The last one OK, I just found out that I´ve been at it for exactly half a year (26 PAW´s). I´ve tried to keep posting pictures taken within the previous week, but its hard to get an interesting shot every week so it is time to stop :-) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2646908size=lg DagT
RE: I enjoy film
Barnes and Noble, here I come. Hope I can pick your brain a bit too Paul. After 25+ years I might be a tad rusty. ;-( Not to mention no clue as to what chemistry/paper is available now. Don -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 4:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I enjoy film Shel wrote: My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. I couldn't agree more. When I returned to darkroom work after a twenty year hiatus, I read those books cover to cover, then reread them. Like Shel said, even if you don't subscribe to all of the zone system particulars, you will understand the exposure/darkroom equation if you fully comprehend Adams' writings. And you'll find that you incorporate elements of his thinking in your work. You'll find yourself analyzing shadow and highlight areas of a scene with a new understanding of how they will transfer to film. In the darkroom, you'll develop a strategy for dodging and burning a print that might never have occurred to you had you not been exposed to the Adams methodology. Paul
Re: thanks for the welcome + 4sale
So here's the lady, antithesis to the 'convince-the-missus' institution! Welcome the list, Karen. Commendable how the million or so messages a day didn't get you into panicpanicsh*thowdoiunsubscribe mode. I haven't yet had the chance to browse your site, but I will pretty soon. Til then.. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Karen Clanin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 1:50 AM Subject: thanks for the welcome + 4sale thanks for the warm welcome! and answering my questions. understand about ebay now grin. well, lasse, you see it's this way. way back when i bought i think my first SF camera i kept picking it up to find film used, settings changed etc. finally told my husband get yer own so he did. we just kind of kept leap frogging up the newer release ladder over the years. he bought the first digital camera (fuji 2900), i bought the next (fuji 5900) and he got the next (fuji 4900). he still has the 2900 and uses it at work, but as i get older that super nice little 5900 was just to physically small and i really missed that 35mm feel so i got the first *istD and as we go a few months later he got his. we then found that my theory of naturally going to the pentax DSLR (not that i would want to tote our daughters huge canon around) is because we already had so much pentax equipment. didn't take long to figure that the lenses that did a SUPER nice job with film wasn't going to give us the quality we wanted with the *istD so we've both purchased newer lenses in the past few months: the sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO and tamron 28-75 2.8. jim also uses several of his older manual pentax and takumar lenses, i did buy a super takumar 135 2.5 but as i have difficulty visually focusing it (miss that split focusing screen on the MX) i don't use it much now. hopefully my last lens purchase (who's that ROTFL out there!!!) was made last week when i purchased through ebay the pentax 100mm f2.8 macro as i do enjoy macro photography. regarding the subject of film vs digital -- i have no problem with people that prefer film, did that for many years ourselves, we will be keeping one of our film cameras as i do need slides of my paintings to enter art shows occasionally. but i sure do enjoy knowing on the spot if i have the shot i wanted and might not have a chance to get again for a long time if ever again. plus i find myself being more willing to try some things i might not try with film due to the cost of experimentation (laughing, yeah, cuz i do know it's gonna take a while to balance the cost of the new equipment vs the rolls of film!) thanks for the info re sale day, i'll try to get a definite list together for next friday as there is a lot we won't be keeping any longer, at least a PZ1 and maybe my PZ1P if jim's old honeywell will do the slides, a couple of nice zoom lenses (70-200 and 28-300 sigmas), a couple of other fixed lenses, data back F, at least one flash, filters etc. please email privately if you can't wait till i get the list officially together. oh, and if anyone is interested in a compete darkroom setup jim is letting his go, just ask privately about it. someone asked where we are in california? atascadero which is on 101 half way between LA and SF, think they were in sacramento which is about 5 hours driving time for us. if ya'll meet somewhere half way let us know or if anyone is more our direction give a yell. i still have a lot of animals so hard for us to get away together for more than a day. karen Welcome to the list, Karen! You've got two *istD:s? Please give me one of them... Lasse Quick question. I'm going on vacation next weekend and hope to do some nature photography (waterfalls, etc...) Should I be shooting with a polarizer? If yes, what brand do you recommend? Equipment: *IstD, Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, Sigma 20mm 1.8 (if it gets here before I leave), Pentax FA 135 2.8
FS: Almost Friday, 17 Cameras
One more time in case anyone didn't get it the first time: I finally made up my mind as what to keep and what to sell. Probably put these up for auction this weekend or next. Thought I'd give you all first shot. 15 Pentax cameras, some body only, some with lenses, etc. *ist, ZX-5, ZX-10, Super Programs, etc. They're listed at: http://www.donsauction.com/ebay/sale.htm Please address inquiries to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] All on a First Come, First Served basis. ;-) Thanks Don
RE: Prodigal returns
mike wilson wrote: As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Camping in the UK?? On the two occasions I have *endured* this, I abandoned the tent in the awful weather and slept in the car. If I ever get conned into such a thing again, I won't bother to pack the tent Malcolm
Has Pentax Ever Made.......
a camera similar in quality/specs to the Olympus 35RC, or XA, or Stylus Epic? Three generations of wonderful little cameras. I've never seen one, if they did I'd love to have one! Don
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it will probably be able to support digital. Price of Fuji Frontier minilab for film: $300,000.00 Price of Fuji PrintPix to make 4x6 prints from digital: $6,000.00 Yeah, there are cheaper minilab setups than the Frontier (in fact, there are thousands of perfectly good minilabs in storage because there's no longer enough business to keep them in operation and you could probably pick one up for under $10,000.00) but there are also cheaper digital printing kiosks than the PrintPix. There's still a big difference in operating costs and complexity. I've said it before: There are going to be places that skip the film photography era altogether and go straight to digital. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: new to list
Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should it not have said don't believe what anyone says, especially FRANK! I don't believe that. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Lens tool
Here Ya' go. This is the Beljan 49mm one: http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/LensTool.htm Don -Original Message- From: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 5:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Lens tool Hi, If you could show me the pictures of the tool you use to remove the piece around the front element, I'd appreciate it. :) -Jon Myers. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: I enjoy film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb wrote: I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding photo labs on this list. It is just as likely that there is a large group of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs. Perhaps the dependance on auto everything cameras making people think they don't need to know anything is causing as many problems as it is solving. Again, another reason to shoot slide film. I've only had a lap screw up my processing once in the past 10 years. It was slide film. Ruined most of the roll. I was able to salvage a few shots in Photoshop. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: I enjoy film
Whose lap was it? -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 5:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I enjoy film [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb wrote: I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding photo labs on this list. It is just as likely that there is a large group of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs. Perhaps the dependance on auto everything cameras making people think they don't need to know anything is causing as many problems as it is solving. Again, another reason to shoot slide film. I've only had a lap screw up my processing once in the past 10 years. It was slide film. Ruined most of the roll. I was able to salvage a few shots in Photoshop. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Polarizer
Well, if you are reasonably competent and you have the appropriate plug-ins, you actually can remove reflections in photoshop! Cheers Shaun William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Dr. Shaun Canning Subject: Re: Polarizer If you have photoshop, you can apply the polarizing effects after the shot...saves buying filters to suit all your lenses anyway! You can remove reflections easily in Photoshop? Wow. I don't think so. William Robb -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: Has Pentax Ever Made.......
Don Sanderson wrote: ...a camera similar in quality/specs to the Olympus 35RC, or XA, or Stylus Epic? Three generations of wonderful little cameras. I've never seen one, if they did I'd love to have one! Don I have an XA, a 35 SP, and a couple of Pen Fs. I know of no similar cameras from Pentax... keith whaley
Re: black and white
Just a Kodak trademark I suppose. The even used the term for some BW films, as in Verichrome Pan. -- Anders Hultman wrote: On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Keith Whaley wrote: What about chromes? That nickname came from Kodak's Kodachrome® and Ektachrome® film, from which most 'slides' in the U.S. came, from a very long time ago... You knew that! g Kodak has had a tremendous influence on the terminology in photography, worldwide! Is it chrome in the film (as it is silver in b/w neg film) or do the word come from chroma as in colour? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: black and white
As well as I can recall, a slide originally referred to a 3-1/4 x 4 glass plate (like a microscope slide only bigger) positive for projection. By extension any positive transparency mounted for projection. Technically I guess a negative is actually a negative transparency, but common usage in the US is to call a positive transparency a transparency, and a negative transparency a negative. Strictly speaking a slide is still only a transparency that is mounted for projection, but the terms slide and transparency are often used interchangeably. And since no one seems to have looked it up and commented upon it, reversal film is short for direct-reversal film, e.g. a film that where the image is reversed by exposing it to a light (solarization), or by chemical means, thus differentiated from a positive copy made from a negative image. -- Jostein wrote: From a scanning POV, I guess anything that requires the light to be shone through to scan it is a transparency, whether it's a photographic film or not. I think it's just in a scanning context it makes sense to talk about a negative transparency. Mounted or not. And I can't really imagine why anyone would want to project a negative...? Paul, I don't really have a clue about the general state of the phrase slide film, but I have often heard both American and European business people refer to their powerpoint presentations as slide shows...:-) Jostein Keith Whaley wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: Slide film is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers to it as positive transparency film, while what we commonly call negative film is designated negative transparency film. Paul Isn't negative transparency only used if it's mounted for projection? If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, it's just a negative. No? keith whaley On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote: GI The same here in Italy: dia, short for diapositiva. The word GI invertibile (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent GI past. Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US must use the term slides... It doesn't make sense, what is slid where ;-) ? What about chromes? Good light! fra
Re: Prodigal returns
I was in London during a hurricane that hit with considerable force. The weather bureau failed to post any kind of warning. I guess the storm gained strength right before it came out of the Atlantic. I think it was 1987. I was in a room on about the 20th floor of a hotel. i believe it was at the southwest corner of Hyde Park. I awoke in the middle of the night to see the big picture window blowing in and out with lightning flashing all around. The window must have been moving an inch or two in each direction. I told myself it was nothing but a storm and went back to sleep. The next morning I awoke and looked out the window. The huge and ancient Plane trees of Hyde Park had been ripped from the ground and tossed about. Some buildings had lost their roofs. A few cars were overturned. My coworkers told me that they had spent the night in the bathtub of their rooms. I guess they felt somewhat sheltered there. For the next week I had to walk to some business meetings in Soho. The cabs couldn't navigate the streets. Lots of excitement, but I've always felt bad about those huge trees that were lost to the park.Very sad. On Aug 27, 2004, at 5:22 PM, mike wilson wrote: Cotty wrote: On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: 8-) Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Sounds like typical English weather. . . In its changeability, yes. In its extremity, no. At one point there was just over 1 of rain in 2 hours. Not severe by the standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK. As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across the Atlantic. There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming? It feels like I've camped through them all. I think I've gone rusty. Had a similar experience in 1986 with the remnants of hurricane Charlie. mike
PESO: vacation pics
nine days total around various parts of the Adirondacks in New York State and also in the local area as i had from Saturday to Sunday off. the first three are from Minnewaska State Park and the last one is from Harriman State Park. the rest are from various places in the Adirondacks. most of the trip was rainy when it normally is much drier. no real chances for sunsets nor macro shots. the times the sun came out, it was very humid and hazy and most of my distance shots were disappointing. didn't really take much time to find any macro shots, so didn't come away with any. so that left me with a lot of waterfall shots. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Seasonal/ Herb
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Still metering with my L398, it's a trusty tool. When? Whenever situation calls for incident metering :) KW Hah! How about my trusty L-28c2? NO batteries! g KW I use it when my subject is in drastically different light than my camera's KW in. If I can. KW Such as when I'm standing in full sunlight, and my subject is under a tree KW being shaded. KW Get out my Sekonic and put the hood on the lens... The L-398 works without batteries too :) I do like it a lot. I do not use it much with the digital, though. For film though, incident metering is a charm, mostly. Especially if you learn it, and do not use the idiotkugeln, but just the plain luxmeter flat panel. Last time with film, I also used a Spotmeter for some theater stuff, which worked very fine. If only it was actually smaller than my film camera! (the Pentax Spotmeter V, about the best analog spotmeter there is, is indeed very very large). Incident (especially lux) metering will teach anybody a lot about light and contrast. Even with digital. Good light! fra
Re: black and white
KW We in the U.S. have a LOT of odd regional or national words, with one or KW the other historical background stories to support it's use. KW I suspect the same is true of most European countries as well, truth be known... Sure. That's what makes languages fun :) Fra KW That nickname came from Kodak's Kodachrome® and Ektachrome® film, from which KW most 'slides' in the U.S. came, from a very long time ago... You knew that! g KW Kodak has had a tremendous influence on the terminology in photography, KW worldwide! I think the first 'Chrome was Lumieres' Autochrome. But I would have to flick out my back issues of Camera and Darkroom (UK) to check out :( Good light! fra
Re: PESO: vacation pics
when i was in the Adirondacks, i was north and west of Lake George. most of the shots are from areas reachable from NY Route 73 toward Lake Placid or north along NY Route 9N. along the way toward Lake Placid. Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:10 PM Subject: Re: PESO: vacation pics Beautiful shots, Herb. Great framing and composition. Are any of these from Lake George or Lake Champlain. That was our vacation site when we lived in Jersey. We always made a trip up to White Mountain and Lake Placid as well. Wonderful part of the country. Thanks for sharing.
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
Yes, the planned obsolescence of many products is unfortunate. I had a good cell phone that I needed to get a replacement battery for. When I took it back to the store where I got it from I was told the battery was no longer available. So I had to get a new phone. My Optio 230 is very obsolete now, what with it only having 2 megapixels of resolution. However, it does the job and I have no eagerness to get a more advance model because of the cost. Jim A. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:02:33 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:08:48 -0400 - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and will be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still be a huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or money to buy film, in such places? We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it will probably be able to support digital. Since the industry as an entity wants the marketplace to switch to digital, that is where developing markets will be led. The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease of use, or any quality factors. It's about an manufacturing sector that wants you to stop using film because there is no money in it for them. OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy, and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper. William Robb
RE: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
I still use my 1.3 Mpixel panasonic almost daily for ebay pix. I don't need anymore resolution for that, I always have to resize down anyway. I have no plans on replacing it until it dies. Sometimes obsolete isnt really obsolete, depends on the application. JCO -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) Yes, the planned obsolescence of many products is unfortunate. I had a good cell phone that I needed to get a replacement battery for. When I took it back to the store where I got it from I was told the battery was no longer available. So I had to get a new phone. My Optio 230 is very obsolete now, what with it only having 2 megapixels of resolution. However, it does the job and I have no eagerness to get a more advance model because of the cost. Jim A. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:02:33 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:08:48 -0400 - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and will be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still be a huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or money to buy film, in such places? We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it will probably be able to support digital. Since the industry as an entity wants the marketplace to switch to digital, that is where developing markets will be led. The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease of use, or any quality factors. It's about an manufacturing sector that wants you to stop using film because there is no money in it for them. OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy, and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper. William Robb
