Re: Darkroom Equipment Aquisition
On 6/12/04, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed: Nope, not geodesic. It's a fiberglass observatory with rotating roof and shutter. I take it you must have an interest in geodesics? 22nd contributor down from the top. Posted back in 1999. P.S. The dome size just went from 6 to 10 feet in diameter after I've given it some more thought. More room for a party. As my son sayswicked! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Hi, ... It would be really interesting to see if any company had the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of orders of magnitude to try to corner the market. it happens quite often. A lot of software is free for non-professional use, or free through an open source licence. It's not necessarily done to corner the market. Often it's done just to try and take a piece away from the market leader. For example, Sun's StarOffice cost me less than £30- from Amazon; the open source version OpenOffice is free. For most purposes it's as good as the Microsoft Office suite, which costs several hundreds of £. In many ways it's better. The ones who won't reduce their prices are the ones who have already cornered the market. That's the whole point of a monopoly - you can charge whatever you want! Where they face serious competition, or when they're introducing something new that they want developers to take up, Microsoft also gives away some very useful software, such as the SQL Server database engine, Web Matrix and others. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PAW - Bee and Flower Pic ;-))
Two beekeepers are chatting. One says to the other, ' So how many bees do you have then?' The second beekeeper answers, 'Oh about twenty thousand'. The first says, 'Twenty thousand, eh? Right. And so how many hives do you have?' The second answers, ' Ten hives'. The first says, 'Ten? Hmmm, twenty thousand bees, ten hives. Hmmm.' He nods approvingly. The second beekeeper asks, 'So how many bees do you have?' The first says, 'Me? Oh, I've got about a million.' The second beekeeper looks surprised. 'A million! Holy cow, how many hives do you have?' The first answers 'Oh just the one hive'. The second is astonished. 'A million bees and only one hive???' The first pauses and thinks, realising the gravity of the situation. He says 'Yeah well. Fuck 'em, they're only bees...' Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW: Rossin Pista
On 6/12/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2938717size=lg Your comments are always welcome, and I thank those in advance who look and are compelled to comment. Must be a cyclist thing Frank ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The one that got away
On 7/12/04, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed: A black K2 is pretty collectible if it's in good condition. Yes especially the professional version Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 6/12/04, Gateway, discombobulated, unleashed: My apologies for infiltrating the group. I don't shoot with a Pentax, I shoot with a Canon. There, I got it off my chest. Wait, it gets worse, it's a Canon digital. Now the bit where I try and score some brownie points. I love using manual focus (mostly because it's more acurate) and The Takumar and CZJ lenses that I have bought so far are absolutely phenomenal. Now I need to buy more. I have a whole slew of 50's and 55's and a couple of 35's (the Flektogon 35/2.4 is great but haven't had a chance to try out the Takumar 35/3.5 yet). Everything I shoot is 135mm or less. can I get some thoughts on some of the great M42 lenses that I should consider buying. Once again, sorry. Gateway (of that is indeed your name, or can I call you Col. Bat Guano??) You Do Not Want To Look Here: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html Bwahahahahaaa Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: MZ-S
When I break wind, smells like someone has died and people say oh my GOD thus proving god isn't dead ;) James On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:22:41 +, Nietzsche wrote: God is dead.
PESO a couple of wood peckers
Hi all, I just got back this month's film and thought I might post a few that I've scanned. Pilleated wood pecker http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/pilleated.jpg I had been chasing these guys around all fall when one day i spotted this fellow in the apple rite by our front porch. unfortunately the light was quite low and this was the only one out of about eight that was acceptably crisp. Sap sucker. I think. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/sap-sucker.jpg Critiques more than welcome. Thanks in advance, Francis
Re: Russian pancake portrait lens
Hi, just one question - why not to get black M42 (Industar-50-2) instead of silver M39 ? Optical formula of those two are identical, but I've found newer lenses to have better antireflective coatings. I have about 5 or 6 ones in my collection, some with cameras and some alone. Older lens with digital... oh yes, I've tried '54 Industar-22 (standard lens for first Zenit, non-collapsible version) and '56 Helios-44 (one of standard lenses for Zenit-S) with *ist D, while writing an overview for our photo/computer magazine. BR, Margus Juan Buhler wrote: A few days ago I inquired about a 39mm to 42mm adapter because I wanted to try an old Industar Zenit lens in the ist D. Well, Shel loaned me his, so behold this anachronism, the black tape special edition soviet * ist D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990444/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990443/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990442/ As seen in the first image, the serial number of the Industar starts in 59, which means 1959. Has anyone mounted older lenses on their digital cameras? Anyway, as it is, the lens doesn't seem to focus to infinity, even though it should (it is an SLR lens, and there are adapters for M42 made to be used with it). It makes for a nice portrait lens though. I might even go out and take some pictures with it now. j
Re: The one that got away
I was watching that auction. I was troubled by the 85 being described as an M 85/1.8. Are you sure it wasn't an M 85/2? If I'm not mistaken, I think all the other lenses were M versions. Paul On Dec 6, 2004, at 11:07 PM, Peter Spiro wrote: This was a very nice set with a black K2 and six lenses, including an 85mm f/1.8. http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3856266592 I was the high bidder until one minute before the end of the auction. The winner was a dealer, so watch for the individual items to re-appear on eBay. I suspect he overpaid, however. The items besides the 85mm are probably not worth more than $600 sold separately. The 85mm sells for about $300, but even that won't give him much profit for all the trouble he's going to.
OT: Computer help
Hi, I know some people are using WinME. Here is an excellent page of simply written, comprehensive information on maintaining the OS in as best condition as you can. http://users.adelphia.net/~jgulley/me/index.html mike CITY OF SUNDERLAND COLLEGE DISCLAIMER Confidentiality: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If they come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and highlight the error. Please note that the views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the college. Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us. Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure thay are actually virus free.
Re: My Latest M42 Lens, Auto Mamiya/Sekor SX 85mm F1.7
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, William Robb wrote: That looks really very nice. I don't know if it's true or not, I had heard that Mamiya wanted to emulate the smooth look of their RB lenses in their 35mm glass. Looking at the rendition that lens is giving, I can well believe it is so. Even I (who should not be able to see differences between lenses) am impressed. There is a clarity (resolution?) which jumps right at me. Well done JC. Kostas
Re: My Latest M42 Lens, Auto Mamiya/Sekor SX 85mm F1.7
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: My Latest M42 Lens, Auto Mamiya/Sekor SX 85mm F1.7 FYI, I added a couple of BW images at the bottom of the page. I wouldn't mind seeing how it does as a portrait lens. I bet it rocks. William Robb
Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
- Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra. You take years to learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along with your colleagues. A huge investment of time and effort. It is recorded and released on CD. Why is it $6, not $600? The answer, of course, is the effect of scale. At a cheap price, you can sell more and make the same, or better, profit. I know there are other factors involved in the argument but, for me, software is _grotesquely_ overpriced. It would be really interesting to see if any company had the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of orders of magnitude to try to corner the market. I did a seminar a few years back with a very good and successful photographer. On pricing, he said that if you want to drop your price 10%, you will have to do 40% more work to make up for the price drop. My Photoshop instructor mentioned one time that something like 90% of the installed Photoshop programs are pirated, with the other 10% being legitimate installs. People will take things for free if they have the opportunity, no matter what the cost is. I see it every day, with people shoplifting cheap trinkets out of my store. Pirating is what keeps the cost of software high. If those other 90% bought, everyone would pay significantly less. The cost of theft is built into the price, and the honest consumers pay for the crooks. William (no stolen software on my machine) Robb
Re: OT - Epson Printer
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: OT - Epson Printer Hi gang, I want an inexpensive printer for making QD proof prints and as an introduction to inkjet printing. The Epson C-84 was suggested as a possibility. Price is certainly right. Any thoughts on this puppy or similar inexpensive options? Thanks I've been using it's predecessor (the C-80) quite happily for the same thing for a few years now. No real issues with it, and it uses permanent pigment inks rather than dye inks. The only real issue is that the inks are quite prone to metamerizing. William Robb
Re: The one that got away
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: The one that got away On 7/12/04, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed: A black K2 is pretty collectible if it's in good condition. Yes especially the professional version Cotty, the black one is the professional version. William Robb
Re: The one that got away
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: The one that got away I was watching that auction. I was troubled by the 85 being described as an M 85/1.8. Are you sure it wasn't an M 85/2? If I'm not mistaken, I think all the other lenses were M versions. If you look at all the individual pictures, I think by process of elimination, there has to be a K 85/1.8 in there. It's an easy mistake to make if you aren't aware of the K lenses. I identified a K105/2.8 that I had bought as an M series on list one time. I didn't know at the time that there even was a K series, I thought they were all Ms. William Robb
Re: MZ-S - new to me
Tom from New Jersey? On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:05:31 -0500, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:49:17 -0600, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick, Bruce showed us how rotate the dial with a pull at Grandfather Mountain this year. He had somebody's MZ-S (Caesar's? or Tom C.'s?). Bruce sure does know his equipment. I remembered the trick when I got the camera and have had no dial problems. I checked the roll counter on my first roll of film. The camera looks mint and the straps, etc. had never been put on it. The count on my 1st roll was 27. I'm just hoping that means only 26 other rolls have been thru the camera. Congrats on a new toy, Bob. Was Tom C. at GFM? If so, I didn't meet him. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No problem. You're not the only one on this list who uses Pentax lenses on a Canon body. Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount lenses work also? This is so weird, that I just have to hear more... :-) -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mx shutter behavior
I checked out a used MX last night. The shutter mechanism behaved in a way I've not seen before. But use the self timer and ... a) the mirror would only shudder a bit (9/10 times) when it fires b) the next shot would (9/10 times) do the same. After that point it would work fine. And under normal operation it worked fine. Couldn't get it to misfire at all. Thoughts? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: My Latest M42 Lens, Auto Mamiya/Sekor SX 85mm F1.7
I'd love a shootout against the A100/2.8 The rendering looks good. What have you been able to gather about the optical formula? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: OT - Epson Printer
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:06:04 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I want an inexpensive printer for making QD proof prints and as an introduction to inkjet printing. The Epson C-84 was suggested as a possibility. Price is certainly right. Any thoughts on puppy or similar inexpensive options? I can't comment on this printer specifically, or it's competitors, for that matter. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 820 that I feel does really well up to the 8 x 10 prints that I've done on it. My comment, though, is that the really cheap printers are built and sold on the Razors Blades plan. They more or less give you the printer and make their profits on the ink. So, if you're doing a lot of volume, the ink costs can eat you up. I usually get about 30 or so 8 x 10 prints from a color cartridge on the 820. The cartridge costs about US$ 25, so it's around a buck a pop in ink. And since you're doing proof prints, I wouldn't get the third-party ink cartridges (or refill kits) unless I had the time and equipment and software to do full calibrations for the third-party inks. I'd also recalibrate more often using third-party inks, since I figure Epson probably goes to more effort to insure lot-to-lot consistency. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Thank you William, well said. Since I make part of my living selling software I stayed out of this, I get too hot. Don -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement - Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra. You take years to learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along with your colleagues. A huge investment of time and effort. It is recorded and released on CD. Why is it $6, not $600? The answer, of course, is the effect of scale. At a cheap price, you can sell more and make the same, or better, profit. I know there are other factors involved in the argument but, for me, software is _grotesquely_ overpriced. It would be really interesting to see if any company had the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of orders of magnitude to try to corner the market. I did a seminar a few years back with a very good and successful photographer. On pricing, he said that if you want to drop your price 10%, you will have to do 40% more work to make up for the price drop. My Photoshop instructor mentioned one time that something like 90% of the installed Photoshop programs are pirated, with the other 10% being legitimate installs. People will take things for free if they have the opportunity, no matter what the cost is. I see it every day, with people shoplifting cheap trinkets out of my store. Pirating is what keeps the cost of software high. If those other 90% bought, everyone would pay significantly less. The cost of theft is built into the price, and the honest consumers pay for the crooks. William (no stolen software on my machine) Robb
Re: MZ-S (a new beginning)
Jack Davis escribió: Still would appreciate almost any opinion as to auto focus/motor drive aspects of the MZ-S. Hello, Jack: I have had an MZ-S for three years, and although I'm not rich enough to own an FA 28-70 2.8, I use a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II on this camera, and also an FA* 80-200 2.8 It focuses really fast with the Tokina 2.6-2.8, and not so much with the FA 80-200 2.8, but continuous predictive AF works well with the 80-200. I have had excellent results shooting different moving objects going at 80-100 kph many times. As someone has told you some messages ago, focusing in low light is really good too, much better than most AF SLRs.
Re: MZ-S (a new beginning)
Jack Davis escribió: Bob, Your response is appreciated. I haven't double checked this, but I thought the fps was designed to be something like 2.5. Hope it serves you well. It is 2.5 fps, with or without the BG-10
Re: The one that got away
On 7/12/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty, the black one is the professional version. Of course. I knew there was a way of telling. Is that bag that comes with it a pro bag? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Jon Glass, discombobulated, unleashed: Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount lenses work also? This is so weird, that I just have to hear more... :-) K mount lenses do not work on Canon bodies, no how no way. EOS-K mounts do ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Your best M42 mount lenses.
since the canon EOS bodies have such a large throat, I do not understand why a simple EOS(body) to PK(lens) adapter would not be possible including infinity focus do these adapters exist now or not? JCO -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:11 AM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses. On 7/12/04, Jon Glass, discombobulated, unleashed: Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount lenses work also? This is so weird, that I just have to hear more... :-) K mount lenses do not work on Canon bodies, no how no way. EOS-K mounts do ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Good news
I've just had some excellent news. I've had an order in with SRB Film services here in the UK for three EOS-K mounts, and they are all done and will be with me in a day or two. This means I will be able to use my A*85 and K15 on the Darkside camera again. I also have the K50 1.2 that I dare say young Ryan might like to have a little play with when he arrives here later this week for a short stay. He'll be seeing a bit of the Cotswolds and some of Oxford this weekend - should give us plenty of picture making opps. Will advise. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Your best M42 mount lenses.
Hang on a second, I lost the sense in the thread. Can I get a K mount ot work on my Canon 20D? Regards to Cotty, Gareth (Outlook seems to want to call me Gateway, I sent a note to Bill Gates about the mistaken identity). -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:11 AM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses. On 7/12/04, Jon Glass, discombobulated, unleashed: Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount lenses work also? This is so weird, that I just have to hear more... :-) K mount lenses do not work on Canon bodies, no how no way. EOS-K mounts do ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: since the canon EOS bodies have such a large throat, I do not understand why a simple EOS(body) to PK(lens) adapter would not be possible including infinity focus do these adapters exist now or not? Well, I did see an auction pointed out to me with such an adapter, but the crucial thing is the aperture lever on the back of the lens - it must be removed as there is no space for it inside the camera body, despite such a deep, er large throat. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Gateway, discombobulated, unleashed: Hang on a second, I lost the sense in the thread. Can I get a K mount ot work on my Canon 20D? I don't know, but I can. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
D questions
I got my D and now I have some questions. :) I am also new to autofocus on SLR cameras. How many stuck pixels am I supposed to have ? I think I have 4. I can see them when jpg is generated by the camera but I can't find them when I use raw and Photoshop RAW converter, which is strange. I will use RAW mostly but it is disturbing to have something not working correctly. Is there a software which can remove this stuck pixels by knowing the position as it is always the same ? Should I return the camera and get another one ? I will investigate this more closely tonight. AF is really bad in low light with 16-45, I think it is worse than my Canon S45 PS, mostly because Canon has AF assist lamp. Is there such a thing for D ? How do I turn on AF assist ? Can internal flash do AF assist or I need to buy the external one ? What do most of you use, multipoint AF or center point ? It seems like a bad idea to use multipoint as you never know where will AF focus and DOF on SLR cameras is not forgiving as on PS. 16-45 feels cheap even comparing to my $20 Takumar 135/2.5, but that is ok, I am interested in its optical qualities. :) I was also surprised how light it is comparing to my 80-200/2.8 Tokina. :) You could defend yourself with Tokina if somebody attacks you. Is there a color profile for D ? How do I get accurate colors ? Should I get IT8 target and shoot it ?
Re: MZ-S (a new beginning)
Carlos, Good information. Thanks! Jack --- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis escribió: Still would appreciate almost any opinion as to auto focus/motor drive aspects of the MZ-S. Hello, Jack: I have had an MZ-S for three years, and although I'm not rich enough to own an FA 28-70 2.8, I use a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II on this camera, and also an FA* 80-200 2.8 It focuses really fast with the Tokina 2.6-2.8, and not so much with the FA 80-200 2.8, but continuous predictive AF works well with the 80-200. I have had excellent results shooting different moving objects going at 80-100 kph many times. As someone has told you some messages ago, focusing in low light is really good too, much better than most AF SLRs. __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
You might want to see if a Series-VI filter will fit. As I recall they are pretty close to 43mm in diameter, and since they do not have threads they are somewhat slimmer than millimetric filters. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Jerome Reyes wrote: Andre, If you need the UV only, I wouldn't mind breaking a set. Is it Pentax? If so, then I would be interested, but in an earlier email you mentioned that this was a normal 43mm SMC (filter) kit; that is, not designed as a drop-in filter, but rather a front element screw-on. The problem with this is that normal filters don't tend to fit into the drop-in housing. As Kenneth pointed out earlier today: I just tried a normal Tiffen 43mm 1A and it is too thick! ... but let me know if I'm mistaken. - Jerome _ Jerome D. Coombs-Reyes, Ph.D. Norfolk State University, Math Dept. http://math.nsu.edu/Math/faculty/jreyes/jreyes.htm http://exposedfilm.net
Re: PAW: Rossin Pista
frank theriault wrote: One day, between calls, I looked over at my bike, and something about it looked particularly fetching (to me, at least). I took my camera out of my bag, and this is what it saw: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2938717size=lg Your comments are always welcome, and I thank those in advance who look and are compelled to comment. cheers, frank much better than a pic of a pissin Rasta --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Re: PAW: Rossin Pista
Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: frank theriault wrote: One day, between calls, I looked over at my bike, and something about it looked particularly fetching (to me, at least). I took my camera out of my bag, and this is what it saw: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2938717size=lg Your comments are always welcome, and I thank those in advance who look and are compelled to comment. cheers, frank much better than a pic of a pissin Rasta And probably tastier than a slice of raisin pizza. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
First off Bill, everyone does not steal. There are honest people in the world. Second. How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks using the free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use something else. There are many folks who are software collectors. They have a copy of every piece of software they can find. They do not use the software. They do not need the software. They do not buy the software. How do they affect Adobe's sales? Now both these classes of non-buyers probable brag on having the latest version of Photoshop and thus influence others to buy the software accually helping Adobe's profits. Now the people who sell bootleg copies to unsuspecting bargain hunters do cost Adobe sales and rip off their own customers. They are plain and simple crooks and should be dealt with accordingly. The way I always have seen it, is if I need support I will pay for it by buying the software. Although there have been a few companies who both sell at a high price and charge extra for support. Most of them have not lasted long. I have quite a lot of stuff up on my website. If you make a copy of any of it for your own use it does not hurt me in the least. Now if you put it in a book and sold the book, I probably would take legal action against you (Hey, I want my split). Someone stealing merchandize from the store is taking money; the store had to pay for the merchandize. Someone using intellectual property that they would not use if they had to pay for it is not taking anything away from the owner. In fact it could be argued that they are providing a service. One of the ways you become the leader is by having more people use your stuff. The more there who are using it, the more there are who will buy it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra. You take years to learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along with your colleagues. A huge investment of time and effort. It is recorded and released on CD. Why is it $6, not $600? The answer, of course, is the effect of scale. At a cheap price, you can sell more and make the same, or better, profit. I know there are other factors involved in the argument but, for me, software is _grotesquely_ overpriced. It would be really interesting to see if any company had the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of orders of magnitude to try to corner the market. I did a seminar a few years back with a very good and successful photographer. On pricing, he said that if you want to drop your price 10%, you will have to do 40% more work to make up for the price drop. My Photoshop instructor mentioned one time that something like 90% of the installed Photoshop programs are pirated, with the other 10% being legitimate installs. People will take things for free if they have the opportunity, no matter what the cost is. I see it every day, with people shoplifting cheap trinkets out of my store. Pirating is what keeps the cost of software high. If those other 90% bought, everyone would pay significantly less. The cost of theft is built into the price, and the honest consumers pay for the crooks. William (no stolen software on my machine) Robb
Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks using the free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use something else. That's something I have thought about. Bootlegged copies of Photoshop don't represent lost sales for Adobe, they represent lost sales for Paint Shop Pro (or similar). Not that that's a good thing, but it's interesting. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: D questions
Now when I think about it, stuck pixels disappeared after I upgraded the firmware on the camera. I did not try jpg after that, only raw. I just tried taking a picture with bulb so I get all white frame and now I don't see any dead pixels on camera LCD screen in either jpg or raw mode. Is it possible that the new firmware fixed the dead pixels ? How many stuck pixels am I supposed to have ? I think I have 4. I can see them when jpg is generated by the camera but I can't find them when I use raw and Photoshop RAW converter, which is strange. I will use RAW mostly but it is disturbing to have something not working correctly. Is there a software which can remove this stuck pixels by knowing the position as it is always the same ? Should I return the camera and get another one ? I will investigate this more closely tonight.
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
Jon Glass wrote: On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No problem. You're not the only one on this list who uses Pentax lenses on a Canon body. Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount lenses work also? This is so weird, that I just have to hear more... :-) Only M42s reach infinity and they work great. I'm now using them on a 1DsM2 and really enjoy it. My favs are the 50/1.4 and the 6x7 800/6.7ED- great for birds. -Ryan
Re: Epson Printer
Shel, Have been using an Epson Stylus Photo 820 (Print Image Matching) for at least two and a half years. You said you would like something for QD proofs. The 820 will give you more, but it isn't quick. Haven't put it on the clock, but would guess that a 2880 dpi 8x10 takes 'prox 20 minutes..minimum. It's possible that this is considered fast as it relates to other comparably priced printers. Don't know. Printer interface gives you good control and last minute help for a slow clean image. Am using it with PSE 3.0 and can recommend it without reservation. Jack __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Russian pancake portrait lens
Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few days ago I inquired about a 39mm to 42mm adapter because I wanted to try an old Industar Zenit lens in the ist D. Well, Shel loaned me his, so behold this anachronism, the black tape special edition soviet * ist D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990444/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990443/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990442/ Anyway, as it is, the lens doesn't seem to focus to infinity, even though it should (it is an SLR lens, and there are adapters for M42 made to be used with it). It makes for a nice portrait lens though. Hi Juan, If the adapter is the black ring I can see between the lens and the camera, well... my guess is that is not supposed to work at infinity. The 39mm to 42mm adapter I know (I own one) is a simple, double threaded ring that you screw on the lens and then you mount the combo in the 42mm to K adapter so that it (the 39 to 42 adapter) completely disappears to the view. The 39x1 lenses have a mount to film plane distance of 45,5mm, exactly like the K mount and the 42x1 lenses, which means that only an adapter that allows the lens to be mounted in direct contact to the camera mount will work at infinity (I guess you should know that, so sorry for the pedantry...) Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: A couple of PESOs
William Robb wrote on 12/6/2004, 10:19 PM: Warning, this one has both a cat and a dog in it. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/peso/LeicaT-Max2.jpg ...dogs and cats living together... -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Ryan K. Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed: Only M42s reach infinity and they work great. I'm now using them on a 1DsM2 and really enjoy it. My EOS K mount creations reach infinity no problem at all. Hey Ryan, I get my mounts back from the fabricators this week - you're in luck. I have this lrvely K50mm 1.2 that will fit right onto your 20D and guess what - it's *for sale* Bwahahahaha Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Your best M42 mount lenses.
Did you have to remove rear levers of your PK lenses to enable infinty usage on the Canon EOS slrs as a previous post implied? JCO -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 11:13 AM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses. On 7/12/04, Ryan K. Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed: Only M42s reach infinity and they work great. I'm now using them on a 1DsM2 and really enjoy it. My EOS K mount creations reach infinity no problem at all. Hey Ryan, I get my mounts back from the fabricators this week - you're in luck. I have this lrvely K50mm 1.2 that will fit right onto your 20D and guess what - it's *for sale* Bwahahahaha Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Epson Printer
Hi Doug, Thanks for your comments. I DL'd the specs and info on the 820 and several other Epson models last night but haven't looked at them yet. I sure do understand the Razor and Blades marketing concept ;-)) I'd probably not even consider using third party inks - certainly not until I became familiar and comfortable with the entire printing process. Have you tried printing BW with the 820? BTW, is paper available in sizes smaller than about 8x10, such as in 5x7 size? Shel [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/7/2004 5:32:06 AM Subject: Re: OT - Epson Printer On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:06:04 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I want an inexpensive printer for making QD proof prints and as an introduction to inkjet printing. The Epson C-84 was suggested as a possibility. Price is certainly right. Any thoughts on puppy or similar inexpensive options? I can't comment on this printer specifically, or it's competitors, for that matter. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 820 that I feel does really well up to the 8 x 10 prints that I've done on it. My comment, though, is that the really cheap printers are built and sold on the Razors Blades plan. They more or less give you the printer and make their profits on the ink. So, if you're doing a lot of volume, the ink costs can eat you up. I usually get about 30 or so 8 x 10 prints from a color cartridge on the 820. The cartridge costs about US$ 25, so it's around a buck a pop in ink. And since you're doing proof prints, I wouldn't get the third-party ink cartridges (or refill kits) unless I had the time and equipment and software to do full calibrations for the third-party inks. I'd also recalibrate more often using third-party inks, since I figure Epson probably goes to more effort to insure lot-to-lot consistency. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT - Epson Printer
Thanks Bill ... Have thought about the metamerizing issue (that's when the ink takes on a kind of metallic look, right?) and, at least for the onset of this exploration, it appears as a minor concern. Mostly I want to learn the process as inexpensively as possible and make smallish prints to be used in greeting cards, CD jackets, and to send to a few select friends and acquaintances, as well as to see things like grain structure, cropping choices, and other such things. Have you tried BW with your Epson? Shel From: William Robb [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff I want an inexpensive printer for making QD proof prints and as an introduction to inkjet printing. The Epson C-84 was suggested as a possibility. Price is certainly right. Any thoughts on this puppy or similar inexpensive options? Thanks I've been using it's predecessor (the C-80) quite happily for the same thing for a few years now. No real issues with it, and it uses permanent pigment inks rather than dye inks. The only real issue is that the inks are quite prone to metamerizing.
Re: Epson Printer
Hi Jack ... Thanks for jumping in. By QD I don't mean printer speed, just that I want to make proofs quickly and simply before finalizing the image - checking crop, grain structure, and so on. Thanks for the recommendation. What's PSE 3.0? Shel [Original Message] From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have been using an Epson Stylus Photo 820 (Print Image Matching) for at least two and a half years. You said you would like something for QD proofs. The 820 will give you more, but it isn't quick. Haven't put it on the clock, but would guess that a 2880 dpi 8x10 takes 'prox 20 minutes..minimum. It's possible that this is considered fast as it relates to other comparably priced printers. Don't know. Printer interface gives you good control and last minute help for a slow clean image. Am using it with PSE 3.0 and can recommend it without reservation.
Re: Darkroom Equipment Aquisition
uhh... I don't get it... 22nd contributor down from the top. Posted back in 1999. Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Darkroom Equipment Aquisition Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:32:54 + On 6/12/04, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed: Nope, not geodesic. It's a fiberglass observatory with rotating roof and shutter. I take it you must have an interest in geodesics? 22nd contributor down from the top. Posted back in 1999. P.S. The dome size just went from 6 to 10 feet in diameter after I've given it some more thought. More room for a party. As my son sayswicked! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Darkroom Equipment Aquisition
On 7/12/04, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed: uhh... I don't get it... 22nd contributor down from the top. Posted back in 1999. Sorry, a link would have been useful... www.domegroup.org/domehomepics.html 22nd contributor down from the top. Posted back in 1999 Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
OK... sending for 3rd time in 2 days (*^*% hotmail). It's interesting... I just retraced my steps and found out how I got to www.markdownsoftware in the first place. It was from a link on amazon.com under the heading Customers interested in Photoshop for Astrophotographers may also be interested in:. There's also another link there for www.buysusa.com which offers Adobe software at 90% off. It says that one receives a full CD version which must be activated. I haven't read all the fine print on this one but it says the software was originally purchased under a group license and that buyers are ineligible for free Adobe support. If either of these firms are acting illegally I find it amazing that amazon.com would be 'complicit' in encouraging copyright infringement. I have cancelled my credit and had it reissued just in case. I have to say I don't buy into pirated software or any other pirated intellectual property, especially not 'just because millions of other people see nothing wrong with it'. As a software developer myself, I recognize the hard work that goes into writing software, especially quality software. As a photographer I would hate to see a photograph I was selling and could make a profit on, be distributed without permission, depriving me of rightful income. I plan on calling Adobe tomorrow and addressing the issue with them and determining if my purchase was legal or not. Tom C.
Re: Epson Printer
Photoshop Elements 3.0 - just came out and has gotten excellent reviews. Maris Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Jack ... Thanks for jumping in. By QD I don't mean printer speed, just that I want to make proofs quickly and simply before finalizing the image - checking crop, grain structure, and so on. Thanks for the recommendation. What's PSE 3.0?
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: Did you have to remove rear levers of your PK lenses to enable infinty usage on the Canon EOS slrs as a previous post implied? Yes. Details: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/details.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: Did you have to remove rear levers of your PK lenses to enable infinty usage on the Canon EOS slrs as a previous post implied? Not to enable infinity focus, rather to enable the lenses to be attached - there is physically no room for the lever inside the throat of the EOS body. The lenses are used in stop-down mode in both manual and AP. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: *istDS Review on photo.shopping.com
Compared to all the fuzz about AE back in the eighties and nineties, when AE was still developed intensively, I guess the manual exposure control (presing the green button/DOF button) would have been af a big issue. I remeber adds that in fact said, that if a white car drives through your viewfinder, while shooting, the camera will stop down further (is this really an advantage??) in fractions of a second. This is how accurate AE has become. That is OK, of course, but in my experience stopping down manually ios not a big issue as long as I remember to do just that, just before I release the shutter. Any exposure should be evaluated by the photographer anyway - in order to assess back lit scenery, dark background, very bright sky etc. regardless of matrix metering etc. It would of course have been even better if the *ist D/DS worked normally in Av mode, utilizing an aperture simulater, which was not put in the recent Pentax cameras. But make no mistakes, K and M lenses can very well still be used with very fine results. For casual snap shooting, I do prefere using an A or FA lens, of course. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. december 2004 02:05 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *istDS Review on photo.shopping.com I don't get it, but I'll accept what you say without reservation since I'm as ignorant as a carrot about such things. Shel [Original Message] From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5 Dec 2004 at 16:13, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I would think that only works for static subjects ... Best but not necessary, as long as the blurred scene contains similar gradations and is shot at the same exposure settings it's good enough to serve to build a noise profile.
RE: Epson Printer
Photoshop Elements 3.0 even has database functions ) and a search engine (tags and keywords). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Maris V. Lidaka Sr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. december 2004 17:48 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Epson Printer Photoshop Elements 3.0 - just came out and has gotten excellent reviews. Maris Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Jack ... Thanks for jumping in. By QD I don't mean printer speed, just that I want to make proofs quickly and simply before finalizing the image - checking crop, grain structure, and so on. Thanks for the recommendation. What's PSE 3.0?
Re: Epson Printer
BTW, Jack, did you find the 820 easy to set up and to start printing with? Any problems with it either in set up or over the years? Shel [Original Message] From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have been using an Epson Stylus Photo 820 (Print Image Matching) for at least two and a half years.
Re: OT - Epson Printer
BTW, Doug, did you find the 820 easy to set up and to start printing with? Any problems with it either in set up or over the years? Shel [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin I have an Epson Stylus Photo 820 that I feel does really well up to the 8 x 10 prints that I've done on it.
Re: OT - Epson Printer
The metallic look thing is called Bronzing, which is a problem on many occasions. Metamerism is when a print's colors look different under different lighting conditions - daylight v. tungsten for example. B W printing is problematic - you can set the printer driver to print black ink only, and there are photographers for whom this method works successfully. If you leave the driver using all 4 inks, you will often get a color cast. There was a program released called QuadToneRIP for printing in B W, and a Windows GUI interface for it called QTRgui recently for printing in B W. http://www.sbillard.org/Shareware/QTRgui.htm Free trial - $50 if you want to buy ti. I've tried it several times and I think it's excellent. You'll find much more info on it by joining the Yahoo Digital BW the Print mailing list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/ Maris Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks Bill ... Have thought about the metamerizing issue (that's when the ink takes on a kind of metallic look, right?) and, at least for the onset of this exploration, it appears as a minor concern. Mostly I want to learn the process as inexpensively as possible and make smallish prints to be used in greeting cards, CD jackets, and to send to a few select friends and acquaintances, as well as to see things like grain structure, cropping choices, and other such things. Have you tried BW with your Epson?
Re: OT - Epson Printer
Hello Shel, My personal experience with Epson is that the cheap ones are really junk - head clog problems. The more expensive ones are great. Personally for a cheapy, I would go with HP or Canon. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, December 6, 2004, 11:06:04 PM, you wrote: SB Hi gang, SB I want an inexpensive printer for making QD proof prints and as an SB introduction to inkjet printing. The Epson C-84 was suggested as a SB possibility. Price is certainly right. Any thoughts on this puppy or SB similar inexpensive options? Thanks SB Shel
Hey you b and w darkroom guys - help!
I'm about to give a woman lessons in film developing -- she acquired Ilford Universal developer - she shot tri-x I'm a Microdol 1:3 gal (ot chemicals in stock chez moi now) (nevermind why we aren't using that for the lesson - long story) Anyway, anyone have preferences for developing times and dilutions for Tri-X ? Using the Ilford Universal? Would prefer personal experience as opposed to a link on the web. Thanks much! annsan
Re: Epson Printer
Slapping forehead Shel [Original Message] From: Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Photoshop Elements 3.0 - just came out and has gotten excellent reviews. Maris Shel Belinkoff wrote: What's PSE 3.0?
Re: OT - Epson Printer
Thanks so very much. I've saved your message and will look into these sources. Shel [Original Message] From: Maris V. Lidaka Sr. The metallic look thing is called Bronzing, which is a problem on many occasions. Metamerism is when a print's colors look different under different lighting conditions - daylight v. tungsten for example. B W printing is problematic - you can set the printer driver to print black ink only, and there are photographers for whom this method works successfully. If you leave the driver using all 4 inks, you will often get a color cast. There was a program released called QuadToneRIP for printing in B W, and a Windows GUI interface for it called QTRgui recently for printing in B W. http://www.sbillard.org/Shareware/QTRgui.htm Free trial - $50 if you want to buy ti. I've tried it several times and I think it's excellent. You'll find much more info on it by joining the Yahoo Digital BW the Print mailing list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
Re: OT - Epson Printer
I've found that the most efficient ways to print 5x7s is to print them two at a time on 8 1/2 x 11 paper. I usually trim the borders of my prints anyway, so cutting them apart is a simple matter. Paul Hi Doug, Thanks for your comments. I DL'd the specs and info on the 820 and several other Epson models last night but haven't looked at them yet. I sure do understand the Razor and Blades marketing concept ;-)) I'd probably not even consider using third party inks - certainly not until I became familiar and comfortable with the entire printing process. Have you tried printing BW with the 820? BTW, is paper available in sizes smaller than about 8x10, such as in 5x7 size? Shel [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/7/2004 5:32:06 AM Subject: Re: OT - Epson Printer On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:06:04 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I want an inexpensive printer for making QD proof prints and as an introduction to inkjet printing. The Epson C-84 was suggested as a possibility. Price is certainly right. Any thoughts on puppy or similar inexpensive options? I can't comment on this printer specifically, or it's competitors, for that matter. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 820 that I feel does really well up to the 8 x 10 prints that I've done on it. My comment, though, is that the really cheap printers are built and sold on the Razors Blades plan. They more or less give you the printer and make their profits on the ink. So, if you're doing a lot of volume, the ink costs can eat you up. I usually get about 30 or so 8 x 10 prints from a color cartridge on the 820. The cartridge costs about US$ 25, so it's around a buck a pop in ink. And since you're doing proof prints, I wouldn't get the third-party ink cartridges (or refill kits) unless I had the time and equipment and software to do full calibrations for the third-party inks. I'd also recalibrate more often using third-party inks, since I figure Epson probably goes to more effort to insure lot-to-lot consistency. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT - Epson Printer
Yes, but only some brands. Alternately consider a program called Qimage http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage It will resize and print image in the size of your choice - thumbnails to 13 x 19 or more - on the paper of your choice, which you can then cut as needed. Maris Shel Belinkoff wrote: BTW, is paper available in sizes smaller than about 8x10, such as in 5x7 size?
Re: Epson Printer
Shel, Photoshop Elements 3.0. You're welcome. Jack --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jack ... Thanks for jumping in. By QD I don't mean printer speed, just that I want to make proofs quickly and simply before finalizing the image - checking crop, grain structure, and so on. Thanks for the recommendation. What's PSE 3.0? Shel [Original Message] From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have been using an Epson Stylus Photo 820 (Print Image Matching) for at least two and a half years. You said you would like something for QD proofs. The 820 will give you more, but it isn't quick. Haven't put it on the clock, but would guess that a 2880 dpi 8x10 takes 'prox 20 minutes..minimum. It's possible that this is considered fast as it relates to other comparably priced printers. Don't know. Printer interface gives you good control and last minute help for a slow clean image. Am using it with PSE 3.0 and can recommend it without reservation. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: The one that got away
Of course not! Everyone knows that pros only use vests! :) t On 12/7/04 6:09, Cotty wrote: Of course. I knew there was a way of telling. Is that bag that comes with it a pro bag?
Re: Hey you b and w darkroom guys - help!
Ann This may not be what your looking for but here is Paul Stenquist's answer to my D76 question near the end of October. It may be of help. Also i find www.digitaltruth.com a big help. Loads of spec's. Dave Tri-X pro is 320, regular tri-x is 400. I rate both at 200 and develop in D-76 1:1. I don't remember the time off hand but it's reduced by about 20% from what Kodak recommends for Tri-X 400. I use the same developer for T-Max. It does an excellent job on both. For T--Max 400, I rate it at 200 and develop it for 11 minutes in D-76 1:1 at 68 degrees F. Paul On Oct 24, 2004, at 7:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm about to give a woman lessons in film developing -- she acquired Ilford Universal developer - she shot tri-x I'm a Microdol 1:3 gal (ot chemicals in stock chez moi now) (nevermind why we aren't using that for the lesson - long story) Anyway, anyone have preferences for developing times and dilutions for Tri-X ? Using the Ilford Universal? Would prefer personal experience as opposed to a link on the web. Thanks much! annsan
Re: D questions
Hi, David. Here's what I can answer. Low-light af is poor with all lenses, even fast primes. It is a weakness of the camera. Center-point autofocus gives you better control over the point of focus. I consider multi-point to be primarily a marketing gimmick, and for inexperienced users. The DA 16-45 is sturdy enough, and is superb optically -- one of Pentax's best zooms ever. Shoot with it and you will learn to overlook its physical design. Joe
Re: D questions
David, shoot in raw, not jpeg. Raw gives you more control for post-camera processing (like setting white balance after the fact), and the images lose no information. Joe
Re: D questions
Joe I have to disagree with you here. Too many photographers rely on the center-point autofocus and the end result is bad compositon with the subject dead centre in the frame. Yes, you can lock the focus in and move the camera to put the subject in a better position in the frame but that's not always possible, especially if you have the camera on follow focus and you are shooting a moving subject. I, for one, would prefer multi-point focus. Thanks Vic Joe Wrote: Center-point autofocus gives you better control over the point of focus. I consider multi-point to be primarily a marketing gimmick, and for inexperienced users.
Re: Hey you b and w darkroom guys - help!
BW has gone through so many stylistic changes in the past few years, it's amazing. Many people I read on NGs shoot an extra 1/3 to 1/2 stop of extra saturation and then develop normally. (Personally, I shoot most bw by the book but add about 5% extra time to the processing to bring out the highlight detail a bit more.) Isn't Ilford Universal their ID-11, very similar to or the same as D-76? If so, that class of developer has an interesting characteristic that you might make good use of. Let it have a day of a little air exposure and turn a little dark. This will keep contrast under control and give some smoother tones to Tri-X. But apart from that experiment, just develop normally for a good neg. Tri-X is very forgiving of a few seconds either way. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl -- Original Message -- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:03:11 -0500 From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm about to give a woman lessons in film developing -- she acquired Ilford Universal developer - she shot tri-x I'm a Microdol 1:3 gal (ot chemicals in stock chez moi now) (nevermind why we aren't using that for the lesson - long story) Anyway, anyone have preferences for developing times and dilutions for Tri-X ? Using the Ilford Universal? Would prefer personal experience as opposed to a link on the web. Thanks much! annsan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
Cotty wrote: On 7/12/04, Ryan K. Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed: Only M42s reach infinity and they work great. I'm now using them on a 1DsM2 and really enjoy it. My EOS K mount creations reach infinity no problem at all. This is with your mod to the coupler, or no? -R
Re: Rossin Pista
Ah! Now we know why the fall awhile back. The bike was rejecting the transplant. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: About the only non-Italian things on the bike are Hutchison (French) tires, and cheapo generic seatpost, seat and pedals, likely Japanese of some sort.
Re: The one that got away
Amateur camera = low priced, cheap junk. Pro camera = high priced, cheap junk in black finish. GRIN! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cotty wrote: On 7/12/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty, the black one is the professional version. Of course. I knew there was a way of telling. Is that bag that comes with it a pro bag? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
Let me clarify Cotty's position here. He has had custom K to EOS mounts made up from his design. They apparently work quite well. What do you have now Cott, 3-4 of them? He did post a link to a photo, but it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. Despite his one-liners here, Cotty is quite a decent person though those who have not actually met him may not believe that (g). graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cotty wrote: On 7/12/04, Gateway, discombobulated, unleashed: Hang on a second, I lost the sense in the thread. Can I get a K mount ot work on my Canon 20D? I don't know, but I can. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Russian pancake portrait lens
Hi! JB A few days ago I inquired about a 39mm to 42mm adapter because I JB wanted to try an old Industar Zenit lens in the ist D. Well, Shel JB loaned me his, so behold this anachronism, the black tape special JB edition soviet * ist D: JB http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990444/ JB http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990443/ JB http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1990442/ JB As seen in the first image, the serial number of the Industar starts JB in 59, which means 1959. Has anyone mounted older lenses on their JB digital cameras? JB Anyway, as it is, the lens doesn't seem to focus to infinity, even JB though it should (it is an SLR lens, and there are adapters for M42 JB made to be used with it). It makes for a nice portrait lens though. I have this lens in black color and M42 mount. Mine focuses just fine. It is one fascinating lens, though I admit I did not shoot with it much having M 50/1.4 and FA 50/1.7... May be it is my fault... I am reconsidering... Boris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Ryan K. Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed: This is with your mod to the coupler, or no? You'll see. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Let me clarify Cotty's position here. He has had custom K to EOS mounts made up from his design. They apparently work quite well. What do you have now Cott, 3-4 of them? Yeah, they are not adapters, they are mounts. That is, once the mount is on the lens, it stays there. The lens can be engineered back to K mount if necessary. Thanks Graywolf. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: D questions
So, here's a question about these multipoint autofocus systems. How does one change the focus point? I'd imagine that it's a time consuming operation, pushing buttons or turning wheels or some such electro-mechanical modal interface LOL. Seems then that for scenes where there's any quickness of action required on the part of the photographer, adjusting autofocus preferences might be a hindrance, and that using just one focus point and slightly shifting the camera may be a faster alternative. But, if one does that, as noted by Vic, how does that effect the point of focus? Is it changed because the camera has moved? And, can one focus with autofocus on an area where there's no contrast or even a subject? For example, if one wanted to use a hyperfocal distance and, at that point there's nothing to focus on? Or if one wanted to focus on a mono-colored wall for instance? Which brings up another question: if newer lenses have no DOF scale (I understand that some don't), how can one use the hyperfocal focusing technique? Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe I have to disagree with you here. Too many photographers rely on the center-point autofocus and the end result is bad compositon with the subject dead centre in the frame. Yes, you can lock the focus in and move the camera to put the subject in a better position in the frame but that's not always possible, especially if you have the camera on follow focus and you are shooting a moving subject. I, for one, would prefer multi-point focus. Thanks Vic Joe Wrote: Center-point autofocus gives you better control over the point of focus. I consider multi-point to be primarily a marketing gimmick, and for inexperienced users.
Re: D questions
Joe I have to disagree with you here. Too many photographers rely on the center-point autofocus and the end result is bad compositon with the subject dead centre in the frame. Yes, you can lock the focus in and move the camera to put the subject in a better position in the frame but that's not always possible, especially if you have the camera on follow focus and you are shooting a moving subject. I, for one, would prefer multi-point focus. -- Vic, I suspect that too many photographers rely on multi-point autofocus, which manufacturers want them to. That's why it is the default on so many cameras. Please note that I referred to inexperienced photographers. Experienced ones will of course focus and recompose, or use multi-point if that helps to follow a moving subject. Joe
Re: Russian pancake portrait lens
Gianfranco wrote: If the adapter is the black ring I can see between the lens and the camera, well... my guess is that is not supposed to work at infinity. The 39mm to 42mm adapter I know (I own one) is a simple, double threaded ring that you screw on the lens and then you mount the combo in the 42mm to K adapter so that it (the 39 to 42 adapter) completely disappears to the view. That's right. This is what I got on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=3856769310 It looks like what you describe, I'm sure the lens will focus to infinity with it. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Epson 400 and ImagePrint 6.0 Report
Hello all, Recently I installed my new Epson 4000. I use it to print Fine Art Landscapes both in color and BW. Printing BW from Photoshop left a lot to be desired as color shifts were always present, most of the time leaving a green cast which is ugly in a BW print. Color was great, but the BW was pure crap. Soo I invested in ImagePrint which all reports said would produce neutral prints in BW. Well I'm happy to report that this is true. I have made some of the most amazing BW prints directly from color RGB files simply by selecting a BW profile for the corresponding paper. The prints come out as if they were silver prints using BW paper from a wet darkroom. It is simply amazing. Color prints are also better with much better highlight and shadow detail. This is one fine piece of software. Now I know that few people have the resources to spend on this kind of hardware and software, but for those who are considering high end printing, this is a MUST. As a side note, I have a show featuring my landscape work scheduled for late March of next year. I will have about 25-35 prints on exhibit at a local gallery in Prescott. The first day will feature and opening with refreshments and catering of some fine food. Will also have a harpist to provide a nice atmosphere of music. Anyone is invited to attend who may be close enough. Will provide details in February. Larry from Prescott
Re: D questions
Joseph Tainter wrote on 12/7/2004, 1:13 PM: Vic, I suspect that too many photographers rely on multi-point autofocus, which manufacturers want them to. That's why it is the default on so many cameras. Please note that I referred to inexperienced photographers. Experienced ones will of course focus and recompose, or use multi-point if that helps to follow a moving subject. Or use the old-fashioned, manual focus technique! :-) The D's viewfinder and screen aren't bad for focusing. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Your best M42 mount lenses.
So Cotty, once the mount is on you have AV or manual on your Canon digital camera along with manual focus? I looked into this a little while ago and couldn't find any commercially available adapters. I too found the idea of a f1.2 lens appealing considering the price of the Canon f1.0 offering. You mentioned that you prefer manual focussing in many respects, I find on the 20D the focus tends to be a lot more accurate (and satisfying in a strange way!!!) when done manually. Can you share with us where you ge these things made and how much. I've bookmarked your link but havne't had time to read through it yet. Gareth -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 12:59 PM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses. On 7/12/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Let me clarify Cotty's position here. He has had custom K to EOS mounts made up from his design. They apparently work quite well. What do you have now Cott, 3-4 of them? Yeah, they are not adapters, they are mounts. That is, once the mount is on the lens, it stays there. The lens can be engineered back to K mount if necessary. Thanks Graywolf. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
Re: Hey you b and w darkroom guys - help!
thanks, Colin This is kinda what I wanted to know... I never liked D-76 for my own stuff and would have considered less contrast as the developer aged to be a negative (no pun) rather than a positive (I printed almost nothing lower than 3 in my dark room days) I just never used Universal for anything but prints. I love Microdol-x 1:3 for Tri-x but the woman I'm teaching got talked out of getting it by a storekeep when she told him she thought I had told here to get it for prints (for one thing) He didn't have any, so he didn't want to sim,ply correct her - and she didn't think to call me on cell phone while she was in the store.. i'm trekking out to Long Island tomorrow to give her private lessons. Hurray for craigslist! I need the gig! ann Collin Brendemuehl wrote: BW has gone through so many stylistic changes in the past few years, it's amazing. Many people I read on NGs shoot an extra 1/3 to 1/2 stop of extra saturation and then develop normally. (Personally, I shoot most bw by the book but add about 5% extra time to the processing to bring out the highlight detail a bit more.) Isn't Ilford Universal their ID-11, very similar to or the same as D-76? If so, that class of developer has an interesting characteristic that you might make good use of. Let it have a day of a little air exposure and turn a little dark. This will keep contrast under control and give some smoother tones to Tri-X. But apart from that experiment, just develop normally for a good neg. Tri-X is very forgiving of a few seconds either way. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl -- Original Message -- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:03:11 -0500 From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm about to give a woman lessons in film developing -- she acquired Ilford Universal developer - she shot tri-x I'm a Microdol 1:3 gal (ot chemicals in stock chez moi now) (nevermind why we aren't using that for the lesson - long story) Anyway, anyone have preferences for developing times and dilutions for Tri-X ? Using the Ilford Universal? Would prefer personal experience as opposed to a link on the web. Thanks much! annsan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Hey you b and w darkroom guys - help!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ann This may not be what your looking for but here is Paul Stenquist's answer to my D76 question near the end of October. It may be of help. Also i find www.digitaltruth.com a big help. Loads of spec's. Dave ann replies: I used to expose Tri-x at 320 for using Microdol X 1:3... Thanks for the clip from Paul - useful info if, as COlin pointed out the Ilford Universal is (same as?) close to D-76. The other reason I had favored the Microdol x 1:3 was the solution temperature was easier to maintain at 75 degrees F than 68 in the perpetually overheated NY apartments. ciao, and thanks ann Tri-X pro is 320, regular tri-x is 400. I rate both at 200 and develop in D-76 1:1. I don't remember the time off hand but it's reduced by about 20% from what Kodak recommends for Tri-X 400. I use the same developer for T-Max. It does an excellent job on both. For T--Max 400, I rate it at 200 and develop it for 11 minutes in D-76 1:1 at 68 degrees F. Paul On Oct 24, 2004, at 7:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm about to give a woman lessons in film developing -- she acquired Ilford Universal developer - she shot tri-x I'm a Microdol 1:3 gal (ot chemicals in stock chez moi now) (nevermind why we aren't using that for the lesson - long story) Anyway, anyone have preferences for developing times and dilutions for Tri-X ? Using the Ilford Universal? Would prefer personal experience as opposed to a link on the web. Thanks much! annsan
Re: D questions
I plan to shoot in raw, I just need to buy 2gb memory card for that. :) Anybody knows which card speed is needed for D ? 40X ? - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 12:25 PM Subject: Re: D questions David, shoot in raw, not jpeg. Raw gives you more control for post-camera processing (like setting white balance after the fact), and the images lose no information. Joe
Re: D questions
Low-light af is poor with all lenses, even fast primes. It is a weakness of the camera. Simple AF assist lamp would improve that drastically. I heard somewhere that D can assist its focusing using flash, where do I configure that ? Does internal flash support this ?
RE: FA 20 f2.8
Was this test done on the *istD? If so that might explain why you didn't see the soft corners. Nick -Original Message- From: jtainter[EMAIL PROTECTED] I ordered this lens recently after seeing some positive comments on dpreview, backed up by a link to images, including one showing very good sharpness at f2.8. After ordering it I saw some comments here indicating that it is soft in the corners at f2.8. This was followed by Will Robb commenting that it is probably as good in the corners as anyone else's 20 mm. I would use this at f2.8 a lot. So I was concerned whether I should send it back. I have access to a Sigma EX DG 20 f1.8, which I have been carrying when I travel. This weekend I tested both 20s against a mud brick wall (lots of detail) at several apertures, including f2.8. Today I processed the f2.8 images and looked at them onscreen at 100% (actual pixels) enlargement. At f2.8 the Pentax lens blows away the Sigma. It is noticeably sharper in the center, at the edges, and at the corners. And this is with the Pentax lens wide open while the Sigma is stopped down 1.3 stops. The FA 20 is a keeper and goes into my kit. The Sigma goes back to where I borrowed it.
Re: MZ-S (a new beginning)
I haven't really gotten on very well with the BG-10 grip. I find the vertical shutter release button is in the wrong place for my fingers; it needs to be at the end of the grip, unless I'm holding it wrong. It's more comfortable using the body release even with the grip attached. The IR is useful, but that should have been built into the body in the first place. As I'm often carrying the MZ-S with the *istD kit the extra bulk and weight of the grip tends to stay at home. Incidentally, does anyone know if NiMh batteries are OK in the grip? I t only mentions alkaline and lithium in the manual. Nick -Original Message- From: Pat White[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07/12/04 03:13:01 Go for it! The MZ-S is a great camera, and even better with the BG-10 grip. Not so sure about the 360 flash, since the head doesn't swivel. I've been using a Metz 40MZ-3 flash with my MZ-S, with good success.
Re: D questions
Shel Belinkoff mused: So, here's a question about these multipoint autofocus systems. How does one change the focus point? I'd imagine that it's a time consuming operation, pushing buttons or turning wheels or some such electro-mechanical modal interface LOL. Depends on the camera. In the MZ-S it just about requires two hands, as you have to push up a spring-loaded slider and turn a control wheel. On the *ist-D, in normal shooting mode, the 4-way controller is what you use to change focus-point selection; a normal right-eyed person can probably do it almost instantaneously with the camera to the eye. Seems then that for scenes where there's any quickness of action required on the part of the photographer, adjusting autofocus preferences might be a hindrance, and that using just one focus point and slightly shifting the camera may be a faster alternative. That's how I use my camera when I'm shooting motorsports. But, if one does that, as noted by Vic, how does that effect the point of focus? Is it changed because the camera has moved? That depends on whether you're using AF-S (focus once when you first half- depress the shutter) or AF-C (continually update focus while the shutter is half depressed). And, can one focus with autofocus on an area where there's no contrast or even a subject? No. You need contrast. In fact, you even need the right sort of contrast. Some AF sensors work well with horizontal lines, but not with verticals. Some work the other way. And some (referred to as cross sensors) are basically one of each kind looking at the same part of the image. (IIRC, the *ist-D has 9 cross sensors, plus two verticals, one at each edge)
Re: Epson 400 and ImagePrint 6.0 Report
On 7/12/04, Larry Hodgson, discombobulated, unleashed: Recently I installed my new Epson 4000. I use it to print Fine Art Landscapes both in color and BW. Printing BW from Photoshop left a lot to be desired as color shifts were always present, most of the time leaving a green cast which is ugly in a BW print. Color was great, but the BW was pure crap. Soo I invested in ImagePrint which all reports said would produce neutral prints in BW. Well I'm happy to report that this is true. I have made some of the most amazing BW prints directly from color RGB files simply by selecting a BW profile for the corresponding paper. The prints come out as if they were silver prints using BW paper from a wet darkroom. It is simply amazing. Color prints are also better with much better highlight and shadow detail. This is one fine piece of software. Now I know that few people have the resources to spend on this kind of hardware and software, but for those who are considering high end printing, this is a MUST. Larry, have you got a URL where I can see the Image print software? Ta. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Gateway, discombobulated, unleashed: Can you share with us where you ge these things made and how much. I've bookmarked your link but havne't had time to read through it yet. I designed it and had it made by this company: http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/ The components used are a simple Canon AF-to-M42 brass adapter, drilled out to EOS spec for mounting on the lens, and a small round plate fabricated from scratch to maintain the register distance. Longer mounting screws are also needed. All details on that web page I gave you. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Gateway, discombobulated, unleashed: Can you share with us where you ge these things made and how much. The cost of each mount (modified Canon AF / M42 adapter + fabricated spacer ring) about 65 GBP plus cost of Canon AF / M42 adapter, about 20 USD. SRB have the jig and specs, just supply them with a cheap Canon AF / M42 mount from eBay and they will supply - be warned, they are not fast, but good quality work. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istDS Review on photo.shopping.com
Jens Bladt mused: Compared to all the fuzz about AE back in the eighties and nineties, when AE was still developed intensively, I guess the manual exposure control (presing the green button/DOF button) would have been af a big issue. I remeber adds that in fact said, that if a white car drives through your viewfinder, while shooting, the camera will stop down further (is this really an advantage??) in fractions of a second. This is how accurate AE has become. That is OK, of course, but in my experience stopping down manually ios not a big issue as long as I remember to do just that, just before I release the shutter. Any exposure should be evaluated by the photographer anyway - in order to assess back lit scenery, dark background, very bright sky etc. regardless of matrix metering etc. Fine, in theory. Now try that when you're tracking a group of cars cresting a hill, swooping down towards you into a somewhat shaded area, and getting back into full sunlight as they drive away, and you want to grab the shot at the best moment (which depends on what the cars are doing). If I'm doing anything manually it would be changing the zoom to follow the cars. If I know just where I'll be taking the shot I'll turn off AE, anyway; you don't *want* exposure to change depending on whether your primary subject is a black car or a white car. If I have to use AE, though, I'll use the full multi-segment metering (not matrix metering - that's copyrighted); center-weighted metering performs significantly worse in this scenario.
Re: PESO: Three lucky shots
Thanks guys for the comments. The BW conversion was my quick channel mixer thing in Photoshop. For printing, I'll go back to the raw files and do a careful conversion on a per-image basis. Thanks again, j On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:37:47 -0800 (PST), Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I went to the area around Union Square here in San Francisco for some shooting. I don't know if it was lack of inspiration or what, but I only pressed the shutter three times. Surprisingly, all three images are at least not embarassing: http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0141.html Pentax ist D, K30/2.8, Photoshop channel mixer. Hi Juan, They are all very good shots (as usual from you...), but the first two seem to be more part of a series and are both great pictures. I really like the first one, it seems to show the lonelyness of the man overwhelmed by the crowd. The BW look of the shots is extremely pleasing. Well done! Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
Andre, If you need the UV only, I wouldn't mind breaking a set. Is it Pentax? If so, then I would be interested, but in an earlier email you mentioned that this was a normal 43mm SMC (filter) kit; that is, not designed as a drop-in filter, but rather a front element screw-on. The problem with this is that normal filters don't tend to fit into the drop-in housing. As Kenneth pointed out earlier today: I just tried a normal Tiffen 43mm 1A and it is too thick! ... but let me know if I'm mistaken. - Jerome These 43mm Pentax SMC filters can be screwed but I think they also can be just inserted in the lens compartment. Tiffen filters are kind of thick, the Pentax ones may have about 1 or 2 mm less. Kenneth, are the BW filters useless because they are too thick? If so, the Pentax is certainly thinner than a BW but not by a large margin. My guess is that they fit, especially because this 43mm kit was only made for 3 lenses, the FA 300/2.8, the FA 600 and the FA 250-??? zoom. I could check tonight how thick they are. Andre
Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Graywolf and Mark Roberts wrote: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks using the free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use something else. That's something I have thought about. Bootlegged copies of Photoshop don't represent lost sales for Adobe, they represent lost sales for Paint Shop Pro (or similar). Not that that's a good thing, but it's interesting. -- Mark Roberts I'm not sure illegal use raises the price of legitimate copies... but capitalism being what it is, it certainly doesn't provide a company with the incentive to lower the price. I don't totally agree with these arguments though I undertsand the point your making. Bootlegged copies do represent lost potential sales and lost potential income. Let's take this to another level. I walk up to a car lot, find the keys in the ignition, and drive off with a brand new Jaguar. Does that NOT represent a lost sale for the dealer just because I never planned on buying it in the first place? Granted, I could not have fabricated a like Jaguar by running it through a Car Duplicating Machine, but you see the point. I have thought this (the arguments above) to some degree myself in the past. It's an easy rationalization that one could make in order to justify use without a purchase. I never would have bought it, so I'm not doing anything wrong. From the seller's standpoint, it's totally different. The picture changes totally depending on whether you're the person benefiting from the free use or whether you're the person/corporation being deprived of income, losing sales, whatever you want to call it. Tom C.
