Re: [pdml] New In Box Pentax MX ...
On 12/1/05, David Chang-Sang, discombobulated, unleashed: It looked like a decent camera and I was eyeing it for about 5 seconds till I saw the seller's feedback - there will be other MX's that I would rather use than have sit on a shelf :) I read the relevant feedback and also the feedback of the members that gave negatives. Nothing there that unduly bothered me, I would have traded. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: [pdml] New In Box Pentax MX ...
--- Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My MX came with that type of lens cap when I bought it new. Pentax, (and other camera manufacturers), weren't as cheep when it came to included accessories, once upon a time. In fact the stuff that he shows looks just like what came in the box with my Chrome MX in 1976 IIRC. I apologize for my mistake. :-( = Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
PESO--Grey Day at the River
Here's a set of three photos from a quick side trip the mouth of the Connecticut River yesterday. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_gdatrI.html Pentax *ist-D ISO 800 1/30 SMC Pentax FA 20-35mm f4.0 @ 4.0 (28mm) http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_gdatrII.html Pentax *ist-D ISO 800 1/30 Vivitar Series 1 35-85 Variable Focus f2.8 @ 4.0 http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_gdatrIII.html Pentax *ist-D ISO 800 1/60 Vivitar Series 1 35-85 Variable Focus f2.8 @ 2.8 As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. (I'm off to bed now). TTFN -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: PAW: Use Yer Viewfinder, Muscle-boy!
On 13/1/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: I have a little 2 megapixel digicam. The parallax is all over the place when you use the viewfinder. The only way to get accurate framing is to use the cinemascope on the back. Fortunately I live in England, so there's never any glare from the sun, and no bright daylight. Why Bob you want to climb out from the shadows of the Big City ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: test 6
What you failing at? Changing computers. William Robb Damn, that Mac Mini arrived *fast*. Har! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: SMC D FA 100mm Macro f2.8 (er, and hello)
Quoting Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Most manufacturers are building the APS sized lenses just on the really wide end to deal with size and cost. On the longer end, there is not much need to do so. Yep. The new pancake lens (40mm) is a 'digital only', although this hardly qualifies as 'really wide'. Still a neat way to convert an *ist-D into a compact. Although a new pancake with a 35mm image circle would be more welcome: SFAIK there isn't even an SMC-A version, only SMC-M. It's curious that in the last few months Pentax have announced the 100mm and 50mm macros, and a new version of the Pancake lens. Maybe part of their strategy is to analyse which of their SMC-M, A and FA lenses are most sought after secondhand and make new, 'digital friendly' versions? We might see a kind of 'digital repeat' of the most successful period in their 35mm history (mid 70s to mid 80s??? or is that contraversial???) Works for me ... David
Re: PESO baby deer... warning cuteness alert
Hi Paul, I did shoot some vertical but the light was low and none of them were very sharp. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/deer2.html You are probably right about the framing, but I try to shoot vertically as little as possible because I find it doesn't fit into most of my applications very well. Since I usually try not to have my subject looking out of the frame, and she had a bit of a potbelly (spends a lot of time in the neighbor's garden), it seemed to be the best way to deal with the situation. I live on Cortes island, which is about four hours on three ferries, plus some five hours by car from Vancouver Canada. It is quite a nice little community. By the way Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. :-P Thanks for the comments, Francis At 12:50 AM 1/13/2005 +, you wrote: It's a little soft, but not horribly so. I think I would have shot this as a vertical to fill the frame and see a bit more of the deer. On what island do you live? That sounds like an interesting lifestyle. Paul On the island where I live the white tailed deer have, for lack of predators, shrunk to be scarcely bigger than most goats. They also seem to have developed the knack of waiting at the side of the road for cars to pass (a quality I haven't seen in deer anywhere else), rather than leaping out in front of the approaching vehicle, which may have something to do with them being so numerous here. This one and a few others came to my yard almost every day during the fall to eat the apples that I put out for them, but they usually come at dusk, so I have a lot of blurry photos of them. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/deer.html P3n, K200/2.5, Wobble-O-Matic tripod, cheap 100 iso print film. All comments appreciated Francis
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
a touch of the elitist in the MF advocates, i would say. and also throwing out the baby with the bath water. i use AF most of the time because it does exactly what it is supposed to, and i know when it won't and use MF then. Herb... - Original Message - From: John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 2:42 AM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room WRT having one's eyes tested, I do - every six months, and update my prescription as necessary. I still have trouble with fine detail focussing, and I am sure there are others like me. Maybe it's the viewfinder - but I don't think so, as I am no better off with my SP's or SV. Finally,I would just like to draw attention to my other comment - that I have found the MZ-S AF to be nearly flawless, and I guess I would just like to see the same standard maintained in all Pentax SLR's - IMV, if you can do it once you can do it every time.
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
Sorry, Shel, Bruce, et al, I think you're missing the point of AF. IMHO, I think it is there for exactly the times when the human eye/hand combination is just not quick enough to adjust the focus accurately, particularly when you have a relatively short time-frame in which to do it. While I would agree that one should use the appropriate tools for the job, and in conjunction with one's own abilities, I fail to see what other tool I might have selected in the circumstances I described (a wedding, if you've forgotten). TLR? Rangefinder? MF lens and manual focussing? MF lens and trap focussing? I have all of these and I wouldn't guarantee to have done better, except perhaps with trap focussing. But even that would only give me one certain shot, and another if I happened to adjust the focus point in time, to the right distance, and in the right direction! There is also the point that not everyone has camera bodies where the screens can be changed, or may not wish or be able to spend the necessary dollars to do so. WRT having one's eyes tested, I do - every six months, and update my prescription as necessary. I still have trouble with fine detail focussing, and I am sure there are others like me. Maybe it's the viewfinder - but I don't think so, as I am no better off with my SP's or SV. Finally,I would just like to draw attention to my other comment - that I have found the MZ-S AF to be nearly flawless, and I guess I would just like to see the same standard maintained in all Pentax SLR's - IMV, if you can do it once you can do it every time. John Coyle (feeling slightly miffed at some of the comments!) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:34 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room For many types of photography, especially with certain cameras and lenses, autofocus may not be the best choice. Bruce, I don't think you're being the least bit unkind - if someone wants to make a certain type of photograph, then the proper camera and lenses are in order. If one is the least bit serious about photography, then they should at least have their eyes and glasses checked to be sure they can see properly, and then use the proper camera, viewfinder, screen, diopters, or whatnot in order to assure proper focusing. Autofocus is not always the solution. Methinks you're being quite realistic. I have had trouble with my vision, and I will not use autofocus to make up for getting my eyes examined and using the most appropriate screens and viewfinders for my needs, nor will I allow my creativity to be compromised by the limits imposed by many autofocus cameras. If my photos are going to be OOF, then let them be so because I screwed up not because the camera couldn't do the job required of it and because I became dependent on some marketing maven's idea of a neccessary feature. That's not to say there's no place for autofocus, for there certainly is, but, like every other feature and accessory, it's not always appropriate or worthwhile. Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/12/2005 10:25:56 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room Sorry, nursing a nasty cold today and am in a grumpy mood. Didn't mean to offend. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 9:58:59 PM, you wrote: etn Quoting Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you can't see to focus, either get a camera that you can see out of, or get your eyes corrected enough to see. etn Bruce, I think that last remark might have been just a little bit unkind. etn ERNR
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
WR Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the Hm Bill, how do you make a ribless umbrella ?!? discombobulated frantisek asks Good light! fra
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
- Original Message - From: Frantisek Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:47 AM Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? WR Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the Hm Bill, how do you make a ribless umbrella ?!? discombobulated frantisek asks Poor choice of words. There are umbrellas out there that have the fabric sewn to the inside of the ribs. Use that type of umbrella, and a white flash head (why don't more companies make them in white?), and you have to look pretty hard at the catchlights to see the equipment. William Robb
Re: recent work, this time with the link
Thanks for the kind words, folks. I appreciate it. I suppose I should mention the one thing all the photos have in common; they were all shot with the *istD and the FA35/2AL. Even though I had carried a ton of equipment to town, I ended up just carrying that combo on site and enjoyed the challenge of the single lens. again, thanks. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Re: Enablement! Sorta..
I must have done my research wrong. I read somewhere Firewire 400 (4 pins) doesn't carry power like USB, while Firewire 800 (6 pins) could. I've been playing around with it a bit- unfortunately with the Firewire connection, it's not powered, and with the USB1.0 to USB 2.0 connection, it needs a Power supply to 'kick start' the harddrive, but functions if I unplug the supply after it's started. Bizarre. I always use a/c to run my notebook too, only thing is it's a bit annoying to plug in the external drive to a power supply too. Wires wires.. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Enablement! Sorta.. That's nothing to do with it being Firewire 400 - you can get Firewire with or without the power supply connections, independent of transfer speed. It's possibly to buy an external powered adapter (complete with it's own wallwart transformer) that injects power into a Firewire connection. http://fwdepot.com/thestore/product_info.php?products_id=372 Of course this means you have to have mains power available, which isn't always the case with a notebook computer. I really ought to get one of these; I've got a firewire reader for CF cards, and I can't use it on my notebook for exactly that reason (which is how I know about the external adapter). I almost always need AC power to run my notebook; it lasts for less than two hours on a fully-charged battery (that's the way it is designed; it's built for speed, not duration).
Re: Enablement! Sorta..
Yep, that's the conclusion I came to more or less. I'm just a bit miffed because if I had known it was going to need a power supply anyway, I might have gone with a cheaper 3.5 option, which was available in higher capacities too. Good thing about having a 2.5 drive though, I might decide to take out my notebook's 40gb to change it with this new 80gb, but just the thought of going thru the reinstallation and backup and hassle.. Maybe when I'm feeling more settled. Now to enjoy the last 2 days of my hol :( Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ryan Lee pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:44 PM Subject: Re: Enablement! Sorta.. Hello Ryan, Been there, done that! What you can do is get a little adapter if your enclosure support a dc power supply (mine does). The adapter plugs into a USB port and then into the housing of the drive - this provides the power and then the firewire cable moves the data. Not a perfect solution, but does work for me. HTH, Bruce Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 4:29:07 PM, you wrote: RL Got 512mb more of Kingston PC133 laptop memory today! Unfortunately my 2 RL slots have 128mb living in each of them, so I've got 128mb made redundant. RL Also got a wireless card, which I anticipate should be useful at some point, RL and an external 80gb harddisk to store pics in! However, I found myself RL introduced to the woes of external storage and old laptops. Laptop's only RL got USB1.0 and Firewire 400 (4 pins, not 6, thus incapable of carrying power RL supply), and the small 2.5 drive I bought needs a power supply afterall. RL Argh! RL Not sure if that made any sense- still muddled by all these installation CDs RL and instructions and nonsense.. RL Cheers, RL Ryan
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
OK, basic optics. You do know that a so called magnifying glass does not magnify, right? What it does is allow your eye to focus closer to the image. The shorter the focal length (hight the diopter) the closer the distance you can focus from, and the larger the image appears. Now the basic telescope produces what is called and arial image. That is a image that is focused at a point in space rather than onto something like a ground glass. Once you have that arial image you can by adjusting your eye to exactly the right point focus on it. But your eye would be about 10 inches away. Got that? Now your eyepiece allow you to move your eye closer to that arial image. The shorter the focal length of the eyepiece the closer you can move your eye, and the larger the image appears. It is as simple as that. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Tom C wrote: OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask. Tom C. From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:48:29 -0500 short focal length on an eyepiece gives high magnification. total magnification is the focal length of the objective divided by the focal length of the eyepiece. if 900 is the objective FL, then the 20mm eyepiece gives 45X and the 4mm eyepiece gives 225x. Herb... - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900x114 reflector, and fills the eyepiece with the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005
Re: Pentax 67 lens fitted to ZX-L.
*applauds* I can almost *hear* the slang coming out of my speakers ;) On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:03:25 -0500, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Orritht, Rob, ta! That Ausie Slang Dictionary is ace. Should I ever find myself in Oz, sitting in a bar somewhere back of Bourke, watching a bit of Aerial Ping Pong, whilst sipping the amber fluid, I'll be able to figure out what the barflies are on about, ay? For instance, ockers may notice me lift my middy and say, Oooo, your a mollydorker then aren't you?, and I won't be nacked and hit them with a nulla-nulla. The last thing I want to do is square off because a bunch of stickybeaks are throwing strine at me that I don't understand! Anyway, sometimes it's best to just fix up your jack and jill then hit the frog and toad, rather than chuck a wobbly over a guy who's pissed as a family fart. But I digress. Im off for a kip. Oooroo, knarf -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO: Lady Night
Nicely lit, Margus. Welcome posting! Regards Albano --- Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it's a first time from me for this group. http://www.eol.ee/~margus/arvutikasutaja/lady_night.jpg That frame was taken at our company New Year costume party with available dim light plus Sigma ST-500 flash. Pentax Z-1p, Fuji Reala, scanned on Imacon Flextight 848. BR, Margus Männik Tallinn, Estonia = Albano Garcia Photography Graphic Design http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar http://www.flaneur.com.ar __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Film will die as a consummer item. How long it will take is anybodies guess. As a specialty item it should last a long time. However, Wal-Mart and such do not sell specialty items. They depend upon volume for profit. The only single roll of film the local Wal-Mart is now carrying is Kodak Max. Everything else is in 4 packs. 90% of consumers only use 1 or 2 rolls of film per year. So from Wal-Marts point of view they are nonexistant, and will soon not be able to buy film for their cameras. Us film diehards must resign ourselves to buying mail order. Here in a small city (15K) that is the only way to get roll film, sheet film, or BW film (has been for a couple of years already). However, just the other day there were 4 attractive young ladies photographing the local Post Office (a historic building). The were all using film cameras. The very most attractive one smiled at me, but she was using a Nikon so I did not speak to her... graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: But it is starting to breath really slow in Consumerville. Yesterday seemed to be the end of the rush. I can't give volume numbers, but we are down 37% for film, 34% for prints from last year. William Robb -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005
CA on the 16-45?
Hello, Perhaps it has been mentioned on the list but I missed it. Boj says on his site: Subjective Evaluation Informal user tests indicate that the lens is very sharp and contrasty, with flare and distortion also being very well controlled. There are, however, high levels of cromatic aperation at 16 mm, but they can be easily cured by the appropriate post-processing software. http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/short/DA16-45f4.html Can you confirm this please? Many thanks in advance, Kostas
Pentax sighting confirmed.
I remember seeing a bus with a huge Pentax ad on the exterior recently, wasn't sure what it said, but I saw it again today. Pentax... It's who I am The images were mostly from the Optio family though.. Cheers, Ryan
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Here's a workable principle: The commonplace items will die, at least as far as being generally available goes. The unique niche items will survive because the need that requires them will remain, though perhaps to a lesser degree. With that in mind ... C-41 film will die (as a marketable item). ...Processing will be too expensive to maintian. ...135/120/220 will go (are going) first. Sheet films later. BW film will maintain its niche. ...you can process it yourself. I'm not certain how color positive (reversal/E6) films will do. They've got a niche, but it's very small. And you can get it custom-processed much more easily than C-41. It's not really that film will die. It's which films and when. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Film may not be dead.....
However, just the other day there were 4 attractive young ladies photographing the local Post Office (a historic building). The were all using film cameras. The very most attractive one smiled at me, but she was using a Nikon so I did not speak to her... They're not so bad Nikon users, at least their lenses focusing rings turned in the right direction - or they used to last time I had one :) John -- Original Message --- From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Film may not be dead. Film will die as a consummer item. How long it will take is anybodies guess. As a specialty item it should last a long time. However, Wal-Mart and such do not sell specialty items. They depend upon volume for profit. The only single roll of film the local Wal-Mart is now carrying is Kodak Max. Everything else is in 4 packs. 90% of consumers only use 1 or 2 rolls of film per year. So from Wal-Marts point of view they are nonexistant, and will soon not be able to buy film for their cameras. Us film diehards must resign ourselves to buying mail order. Here in a small city (15K) that is the only way to get roll film, sheet film, or BW film (has been for a couple of years already). However, just the other day there were 4 attractive young ladies photographing the local Post Office (a historic building). The were all using film cameras. The very most attractive one smiled at me, but she was using a Nikon so I did not speak to her... graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: But it is starting to breath really slow in Consumerville. Yesterday seemed to be the end of the rush. I can't give volume numbers, but we are down 37% for film, 34% for prints from last year. William Robb -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005 --- End of Original Message ---
*istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
I just got another MX (BLACK!) this week after not having one for a few years and I forgot how damn small this MX camera is. I am wondering how does the *istD/DS bodies compare in size to the MX full frame 35mm film camera? jco
Re: Film may not be dead.....
I think almost all types of film will be available at high prices and in limited quantities for some time to come. I doubt that sheet film will outlast medium format. Now that commercial applications have all but dried up, the hobbyist/fine art base won't be enough to sustain it. It's just too expensive to manufacture. Here's a workable principle: The commonplace items will die, at least as far as being generally available goes. The unique niche items will survive because the need that requires them will remain, though perhaps to a lesser degree. With that in mind ... C-41 film will die (as a marketable item). ...Processing will be too expensive to maintian. ...135/120/220 will go (are going) first. Sheet films later. BW film will maintain its niche. ...you can process it yourself. I'm not certain how color positive (reversal/E6) films will do. They've got a niche, but it's very small. And you can get it custom-processed much more easily than C-41. It's not really that film will die. It's which films and when. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Film may not be dead.....
The marketplace seems to be doing the opposite, though. The pro photo shops here are selling digital LF. Little or no 135/120/220 stuff goes out the door. Saw it in Oklahoma as well. Anyone observing something different elsewhere? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:39:18 + I think almost all types of film will be available at high prices and in limited quantities for some time to come. I doubt that sheet film will outlast medium format. Now that commercial applications have all but dried up, the hobbyist/fine art base won't be enough to sustain it. It's just too expensive to manufacture. Here's a workable principle: The commonplace items will die, at least as far as being generally available goes. The unique niche items will survive because the need that requires them will remain, though perhaps to a lesser degree. With that in mind ... C-41 film will die (as a marketable item). ...Processing will be too expensive to maintian. ...135/120/220 will go (are going) first. Sheet films later. BW film will maintain its niche. ...you can process it yourself. I'm not certain how color positive (reversal/E6) films will do. They've got a niche, but it's very small. And you can get it custom-processed much more easily than C-41. It's not really that film will die. It's which films and when. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
Where did you get yours? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. -- Original Message -- From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:34:32 -0500 I just got another MX (BLACK!) this week after not having one for a few years and I forgot how damn small this MX camera is. I am wondering how does the *istD/DS bodies compare in size to the MX full frame 35mm film camera? jco Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
Read my post again ... I did not denigrate AF other than to say that at times it's not needed or that it's inappropriate. Peter's photo is a perfect example of when autofocus is worthless, or at least not necessary. You've got a person willingly posing for a pic, no fast action, and all the time needed to manually focus precisely. I agree with you, never disagreed with you, and support your point that there are probably times when autofocus can be useful and helpful. As for spending the money on a camera with interchangeable screens - I never said that was something to do. What I did say was that one should choose the proper camera for their circumstances. I'm fortunate in that I have a few cameras, but if I could only have one you could be sure it would have an appropriate finder for my vision, both photographic and physical. So sorry you're feeling miffed ... you probably feel that way because you're taking some comments personally and with the belief, as Herb says, that my attitude is elitist. Well, it ain't - certainly no more so than those that advocate autofocus, and fancy whiz-bang features as mandatory for making good photographs. IMO, those people are losing sight of many of the creative aspects of photography when they allow some engineer half a world away to write a program for their camera that will determine focus, exposure, lens aperture, and the like. Shel [Original Message] From: John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/12/2005 11:44:40 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room Sorry, Shel, Bruce, et al, I think you're missing the point of AF. IMHO, I think it is there for exactly the times when the human eye/hand combination is just not quick enough to adjust the focus accurately, particularly when you have a relatively short time-frame in which to do it. While I would agree that one should use the appropriate tools for the job, and in conjunction with one's own abilities, I fail to see what other tool I might have selected in the circumstances I described (a wedding, if you've forgotten). TLR? Rangefinder? MF lens and manual focussing? MF lens and trap focussing? I have all of these and I wouldn't guarantee to have done better, except perhaps with trap focussing. But even that would only give me one certain shot, and another if I happened to adjust the focus point in time, to the right distance, and in the right direction! There is also the point that not everyone has camera bodies where the screens can be changed, or may not wish or be able to spend the necessary dollars to do so. WRT having one's eyes tested, I do - every six months, and update my prescription as necessary. I still have trouble with fine detail focussing, and I am sure there are others like me. Maybe it's the viewfinder - but I don't think so, as I am no better off with my SP's or SV. Finally,I would just like to draw attention to my other comment - that I have found the MZ-S AF to be nearly flawless, and I guess I would just like to see the same standard maintained in all Pentax SLR's - IMV, if you can do it once you can do it every time. John Coyle (feeling slightly miffed at some of the comments!) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:34 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room For many types of photography, especially with certain cameras and lenses, autofocus may not be the best choice. Bruce, I don't think you're being the least bit unkind - if someone wants to make a certain type of photograph, then the proper camera and lenses are in order. If one is the least bit serious about photography, then they should at least have their eyes and glasses checked to be sure they can see properly, and then use the proper camera, viewfinder, screen, diopters, or whatnot in order to assure proper focusing. Autofocus is not always the solution. Methinks you're being quite realistic. I have had trouble with my vision, and I will not use autofocus to make up for getting my eyes examined and using the most appropriate screens and viewfinders for my needs, nor will I allow my creativity to be compromised by the limits imposed by many autofocus cameras. If my photos are going to be OOF, then let them be so because I screwed up not because the camera couldn't do the job required of it and because I became dependent on some marketing maven's idea of a neccessary feature. That's not to say there's no place for autofocus, for there certainly is, but, like every other feature and accessory, it's not always appropriate or worthwhile. Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/12/2005 10:25:56 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
I don't feel elitist. As Shel states, AF can be very useful in some cases. Those cases are generally when the person can't focus fast enough. What I did say was when I view pictures that used AF when not necessary, they tend to not be critically focused (and I include your MZ-S in this) and quite often the composition is not quite as good as it could have been. You end up spending more time trying to pick the right AF point, or focus locking and then recomposing, etc to not be optimal. In practice it usually isn't much of any faster for those situations. When I bought the *istD, one of the biggest reasons was because of the viewfinder - It was the best of the bunch for allowing me to manually focus. When I buy lenses, the manual focus feel is important to me. That isn't to say that I don't buy AF lenses (about 80% are AF), but I do plan on manually focusing. It probably has more to do with a critical eye, just like someone who fully relies on the matrix meter in all cases, because most of the time it is ok. That doesn't mean it is ever optimal, just that it is liveable. It could also be that DOF is covering up your focusing errors in many cases. Sorry to ruffle feathers - I don't think less of you as a person because you like AF more than MF. Feel free to continue down the path you are going and hopefully Pentax will improve their AF. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, January 13, 2005, 7:58:59 AM, you wrote: SB Read my post again ... I did not denigrate AF other than to say that at SB times it's not needed or that it's inappropriate. Peter's photo is a SB perfect example of when autofocus is worthless, or at least not necessary. SB You've got a person willingly posing for a pic, no fast action, and all the SB time needed to manually focus precisely. I agree with you, never disagreed SB with you, and support your point that there are probably times when SB autofocus can be useful and helpful. SB As for spending the money on a camera with interchangeable screens - I SB never said that was something to do. What I did say was that one should SB choose the proper camera for their circumstances. I'm fortunate in that I SB have a few cameras, but if I could only have one you could be sure it would SB have an appropriate finder for my vision, both photographic and physical. SB So sorry you're feeling miffed ... you probably feel that way because SB you're taking some comments personally and with the belief, as Herb says, SB that my attitude is elitist. Well, it ain't - certainly no more so than SB those that advocate autofocus, and fancy whiz-bang features as mandatory SB for making good photographs. IMO, those people are losing sight of many of SB the creative aspects of photography when they allow some engineer half a SB world away to write a program for their camera that will determine focus, SB exposure, lens aperture, and the like. SB Shel [Original Message] From: John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/12/2005 11:44:40 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room Sorry, Shel, Bruce, et al, I think you're missing the point of AF. IMHO, SB I think it is there for exactly the times when the human eye/hand SB combination is just not quick enough to adjust the focus accurately, particularly SB when you have a relatively short time-frame in which to do it. While I would agree that one should use the appropriate tools for the job, and in conjunction with one's own abilities, I fail to see what other tool I SB might have selected in the circumstances I described (a wedding, if you've forgotten). TLR? Rangefinder? MF lens and manual focussing? MF lens and trap focussing? I have all of these and I wouldn't guarantee to have SB done better, except perhaps with trap focussing. But even that would only SB give me one certain shot, and another if I happened to adjust the focus point SB in time, to the right distance, and in the right direction! There is also the point that not everyone has camera bodies where the screens can be changed, or may not wish or be able to spend the necessary dollars to do so. WRT having one's eyes tested, I do - every six months, and update my prescription as necessary. I still have trouble with fine detail SB focussing, and I am sure there are others like me. Maybe it's the viewfinder - but SB I don't think so, as I am no better off with my SP's or SV. Finally,I would just like to draw attention to my other comment - that I have found the MZ-S AF to be nearly flawless, and I guess I would just SB like to see the same standard maintained in all Pentax SLR's - IMV, if you can SB do it once you can do it every time. John Coyle (feeling slightly miffed at some of the comments!) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:34 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The
Re: PESO baby deer... warning cuteness alert
Like it says (or used to say) on a billboard in Saskatchewan, Canada: There's a place on this earth for all God's creatures... ...Right next to the mashed potatoes. Regards, Bob... From: Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the island where I live the white tailed deer have, for lack of predators, shrunk to be scarcely bigger than most goats. They also seem to have developed the knack of waiting at the side of the road for cars to pass (a quality I haven't seen in deer anywhere else), rather than leaping out in front of the approaching vehicle, which may have something to do with them being so numerous here. This one and a few others came to my yard almost every day during the fall to eat the apples that I put out for them, but they usually come at dusk, so I have a lot of blurry photos of them. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/deer.html P3n, K200/2.5, Wobble-O-Matic tripod, cheap 100 iso print film.
KX Motor Drive...new in box.
Any interest in a KX Motor Drive new in the box? I've got all manuals and what I believe is a 10 meter remote extension cord. How do I know it's new? Simple...I bought it myself in '84 when I was a Service Tech at the National Headquarters in Englewood, CO. I shot one roll through it back then. One piece...I believe the battery, handheld pistol-grip is Class II...but new. It was just returned from a dealer and I checked it out. I'm not sure if I want to part with it. Any speculation on value? Thanks in advance! Chris ...no it's not a black body. I used to repair them from time to time back then. Just about every one was used in a medical context some how mounted in a piece of equipment. They are s cool!!!
Re: Enablement! Sorta..
On 13/1/05, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed: I must have done my research wrong. I read somewhere Firewire 400 (4 pins) doesn't carry power like USB, while Firewire 800 (6 pins) could. I've been playing around with it a bit- unfortunately with the Firewire connection, it's not powered, and with the USB1.0 to USB 2.0 connection, it needs a Power supply to 'kick start' the harddrive, but functions if I unplug the supply after it's started. Bizarre. FireWire (IEEE1394) ports on a computer can be powered or not. 4 pin is not powered, 6 is. I have 6 pin FireWire 400 ports (2) on my 5 year old PowerBook, so (for instance) if I plug in my Lexar CF card reader, I need no other source of power for it. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: CA on the 16-45?
I have not witnessed high levels of CA, and I have used the lens at 16mm many times. Paul Hello, Perhaps it has been mentioned on the list but I missed it. Boj says on his site: Subjective Evaluation Informal user tests indicate that the lens is very sharp and contrasty, with flare and distortion also being very well controlled. There are, however, high levels of cromatic aperation at 16 mm, but they can be easily cured by the appropriate post-processing software. http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/short/DA16-45f4.html Can you confirm this please? Many thanks in advance, Kostas
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Graywolf wrote: snip However, just the other day there were 4 attractive young ladies photographing the local Post Office (a historic building). The were all using film cameras. The very most attractive one smiled at me, but she was using a Nikon so I did not speak to her... Very foolish weedhopper. snip -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Enablement! Sorta..
On 13/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: FireWire (IEEE1394) ports on a computer can be powered or not. 4 pin is not powered, 6 is. I have 6 pin FireWire 400 ports (2) on my 5 year old PowerBook, so (for instance) if I plug in my Lexar CF card reader, I need no other source of power for it. Similarly I have a LaCie Pocket Drive with a 2.5 inch 80GB HD in it - plugs up to either laptop or desktop and runs fine with no further power. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: SMC D FA 100mm Macro f2.8 (er, and hello)
Joe, I will take some shots as soon as we get some clear weather over here and post them. Jostein - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:01 PM Subject: Re: SMC D FA 100mm Macro f2.8 (er, and hello) Can't tell you how the new lens behaves, but the FA 100 macro is plagued with an unpleasant chromatic aberration when used with the *istD. Like you, I never have had any gripes with this lens on film cameras. Jostein, can you post an example somewhere? I have used the FA 100 f2.8 on my D for many photos, and haven't noticed this. Have you noticed the problem in macro mode, on distance shots, or both? (I have felt that the FA 100 f2.8 has only mediocre performance for distance shots, but I love it's macro performance.) For the original poster (David): Jens may have confused you. The D FA lens you are asking about will work equally well on 35 mm. film cameras or on the D or DS. It is the DA lenses that are intended for the smaller image circle of the current digital SLRs. And welcome. That's an astute question for a first-time poster. Joe
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
The DS is a little narrower a little thicker and a little taller than an MX without the winder, the reverse is more or less true, (if you consider the grip), for thickness and height if the MX has a winder mounted. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I just got another MX (BLACK!) this week after not having one for a few years and I forgot how damn small this MX camera is. I am wondering how does the *istD/DS bodies compare in size to the MX full frame 35mm film camera? jco -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The DS is a little narrower a little thicker and a little taller than an MX without the winder, the reverse is more or less true, (if you consider the grip), for thickness and height if the MX has a winder mounted. Anyone with both cameras? It would be great to see a few side-by-side pics please. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Film may not be dead.....
- Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Film may not be dead. Graywolf wrote: snip The very most attractive one smiled at me, but she was using a Nikon so I did not speak to her... Very foolish weedhopper. I was thinking that if she had such bad taste as to use a Nikon, Tom mighta stood a chance. Especially if she smiled at him. HAR! WW Sorry Tom, couldn't resist.
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
In a message dated 1/13/2005 8:38:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It probably has more to do with a critical eye, just like someone who fully relies on the matrix meter in all cases, because most of the time it is ok. That doesn't mean it is ever optimal, just that it is liveable. It could also be that DOF is covering up your focusing errors in many cases. Sorry to ruffle feathers - I don't think less of you as a person because you like AF more than MF. Feel free to continue down the path you are going and hopefully Pentax will improve their AF. -- Best regards, Bruce === Looking over my recent photos (I haven't shot that much lately, but say the last eight months or so), it seems my focus is slightly off in many cases. Or soft focused or something -- anyway, not as sharp as I would like. So I have decided to try manual focus more. (Of course, having more expensive lenses might help too. :-)) I like AF for animals -- which is why I wanted it. Sometimes that works. And sometimes it doesn't. But it works better than if I was manually focusing on a moving animal -- where you never know in which direction it will move or go or how fast it go. But, overall, I am less and less satisfied with autofocus as time passes. Long distance shots, yeah, AF is all right there. And necessary for animals as stated above (probably sports shots too, although I don't do those). I used to be a fairly strong advocate for AF because I am increasingly near sighted. (And I can't wear reading glasses when I shoot; I have found it much too difficult.) OTOH, as time passes I am increasingly critical of my own photos. The bar gets raised. Which is why you won't see any PAWs and PESOs from me anytime soon. :-) So it goes... My .02 cents. Marnie aka Doe
Re: UK PDML with Cesar
Hi, Mark Roberts wrote: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: Cesar, do you have any definite dates yet? Lisa and I will be there May 7th through the 14th. I do not have the dates selected. Unfortunately, I have to support the Gulf Coast Triathlon which always take place the day before Mother´s Day. Therefore I will be here for the 7th of May. I guess I could always take off the middle of the week to be there ere your departure. That might work. We're tentatively planning on doing our socializing on the tail end of the trip. We'll be spending most of the time at a cottage my parents have rented in Wales. Where in Wales? Roughly. m
Re: PESO baby deer... warning cuteness alert
Hi Paul, I did shoot some vertical but the light was low and none of them were very sharp. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/deer2.html You are probably right about the framing, but I try to shoot vertically as little as possible because I find it doesn't fit into most of my applications very well. Since I usually try not to have my subject looking out of the frame, and she had a bit of a potbelly (spends a lot of time in the neighbor's garden), it seemed to be the best way to deal with the situation. I live on Cortes island, which is about four hours on three ferries, plus some five hours by car from Vancouver Canada. It is quite a nice little community. By the way Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. :-P Thanks for the comments, Francis p.s. sorry if you already received This. It didn't show up in my mail box so I'm sending it for the second time. At 12:50 AM 1/13/2005 +, you wrote: It's a little soft, but not horribly so. I think I would have shot this as a vertical to fill the frame and see a bit more of the deer. On what island do you live? That sounds like an interesting lifestyle. Paul On the island where I live the white tailed deer have, for lack of predators, shrunk to be scarcely bigger than most goats. They also seem to have developed the knack of waiting at the side of the road for cars to pass (a quality I haven't seen in deer anywhere else), rather than leaping out in front of the approaching vehicle, which may have something to do with them being so numerous here. This one and a few others came to my yard almost every day during the fall to eat the apples that I put out for them, but they usually come at dusk, so I have a lot of blurry photos of them. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/deer.html P3n, K200/2.5, Wobble-O-Matic tripod, cheap 100 iso print film. All comments appreciated Francis
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Ok, the analogy using light levers didn't work. Let's try again... Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens, is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its *close* focal point. The other lens is being used the other way around with the light from the image going from the *close* focal point to the more distant focal point and eventually to your eye. Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask.
Re: OT - Mac Mini
Mishka wrote: 0. (biggest offendre) Quiet power supply (Antec 420W is quiet enough) 1. (important) Zalman CPU cooler 2. (optional) Quiet HDDs 3. Many modern graphics cards have excessively noisy fans. A huge, double heatsink and a pair of heat pipes converts the irritation into blissful silence. my PC used to sound like an jet taking off. now I can barely hear it. best, mishka - Dave (trying to quieten his current PC/Linux fileserver) Still working on mine. PSU is next in the firing line m
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
Just because Cotty asked... Quick and dirty http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/mx-m50_ist-D-fa43.html Cotty wrote: On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The DS is a little narrower a little thicker and a little taller than an MX without the winder, the reverse is more or less true, (if you consider the grip), for thickness and height if the MX has a winder mounted. Anyone with both cameras? It would be great to see a few side-by-side pics please. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Thanks for the replies. I'm still not sure I understand the focal length magnification thingy, so I guess I'll have to draw some ray diagrams. I'll try to shoot the moon when I next get a chance. It's a bit chilly and windy at night at the moment. Nick
RE: Film may not be dead.....
My local professional lab have just doubled the price for their E6 processing as there's not the demand. They have to make up a fresh batch of chemicals virtually for each film as they often see 1 or none each day. Didn't think it would happen this soon. Nick -Original Message- From: William Robb[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13/01/05 04:12:50 To: Pentax Discusspentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Film may not be dead. But it is starting to breath really slow in Consumerville. Yesterday seemed to be the end of the rush. I can't give volume numbers, but we are down 37% for film, 34% for prints from last year. William Robb
Re: Enablement! Sorta..
Ryan Lee mused: I must have done my research wrong. I read somewhere Firewire 400 (4 pins) doesn't carry power like USB, while Firewire 800 (6 pins) could. The 400/800 describes the data rate, and has nothing to do with the number of pins. My notebook computer only has a 4-pin connector, and so does not provide power. My desktop has the 6-pin connector, and quite happily powers the CF reader. Both of these are regular IEEE1394 FireWire 400 (they predate any FW 800 devices). The only difference between a 4-pin and a 6-pin connector is those two extra pins, which are used for the purpose of supplying power to devices. My new portable hard drive enclosure, a FireWire 800 unit, has the 6 pin connector, but doesn't use it for power; it has it's own power supply (as does my older FW400 portable drive). Hmm - I wonder if either injects power onto the extra two pins? I doubt it, but it's at least worth trying.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
OK, that's what I started to conclude must be the answer. Thank you. Tom C. From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:29:13 -0800 Ok, the analogy using light levers didn't work. Let's try again... Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens, is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its *close* focal point. The other lens is being used the other way around with the light from the image going from the *close* focal point to the more distant focal point and eventually to your eye. Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask.
PAW -- Cape Hatteras
Dear gang, I would very much like to hear your opinions on the picture at the link. Please look at the image first, before you read on. http://www.oksne.net/paw/hatteras-mosaic.html All taken in June last year, naturally...:-) It's a mosaic of many, many shots. Assembled manually in Photoshop to a resulting image size of about 119 megapixels. I planned for all the shots of the lighthouse itself, but took only 6 shots of the sky. The sky is then filled out by pasting copies. I wanted to create a rather shattered look, inspired by something I saw in Aperture magazine about to years ago. It was never my intention to produce a straight shot. :-) However, I'm not at all certain what kind of impression it gives the viewer. What say you? Thanks, Jostein
Re: PESO baby deer... warning cuteness alert
Hi, I did shoot some vertical but the light was low and none of them were very sharp. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/deer2.html This one and a few others came to my yard almost every day during the fall to eat the apples that I put out for them, but they usually come at dusk, so I have a lot of blurry photos of them. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/deer.html P3n, K200/2.5, Wobble-O-Matic tripod, cheap 100 iso print film. you're very lucky to have such willilng subjects! Have you tried shooting them with the camera and lens on a bean bag? If your tripod's as wobbly as you suggest you might get better results with a beanbag, which is easy to make at home, and costs a lot less than a stable tripod. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
Very interesting and quite creative. I don't care for the results very much, but I like the concept and I think you may be on to something really neat. I'd love to see some more examples of the concept. Maybe different photos would give a stronger result. Shel [Original Message] From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would very much like to hear your opinions on the picture at the link. Please look at the image first, before you read on. http://www.oksne.net/paw/hatteras-mosaic.html
Re: Enablement! Sorta..
Actually, the IEEE 1394b standard (FireWire 800 to us mere mortals) did introduce a new 9-pin connector (and new confusion). Two of the extra pins are for signal integrity and the third is unused, but reserved for future expansion. From what I understand, if you use the older 4- and 6-pin connectors and cables or an adaptor with an FW 800 drive, the drive will revert to the FW 400 standard and, or course, slower throughput. John, I'm puzzled that the FW 800 drive you have has a 6-pin connector. Have you tested its performance? It might be worth checking it out. Tim On 1/13/05 10:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ryan Lee mused: I must have done my research wrong. I read somewhere Firewire 400 (4 pins) doesn't carry power like USB, while Firewire 800 (6 pins) could. The 400/800 describes the data rate, and has nothing to do with the number of pins. My notebook computer only has a 4-pin connector, and so does not provide power. My desktop has the 6-pin connector, and quite happily powers the CF reader. Both of these are regular IEEE1394 FireWire 400 (they predate any FW 800 devices). The only difference between a 4-pin and a 6-pin connector is those two extra pins, which are used for the purpose of supplying power to devices. My new portable hard drive enclosure, a FireWire 800 unit, has the 6 pin connector, but doesn't use it for power; it has it's own power supply (as does my older FW400 portable drive). Hmm - I wonder if either injects power onto the extra two pins? I doubt it, but it's at least worth trying.
Re: test 6
William Robb wrote: I seem to be failing Really? What was your last grade? keith whaley
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Last month I went for a job interview at a pretty well-known photoshop here in Berkeley. Here it's the photographers photoshop. You can get anything there kinda placeI really wanted to work there, figured I'd learn alot, but one of the guys that interviewed me was dog set on believing that film wasn't all that endangered, and they could continue on in bascially the same way they had, maybe losing a little business to digital. Well, I think one of the main reasons I didn't get hired was because I was honest enough to disagree with him on that stance. I'm not saying that there won't always be a market for film, but what I am seeing is that the market is shifting drastically in favor of digital and that even a lot of pro photographers are making the transition at least to some extent. I can't help but think that the market for film and processing is going to suffer dramatically over the next few years unless they get into doing both ends of the spectrum. I think there will always be some film work, but the average amateur and new kids coming out of school are now both leaning heavily towards digital. No offense, but the photo stores can ignore that trend at their peril. When major camera makers stop making point and shoots that use film? You know things are changing drastically I'm primarily a digital gal, though I do have an interest in film too. I intend to do both, but the bulk of my work is going to be digital. It's just as good for the most part quality-wise given that I have a very good digital camera, and though I can't do everything in digital I see no reason costs-wise not to use digital if I can. It's just as easy to edit the pics and pop them on a CD to be developed as it is to take a bunch of rolls to the lab, and IMHO far more satisfying because I can see the work I have done and simply kill the bad shots before I make unneeded lousy prints. I don't care to really print them all print them myself, too expensive I'm looking forward to learning more about film, but I have no intention of making it my main choice. About 1/3 maybe And that attitude is why that photo store is going to suffer if they don't get a little more on the digital bandwagon then they have been I'm all for BOTH, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that digital is taking over the larger part of the market Film is going to end up being a niche market 20 years down the road...I think at this point it's pretty undeniable, and that industry folks who do choose to ignore it will rue the day They'll either have to adapt or go under My 2 cents...
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
Hi Marnie, Long distance shots often don't require much in the way of critical focusing as the DOF range is extended quite a bit from close in subjects. Getting good results using manual focus on moving objects requires both practice and a knowledge of your subject. Most photogs eschew practicing - even before autofocus and other aids built into cameras - as they don't see much need for it or they don't feel they have the time. However, the really good photogs are practicing every day. There is one fellow who has photographed eagles for decades. he knew his subjects very well (including individual birds) and would practice focusing on the license plates of cars driving past his home. Another photog would shoot hundreds of exposures every day even though the camera contained no film for most of those shots. He did it to stay familiar with his gear and to keep his reflexes sharp. Most people don't, for whatever reason, invest the time needed to hone their skills. That's a shame for their results suffer and they sometimes become frustrated by those poor results. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looking over my recent photos (I haven't shot that much lately, but say the last eight months or so), it seems my focus is slightly off in many cases. Or soft focused or something -- anyway, not as sharp as I would like. So I have decided to try manual focus more. (Of course, having more expensive lenses might help too. :-)) I like AF for animals -- which is why I wanted it. Sometimes that works. And sometimes it doesn't. But it works better than if I was manually focusing on a moving animal -- where you never know in which direction it will move or go or how fast it go. But, overall, I am less and less satisfied with autofocus as time passes. Long distance shots, yeah, AF is all right there. And necessary for animals as stated above (probably sports shots too, although I don't do those). I used to be a fairly strong advocate for AF because I am increasingly near sighted. (And I can't wear reading glasses when I shoot; I have found it much too difficult.) OTOH, as time passes I am increasingly critical of my own photos. The bar gets raised. Which is why you won't see any PAWs and PESOs from me anytime soon.
Re: Film may not be dead.....
No need to be anonymous about who you are and the name of the store. Both are obvious anyway Shel [Original Message] From: n/a [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/13/2005 11:42:38 AM Subject: Re: Film may not be dead. Last month I went for a job interview at a pretty well-known photoshop here in Berkeley. Here it's the photographers photoshop. You can get anything there kinda place
Starting Studio Lights?
I am eyeing this at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/LTOS.html About what I want to spend (as cheap as I can -- I really don't want to go over $200). What with it being rainy, rainy here in California and wanting to shoot again, I thought I'd move indoors for a while. I have a decent macro lens and some things I could shoot. I am not thinking portrait shots at this point, just still lifes. (I took a portrait class about 8 months ago, and am somewhat familiar with softboxes, etc. These lights would not be tripped by a PC cord -- I imagine I would have them always on when shooting.) Bruce (Dayton) suggested that since I am shooting digital and can adjust white balance, that I not bother with Photoflood lights, just use Halogen or something. Anyway, any input is helpful. Does this look like a half way decent buy? Or does someone has a better idea? A better recommendation? (Bearing cost in mind.) Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
In a message dated 1/13/2005 11:43:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Marnie, Long distance shots often don't require much in the way of critical focusing as the DOF range is extended quite a bit from close in subjects. Getting good results using manual focus on moving objects requires both practice and a knowledge of your subject. Most photogs eschew practicing - even before autofocus and other aids built into cameras - as they don't see much need for it or they don't feel they have the time. However, the really good photogs are practicing every day. There is one fellow who has photographed eagles for decades. he knew his subjects very well (including individual birds) and would practice focusing on the license plates of cars driving past his home. Another photog would shoot hundreds of exposures every day even though the camera contained no film for most of those shots. He did it to stay familiar with his gear and to keep his reflexes sharp. Most people don't, for whatever reason, invest the time needed to hone their skills. That's a shame for their results suffer and they sometimes become frustrated by those poor results. Shel = All good suggestions, Shel. I definitely fall in that last category. OTOH, I don't have enough time to shoot very often. So I seriously doubt that I am a serious photographer. :-) OTOH (since we usually have two hands), I certainly need to shoot more and get more comfortable with my equipment and the various things I can do with it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: *istD/DS Size relative to a MX?
On 13/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Just because Cotty asked... Quick and dirty http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/mx-m50_ist-D-fa43.html Thanks Pete - I would be even more interested in seeing the *ist Ds next to the MX. I'm sorry buddy, but that pancake lens on that *ist D looks awful. ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Film may not be dead.....
On 13/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: No need to be anonymous about who you are and the name of the store. Both are obvious anyway Scandal? Shel, please enlighten those of us who know not of any photo shop in Berkeley. Not Cavo, surely??? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
On 13/1/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed: I would very much like to hear your opinions on the picture at the link. Please look at the image first, before you read on. http://www.oksne.net/paw/hatteras-mosaic.html All taken in June last year, naturally...:-) It's a mosaic of many, many shots. Assembled manually in Photoshop to a resulting image size of about 119 megapixels. I planned for all the shots of the lighthouse itself, but took only 6 shots of the sky. The sky is then filled out by pasting copies. I wanted to create a rather shattered look, inspired by something I saw in Aperture magazine about to years ago. It was never my intention to produce a straight shot. :-) However, I'm not at all certain what kind of impression it gives the viewer. What say you? I like it. At first I wasn't sure, but it grew on me. The fact that you put a lot of effort into it sort of justified my preference - EG if it had just been a simple filter in PS, I would have been disappointed. I looked first and then read the further info. Well done! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: recent work, this time with the link
Doug Brewer wrote: http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm === Very nice shots, Doug. I especially like: berries, boxes, exit (even though the outside is a bit overexposed looking), tower, and, naturally, windows (statue through window). Docking had a strange green band in the picture on the lower right when I viewed it, about 1/4 from the bottom. Really, really good stuff. What great old buildings -- warehouse type and non-warehouse type to work with. Envious. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
On 13/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I am eyeing this at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/LTOS.html About what I want to spend (as cheap as I can -- I really don't want to go over $200). What with it being rainy, rainy here in California and wanting to shoot again, I thought I'd move indoors for a while. I have a decent macro lens and some things I could shoot. I am not thinking portrait shots at this point, just still lifes. (I took a portrait class about 8 months ago, and am somewhat familiar with softboxes, etc. These lights would not be tripped by a PC cord -- I imagine I would have them always on when shooting.) Bruce (Dayton) suggested that since I am shooting digital and can adjust white balance, that I not bother with Photoflood lights, just use Halogen or something. Anyway, any input is helpful. Does this look like a half way decent buy? Or does someone has a better idea? A better recommendation? (Bearing cost in mind.) Marnie aka Doe :-) Marnie, tungsten lights are cheaper - but there is a hefty price to pay - they can get very hot and if you're working in a confined space in summer, you'll bake! Depending on bulb intensity/type, you may find that they will not deliver the output of flash, so you might be working with less depth of field. For this price, you could also consider a couple of used flash heads and a pair of brollies? If not studio flash heads, what about camera flash heads, one as slave? Take lots of advice before laying out your readies... :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: UK PDML with Cesar
On 13/1/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: Where in Wales? Roughly. Don't you worry, he'll be a-singing in the vallyyss!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
Those adorama units are bulb photofloods. You may or may not want that type of lighting. Another option in that same arena = Look for some of the cheap AC movie lights. Usually only a few bucks each used. And really bright. A few of these with accs. like stands or diffusers and you're easily at only about $100. For strobes = Mine are pretty basic, cheap, but still powerful. Start with 2 Sunpak 611 flashes. GN160. Get the AC adapters for fast recycle time. Add a small flash with a slave for any background/highlighting needed. Slaves are cheap. $10 or so each on eBay. 611 flashes are about $60-$80 each. Then get some used stands and umbrellas. $200 is a practical base point. Sincerely, Collin (the thrift shop/garage sale photo studio operator) Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
In a message dated 1/13/2005 12:26:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For this price, you could also consider a couple of used flash heads and a pair of brollies? If not studio flash heads, what about camera flash heads, one as slave? Take lots of advice before laying out your readies... :-) Cheers, Cotty === Oh, I am. Or willing to. (Lots of advice. :-)) Huh, what are brollies? A flash slave? Think that would provide enough light? Is brollies Brit slang? Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
One approach that works is to just sit around with your camera and play with it. Put it up to your eye, practice focusing (I sometimes do that while watching, focusing on the screen image), play with the controls, etc. You don't even have to go out of the house. Going to the store? Take the camera. Waiting for your mom somewhere? Take the camera. Working at the computer? Keep the camera nearby or on your desk. It's not that we don't have time to practice, we don't think about it, or how we can practice or get familiar with our gear. One needn't be on a photo safari to pick up the camera and play with it. Since you're using a digi, you can see the results immediately. Try shooting around the house at different times of the day, adjusting exposure to see how different settings work with different types of light. Over expose, under expose, adjust focus and focal length. You don't even have to get up from your chair. Here's an idea: pick a piece of furniture in your living room and, over time, photograph it from many angles, in many different types of light, with different focal lengths, at different ISO's ... we all have time to make a few exposures a day, but we're not often motivated to do so because, perhaps, we think we have to be making serious pics, or be out somewhere to make a photo. Hell, I sometimes take a camera with me into the bathroom and shoot whatever's going on in the bedroom. Does all this make me a better photographer? I'd like to think so, but if nothing else I've got lots of snaps of toothpaste tubes, after shave lotion bottles, and my unmade bed LOL Shel Marnie mused: OTOH, I don't have enough time to shoot very often. So I seriously doubt that I am a serious photographer. :-) OTOH (since we usually have two hands), I certainly need to shoot more and get more comfortable with my equipment and the various things I can do with it.
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
I tried working with tungsten lights for quite a few years. Even with three 500 watt bulbs, it was hard to get a small enough stop for the depth of field I needed on some shots. A tripod was required for just about everything. And the heat was almost unbearable at times. I remember trying to shoot a series of pics that detailed a carburetor rebuilding procedure. I was using white paper foreground and background, and I kept dripping sweat on it. They can also be dangerous when used with a model. If a hair light stand tips over, you can burn your subject. I spent $600 on a never used but second-hand set of studio flash units. That bought me two 350 watt monolights, a 150 watt hair light with snorkel, two umbrellas, three stands, and carrying cases. They were worth ever penny. I'm only sorry that I first wasted a couple hundred on tungsten lights. The monolights are adjustable, so you can dial the power up or down, which gives you lots of control. And since the flash is quite fast (1/300 second), I can handhold when it suits my purposes. That being said, you CAN work with tungsten. Photographers got by with tungsten lights for many years before electronic flash. But it's a struggle. If you plan to eventually do a fair amount of studio work, you might be better off waiting until you can afford something better. On 13/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I am eyeing this at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/LTOS.html About what I want to spend (as cheap as I can -- I really don't want to go over $200). What with it being rainy, rainy here in California and wanting to shoot again, I thought I'd move indoors for a while. I have a decent macro lens and some things I could shoot. I am not thinking portrait shots at this point, just still lifes. (I took a portrait class about 8 months ago, and am somewhat familiar with softboxes, etc. These lights would not be tripped by a PC cord -- I imagine I would have them always on when shooting.) Bruce (Dayton) suggested that since I am shooting digital and can adjust white balance, that I not bother with Photoflood lights, just use Halogen or something. Anyway, any input is helpful. Does this look like a half way decent buy? Or does someone has a better idea? A better recommendation? (Bearing cost in mind.) Marnie aka Doe :-) Marnie, tungsten lights are cheaper - but there is a hefty price to pay - they can get very hot and if you're working in a confined space in summer, you'll bake! Depending on bulb intensity/type, you may find that they will not deliver the output of flash, so you might be working with less depth of field. For this price, you could also consider a couple of used flash heads and a pair of brollies? If not studio flash heads, what about camera flash heads, one as slave? Take lots of advice before laying out your readies... :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Film may not be dead.....
I believe the Looking Glass on Telegraph Avenue was being discussed. There's also Sarber's on Solano Avenue, and Peterson's (I believe), a small shop on College Avenue south of Ashby. Plus, of course, a few shops in Oakland, which is quite nearby Berkeley Shel [Original Message] From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shel, please enlighten those of us who know not of any photo shop in Berkeley. Not Cavo, surely???
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
I meant to write ... I sometimes do that while watching TV or a movie ... Shel [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/13/2005 12:39:04 PM Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room One approach that works is to just sit around with your camera and play with it. Put it up to your eye, practice focusing (I sometimes do that while watching, focusing on the screen image),
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
In a message dated 1/13/2005 12:44:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I spent $600 on a never used but second-hand set of studio flash units. That bought me two 350 watt monolights, a 150 watt hair light with snorkel, two umbrellas, three stands, and carrying cases. They were worth ever penny. I'm only sorry that I first wasted a couple hundred on tungsten lights. The monolights are adjustable, so you can dial the power up or down, which gives you lots of control. And since the flash is quite fast (1/300 second), I can handhold when it suits my purposes. That being said, you CAN work with tungsten. Photographers got by with tungsten lights for many years before electronic flash. But it's a struggle. If you plan to eventually do a fair amount of studio work, you might be better off waiting until you can afford something better. = Good points, thanks. The reason I asked is I don't really want to WASTE money. Maybe a slave flash system is the way to start. Marnie aka Doe H.
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
Can someone direct me to a good link or links about slave flashes, strobes, and flood lights, etc.? Or even recommend a good book? Thanks, Marnie aka Doe I obviously have too little information.
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
Yeah, what they said. I've got several of DIY (do-it-yourself) lamps using standard 200W floods from Home Depot, and they suck! You'd never know it by looking at them; they are bright to human eyes, in fact, staring into them makes the model squint, but they just aren't bright enough for the combination of ISO 50 or 100 film and an f-stop of 8 or 11. This will be even more apparent when you're doing macro work. Any kind of flash unit, even off-camera shoe mount flashes, will be better: they're cooler and they won't leave you with squinting subjects. If you know that you'll stick only with Macro and your subjects are relatively small to begin with, you should consider something like a light tent: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlistA=detailsQ=; sku=331829is=REG You could probably build a simple one yourself if you're really crafty. Tim On 1/13/05 12:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried working with tungsten lights for quite a few years. Even with three 500 watt bulbs, it was hard to get a small enough stop for the depth of field I needed on some shots. A tripod was required for just about everything. And the heat was almost unbearable at times. I remember trying to shoot a series of pics that detailed a carburetor rebuilding procedure. I was using white paper foreground and background, and I kept dripping sweat on it. They can also be dangerous when used with a model. If a hair light stand tips over, you can burn your subject. I spent $600 on a never used but second-hand set of studio flash units. That bought me two 350 watt monolights, a 150 watt hair light with snorkel, two umbrellas, three stands, and carrying cases. They were worth ever penny. I'm only sorry that I first wasted a couple hundred on tungsten lights. The monolights are adjustable, so you can dial the power up or down, which gives you lots of control. And since the flash is quite fast (1/300 second), I can handhold when it suits my purposes. That being said, you CAN work with tungsten. Photographers got by with tungsten lights for many years before electronic flash. But it's a struggle. If you plan to eventually do a fair amount of studio work, you might be better off waiting until you can afford something better. On 13/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I am eyeing this at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/LTOS.html About what I want to spend (as cheap as I can -- I really don't want to go over $200). What with it being rainy, rainy here in California and wanting to shoot again, I thought I'd move indoors for a while. I have a decent macro lens and some things I could shoot. I am not thinking portrait shots at this point, just still lifes. (I took a portrait class about 8 months ago, and am somewhat familiar with softboxes, etc. These lights would not be tripped by a PC cord -- I imagine I would have them always on when shooting.) Bruce (Dayton) suggested that since I am shooting digital and can adjust white balance, that I not bother with Photoflood lights, just use Halogen or something. Anyway, any input is helpful. Does this look like a half way decent buy? Or does someone has a better idea? A better recommendation? (Bearing cost in mind.) Marnie aka Doe :-) Marnie, tungsten lights are cheaper - but there is a hefty price to pay - they can get very hot and if you're working in a confined space in summer, you'll bake! Depending on bulb intensity/type, you may find that they will not deliver the output of flash, so you might be working with less depth of field. For this price, you could also consider a couple of used flash heads and a pair of brollies? If not studio flash heads, what about camera flash heads, one as slave? Take lots of advice before laying out your readies... :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
It would have been much more powerful an image if you'd made it before they moved the lighthouse, and then it was destroyed before or during the move. But thankfully, the 12 million dollars they spent to slide it a half mile across the island wasn't wasted. Such a long climb, but such a nice view. Just make sure you hold onto your hat/sunglasses/cameras/anything else loose before you step out onto the balcony. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
In a message dated 1/13/2005 12:57:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlistA=detailsQ=; sku=331829is=REG You could probably build a simple one yourself if you're really crafty. Tim == What does this do, diffuse the flash from your camera evenly over a small area? Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
In a message dated 1/13/2005 12:35:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One approach that works is to just sit around with your camera and play with it. Put it up to your eye, practice focusing (I sometimes do that while watching, focusing on the screen image), play with the controls, etc. You don't even have to go out of the house. Going to the store? Take the camera. Waiting for your mom somewhere? Take the camera. Working at the computer? Keep the camera nearby or on your desk. It's not that we don't have time to practice, we don't think about it, or how we can practice or get familiar with our gear. One needn't be on a photo safari to pick up the camera and play with it. Since you're using a digi, you can see the results immediately. Try shooting around the house at different times of the day, adjusting exposure to see how different settings work with different types of light. Over expose, under expose, adjust focus and focal length. You don't even have to get up from your chair. Here's an idea: pick a piece of furniture in your living room and, over time, photograph it from many angles, in many different types of light, with different focal lengths, at different ISO's ... we all have time to make a few exposures a day, but we're not often motivated to do so because, perhaps, we think we have to be making serious pics, or be out somewhere to make a photo. Hell, I sometimes take a camera with me into the bathroom and shoot whatever's going on in the bedroom. Does all this make me a better photographer? I'd like to think so, but if nothing else I've got lots of snaps of toothpaste tubes, after shave lotion bottles, and my unmade bed LOL Shel Good suggestions again. Actually, I have started doing that a bit over the last few weeks. Shot quite a few Xmas ornaments (all pretty bad). Some deer in the backyard (well, they will traipse through), shots of my ash filled ashtray, and just a lot of shots of the tree in the backyard. They all stink right now, but I suppose if I keep doing it, I will learn something, sometime, somehow. (Well, not all stink, some are actually in focus. LOL.) Thanks, Shel
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
Exactly. It's a more economical way to illuminate small(er) objects. You can use a tent with either hot lights (tungsten, et cetera) or flash units, and set up the whole kit on a tabletop. Tim On 1/13/05 13:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/13/2005 12:57:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlistA=detailsQ=; sku=331829is=REG You could probably build a simple one yourself if you're really crafty. Tim == What does this do, diffuse the flash from your camera evenly over a small area? Marnie aka Doe
Re: Film may not be dead.....
I'm not going to say which store of the ones you named Gee, thanks guys for ignoring my attempt to be polite and not outright name the store I was interviewing with! I was trying to be nice and not say who I thought was being just a tad backward thinking re film vs digital...I guess I shouldn't have mentioned Berkeley at all though? It's not a hard guessI feel bad now because they just might be reading this you know, and I'm not inclined towards being openly snarky. They're nice people. They're just not as ready to go digital as they could bePersonally, I think they are WAY off, but On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:43:05 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the Looking Glass on Telegraph Avenue was being discussed. There's also Sarber's on Solano Avenue, and Peterson's (I believe), a small shop on College Avenue south of Ashby. Plus, of course, a few shops in Oakland, which is quite nearby Berkeley Shel [Original Message] From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shel, please enlighten those of us who know not of any photo shop in Berkeley. Not Cavo, surely???
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
- Original Message - From: Jon M [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would have been much more powerful an image if you'd made it before they moved the lighthouse, and then it was destroyed before or during the move. Yeah, it shows on the pic, doesn't it...:-) Didn't have a chance to do it any sooner, though, since that was my first visit to USA. But thankfully, the 12 million dollars they spent to slide it a half mile across the island wasn't wasted. Such a long climb, but such a nice view. Just make sure you hold onto your hat/sunglasses/cameras/anything else loose before you step out onto the balcony. 'tis was too late in the evening when we got there, it was closed for the day. :-( Thanks for the comments, Jon Jostein
Jostein - have you been hi-jacked?
Jostein,every time I click on one of your PAW links, I get taken to a site www.tbt.no/ I think,not reading Norwegian, that it's advertising accommodation of some sort. You may want to check! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:06 AM Subject: Annual report :-) Dear fellow PDML'ers, 2004 was a good year for PDML get-togethers. I wasn't very good at posting pics from my meetings, so I'll try to make up now. http://www.oksne.net/pdml2004/report.html The report page comes up with small, clickable thumbnails and should be easy to load. But beware of the separate image pages if you're on a slow connection. Some of the images are around 200 Kb, and are scaled to 800x600px or thereabouts. They all open in separate windows. Hope you enjoy, Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] I like it. At first I wasn't sure, but it grew on me. The fact that you put a lot of effort into it sort of justified my preference - EG if it had just been a simple filter in PS, I would have been disappointed. I looked first and then read the further info. Well done! Thanks, mate. Your reaction from before you read on is what wanted to hear. I suspected that some would let appreciation of a big job influence their opinion on the pic. :-) It's probably like Shel said, that the subject doesn't lean itself too well to the technique, but I still think it has some more potential than I've been able to pull out. Cheers, Jostein
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Very interesting and quite creative. I don't care for the results very much, but I like the concept and I think you may be on to something really neat. I'd love to see some more examples of the concept. Maybe different photos would give a stronger result. Yeah. The article in Aperture back then had shots of architecture that filled up more of the frame, creating a much denser scenes. I've been exploring some different subjects, and it's not always easy to see what kind of shape dissolvement will suit the subject. In this scene, I decided to align the black spiralling pattern and let the rest just become what it became. That may not have been a good idea. I may get around to another try with this image, but I'll have to expand the hard-drive partition that holds the PS swap-file first. 4,5 Gb is just too little. :-) Thanks for your thoughts, Shel. Jostein
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Hi ... Looking Glass has a customer base comprised largely of students, and many are learning photography through the use of film. It's not likely that they'll give up on film so quickly. Plus they're the only store around that carries a wide range of film types and brands. Just try getting Efke at any other place in the east bay. In addition, even some of the local digital masters, such as Rob over at the Light Room, buy their film there (at least he did a few months ago when I ran into him there). There's still a big place for film in the east bay and the bay area in general. You may think otherwise, and the market may be shrinking, but the demand is still strong. Consider how crowded the Looking Glass is at times. Consider that they are the only place in town with a full range of darkroom supplies and chemicals, and that they even have a rental darkroom available. In fact, they almost have a monopoly in the area when it comes to conventional photography. Try going into Saber's to buy chemicals, or to get good information about various films. Now that Rich and Eric are no longer at sarber's in Berkeley, the sales staff sometimes has a hard time addressing even the simplest questions. hell, twice in the past 18 months I went into sarber's (they are actually a little more convenient for me) and asked for TX. Once they were OUT OF STOCK! and the other time the sales droid didn't know what TX was. I wanted to by Xtol and ID-11, went into sarber's only to discover that they didn't have any - meanwhile Looking Glass had a truckload of the stuff. So, while film may be dying, and you may think that Looking Glass should do more digital, they seem to have a pretty good understanding of their customer base. And you've failed to mention the stock of digital cameras that they do have. It wasn't long ago that the Nikon rep was there giving a demo on the various DSLR cameras and lenses, so the store's not completely lost in the dark ages. So, while YOU think they're way off, they don't seem to feel the same way, and, as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad that they are providing for my film and darkroom needs - and at a reasonable price as well. And there are a lot of east bay photogs who feel the same way. You think film is dead and dying? Pick up a copy of the latest Photo Directory from Momentum publications. The last time i counted there were more labs providing film services than those providing digital service. And there are more labs in the local bay area providing custom BW services - developing, printing, internegs, and so on, than I bet you're aware of. Add color to that mix and you may well be blown away by the number of business that depend on film for all or a great percentage of their business. Pay a visit to The Photolab on 5th Street and do a traffic count. They specialize in BW processing. Anyway, time for me to shut up. Shel [Original Message] From: n/a [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not going to say which store of the ones you named Gee, thanks guys for ignoring my attempt to be polite and not outright name the store I was interviewing with! I was trying to be nice and not say who I thought was being just a tad backward thinking re film vs digital...I guess I shouldn't have mentioned Berkeley at all though? It's not a hard guessI feel bad now because they just might be reading this you know, and I'm not inclined towards being openly snarky. They're nice people. They're just not as ready to go digital as they could bePersonally, I think they are WAY off, but On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:43:05 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the Looking Glass on Telegraph Avenue was being discussed. There's also Sarber's on Solano Avenue, and Peterson's (I believe), a small shop on College Avenue south of Ashby. Plus, of course, a few shops in Oakland, which is quite nearby Berkeley Shel [Original Message] From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shel, please enlighten those of us who know not of any photo shop in Berkeley. Not Cavo, surely???
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
- Original Message - From: Jostein Subject: PAW -- Cape Hatteras Dear gang, I would very much like to hear your opinions on the picture at the link. Please look at the image first, before you read on. http://www.oksne.net/paw/hatteras-mosaic.html Redirected to: http://www.tbt.no/ William Robb
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
On 13/1/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed: I still think it has some more potential than I've been able to pull out. agreed Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: recent work, this time with the link
Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: they were all shot with the *istD and the FA35/2AL. You da MAN! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
On 13/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Huh, what are brollies? Sorry - umbrellas. A flash slave? Think that would provide enough light? A slave is simply a flash that can be triggered by the light of the first flash - it acts as a slave to the first flash, wirelessly. Is brollies Brit slang? Of course my dear, whatever else? :-) Marnie aka Doe :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My local professional lab have just doubled the price for their E6 processing as there's not the demand. They have to make up a fresh batch of chemicals virtually for each film as they often see 1 or none each day. At the shop where I work we're seeing an average of 2-3 rolls of E6 per day, in my estimation. And we're one of only 3 or 4 (I think) places in Pittsburgh that does E6 in house. Equally worrying, in my view, is the fact that none of the people bringing us E6 ever seems to be in a rush to get it (we do same-day E6 if you get it in to us before noon). This indicates to me that we're seeing mostly hobbyists rather than professional shooters. We're charging $6.50 a roll. Didn't think it would happen this soon. Same here. I expect it's only going to accelerate now, given the fact that the digital camera was the #1 gift this past Christmas. I saw 2-megapixel digicams for $49.00 at several places - no zoom lens and only good enough for 4x6 prints but that's all most people need and the better/cheaper trend isn't slowing down yet... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 1/13/2005, 3:02 PM: I am eyeing this at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/LTOS.html About what I want to spend (as cheap as I can -- I really don't want to go over $200). I bought a new, cheap, no-name studio flash outfit on eBay. 2 AC flash heads with half and full power; 1 silver umbrella; 1 white umbrella; two light stands; carrying case and spare bulbs. The flash heads can either be triggered via synch cord or integrated slave and have built-in modeling lights. All for less than $200. I would suggest looking for something like that (flash heads) rather than the hot lights you are looking at. I used tungsten and halogen lights for a while and found that they are just too hot. HTH. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UK PDML with Cesar
mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: We're tentatively planning on doing our socializing on the tail end of the trip. We'll be spending most of the time at a cottage my parents have rented in Wales. Where in Wales? Roughly. North coast near Conwy. My father's from Anglesey and his parents owned a hotel in Penmaenmawr for a while so we visit that area whenever we can :) We have relatives in Holyhead and friends in Rowen. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
Marnie... One place is the Lighting primer at BH. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=catalog.jspA=getpageQ=P roduct_Resources/lightingIndex.jsp It's obviously slanted towards selling more toys, but it is a place to start, and you can quickly absorb what's there. I'm sure someone will chime in with some good books on the subject or some less commercial web resources. Tim On 1/13/05 12:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone direct me to a good link or links about slave flashes, strobes, and flood lights, etc.? Or even recommend a good book? Thanks, Marnie aka Doe I obviously have too little information.
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
In a message dated 1/13/2005 2:43:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I bought a new, cheap, no-name studio flash outfit on eBay. 2 AC flash heads with half and full power; 1 silver umbrella; 1 white umbrella; two light stands; carrying case and spare bulbs. The flash heads can either be triggered via synch cord or integrated slave and have built-in modeling lights. All for less than $200. I would suggest looking for something like that (flash heads) rather than the hot lights you are looking at. I used tungsten and halogen lights for a while and found that they are just too hot. HTH. -- Christian Yeah, I've been looking at stuff like that on ebay all day (once I was steered in the right direction). Seems like the way to go to start out. I'll see if I can find a deal like you got. Thanks for your input. Marnie aka Doe (Egad, even more to learn.)
Re: UK PDML with Cesar
On 13/1/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: North coast near Conwy. My father's from Anglesey and his parents owned a hotel in Penmaenmawr for a while so we visit that area whenever we can :) We have relatives in Holyhead and friends in Rowen. Amazing. My parents live on Anglesey! Small world eh. Rosgoch. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Hi, Herb Chong wrote: the February Popular Photography Your Best Shot column reproduces a USAF photo of a pilot ejecting from his F-16 as the plane was coming straight at the photographer. the camera locked onto the front of the airplane as it flew directly toward and then crashed to a stop about 100 feet from the photographer. it allowed him to take an in-focus image as it moved. the article captions says that the camera was a Nikon D1X, not noted for its AF speed, on a 300/2.8. figure the aircraft was travelling a couple of hundred miles an hour. http://www.rapp.org/archives/2004/01/thunderbird_crash/ Not a very good example at all. The photographer was almost certainly expecting the plane to be there (though maybe not doing _that_) and there is also a luck factor involved. There is also the good old English word bollocks to consider. In any case, I suspect Jens is saying that locking on in (autofocus) photography is not the same as locking on using guided weaponry. In other words, the weaponry will stay locked on to its target unless drastic countermeasures are undertaken. Cameras will change focus if the photographer breathes. mike Herb - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:19 AM Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments) Cameras cannot lock on to anything. Like an electronic weapon system in an F18-Hornet. I wish it could. It can only focus on a subject/distance. Then perhaps refocus on annother subject/distance.
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jostein Dear gang, I would very much like to hear your opinions on the picture at the link. Please look at the image first, before you read on. http://www.oksne.net/paw/hatteras-mosaic.html Redirected to: http://www.tbt.no/ Same here. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Starting Studio Lights?
In a message dated 1/13/2005 2:48:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marnie... One place is the Lighting primer at BH. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=catalog.jspA=getpageQ=P roduct_Resources/lightingIndex.jsp It's obviously slanted towards selling more toys, but it is a place to start, and you can quickly absorb what's there. I'm sure someone will chime in with some good books on the subject or some less commercial web resources. Tim === Thanks. Well, toys are toys. Some are cheaper and some are EXPENSIVE. But they are all toys. :-) Thanks, again. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PAW -- Cape Hatteras
Hi, I would very much like to hear your opinions on the picture at the link. Please look at the image first, before you read on. http://www.oksne.net/paw/hatteras-mosaic.html [...] I wanted to create a rather shattered look, inspired by something I saw in Aperture magazine about to years ago. It was never my intention to produce a straight shot. :-) However, I'm not at all certain what kind of impression it gives the viewer. What say you? I'm not sure what the point of the photo or technique is. It looks a bit like the stuff Hockney was doing with Polaroids 20+ years ago, but his purpose was to explore multiple-viewpoint perspective, and notions of movement in photographs. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: UK PDML with Cesar
Hi, Thursday, January 13, 2005, 10:49:59 PM, Cotty wrote: On 13/1/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: North coast near Conwy. My father's from Anglesey and his parents owned a hotel in Penmaenmawr for a while so we visit that area whenever we can :) We have relatives in Holyhead and friends in Rowen. Amazing. My parents live on Anglesey! Small world eh. Rosgoch. ...and I went school on Anglesey for 2.5 years (Caergiliog, near Valley). I think we may have had this conversation before. -- Cheers, Bob
Decisions...Decisions...
Lurk mode off Ok, I've got a bit of a dillema here, what would you do? Between Christmas gifts and personal savings, I've got about $1K cdn itching to get back into circulation. What do I do with it? Currently I have: PZ-1, MZ-10 bodies. 28-70/4 FA 70-210/4.5-5.6 F-SMC 50/1.7F 28-200 FA 105/2.8 Kiron Macro 400/5.6 Sigma APO 1.7x AF Teleconvertor Manfrotto Tripod. I burned about 30-40 rolls of slide film last year, mostly through holidays, but I love to get out into the forest or near the waterfront for a couple of hours. Everything from Landscapes, wildlife, macro, family snapshots. My ideas : 1) Hold onto it save towards an *istD. Because I love the PZ-1 so much over the MZ-10, I think I'd prefer the D. That'll be tough, just to wait 2) Pick up another PZ-1 body. Used both bodies alot over the holidays last year and I'm not crazy about going back to the constantly switching lenses. 3) Look around for some faster glass. Perhaps I could get a third party 28-70/2.8 and a 70-210/2.8. 4) Get a better ballhead for my tripod. 5) Forget gear, buy more film. 6) Any other ideas? thanx dk Lurk mode back on
Re: UK PDML 2005 (was:Re: Instant Chimping - Do You Do It?)
Stan Halpin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a meeting in Reading 2-6 May. Probably arrive in England on 29 April, depart the 10th or 11th of May. Schedule details to be worked out, but I would probably be up for a meet on the 7th or 8th. We'll pencil you in! ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
