Re: UK PDML 2005
Amita Guha wrote: 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! ;-) Chances are good that Nate and I will be coming to London this spring. We haven't had a chance to sit down and plan it though, and I doubt we'll be around for the beginning of May, although we don't really know yet. Do the tourists start coming in droves around the end of May? Because we'd probably like to avoid that. London is inundated with tourists at all times of the year. Better to avoid it. 8-) mike
Re: PESO: Playing with Macro 2
>In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:18:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Glad to see that you're picking up your camera again. The conch shell pic >is a far more interesting shot than the pine cone. >Shel === Okay, I've dumped the pinecone and put in some trees instead. Nothing fantastic, but some of my favorite trees. That way I avoid any more people telling me the pinecone stunk. Hehehehe. (I have some where it's obvious they are all pinecones, but I those were sort of boring.) Still interested in any comments on macro shot. And/or trees. http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/ Marnie aka Doe ;-) > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/ > > I cropped the shell a bit, could be cropped differently or more. > > Nothing fantastic, but I am glad to have finally done some photography again > -- get some practice in again. It felt good. I've missed it. Even if my feet > got awfully cold on the concrete. :-) > > Comments welcome. > > Marnie aka Doe I sort of feel like a "photographer" again. A sort of > photographer, anyway.
RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
I agree. But my point was that there's no locking on to the subject. It's just the focus system "catching" whatever comes by, close to the previous focusing distance. If I was photographing a group of kids running at the playground, the camera might catch a girl, then a boy, next time a dog or a bird. There s no locking onto anything. I don't believe any mass produced camera system can do that. I have tried to walk slowly towards a fixed subject with great contrast, having set the AF on the *ist D to "Continuous". When walking quite slowly, the camera could give focus confirmation once for every single step I took. That's app. once every second or every half-second. That is certainly not very impressing. In fact I can do better using manual focus. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. januar 2005 01:33 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments) every time isn't the issue. 90% is good enough to make not using it when available stupid. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:17 AM Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments) > I wouldn't be sure the D1 would focus/refocus at the same object every time!
Re: Keepin' track of pics
I've seen a program which will change and maybe add to the EXIF data. May only work on Jpeg files. Powell >Correction: I didn't explain myself clearly. you can't add info to >camera data, so I list the stop on the first pate of file info, usually >in the description box.
1,000mm F8 Pentax lens
Does anyone have any experience with the Pentax 1,000mm F8 SMC K-mount lens? I understand it¹s fairly rare. Is it sharp? RW
Re: Film may not be dead.....
On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:01, Graywolf wrote: > Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the other way > around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their right > mind > would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made perfect > sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera. Hmm, you'd have to post me an archive link as I don't recall holding such a position, I have all my PDML posts since 1997 handy but I don't fancy trolling through them :-) My recollection is that I had been keen on the prospect of a DSLR (at nearly any sane cost) since well before the MR-52 raised it's pretty but fanciful head. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: PESO: Playing with Macro 2
Glad to see that you're picking up your camera again. The conch shell pic is a far more interesting shot than the pine cone. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/ > > I cropped the shell a bit, could be cropped differently or more. > > Nothing fantastic, but I am glad to have finally done some photography again > -- get some practice in again. It felt good. I've missed it. Even if my feet > got awfully cold on the concrete. :-) > > Comments welcome. > > Marnie aka Doe I sort of feel like a "photographer" again. A sort of > photographer, anyway.
RE: H Limited knockoff!
Shit, Juan, I thought you'd protected the design ... well, you can at least have the satisfaction of knowing you were first! Shel > [Original Message] > From: Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/16/2005 9:01:26 PM > Subject: H Limited knockoff! > > It seems some guys in Japan have copied my H Limited "Optical" design: > > http://www.whatisgoingon.net/holga/holgalensforslr.html > > Next thing you know, the Soviets will copy me too! > > :-) > > ( referring to http://www.jbuhler.com/HLimited ) > > > -- > Juan Buhler > http://www.jbuhler.com > blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
I never thought about, always believing it was too complicated. Might give it a try ... thanks for the info. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/16/2005 9:23:09 AM > Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... > > why not do C41 at home too? Its quick, cheap, easy, and wont get > mishandled. I have been doing my own for about a year now > and would do any labs again. I used to think is was hard, I was > wrong. I do 85 deg. F so all you have to do is warm up the > bottles for a few mins befor processing. Results are excellent. > JCO
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
When you (or JCO) get a moment, can you provide a brief rundown on what's needed. No rush ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Most people don't realize how simple C-41 processing is. > Are you using a two step or a three step process? > > William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
So you equate grain, or rather, the lack of it, an indicator of quality ... correct? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Why? Do you find that shooting digital affords better final quality > >prints? > > Yes. I needed a print from some 200 ISO colour neg recently, so I scanned > it and printed it off and frankly I was shocked at the *grain* !! > Digital originals are so much smoother.
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
> HP has that. And Epsons can be converted. Still you can not > get the contrast > range that you can with a good silver print. I just heard about a company called Lyson that sells a package of black inks, software and print drivers for making homemade inkjet prints. I don't know how good it is though. http://www.lyson.com Amita
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the other way around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their right mind would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made perfect sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera. I am actually pro digital --especially for professional use which has nothing to do with quality but everything to do with making profits--, but I find I have to argue for film for the exact reasons Frantisek mentions. And not having invested thousands on digital equipment I do not have to "justify" it to myself. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 16 Jan 2005 at 23:00, Frantisek wrote: ...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion. I think you are mislead if you think the demise of film is even partly due to discussions floating about the internet. How many people who were absolutely pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent digital camera? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
H Limited knockoff!
It seems some guys in Japan have copied my H Limited "Optical" design: http://www.whatisgoingon.net/holga/holgalensforslr.html Next thing you know, the Soviets will copy me too! :-) ( referring to http://www.jbuhler.com/HLimited ) -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
RE: PESO: Xavier
Hi Juan, Not a GREAT shot, but a great shot - I love it. Just the kind of pic needed to put a smile on this sour puss after a long day dealing with serious issues with a couple of friends. Tks for posting it! ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Warning: dog picture. Not too cute, though. > > http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0168.html > > Xavier is his name, belonging to a friendly French lady I run into > today. Shot only one frame, was lucky to get his eyes in focus.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
There are ... bit that doesn't mean there will be comparable tonality and depth to the printed images. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, > Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black > cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge is > usually goes. > > Marnie aka Doe
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
HP has that. And Epsons can be converted. Still you can not get the contrast range that you can with a good silver print. And when that becomes possible they will still have to be able to beat a platinum print which are a bit better than silver. However, the point has been made that most pro output is used in print media which digital is definitely up to. If you want a silver print that will reproduce well as a quality halftone you need to make it slightly less contrasty than the best you can make for direct viewing. For that matter in my personal opinion digital is not yet quite up to the best quality chemical/optical custom color print either. But understand, no one who is trying to get the very best quality is going to use a small format (35mm or digital) original either. When you are using 4x5 or larger originals the grain argument becomes specious. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:41:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make a black and white print to match my standard of quality. William Robb There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge is usually goes. Marnie aka Doe -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
What I want from Pentax
A series (two or three lenses) of primes specifically for the digital bodies. No need to cover the whole 35mm frame, no need for an aperture ring. 34/f1.7 (f1.4 would be great--and the 33 Limited is too big because it covers the full frame) 24/f2 18/f2.8 or f3.5 No limited, no metal, no funny materials or names. Just make them like the other FA lenses, and keep them priced right. I'd get all three. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: PAW: Java
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:09:40 -0500, Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm nothing if not obscure... No comment. -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PAW PESO - Puppy in a Box
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:11:59 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/pib.html > > There's a bit of a back story to this little snap. I'm sure you can find > it within the photo which was made with a 1937 Leica and collapsible 50mm > Elmar (f3.5) of the same vintage. > > > Shel > I had to look at the photo in his hand to figure out the title. But, I like it! Great (I mean Great!) framing. I just love the way he's positioned vis-a-vis the handlebars and mirrors. Sublime smile, great expression. I'm not feeling very articulate tonight (just got home after a 3 hour bus ride and a weekend with the kids, who always wear me out) so I'm not doing a very good job expressing myself. But I like it lots! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO: Cool Macro Photograph
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:25:33 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/peso/Amarylis.html
>
> Tech data:
> Bellows Takumar 100mm f/4 at f/16 mounted to the Bellows A.
> Pentax istD, 200iso, 8 seconds, NR on.
> I tweaked the RAW file very slightly, cropped the tiniest bit,
> applied a gentle unsharp mask, and resized it for the web.
>
> Note: Slightly largish download, 500x750x100kb.
>
> William Robb
>
You're right, it's a freaking cool macro!!
I love these sort of "semi-abstract" shots where one (or at least "I")
have to look at it for a few seconds to figure out just what it is
("Ah, it's flower stuff!"). But, even if I weren't able to figure out
what it is, it's just a lovely design, a beautiful flowing of curves,
lovely colours. If it were a true abstract, it would be lovely and
engaging none-the-less.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Novoflex tele lenses
the FA* 400/5.6 is an excellent lens, sharp and very flare resistant. bokeh is decent too. too bad it's an f5.6 instead of an f4 and doesn't have the D mechanism for touching up focus when it's almost, but not quite right. the A* 400/2.8 is a superb lens, but is not as flare resistant wide open. it is slightly sharper than the 5.6 when used standalone and wide open. coupled with the 1.7AF adapter, it's not quite as sharp, but barely noticeably so, and has a bit more flare. this flare isn't the bright spots kind of flare but the loss of contrast kind. i don't think i have taken a picture ever with the A* 400/2.8 stopped down. it stays at the A position and 2.8 all the time. bokeh is acceptable with the adapter and good without. unfortunately, for what i use it for, it's pretty useless as a standalone lens without the AF adapter. i really wish Pentax had an FA* 400/2.8. the FA* 300/2.8 isn't quite long enough. if i hadn't gotten a really good deal on a LN condition used one, i would have saved a little longer and gotten the FA* 600/4. i may still end up doing so, but it'll be a while before that happens. i would need a committed buyer for the A* lens before i would make the switch. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 8:57 PM Subject: Re: Novoflex tele lenses > "i have a FA* 400/5.6 and an A* 400/2.8 which is mostly used with the > 1.7AF adapter. both are used on the *istD." > > Herb, how do you find the performance of these on the D?
Re: Xavier
Thanks John and Paul! Paul, the dog wasn't that terribly ugly. Just one of those little short-legged long nose little ones. He more than made up for his looks with his attitude though--something I can relate to :-) j On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:31:59 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yikes! That's the ugliest dog I've ever seen. But an interesting photo. Well > seen. No, maybe not. I don't think that mutt could ever be well seen. Perhaps > I should say, "Executed with obviou skill and precision." > > > > > Warning: dog picture. Not too cute, though. > > > > > > http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0168.html > > > > > > Xavier is his name, belonging to a friendly French lady I run into > > > today. Shot only one frame, was lucky to get his eyes in focus. > > > > > > istD, FA16-45 @16/f4, slight crop, slight dodging and burning to balance > > > tones. > > > > Awesome! Needs a different title, though: "Crotch POV" > > > > John Celio > > ...is eager to see if this post will actually make it back to his 'puter... > > > > -- > > http://www.neovenator.com > > http://www.newpixel.net > > > > AIM: Neopifex > > > > "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a > > statement." > > > > > > -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: PESO: Friday at a bar
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:40:03 -0800, Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The beauty of digital--sometimes things work better in color: > > http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0166.html > > ist D, FA35/2, ISO3200, 1/20 at f2 > > BTW, I'm hosting some of my blog images at flickr. There's a way to > get a direct link to a picture in flickr (which is blessed by them, > not a hack), so you guys don't have to go through the whole java > interface they have. > > To do this with your flickr pics, just go to "all resolutions" from > the image page. You'll get a direct link to the picture there. > > j > At first I wasn't grabbed by it, but a second and third look begin to attract me to it. There's a feeling of anticipation, and maybe a little melancholy or nervous energy. It's as if she's waiting for a date, maybe getting a bit nervous: has he been in an accident, has he been delayed, worst of all, has he stood her up? The composition and lighting are terrific: I like where the others are in the frame, and how they're darker than "her". The more I look at and into this, the better it gets. Terrific shot!! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Experience with Cameta Camera?
In a message dated 1/16/2005 1:17:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi people, Anyone here has had experiences with Camera Camera off New York state? They are selling istDS kits off ebay, at what seems like good prices. Also, they have 75K+ positive feedback, but I figure it would hurt to ask here. Thanks in advance, j I bought something from them once (forget what it was now). No complaints. Quite reputable. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Xavier
Yikes! That's the ugliest dog I've ever seen. But an interesting photo. Well seen. No, maybe not. I don't think that mutt could ever be well seen. Perhaps I should say, "Executed with obviou skill and precision." > > Warning: dog picture. Not too cute, though. > > > > http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0168.html > > > > Xavier is his name, belonging to a friendly French lady I run into > > today. Shot only one frame, was lucky to get his eyes in focus. > > > > istD, FA16-45 @16/f4, slight crop, slight dodging and burning to balance > > tones. > > Awesome! Needs a different title, though: "Crotch POV" > > John Celio > ...is eager to see if this post will actually make it back to his 'puter... > > -- > http://www.neovenator.com > http://www.newpixel.net > > AIM: Neopifex > > "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a > statement." > >
Re: Xavier
Warning: dog picture. Not too cute, though. http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0168.html Xavier is his name, belonging to a friendly French lady I run into today. Shot only one frame, was lucky to get his eyes in focus. istD, FA16-45 @16/f4, slight crop, slight dodging and burning to balance tones. Awesome! Needs a different title, though: "Crotch POV" John Celio ...is eager to see if this post will actually make it back to his 'puter... -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.newpixel.net AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
Re: PESO: Playing with Macro 2
In a message dated 1/16/2005 7:00:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Marnie, I like number one. Nice composition. Good exposure and framing. Very nice work here. Thanks! Number two is a bit confusing. I'm not sure what i'm looking at, although it appears to be a pine cone with spider webs. The background elements seem to be important but are out of focus. Hmmm, I took much fewer frames of the pinecones -- threw them on at the end -- they were less planned -- they were just there. But I was playing with depth of field, etc., too. I guess it's obvious to me that those are pinecones in the background. Could be lighter -- the lighting on the porch wasn't the best for dark subjects in the shade. Comments taken under advisement. :-) I spent much less time on them, but I know I'll be revisiting pinecones someday -- hopefully in the real out of doors. Maybe the lesson is -- spend more time... Hehehe. Thanks for looking and your input. Marnie aka Doe :-) > Well, the wind died down and it FINALLY warmed up (enough) for me to grab > some art paper (for an "infinity screen"), my tripod, and go to the table on the > back porch to try out my Macro lens (SP Tamron 90mm Macro 2.8). Although I've > had the lens about a year, I've only used it really for the Portrait class > (non-Macro). > > I MUST have tried it out before as a Macro, but this is really the first time > that I REMEMBER giving it a good work out as a Macro (other than the M&M Xmas > Train I posted before). > > Shot about 60 frames -- not sure this is the best shell one, but pretty sure > the other one is the best one of it's type. Not too stinky for my first real > macros, huh? > > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/
Re: PESO: Playing with Macro 2
Hi Marnie, I like number one. Nice composition. Good exposure and framing. Very nice work here. Number two is a bit confusing. I'm not sure what i'm looking at, although it appears to be a pine cone with spider webs. The background elements seem to be important but are out of focus. > Well, the wind died down and it FINALLY warmed up (enough) for me to grab > some art paper (for an "infinity screen"), my tripod, and go to the table on > the > back porch to try out my Macro lens (SP Tamron 90mm Macro 2.8). Although I've > had the lens about a year, I've only used it really for the Portrait class > (non-Macro). > > I MUST have tried it out before as a Macro, but this is really the first time > that I REMEMBER giving it a good work out as a Macro (other than the M&M Xmas > Train I posted before). > > Shot about 60 frames -- not sure this is the best shell one, but pretty sure > the other one is the best one of it's type. Not too stinky for my first real > macros, huh? > > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/ > > I cropped the shell a bit, could be cropped differently or more. > > Nothing fantastic, but I am glad to have finally done some photography again > -- get some practice in again. It felt good. I've missed it. Even if my feet > got awfully cold on the concrete. :-) > > Comments welcome. > > Marnie aka Doe I sort of feel like a "photographer" again. A sort of > photographer, anyway. >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:41:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make a black and white print to match my standard of quality. William Robb There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge is usually goes. Marnie aka Doe
PESO: Playing with Macro 2
Well, the wind died down and it FINALLY warmed up (enough) for me to grab some art paper (for an "infinity screen"), my tripod, and go to the table on the back porch to try out my Macro lens (SP Tamron 90mm Macro 2.8). Although I've had the lens about a year, I've only used it really for the Portrait class (non-Macro). I MUST have tried it out before as a Macro, but this is really the first time that I REMEMBER giving it a good work out as a Macro (other than the M&M Xmas Train I posted before). Shot about 60 frames -- not sure this is the best shell one, but pretty sure the other one is the best one of it's type. Not too stinky for my first real macros, huh? http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/ I cropped the shell a bit, could be cropped differently or more. Nothing fantastic, but I am glad to have finally done some photography again -- get some practice in again. It felt good. I've missed it. Even if my feet got awfully cold on the concrete. :-) Comments welcome. Marnie aka Doe I sort of feel like a "photographer" again. A sort of photographer, anyway.
PESO: Xavier
Warning: dog picture. Not too cute, though. http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0168.html Xavier is his name, belonging to a friendly French lady I run into today. Shot only one frame, was lucky to get his eyes in focus. istD, FA16-45 @16/f4, slight crop, slight dodging and burning to balance tones. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
PUG: A Few More Months, Please, Jostein
The PUG submittal form is down to February and March. Thanks, Joe
This Afternoon
I watched the football playoffs while monitoring the list on my i-book. Here you can see the look of terror in the face of the Indianapolis coach. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3042537
Re: Novoflex tele lenses
"i have a FA* 400/5.6 and an A* 400/2.8 which is mostly used with the 1.7AF adapter. both are used on the *istD." Herb, how do you find the performance of these on the D? Thanks, Joe
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! > ;-) Chances are good that Nate and I will be coming to London this spring. We haven't had a chance to sit down and plan it though, and I doubt we'll be around for the beginning of May, although we don't really know yet. Do the tourists start coming in droves around the end of May? Because we'd probably like to avoid that. Amita
Re: Film may not be dead.....
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Henri Toivonen" > >> And when will consumers stop following the hypes and make up their >> own mind.. probably never. > >Some always will. > >The few, the eccentric. ...the PDML! (Seriously, that sounds like a good description of us.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Novoflex tele lenses
if you're talking high quality, you are talking big bucks. the small amount of Novoflex i have read says excellent for their time, but superceded by today's lenses. so i would have to say it depends on your budget. i have a FA* 400/5.6 and an A* 400/2.8 which is mostly used with the 1.7AF adapter. both are used on the *istD. i think that a 400 alone is OK only when working from a blind, very acclimated birds, or with big birds at moderate distances. a 600 or longer would be better. this is assuming publication quality. if you are just interested for fun, you don't need as long. an alternative to the 600 is a very good spotting scope, but at a large amount of light loss. think f11-f13 range for most scopes. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Carlos Royo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:25 PM Subject: Novoflex tele lenses > As some people around here are much more knowledgeable than me about > long lenses, I would like to know their thoughts about the performance > of the follow focus tele lenses made by Novoflex. I have only used a > Sigma 400 5.6 AF, which I sold to a list member years ago, and the > excellent F* 300 mm. 4.5 > I still keep the F* 300 mm. but it is a short lens for birding and other > kind of nature photography. If I ever get an *istD or other Pentax DSLR, > perhaps the crop factor will allow a narrower FOV, but I will surely > need a longer lens.
RE: Keepin' track of pics
Hi Shel In PS It's actually really easy as you can modify which metadata fields are visible. Using the CS Browser I use the Description field to... Well, describe the image(s) and then add on the appropriate keywords. Once keywords have been entered once they're available all the time (using that PS profile) so it's just a matter of ticking the boxes. I like the fact that all this info is embedded in the image and is quite independent of whatever image management software I use*. Still, I've only been fully digital for a month, so I'm open to any image management suggestions... Cheers, Simon *I'm trying Thumbs Plus, and it's pretty darn good. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 16 January 2005 9:41 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Keepin' track of pics Hi Peter ... Holy Crap! I went to the File Info (IPTC) in PS and there is a LOT of information requested. I'm sure that not all is required, but there's no way I'm going to start adding all that information (or even a good portion of it) to every photo. That's just too much time and work. Do people really spend that much time and add that much information to all their photos? Perhaps there's a way to add the info to several photos at once ... Thanks for the information, though. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > IPTC stands for International Press Telecommunications Council you can > modify this information by > using the > > "File->File Info" menu item in Adobe Photoshop 5.5. It's probably the > same in later versions but I don't know that > for sure. > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >How do you embed key words in EXIF and IPTC? What is IPTC? And it would > >be super if you can refresh my muddled morning mind as to what EXIF is as > >well.
Re: UK PDML 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Bob W wrote: Mornington Crescent! I'm just waiting for the Poles to get involved - followed by a trip to casualty to get my tongue unknotted. Best one I've seen is a 13 letter word, 11 of which were consonants mike First you mentioned the Poles -- but wasn't that consonant-heavy one Welsh? I think they come a close second. More letters but higher proportion of vowels, too. http://llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwantysiliogogogoch.co.uk/
Re: Fighting Spyware
Bob W wrote: Hi, Same thing applies to software and computers. They are not exempt from consumer law. they basically are. read any EULA (win2k will do). which country do you live in? I'd like to set up a business there if I can overrule the national laws just by writing some old guff on a product label. You will also have to invest a significant part of your turnover in the legal bandit department.
Re: Film may not be dead.....
- Original Message - From: "Henri Toivonen" Subject: Re: Film may not be dead. And when will consumers stop following the hypes and make up their own mind.. probably never. Some always will. The few, the eccentric. William Robb
Re: Film may not be dead.....
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Film may not be dead. How many people who were absolutely pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent digital camera? HAR!! William Robb
Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
every time isn't the issue. 90% is good enough to make not using it when available stupid. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:17 AM Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments) > I wouldn't be sure the D1 would focus/refocus at the same object every time!
Re: Film may not be dead.....
William Robb wrote: Digital is another step, a logical step, in that trend. It's evolution. William Robb Then this is my prediction: Soon everybody will use cameras that are integrated in our mobile phones, with lousy quality and sharpness, and maybe about 6mpix. ;-) Can't get any more convenient than that. No but seriously, I agree with you, I'm just wondering where the end will be with this search of convenience. And when will consumers stop following the hypes and make up their own mind.. probably never. /Henri
Re: Film may not be dead.....
- Original Message - From: "Henri Toivonen" Subject: Re: Film may not be dead. I think it IS partly due to the hype that is going on right now that film is dead and soon you won't even be able to buy film. Simply because beginners, or people that are thinking about buying a camera, do some research on the net. People do that nowadays alot before they buy something, and read all these hundreds of pages saying that film is dead, film is worthless, all hail digital. Nobody buys new analog slr's anymore, and the general attitude is turning now amongst beginners that film is really crap, simply because it's old. So even less people buy film cameras. "Wow, what are you doing with that old dinosaur, throw that in the trash and buy a DIGITAL camera!". I've even heard some sales clerks at photoshops say that when a customer comes in with a film camera. I think all this is for the worse. Speeds up the death of film even more. The manufacture of photographic equipment is, for the most part, driven by consumer fads. We gave up glass plates for sheet film. Was sheet film better? At the time, I strongly doubt it. We gave up sheet film for roll film. Why? Was it better? It was an era when image quality was, to a greater extent than today, driven by square inches, so I'd say not. We gave up roll film for small format 35mm. Is 35mm better? Knowedgable film users will assure you it isn't. In every one of those examples, we have traded ultimate image quality for convenience, to a certain extent. Digital is another step, a logical step, in that trend. It's evolution. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... One of these years when you learn how to make a presentation quality B&W print using digital machinery, you'll reflect back on how foolish the whole debate is. If you ever do, that is. One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make a black and white print to match my standard of quality. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints. Are such prints out there? maybe. But I've not seen 'em. Show me an Adams quality print, or a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera. That day may come, I expect it will come. At the moment, too many megapixels, and too much bit depth is required for the technology to deliver. My benchmark at the moment is a print I made myself from a 4x5 FP-4 negative onto Zone VI Brilliant. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 16/1/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed: >Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film, >just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important >to you >that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own. Paul is not on a crusade, he is taking part in a debate in its own thread on the PDML and is merely putting his point of view across. As such, he is using his vocabulary as he sees best, and is imparting information. He is doing nothing wrong. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Film may not be dead.....
On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:05, Henri Toivonen wrote: > Simply because beginners, or people that are thinking about buying a > camera, do some research on the net. People do that nowadays alot before > they buy something, and read all these hundreds of pages saying that > film is dead, film is worthless, all hail digital. I know plenty of people who have bought digital cameras and either have a computer and don't use it or don't have a computer at all, however this doesn't seem to stop them from coming to the same conclusions as can be found in discussions all over internet forums. Retailers and labs are pushing digital cameras and digital image capture, it's difficult to find a decent film camera in any shop around here and the range of films is shrinking, doesn't bother me so much these days even though I still have big $$ in Leica and Mamiya film cameras. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Film may not be dead.....
Rob Studdert wrote: On 16 Jan 2005 at 23:00, Frantisek wrote: ...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion. I think you are mislead if you think the demise of film is even partly due to discussions floating about the internet. How many people who were absolutely pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent digital camera? Cheers, Rob Studdert I think it IS partly due to the hype that is going on right now that film is dead and soon you won't even be able to buy film. Simply because beginners, or people that are thinking about buying a camera, do some research on the net. People do that nowadays alot before they buy something, and read all these hundreds of pages saying that film is dead, film is worthless, all hail digital. Nobody buys new analog slr's anymore, and the general attitude is turning now amongst beginners that film is really crap, simply because it's old. So even less people buy film cameras. "Wow, what are you doing with that old dinosaur, throw that in the trash and buy a DIGITAL camera!". I've even heard some sales clerks at photoshops say that when a customer comes in with a film camera. I think all this is for the worse. Speeds up the death of film even more. /Henri
Re: Film may not be dead.....
On 16 Jan 2005 at 23:00, Frantisek wrote: > ...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it > is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the > need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion. I think you are mislead if you think the demise of film is even partly due to discussions floating about the internet. How many people who were absolutely pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent digital camera? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Yes, that's all well and good. And two years ago, I would have made the same arguments. But today I can't find ANYONE who's livelihood depends on photography who's not shooting digital. I'm sure there are some out there. But of the hundreds of portfolios I've reviewed this year, I haven't seen one. You can expound endlessly on the art of Adams and Weston and the beauty of large format silver prints. But when you talk about what's the most reliable path to good work for the average photographer, it isn't film. If you haven't seen great BW digital prints, you really haven't been getting out to the galleries. The evidence is on the wall. > Hi Bill ... > > I was wondering when someone was going to make that point. Being a "pro" > doesn't always mean anything more than being able to sell your work, to > have a market for it. Those who say that it must be good because it's done > by a pro are laboring under a misconception. That's not to say a lot of > pros don't do good, or even great, work. It depends, I think, on their > field and where their work is marketed. A pro newspaper photographer has > an entirely different agenda than a pro advertising photographer or a pro > fine arts photog, and so on. > Because a pro uses a digital camera for his or her work doesn't mean it's > the right piece of gear for a pro in a different field or for the serious > and skilled amateur. There are lots of pros out there using film, but > their market doesn't dictate a need for digital. > > As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for it, but what > is acceptable, or even good or great quality, in one field may not cut it > in another. When I talk about quality B&W work I am describing exhibition > quality prints made to a very high - perhaps even the highest - standard, > which is not often seen these days. > > I know a very well known pro - you'd know him and his work in a heartbeat - > who was made famous by his photographs as were his subjects. He has many > well known magazine covers and stories to his credit. His work, from the > POV of quality prints, is at best mediocre. He was great at making a > personal connection with his subjects, getting acceptable quality work to > the magazine on time, and coming up with interesting and sometimes intimate > images. They were not high quality images, though. One of his most well > known covers was 60% blown out highlights, but that worked for the magazine > because that's where they put the copy. OTOH, you won't find that image > hung next to a Weston print (any Weston) or an Ansel Adams print, just as > you probably wouldn't find their prints hanging in the pop culture section > of the museum. > > So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital > workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. > I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle > gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints. Are such prints out > there? maybe. But I've not seen 'em. Show me an Adams quality print, or > a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell > my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. > > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys > > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and > > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. > > > > William Robb > > > >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
I'm not crusading for anything. Just reporting what I see. I intend to continue shooting film. I enjoy my darkroom, and I find the film process quite fascinating. However, I dispute the contention of others, that high quality digital BW is impossible and that results that are the equal of traditional BW techniques are not possible. I've simply seen evidence to the contrary. I'm surprised that you have decided to turn what had been a polite discussion into a personal attack, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised because I have seen that from you before. I will not contribute to this thread again. Paul Stenquist > pcn> Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for > pcn> both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than > pcn> the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's > pcn> obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some > pcn> fine art photographers. > > Paul, is this some kind of your crusade or what? Most pros I have spoken too > are just plain lazy and without time to make silver prints... simply. > A lot of pros don't recognize a good silver print. After all, their > output is high gloss paper magazine... A lot of pros don't recognize a > good print as well. These are just examples. > > Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film, > just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important to > you > that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own. > > Good light! >fra >
Re: UK PDML 2005
Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Bob W wrote: > > > Mornington Crescent! > > > > I'm just waiting for the Poles to get involved - followed by a trip to > casualty to get my tongue unknotted. Best one I've seen is a 13 letter > word, 11 of which were consonants > > mike > > First you mentioned the Poles -- but wasn't that consonant-heavy one Welsh? ERNR
Re: Film may not be dead.....
...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion. It's just a meme: film is dead. But look at how it spreads. Memes spread well. And you are helping it to spread, hammering the nails in the coffin of poor Silver Halide. The more people say that film is dead, the more dead it will be. Internet is full of memes, and self-perpetuating "discussions" relating "known facts". Rumours circle around so much that the very discussion board that created them may believe in them after few cycles on other boards... Something that is said (written) thousand times becomes a reality. So watch your words carefuly. In the blogosphere, first was Word, then was Reality. I have written too much words already. Film is dead. Long live film! Frantisek
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
pcn> Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for pcn> both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than pcn> the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's pcn> obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some pcn> fine art photographers. Paul, is this some kind of your crusade or what? Most pros I have spoken too are just plain lazy and without time to make silver prints... simply. A lot of pros don't recognize a good silver print. After all, their output is high gloss paper magazine... A lot of pros don't recognize a good print as well. These are just examples. Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film, just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important to you that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own. Good light! fra
Re: istD aperture control busted
Sunday, January 16, 2005, 10:57:19 AM, Jens wrote: JB> It might just be dust or moisture (condensed water), due to rapidly changing JB> temperatures. JB> Perhaps some of that contact spray that radio mechanics use will solve the JB> problem. Jens, you forgot to add: "but don't spray it into the camera directly" :-) Good light! fra
Re: Fighting Spyware
Hi, >> Same thing applies to software and computers. They are not exempt from >> consumer law. > they basically are. read any EULA (win2k will do). which country do you live in? I'd like to set up a business there if I can overrule the national laws just by writing some old guff on a product label. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
That's a strange argument. You mean there are a lot of amateurs who are turning down 10K a day paychecks just to preserve their amateur status? Are they something like the olympic athletes of photography. truomg to preserve their amateur status by not acceptin money for their work? If they're really setting the standards, why wouldn't they capitalize on it? Are they all that pure? I dont' give a rat's ass what kind of technology is used to make a picture. If glass plates worked best, I would shoot with those. And as you know, just a couple of years ago, I was certain that film was still the way to go. But I'm not so blind that I can ignore the evidence. > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... > > > > Hmm, > > Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. > > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. > > William Robb > >
Re: Experience with Cameta Camera?
My experience with Cameta Camera has been good. I bought a Spotmatic from them, it didn't work properly, and they completely honored the 6 months warranty, no monkey business at all. They also replaced it with another Spotmatic that cost more than what I paid for the bad one, and didn't charge for the shipping. Since then I have bought a couple of lenses from them and all have been fine. Their grading probably is less conservative than KEH, so keep that in mind. They also put a few pieces of candy with whatever they're shipping, which I like. Aaron Bransky
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
As usual, this discussion devolves back to a statement of belief. Believe what you want, Shel. It's a waste of time for me or anyone else to debate it. I'm sure if I sent you a print you would tell me it was a piece of crap too, since it's quality is all a matter of your belief. I won't waste my time with that, I have better things to do. One of these years when you learn how to make a presentation quality B&W print using digital machinery, you'll reflect back on how foolish the whole debate is. If you ever do, that is. Godfrey --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for > it, ... __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Experience with Cameta Camera?
Bought some gear from them recently. It was as advertised, shipped quickly. I'm happy. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Hi Bill ... I was wondering when someone was going to make that point. Being a "pro" doesn't always mean anything more than being able to sell your work, to have a market for it. Those who say that it must be good because it's done by a pro are laboring under a misconception. That's not to say a lot of pros don't do good, or even great, work. It depends, I think, on their field and where their work is marketed. A pro newspaper photographer has an entirely different agenda than a pro advertising photographer or a pro fine arts photog, and so on. Because a pro uses a digital camera for his or her work doesn't mean it's the right piece of gear for a pro in a different field or for the serious and skilled amateur. There are lots of pros out there using film, but their market doesn't dictate a need for digital. As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for it, but what is acceptable, or even good or great quality, in one field may not cut it in another. When I talk about quality B&W work I am describing exhibition quality prints made to a very high - perhaps even the highest - standard, which is not often seen these days. I know a very well known pro - you'd know him and his work in a heartbeat - who was made famous by his photographs as were his subjects. He has many well known magazine covers and stories to his credit. His work, from the POV of quality prints, is at best mediocre. He was great at making a personal connection with his subjects, getting acceptable quality work to the magazine on time, and coming up with interesting and sometimes intimate images. They were not high quality images, though. One of his most well known covers was 60% blown out highlights, but that worked for the magazine because that's where they put the copy. OTOH, you won't find that image hung next to a Weston print (any Weston) or an Ansel Adams print, just as you probably wouldn't find their prints hanging in the pop culture section of the museum. So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints. Are such prints out there? maybe. But I've not seen 'em. Show me an Adams quality print, or a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera. Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. > > William Robb >
Re: UK PDML 2005
Luigi de Guzman wrote: On Sunday 16 January 2005 15:53, mike wilson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I recently spent an enjoyable afternoon translating between Cockneys and Geordies. what's a "Geordie" ... ? (other than a blind man on Star Trek TNG) ERNR A person living in the environs of the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North East England. And speaking in the rather dense accent peculiar to the region. Not just an accent but a dialect, too.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... Please, Cotty, don't go to such an extreme. A simple stay at the hospital would be more than enough. How about if it give him a hangnail? Would that be good enough? William Robb Damn, I'm gonna get that print out this week if it kills me.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... Hmm, Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. William Robb
Re: UK PDML 2005
Bob W wrote: Mornington Crescent! I'm just waiting for the Poles to get involved - followed by a trip to casualty to get my tongue unknotted. Best one I've seen is a 13 letter word, 11 of which were consonants mike
Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?
- Original Message - From: "Fred" Subject: Re: 135mm lenses - quality ? When speaking of good 135's, I might suggest keeping an eye out for an ol' Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3. It's a sweet 135, although admittedly not too easy to come by (but it has made both screwmount and K-mount users happy). Also, keep an eye out for the M150/3.5, which is an absolute gem. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... "Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production rates. They usually mean compromised quality. Honestly, I can't imagine any way possible for the work coming off my istD to be in any way superior to what I am getting off my Tachihara. William Robb
Re: PESO: Cool Macro Photograph
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: PESO: Cool Macro Photograph Nice shot. Gives me something to aim for when I try (more) macro. Thanks Marnie. Being the gear head that I am, one of the things that I like about that picture is that it was taken with a 40 year old lens, mounted to a 20 year old bellows, mounted to a modern DSLR. The Bellows Tak is every bit as good on the istD as it is on the LX. William Robb
Re: UK PDML 2005
On Saturday 15 January 2005 05:44, Cotty wrote: > On 15/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: > >> Try this: > >> > >> Magdalen College. > > > >Or even Magdalene College. Pronounced the same, but spelled differently. > > Ahh, but is it? > > In Oxford, it's Mawdlin ! in Cambridge, it's maudlin, and in The Other Place, it's maudlin, without the "e" at the end. =L
Novoflex tele lenses
As some people around here are much more knowledgeable than me about long lenses, I would like to know their thoughts about the performance of the follow focus tele lenses made by Novoflex. I have only used a Sigma 400 5.6 AF, which I sold to a list member years ago, and the excellent F* 300 mm. 4.5 I still keep the F* 300 mm. but it is a short lens for birding and other kind of nature photography. If I ever get an *istD or other Pentax DSLR, perhaps the crop factor will allow a narrower FOV, but I will surely need a longer lens. Carlos
Re: UK PDML 2005
On Sunday 16 January 2005 15:53, mike wilson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>I recently spent an enjoyable > >>afternoon translating between Cockneys and Geordies. > > > > what's a "Geordie" ... ? > > > > (other than a blind man on Star Trek TNG) > > > > ERNR > > A person living in the environs of the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, > North East England. And speaking in the rather dense accent peculiar to the region. -L
Re: UK PDML 2005
- Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Watford! Can't compete with you guys on british geography. However, since it's not limited to place names, I'll offer you capercaille. Jostein
Experience with Cameta Camera?
Hi people, Anyone here has had experiences with Camera Camera off New York state? They are selling istDS kits off ebay, at what seems like good prices. Also, they have 75K+ positive feedback, but I figure it would hurt to ask here. Thanks in advance, j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: UK PDML 2005
Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi, >>> > Magdalen College. Or even Magdalene College. Pronounced the same, but spelled differently. >>> >>> Ahh, but is it? >>> >>> In Oxford, it's Mawdlin ! >> >> My contribution: Milngavie. > > I'll offer Trottiscliffe Cambois >>> Mousehole >>> >> Shitlington > >Mornington Crescent! Watford! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: UK PDML 2005
Hi, >> >> Magdalen College. >>> >>> >>> Or even Magdalene College. Pronounced the same, but spelled >>> differently. >> >> >> Ahh, but is it? >> >> In Oxford, it's Mawdlin ! > > > My contribution: Milngavie. I'll offer Trottiscliffe >>> >>> >>> Cambois >>> >>> >> Mousehole >> >> >> > Shitlington Mornington Crescent! -- Cheers, Bob
Re: UK PDML 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I recently spent an enjoyable afternoon translating between Cockneys and Geordies. what's a "Geordie" ... ? (other than a blind man on Star Trek TNG) ERNR A person living in the environs of the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North East England. m
Re: UK PDML 2005
Stan Halpin wrote: On Jan 16, 2005, at 8:55 AM, mike wilson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis mused: On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Cotty wrote: On 15/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Magdalen College. Or even Magdalene College. Pronounced the same, but spelled differently. Ahh, but is it? In Oxford, it's Mawdlin ! My contribution: Milngavie. I'll offer Trottiscliffe Cambois Mousehole Shitlington
Re: UK PDML 2005
Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I recently spent an enjoyable > afternoon translating between Cockneys and Geordies. what's a "Geordie" ... ? (other than a blind man on Star Trek TNG) ERNR
Re: UK PDML 2005
Quoting Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >OK - just so we can have the pleasure of your company some day. > > > >Magdalen - Maudlin > >Magdalene - Maudlin > >Caius - Keys > >Trottiscliffe - Trosley > >Slaithwaite - Slowit 'Slough it' > >Leicester - Lie sesster > >Birmingham - Bumminem > > How about Cholmondeley, then? I actually know that one! I went to school with a girl named "Chumley" (with the long spelling). Though she wasn't British. ERNR
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
> > > Have you ever seen large format or ULF BW contact wet prints? They arent > very very > good, they are INCREDIBLE! Of course. I've seen many large format contact prints, including those at MOMA. I've also spoken to Clint Clemens, who has a print on display at MOMA and who once shot a lot of large format. (He now shoots digital exclusively.) Of course large format wins the day if you're considering finite resolution only. But if you want to talk about control and photographer input in the final result, digital is still a better answer. As I said, fine art photogrphers will continue to shoot film for some time to come. But the numbers will grow smaller and smaller. And BW is no longer exclusive to film.
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
I use my Pentacon Six TL frequently. Film is still better resolution than digital (IMO), 6x6 is even better. I use digital because it's so convenient - I hate scanning all those negs! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. januar 2005 11:57 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Decisions...Decisions... On 15/1/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed: >That's 2 comments suggesting I sell the film. Wow. I would find that >difficult making the jump from film to digital "cold turkey". hmmm You'd be surprised. I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and actually used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't - but I just don't want to. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
Pros = always make money, not = always make quality. It may cost too much time and money to still make them wet especially if manipulation is wanted or needed. Have you ever seen large format or ULF BW contact wet prints? They arent very very good, they are INCREDIBLE! That's why formats larger than 8x10 still exist to this day. Its not that you really need more resolution than 8x10, its that you don't want to enlarge and hence need really big cameras for really big prints at that astonishing level of quality... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:51 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... Hmm, Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. Have you seen a good BWE digital print? They can be very, very good. Paul > I have been following digital darkroom stuff for about 5 years and I > have never read anywhere, even recently, that there was ANY > commmercially available monochrome digital printers that can even come > close to matching BW wet prints > let alone exceed. Best results are now obtained with custom ink sets and > drivers but even > they don't claim to match wet prints yet, Maybe someday we will get > there but for now, no way... > > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:10 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > > Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I > have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters > a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on > fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've > not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen > numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an > actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver > fiber-based B&W print. > > When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I > can do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a > whit to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. > For all I know his work could be crap and the people judging it > couldn't tell quality from trash. > > You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're > telling us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect > for you as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. > Your idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am > skeptical. > > All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. > I have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. > > True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon > as I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how > close our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, > the challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that > equals or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a > wet darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and > > various > > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in > the > neighborhood > > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It > > included > several > > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked > about > > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and > converted in > > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it > > was > with > > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and > color. > > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints > > they > produced in years > > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but > hobbyists and > > some fine art photographers. > >
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
Hmm, Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. Have you seen a good BWE digital print? They can be very, very good. Paul > I have been following digital darkroom stuff for about 5 years > and I have never read anywhere, even recently, that there was ANY > commmercially > available monochrome digital printers that can even come close to > matching BW wet prints > let alone exceed. Best results are now obtained with custom ink sets and > drivers but even > they don't claim to match wet prints yet, Maybe someday we will get > there but for now, no way... > > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:10 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > > Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I > have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters > a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on > fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've > not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen > numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an > actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver > fiber-based B&W print. > > When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can > do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit > to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I > know his work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell > quality from trash. > > You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling > us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you > as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your > idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. > > All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I > have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. > > True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as > I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close > our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the > challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals > or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet > darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and > > various > > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in > the > neighborhood > > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It > > included > several > > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked > about > > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and > converted in > > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was > with > > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and > color. > > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they > produced in years > > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but > hobbyists and > > some fine art photographers. > >
RE: Question about *ist D
It will work. You msut have firmware 1.1 installed and the cameraset to "F-stop other than A". Use green button to meter/determine esposure. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Don Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. januar 2005 13:21 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Question about *ist D Hi all, I've been concentrating of microscopy for a couple of years now and have not done any normal photography. I have a question for the '*ist D' experts. Will the camera work without a lens attached? In other words if I put it on a microscope, in place of a Pentax film body, will it take pictures with automatic exposure control? Some digital SLRs do, others don't. Also, can the mirror be locked up to prevent vibration whilst this is being done? The slightest bump of a mirror is enough to make picture taking impossible with an ordinary SLR unless the exposures are rather long. This spoils things a bit because the shortest shutter speeds are often needed. Don -- ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams See feature : 'The Cement Company from HELL!' Site updated: August, 2004 Nihil sub sole novum nec. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 14/01/2005
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
I have been following digital darkroom stuff for about 5 years and I have never read anywhere, even recently, that there was ANY commmercially available monochrome digital printers that can even come close to matching BW wet prints let alone exceed. Best results are now obtained with custom ink sets and drivers but even they don't claim to match wet prints yet, Maybe someday we will get there but for now, no way... JCO -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:10 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver fiber-based B&W print. When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I know his work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell quality from trash. You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and > various > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the neighborhood > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It > included several > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked about > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and converted in > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was with > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and color. > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they produced in years > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and > some fine art photographers.
Re: Fighting Spyware
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:24:24 +, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Sunday, January 16, 2005, 3:26:49 PM, Mishka wrote: > > > Because if your heater stops working, you have a warranty to replace/fix it, > > and if it causes a lot of damage, you can sue the manufacturer. > > Same thing applies to software and computers. They are not exempt from > consumer law. they basically are. read any EULA (win2k will do). > > Because if your heater goes down, your library upstairs doesn't disappear? > > Along > > with your tax papers... > > Have a look at how many house fires are caused by faulty gas & > electric installations i suspect, a few orders of magnitude fewer than PC crashes. btw, you know that if you smell gas, you should run away and call the service. do you know when to run away from your PC? > > Because I cannot hijack you heater and use it to lift a few mega$ from > > citibank > > to finance our friends in <...>, whie feds are knocking on your door? > > Why does that put a greater responsibility on the owner to know how > they work? Somebody could come into my kitchen, steal a bread knife > and go on a killing spree while pretending to be me. That doesn't mean > I have to know anything about forging steel. if the knife has your fingerprints -- you probably will have some explaining to do. you don't have to know how to write C++ code. but you better know how to keep your system safe and understand when and how it breaks.. > > Is it obvious how computers are different from your heater? > > No too bad. mishka
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
If you've attended a lot of gallery shows lately, you may have seen some digital BW and not realized it. Then again, maybe not. A fair comparison of digital and silver print BW is difficult to achieve, because a good darkroom print maker may not be a good digital print maker. Only time and the weight of evidence will eventually decide this issue. Nevertheless, I look forward to printing your files. Hope to receive some soon. > Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I have > not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters a high > quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on fiber based > silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've not yet seen > one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen numerous prints > made by many photographers, but have yet to see an actual print that > compares with or betters a high quality silver fiber-based B&W print. > > When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can do > is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit to me > that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I know his > work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell quality from > trash. > > You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling us > what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you as a > photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your idea of > quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. > > All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I > have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. > > True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as I > get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close our > concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the challenge > goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals or betters a > quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet darkroom. When I see > one I'll shut up. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and various > > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the > neighborhood > > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It included > several > > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked > about > > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and > converted in > > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was > with > > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and > color. > > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they > produced in years > > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but > hobbyists and > > some fine art photographers. > >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver fiber-based B&W print. When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I know his work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell quality from trash. You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and various > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the neighborhood > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It included several > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked about > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and converted in > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was with > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and color. > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they produced in years > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and > some fine art photographers.
Re: Some new photos here, too
In a message dated 1/12/2005 3:33:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/_ndex.htm >From my trip to North Carolina last month. The Blue Heron was taken in Winston-Salem (Salem Lake, to be precise). All the others were shot in Moses Cone Park (about 20 miles from GFM). All the close-up shots (which is most of what's on this page) were taken with the SMC-F 100/2.8 macro. Damn, that's a great lens! Detail at full magnification is dazzling. ist-D at ISO 400. -- Mark Roberts Exactly what I'd like to do. Shoot little bits of nature. When it is less water logged here and I have more time... (if wishes were photos, I'd have tons by now). I especially like the water/ice just by itself -- they are nice abstractions (#6 &5 from end). And one of the mushroom shots (#3 from end). I think It's hard to make shots of bits of nature interesting just by themselves. One criticism -- don't know if it's my eyes or what -- it seems to me that most of the shots could be a tad sharper. Bit surprised they seemed a bit soft. But take any of my criticism with a grain of salt, since I am still such a newbie (and not so good) photographer. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO: Cool Macro Photograph
In a message dated 1/15/2005 3:26:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/peso/Amarylis.html Tech data: Bellows Takumar 100mm f/4 at f/16 mounted to the Bellows A. Pentax istD, 200iso, 8 seconds, NR on. I tweaked the RAW file very slightly, cropped the tiniest bit, applied a gentle unsharp mask, and resized it for the web. Note: Slightly largish download, 500x750x100kb. William Robb Nice shot. Gives me something to aim for when I try (more) macro. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Shel, >I'll put to you the same challenge I put to Cotty: show me the >best DSLR-Photoshop B&W you've done, then we'll talk. If you've >got something up on a web site, let's see it, but real prints >speak the loudest and the clearest. I post photographs pretty regularly, taken with KM A3, Canon 10D, Panasonic FZ10 and now Pentax *istDS cameras ... you can see the 2004 "Picture A Week" set and "Others" sets on my website: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/ http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/Others4/ It's a potpourri of photos, some casually done and some more taken a bit more seriously. This is one of my favorite B&W portraits, taken with a 10D+28/1.8 lens last April: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/18.htm It prints to an 11x14 very very nicely. Of course, what you see on the website are derezzed web images and not what is on paper. It's darn hard to evaluate what the prints look like unless you actually have one in your hand. I'm printing up to A3 Super prints in B&W and up to 8x12 in color. Hanging the results next to work that was done in a wet lab in a show, I have to tell people which ones were produced with negative and darkroom, which ones negative/scanner/inkjet printer, and which ones are digital capture/inkjet printer. >To say that you're making the best B&W you've ever done means >little to anyone but you without knowing the results you were >getting before. It may be that what you're doing now IS better >than what you were doing , but it would be interesting to see >(not hear about) how that compares to some truly fine B&W >silver-based prints on good quality fiber-based paper. Obviously. But I've been doing photography for 42 years and have had three businesses that made a significant percentage of my income with my photography in that time, so I suspect the quality of my prints is decent. >"Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production >rates. They usually mean compromised quality. More facile means "more easily'. Synonyms for the word "facile" are: - accomplished, adept, adroit, apparent, articulate, breeze, child's play, cursory, deft, dexterous, effortless, fast talk, flip, fluent, glib, glib, hasty, light, obvious, picnic, practiced, proficient, pushover, quick, ready, royal, shallow, simple, skillful, slick, smooth, superficial, uncomplicated, untroublesome, vocal, voluble, walkover - There is no connotation in the word facile of "compromised quality", only of ease. You should perhaps not read so much into it. I'm more productive as I don't waste so much time cleaning up film defects, and dodging & burning is done much more precisely and quickly. Less waste, more work. Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and various other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the neighborhood of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It included several dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked about the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and converted in PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was with custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some fine art photographers. > I'll put to you the same challenge I put to Cotty: show me the best > DSLR-Photoshop B&W you've done, then we'll talk. If you've got something up > on a web site, let's see it, but real prints speak the loudest and the > clearest. > > To say that you're making the best B&W you've ever done means little to > anyone but you without knowing the results you were getting before. It may > be that what you're doing now IS better than what you were doing , but it > would be interesting to see (not hear about) how that compares to some > truly fine B&W silver-based prints on good quality fiber-based paper. > > "Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production rates. They > usually mean compromised quality. > > Shel the Skeptic > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Over the past 2-3 years, I've moved all my photography to > > digital cameras. Reason: I get better quality this way, and can > > produce more work > > > > 80% of my photography is B&W. I'm printing the best B&W I've > > ever done now. It is much much more facile to render B&W in > > Photoshop than in the darkroom. > >
Re: PESO: Friday at a bar
I like this shot. For reasons others have stated pretty well already. I'd like it better if one could see a bit more of the face of the woman behind her. But it's a nice overlay, a nice juxtaposition. As if the main figure (woman) is looking for something in the bar. While the woman behind her has already found it. I, also, had to look at this picture for a few moments to see everything. When a photo engages me like that I tend to think it has something going for it. :-) Nice shot. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Please, Cotty, don't go to such an extreme. A simple stay at the hospital would be more than enough. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Damn, I'm gonna get that print out this week if it kills me.
Re: Keepin' track of pics
On 16/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: > >Holy Crap! I went to the File Info (IPTC) in PS and there is a LOT of >information requested. I'm sure that not all is required, but there's no >way I'm going to start adding all that information (or even a good portion >of it) to every photo. That's just too much time and work. Do people >really spend that much time and add that much information to all their >photos? Perhaps there's a way to add the info to several photos at once ... > >Thanks for the information, though. I use the File Browser. Keywords, batch-applied usually. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW PESO - Puppy in a Box
Juan and I have known one another for quite some time. The day that pic was taken we'd just come back from seeing an exhibition of Salgado's work at the art museum in Berkeley and were wandering about making some photos when we came across this fellow stretched out and napping on his motorcycle. Being the affable gents that we are, we struck up a conversation with the guy, and Juan showed him the postcard which had one of Juan's pics on it. While GFM may be a big meeting place for list members, quite a few of us have met otherwise - well, I can really only speak for myself as I've met about 20 or so from the list, some of which (whom?) have become real friends, or to whose homes one or another has visited. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jerome Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes ... why are you confused, and about what are you confused? Well, with the exception of the occasional flocking at GFM, I tend to think of the members of the list as "separate entities"... so initially it seemed a bit odd (twilight zone-ish, even) that the two galleries would overlap... and in such a subtle way. I don't keep up with the list nearly enough these days to know which circles overlap, etc. So that seemed bizarre. But a quick scan of Juan's blog & old pdml postings made me realize that you two must run in the same circles on occassion... And so the confusion has faded into understanding. ... but I guess the odder part of it for me was having just "discovered" (In the Chris Colombus sense of the word) Juan's photos, and noting that one in particular just minutes before seeing yours. So yeah, it was a little weird. - jerome <--- trying to get back to sleep
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 16/1/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >Shel, I don't think digital is going to be a good choice for much of >what you do. There are no really good black and white solutions out >there for the digital camera user, and you do shoot a lot of black >and white. Damn, I'm gonna get that print out this week if it kills me. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
