Re: Pentax 50mm News
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Whittingham wrote: Ah, never thought of that, unfortunately I don't own a Pentax digital SLR. I wish they had produced something like the MZ-D prototype. No you don't. Had they gone ahead, they would now be like Contax (who did produce a FF digital with the same disastrous Phillips sensor): dead. Kostas
Re: Adaptall 2 for Pentax, which one ?
Somehow I do not think many of those folks are lurking on the list. BTW, even here in the Boone-docks I see more and more people chimping their cel-phones; I do believe that is what is going to replace disposable cameras. The Kodak Picture Maker kiosk has the ability to print via IR from cell phones. I haven't seen any one use it for that, so I don't know about the quality of the prints. Bill
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. In other words, a photograph is a representation of the photographers opinion of something. So an opinion is always a lie? Interesting take. I think we will have to agree to not completely agree on this one. An opinion presented as the truth can be a lie. And a problem with photography is that it often is misinterpreted. Yes, It was late last night, so I was a little bit unclear... DagT
RE: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
Hmm. I've carried digital cameras exclusively since 2002 on my travels and not had a single problem with them. From visiting Japan, to Australia, to the UK, to Paris, to Singapore, to Brazil, to Mexico, to London and points east in the British Isles. They're no more liable to be stolen than either my Hassy or Leica or Nikons were, no worries about film through the airport, etc. Carry enough battery and memory, a backup storage device. Carry a decent bag that will keep them from getting soaked in rain. And don't worry about it, just take proper care and take pictures as normal. Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Interesting point: in german media (and german speaking switzerland) opinions are marked as commentary or Opinion in most newspapers or newsmagazines. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Januar 2005 00:37 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. In other words, a photograph is a representation of the photographers opinion of something. So an opinion is always a lie? Interesting take. I think we will have to agree to not completely agree on this one. William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:50:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! === We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains, as yet, undiscovered. The observer affects the observed. Marnie aka Doe :-)
RE: Question for the Brotherhood...
Tim, if the body doesn't have mirror lockup think long and hard about it as the early versions are prone to failure of the winder mechanism. You cannot get this fixed. You will see a lot of early 6x7s advertised on eBay that fit this description or are not tested. If it's the 67 series or has the MLU that is much less likely to be a problem and you should still be able to get any problems with a 67 fixed. In either case, put a roll of film in it and try it out. The winding action will take more effort than on a 35mm body but should be smooth. Remember you're winding on a lot more film and tensioning a much larger shutter. As for the lenses, well the 55/3.5 uses a 100mm (i.e. expensive)filter while the 55/4 is smaller and takes a 77mm filter. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there anything I need to know about the lenses? What should I check on the body to determine its condition beyond surface cosmetics? Thanks, Tim
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Comments below fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 1/24/2005 2:58:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT Just to confuse things... Your above statement implies that there is some objective truth. Something concrete out there that is true. And that subjectivity, by its very nature, because it is one person's viewpoint, is a lie. I believe, however, that there is no objectivity --no separate universal truth. What exists or doesn't exist or appears to exist out there must always be filtered through our own lens; passed through our own subjectivity. We cannot ever truly stand outside ourselves, outside our own heads, outside our own world view. If there is a universal concrete truth (which I do not believe), we cannot actually perceive untainted. We always perceive it through our own subjective experience. Whew. Probably not clear. (And I think I am losing myself in my own argument. :-)) :-) I agree with most of what you say. As a physicist part of the job is to describe the part of the world that cannot be interpreted by our senses. We never really know how good the description is, except that the predictions we make based on these description get more accurate, so we think we are on to something. OTOH, I think photojournalism as used in reporting, is a tricky area and anything that manipulates an image to present something that was not *apparently* there in the first place, could well be a lie. In that case, the photography should admit any manipulation. The problem is, of course, that the thing you add or remove could have been removed by the photographer by simply changing position, or timing. But, I was a bit short last night and ended up with a very wide defintion of lies. This is what I ment to write: To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, Just to confuse things... Your above statement implies that there is some objective truth. Something concrete out there that is true. And that subjectivity, by its very nature, because it is one person's viewpoint, is a lie. I believe, however, that there is no objectivity --no separate universal truth. What you are describing is solipsism. Although it's not possible to disprove the idea, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that nobody really believes in it. To believe in the idea would be indistinguishable from insanity. What exists or doesn't exist or appears to exist out there must always be filtered through our own lens; passed through our own subjectivity. We cannot ever truly stand outside ourselves, outside our own heads, outside our own world view. If there is a universal concrete truth (which I do not believe), we cannot actually perceive untainted. We always perceive it through our own subjective experience. If there is no external reality - in other words, if everything is in your mind, and yours is the only mind that exists - then the idea of 'filtering' it is absurd. If there is an objective reality, can we perceive any part of it untainted by subjectivity? It seems to me that that is what science, history and other evidence-based disciplines try to do. Whew. Probably not clear. (And I think I am losing myself in my own argument. :-)) That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! OTOH, I think photojournalism as used in reporting, is a tricky area and anything that manipulates an image to present something that was not *apparently* there in the first place, could well be a lie. In that case, the photography should admit any manipulation. as Frank has already pointed out, photography is no different to other forms of journalism. Whether or not we accept a report from a journalist depends on our previous experience of the journalist, the publication, the nature of the story, etc. If Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker that the US government is looking askance at Iran, I'm inclined to believe him. On the other hand, if he writes in the National Enquirer that he's having Elvis's alien baby, I'd be less inclined to believe him. The same standards apply to photography. I don't know why people think any other standards should apply. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
Well, that was enlightening Jens. It seems to be better after all to stick to film cameras as serious travelling gear. Peter For travelling (long trips) I'm not shure I'd want to bring a digital. A few years back I went to South Africa and didn't even bring my PZ-1. I brought my Super A. Mostly because it's light and small - and because of the crime rate in S.A. Tree weeks in South Africa and I didn't chaage batteries even once. If I should travel with the *ist D, I'd make sure to have: Sufficient Insurance Vosonic P300 card-reader/hard-drive Extra batteries for harddrive and camera as well as battery chargers. That's the big problem with digital - it's very battery consuming. And it doesn't handle moisture/wet weather very well. When I lived in Irealnd, I did a lot of hillwalking, which meant I'd be walking from 8 AM to 8 PM - in the wind, sunshine and rain. I'd hate to see my digital camera spoiled by moisture. If you are travelling by car it's a different story, of course. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. januar 2005 15:12 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Digital anguish Hi all, it funny how one can get affected by everyone going digital, and by all talk about film being dead, or at least dying. So lately I've been thinking about trying to get an *ist D as long as some still are on the market. It seems to be not so unlike the PZ-1p/Z-1p with its Hyperprogram which I like and use a lot. One never knows what the next Pentax DSLR will look like, but probably (?) less like the PZ-1p/Z-1p than the *ist D. But then again I wonder if the *ist D is that practical when you are travelling (which is when I'm doing most of my photographing). My LX, ME Super and PZ-1p/Z-1p have been rather trustworthy travel companions. And then I see all the slides, colour and b+w films I've shot during the years in different parts of the world, and start to wonder if it wouldn't be better to go digital by scanning and work on the best of all those pics to begin with. Well, maybe its just sad to put some great gear into retirement (I'm pretty sure once I've managed to get a *ist D I will be toying around with it most of the time). Any advice? BTW What would you recommend as a good Mac-compatible scanner? Peter, Sweden
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, An opinion presented as the truth can be a lie. Hmm, well, not sure about that. An opinion is not a matter of fact, so it's rather hard to present one as a truth or a lie. E.g. Picasso was the best artist since Leonardo da Vinci. This is a matter of opinion. By definition it's neither true nor false. And a problem with photography is that it often is misinterpreted. Misinterpreting is something that the viewer does; lying is something that the photographer does. Just because someone can misinterpret something, that something doesn't become a lie. Yes, It was late last night, so I was a little bit unclear... perhaps you still need some more sleep g -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:48:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT == More concise, better explained. Of course, we get hung up on those words, lie and truth, again. Hehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: flash for *ist D
One more question: Does it take an external battery pack ? Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick Genovese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the Sigma EF 500 DG Super it do ? 1. Flash Exposure Compensation by using some form of flash based control as opposed to useing the metered manual mode trick as you have to do with the af-500ftz Yes. 2. Sync at all speeds ? Yes. 3. Contrast Control Mode with built in popup flash ? Yes. (Well the manual says so - I haven't tried it.) And what's the recycle time like ? I'd say 5-6 seconds on average with my usage. Do these work with both the *ist-d and the MZ-S ? Haven't tried it with the MZ-S yet.
Re: PESO: The Moon
In a message dated 1/24/2005 11:18:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I couldn't resits the full moon yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/3762744/ BTW: Where did they leave that American flag, in june 1968? And a brand new Hassie - I want it! Jens Bladt = Neat. How did you do that? Marine aka Doe
Re: Chimping????
Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 12:35:25 AM, Tom wrote: TC It seems to me that the word chimping, as used on this list and I suppose TC others, has negative connotations and I'm not sure why... not picking on you TC CB... I think the term comes from photojournalists environment, and was meant in rather self-ironic sense. When I occasionally do a classical news assignment, you can see all us photographers grabbing machinegun style that ten seconds of a photo opportunity (the red carpet walk, two figureheads shaking hands - of course they shake them for good ten or twenty seconds so all of us can get it, and if not, sometimes we can tell them to redo it g). Afterwards, you can see all the guys instantly looking downwards and reviewing all the shots, doing quick field edits and then dashing to the next opp. When a big gaggle of journalists does that, it sure looks like chimpanzees ooking over something (no offence meant to chimpanzees, by comparing them to humans!), all in unisono... Good light! Fra
Used cameras in the US and Canada?
Hi folks, I am looking for American, reputable stores with web interfaces, carrying used equipment. I already know of BH, Adorama, Henry's and KEH. Any others? Thanks, Kostas
RE: Used cameras in the US and Canada?
G'day Kostas. I can't recommend HEK highly enough. They are very easy to deal with for international transactions. I haven't dealt with any of the others. Hooroo. Regards, Trevor Australia -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2005 9:45 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Used cameras in the US and Canada? Hi folks, I am looking for American, reputable stores with web interfaces, carrying used equipment. I already know of BH, Adorama, Henry's and KEH. Any others? Thanks, Kostas
RE: Used cameras in the US and Canada?
Sorry. Fingers got knotted up. I meant KEH -Original Message- From: Trevor Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2005 9:50 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Used cameras in the US and Canada? G'day Kostas. I can't recommend HEK highly enough. They are very easy to deal with for international transactions. I haven't dealt with any of the others. Hooroo. Regards, Trevor Australia -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2005 9:45 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Used cameras in the US and Canada? Hi folks, I am looking for American, reputable stores with web interfaces, carrying used equipment. I already know of BH, Adorama, Henry's and KEH. Any others? Thanks, Kostas
Re: PESOS on a snowy day
In a message dated 1/24/2005 9:41:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course comments are welcome... There are eight thumbnails here at this click - so it will load fast. They are all people I know or knew from slightly to very well. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459913 ann = Nice gallery, ann. The only one that appears weak to me (read as ordinary) is the Pinar Yolacan one. I especially like the Alfred Butts and Dave Shulman one. Nice. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Pentax 50mm News
if they are making the lens to have a useful market life of 10 years or more, a FF DSLR is inevitable, at a price, I certainly hope so, bring it on Pentax. John -- Original Message --- From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:04:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Pentax 50mm News if they are making the lens to have a useful market life of 10 years or more, a FF DSLR is inevitable, at a price, and if Pentax stays in the DSLR business. Herb - Original Message - From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:46 PM Subject: Re: Pentax 50mm News I'd second that. Doesn't it make you wonder why a new 50mm, OK it would equate to approx 75mm on the *istD, portrait lens? or can we expect a full frame digital?naah just dreaming. --- End of Original Message ---
Re: PP: Digital Grain
GD Didn't they use Gowlandflexes, in addition to 4x5s, Hasselblads, GD Rolleiflexes, and other medium to large format cameras? 35mm was GD far from the established film standard in fashion and beauty GD work at that time. I almost forgot these beasts! Never seen them in flesh, unfortunately, just read about in old books. I would like to own one someday... Good light! fra
Re: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:48:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT == More concise, better explained. Of course, we get hung up on those words, lie and truth, again. Hehehehehe. :-) Of course, we could go on discussing why language is unsuitable for communication... :-) DagT
Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?
On 24/1/05, Fred, discombobulated, unleashed: Well, this is certainly no defense of Canon lenses, and certainly is not intended as any criticism of the FA 135/2.8 (which is a lens I'm not familiar with), but I would just say that the FA 135/2.8 is not exactly a premium lens. Would any Canon 135/2.8 be all that much larger or heavier? This is the closest Canon offering: http://www.tanchung.com/canon/ef135mmf2x.htm Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Shame on you, Peter On Jan 24, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote: I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway, but are you sure it's another? mike wilson wrote: H. It appears we have another Antonio. 'Bye Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: --- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo -- 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: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
RS It's one of the most impressive spherical panos I've viewed. I really have no RS idea how the camera was suspended, he says it was 2m out, it's a very cleverly RS constructed image. Also I don't know if it's a joke but there is an odd looking RS shadow shaped like a camera on a ledge below the boys legs. Truly mindboggling view! You should have included a warning for those just after breakfast ;-) The shadow you pointed out - it seems to me he had the camera on a long pole, stretched from the position where the man with baby is standing, that's what the shadow directly underneath looks like - a camera on a pole. It is spectacular nevertheless, and the stitching and retouching must have been some work. Good light! fra
Re: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
I was there a couple of years ago. The walk along the bottom of the gorge is very interesting, but you need to be fit to climb back out of it. Not a mid-summer activity. John On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:11:58 +, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, http://www.erik-krause.de/pano/verdon/index.htm The Quicktime version is amazing. Indeed. There's a bit of a Michael Jackson / baby / balcony moment going on in that photo. One of my brothers has a house near there, a bit further north in the Mercantour NP. There are some very spectacular views. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Patent - of interest?
Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 12:59:41 AM, Godfrey wrote: Gee that stuff's hard to read... but it seems to deal mainly with body-lens communication and control. So do the IS/VR of canon/nikon have the sensors in the lenses or the body? If I remember correctly, it was discussed many years ago here that Pentax also held many patents on various aspects of image stabilisation, mostly in lens. I don't have the posts archived, and maybe the links are no longer working, but it could be searched for perhaps. What I remember is that the field was pretty muddled, with probably many licensing and et cetera, and that the essential patents for implementation of IS might be owned by several distinct companies. It was discussed with great regret here that Pentax didn't start producing its own IS lenses... Quite a long time ago. Good light! fra
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On Jan 25, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: It seems I need to send you a *ist D based print or two :-) People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Paul
Re: PAW: A bad Hair Day
Thanks Ken. That's reassuring :-). Paul On Jan 24, 2005, at 11:20 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: This was taken late August/early September, its the time of the year when the Caribou lose the velvet covering the antlers. They grow new ones each year. The one in the back is in the process, the one in the front hasn't started yet. The velvet is a skin like covering, that when shed, reveals the bloody antlers. Soon the antlers will appear like a bony structure and the blood will disappear. They brush their antlers on brush to help speed up the process. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 10:02 PM Subject: Re: PAW: A bad Hair Day Interesting. It appears that the creature in the rear has ripped the horns off a competitor. Is that what happened? Not as good aesthetically as some of your other shots from that trip, but fasdinating in content. Paul Whoops, take a look again, I mixed up my last PAW with a new one that I forgot to publish. All should be ok now. Sorry Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:31 PM Subject: Re: PAW: A bad Hair Day Hi Ken, The link took me to your red-tailed hawk, the shot you made with your Optio. Paul Please check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Taken with PZ1P, 600mm f4.0 FA Comments: Yea, Nay or otherwise. Thanks in advance for looking commenting. Kenneth Waller
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
In a message dated 1/24/2005 10:36:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All, Interesting debate. I'm going to step back a little bit and touch on what grain gives an image rather than worrying about how it is created. To my eye, grain increases contrast at a microscopic level, increasing accutance and adding a crunchy texture to smooth areas. I think that the effect also smooths out tonal gradients at a macrosopic level. One way I like to use this effect is to lower contrast at the macroscopic level to render detail in shadows and highlights while adding the punch that comes with the high accutance and crunchy texture. Now, grain can be created in an image in many ways. First, you can use an inherently grainy film. You can also accentuate grain through careful choice of exposure and film development process (i.e., chemicals, temperature, and time). You can also add grain at the printing stage by using, for example, lith or other alternative processes. Finally, you can add or accentuate grain in digital images in many different ways via Photoshop. It seems to me that there is little go be gained in arguing about the merits of the method used to create an effect. If I see an effect I like and want to use it in my own work, does it matter what technique I use to get to my desired result? I'm much more interested in the results-- what does the effect do to the image? Does it strengthen it or merely create a distraction? Thoughts? --Mark Not many. :-) I really hadn't given grain a great deal of thought before (except in thinking about paper). Don't know enough about photography or BW. So not sure about contrast, etc. But maybe grain is sometimes more intriguing to the eye. Engages it more than a completely smooth, cartoon :-) image might. The eye does like having something to do when viewing an image (like following diagonals/leading lines). Was that a worth while thought? Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
I get 2000 exposures on my *ist D on one set of lithium batteries -- four in the battery grip and four in the camera. I've shot in the surf in Malibu and standing under a waterfall in La Jolla Canyon. No problems yet. I carry 3 1/2 gigs of CF cards, so a day's shooting is easily accommodated. I plan to add another 2 gigs soon. I have my little i-book in the hotel room and download the cards at night. I can't imagine ever traveling without the *istD again. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 3:16 AM, Peter Smekal wrote: Well, that was enlightening Jens. It seems to be better after all to stick to film cameras as serious travelling gear. Peter For travelling (long trips) I'm not shure I'd want to bring a digital. A few years back I went to South Africa and didn't even bring my PZ-1. I brought my Super A. Mostly because it's light and small - and because of the crime rate in S.A. Tree weeks in South Africa and I didn't chaage batteries even once. If I should travel with the *ist D, I'd make sure to have: Sufficient Insurance Vosonic P300 card-reader/hard-drive Extra batteries for harddrive and camera as well as battery chargers. That's the big problem with digital - it's very battery consuming. And it doesn't handle moisture/wet weather very well. When I lived in Irealnd, I did a lot of hillwalking, which meant I'd be walking from 8 AM to 8 PM - in the wind, sunshine and rain. I'd hate to see my digital camera spoiled by moisture. If you are travelling by car it's a different story, of course. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. januar 2005 15:12 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Digital anguish Hi all, it funny how one can get affected by everyone going digital, and by all talk about film being dead, or at least dying. So lately I've been thinking about trying to get an *ist D as long as some still are on the market. It seems to be not so unlike the PZ-1p/Z-1p with its Hyperprogram which I like and use a lot. One never knows what the next Pentax DSLR will look like, but probably (?) less like the PZ-1p/Z-1p than the *ist D. But then again I wonder if the *ist D is that practical when you are travelling (which is when I'm doing most of my photographing). My LX, ME Super and PZ-1p/Z-1p have been rather trustworthy travel companions. And then I see all the slides, colour and b+w films I've shot during the years in different parts of the world, and start to wonder if it wouldn't be better to go digital by scanning and work on the best of all those pics to begin with. Well, maybe its just sad to put some great gear into retirement (I'm pretty sure once I've managed to get a *ist D I will be toying around with it most of the time). Any advice? BTW What would you recommend as a good Mac-compatible scanner? Peter, Sweden
RE: Pentax 50mm News
I've got both the F50/1.7 and the F50/1.4 and there isn't any difference in the quality of construction. They tend to be pricey here in Australia but that's probably because just about everything sold with a zoom, not a 50mm prime. Both the F and FA 50mm lenses are quite rare secondhand. There are bucket loads of ST, SMCT and M series, while the K and A are less common. The K 55/2 and A 50/1.2 would be the rarest. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia
RE: Used cameras in the US and Canada?
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Trevor Bailey wrote: I can't recommend HEK highly enough. Thanks. I have dealt with them too and would have no problem dealing again. Thing is, a used MZ-S is not easy to come by, so I thought of broadening the search. Kostas
Re: PESOS on a snowy day
Ann, Is that who I think it is?
Re: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
It's that way in the US but with some papers opinion has been creeping into what's supposed to be simply factual news for years. Michael Heim wrote: Interesting point: in german media (and german speaking switzerland) opinions are marked as commentary or Opinion in most newspapers or newsmagazines. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Januar 2005 00:37 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. In other words, a photograph is a representation of the photographers opinion of something. So an opinion is always a lie? Interesting take. I think we will have to agree to not completely agree on this one. William Robb -- 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: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Essentially, you are going to show a bunch of digital prints and ask which one is not a digital print? Hardly a fair question. Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 silver prints from the rest. William Robb
Re: PESO: The Moon
Nice shot there, what tripod do you use, (I assume it wasn't hand held). Jens Bladt wrote: I couldn't resits the full moon yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/3762744/ BTW: Where did they leave that American flag, in june 1968? And a brand new Hassie - I want it! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -- 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: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
On 25 Jan 2005 at 9:16, Peter Smekal wrote: Well, that was enlightening Jens. It seems to be better after all to stick to film cameras as serious travelling gear. I have a portable hard drive storage unit which will allow me to store around 6500 shots, it is far more convenient (and far cheaper) than lugging around 180 135/36 films. It can also charge my AA cells for the camera plus it has a universal switch mode supply and 12V car lighter adaptor cable. It can also be very easily mounted without software on most any computer with USB interface so that back-ups can be made en-route at any so equipped cyber cafe. I've used the *ist D in light rain and had no problems, I generally just have it slung over my shoulder whilst bush walking and even after some good thumps it functions flawlessly. I have no problems making it my (serious) primary travel camera. It will be coming to Ireland with me next trip which would likely be Christmas (cold and wet). 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: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
Hi Paul, interesting to read. This is really new terrain for me. Do you think the *ist DS is as practical to use and travel with as the D? Peter I get 2000 exposures on my *ist D on one set of lithium batteries -- four in the battery grip and four in the camera. I've shot in the surf in Malibu and standing under a waterfall in La Jolla Canyon. No problems yet. I carry 3 1/2 gigs of CF cards, so a day's shooting is easily accommodated. I plan to add another 2 gigs soon. I have my little i-book in the hotel room and download the cards at night. I can't imagine ever traveling without the *istD again. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 3:16 AM, Peter Smekal wrote: Well, that was enlightening Jens. It seems to be better after all to stick to film cameras as serious travelling gear. Peter For travelling (long trips) I'm not shure I'd want to bring a digital. A few years back I went to South Africa and didn't even bring my PZ-1. I brought my Super A. Mostly because it's light and small - and because of the crime rate in S.A. Tree weeks in South Africa and I didn't chaage batteries even once. If I should travel with the *ist D, I'd make sure to have: Sufficient Insurance Vosonic P300 card-reader/hard-drive Extra batteries for harddrive and camera as well as battery chargers. That's the big problem with digital - it's very battery consuming. And it doesn't handle moisture/wet weather very well. When I lived in Irealnd, I did a lot of hillwalking, which meant I'd be walking from 8 AM to 8 PM - in the wind, sunshine and rain. I'd hate to see my digital camera spoiled by moisture. If you are travelling by car it's a different story, of course. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. januar 2005 15:12 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Digital anguish Hi all, it funny how one can get affected by everyone going digital, and by all talk about film being dead, or at least dying. So lately I've been thinking about trying to get an *ist D as long as some still are on the market. It seems to be not so unlike the PZ-1p/Z-1p with its Hyperprogram which I like and use a lot. One never knows what the next Pentax DSLR will look like, but probably (?) less like the PZ-1p/Z-1p than the *ist D. But then again I wonder if the *ist D is that practical when you are travelling (which is when I'm doing most of my photographing). My LX, ME Super and PZ-1p/Z-1p have been rather trustworthy travel companions. And then I see all the slides, colour and b+w films I've shot during the years in different parts of the world, and start to wonder if it wouldn't be better to go digital by scanning and work on the best of all those pics to begin with. Well, maybe its just sad to put some great gear into retirement (I'm pretty sure once I've managed to get a *ist D I will be toying around with it most of the time). Any advice? BTW What would you recommend as a good Mac-compatible scanner? Peter, Sweden
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I'm going to show color prints from film and color prints from digital. I see thousands of prints a month. I can't control the experiment if all the prints are not outputted from the same source. The discussion here centered around a visual difference that was derived from the source: film vs. an optical sensor. To compare those two elements, you have to use the same output device. If there's more than one variable, it's not a controlled experiment. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:28 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Essentially, you are going to show a bunch of digital prints and ask which one is not a digital print? Hardly a fair question. Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 silver prints from the rest. William Robb
Re: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
Hi Peter, Yes, I'm sure the *istDS travels as well as the D. You can't add a battery grip, but you'll still get 1000 shots of so from lithium batteries and only slightly less from good rechargeable nicads. In lieu of the grip, you can carry an extra set of batteries. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:45 AM, Peter Smekal wrote: Hi Paul, interesting to read. This is really new terrain for me. Do you think the *ist DS is as practical to use and travel with as the D? Peter I get 2000 exposures on my *ist D on one set of lithium batteries -- four in the battery grip and four in the camera. I've shot in the surf in Malibu and standing under a waterfall in La Jolla Canyon. No problems yet. I carry 3 1/2 gigs of CF cards, so a day's shooting is easily accommodated. I plan to add another 2 gigs soon. I have my little i-book in the hotel room and download the cards at night. I can't imagine ever traveling without the *istD again. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 3:16 AM, Peter Smekal wrote: Well, that was enlightening Jens. It seems to be better after all to stick to film cameras as serious travelling gear. Peter For travelling (long trips) I'm not shure I'd want to bring a digital. A few years back I went to South Africa and didn't even bring my PZ-1. I brought my Super A. Mostly because it's light and small - and because of the crime rate in S.A. Tree weeks in South Africa and I didn't chaage batteries even once. If I should travel with the *ist D, I'd make sure to have: Sufficient Insurance Vosonic P300 card-reader/hard-drive Extra batteries for harddrive and camera as well as battery chargers. That's the big problem with digital - it's very battery consuming. And it doesn't handle moisture/wet weather very well. When I lived in Irealnd, I did a lot of hillwalking, which meant I'd be walking from 8 AM to 8 PM - in the wind, sunshine and rain. I'd hate to see my digital camera spoiled by moisture. If you are travelling by car it's a different story, of course. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. januar 2005 15:12 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Digital anguish Hi all, it funny how one can get affected by everyone going digital, and by all talk about film being dead, or at least dying. So lately I've been thinking about trying to get an *ist D as long as some still are on the market. It seems to be not so unlike the PZ-1p/Z-1p with its Hyperprogram which I like and use a lot. One never knows what the next Pentax DSLR will look like, but probably (?) less like the PZ-1p/Z-1p than the *ist D. But then again I wonder if the *ist D is that practical when you are travelling (which is when I'm doing most of my photographing). My LX, ME Super and PZ-1p/Z-1p have been rather trustworthy travel companions. And then I see all the slides, colour and b+w films I've shot during the years in different parts of the world, and start to wonder if it wouldn't be better to go digital by scanning and work on the best of all those pics to begin with. Well, maybe its just sad to put some great gear into retirement (I'm pretty sure once I've managed to get a *ist D I will be toying around with it most of the time). Any advice? BTW What would you recommend as a good Mac-compatible scanner? Peter, Sweden
Re: Used cameras in the US and Canada?
http://www.mpex.com Midwest Photo Exchange. They just put up a new web site. They're big in LF pro digital accs like printers Imacon. 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
New Member
G'day to all PDML'ers, Allow myself to introduce...myself ;-) The name's David after a year of lurking in the archive I've finally plucked up the courage and subscribed. I've got to say, you certainly are a voluble lot. Here hoping I can add to the mayhem ;-) My Pentax history goes back 13 years (I'm only 27). It started with a little ps I was given as a birthday present. All through high school I used the K1000. I had a brief laps in judgement for about a year and had a Minolta SRT Super g. On a trip to Canada in '93 I picked up a Z-20 (PZ-20), which has served me well until November last year when I got an *ist D. For those of you interested in putting a face to the name: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/Me.htm and some of my pic's are here (images between 50-200 kb): http://au.msnusers.com/OzSavage/shoebox.msnw Any comments criticisms more than welcome Anywho, Happy Australia Day to all the Aussies. And a special thanks to Thibouille for the Gmail invitation. David Savage
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true. I'm going to show color prints from film and color prints from digital. I see thousands of prints a month. I can't control the experiment if all the prints are not outputted from the same source. The discussion here centered around a visual difference that was derived from the source: film vs. an optical sensor. To compare those two elements, you have to use the same output device. If there's more than one variable, it's not a controlled experiment. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:28 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Essentially, you are going to show a bunch of digital prints and ask which one is not a digital print? Hardly a fair question. Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 silver prints from the rest. William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
The fact that human beings and animals can successfully survive on a daily basis makes it a pretty good bet that our senses and the representations of the world the brain constructs from them has some meaningful relation to what's actually going on in nature. The human ability to extent this concepts using imagination, symbolic thinking, and extrapolation to future effects lets us make predictions about the future and extends our ability to manipulate our environment to our own ends. This same ability also allows us to deceive ourselves and others. All photographs are in some way removed from the natural object, at least by a limited spatial perspective and a frozen slice of time. This issue is always the more complex one of intent to deceive. When NASA and ESA enhance these photos from Titan and Saturn, their goal is to extract more information not to create false images. The very same photographic techniques can be used to make more clear what was going on in the real world or to confuse and mislead. The only real test is to compare the perceptions of a group of actual observers and a group who have simply seen the photos. The extent to which they perceive the event in a similar way is some indication of how good the photo was as a news device. Notice I did say a group; even observers on the seen rarely agree completely on the facts. To say that you can never gauge anything about the world since we have not absolute picture of reality is just a cop out IMHO. It just means there are no simple tests.
Re: Chimping????
On 25/1/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed: When a big gaggle of journalists does that, it sure looks like chimpanzees looking over something (no offence meant to chimpanzees, by comparing them to humans!), all in unison... I think the addition of the exclamations (oooh, oooh, ooh, oooh) that one also hears, helps the satirical vision Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: Kobe-SI-CNN and BMW
Thanks for sharing. I think your family is correct though. Only thing is, on this list, we share the same deviation, so we understand you, which is really scary. On Monday 24 January 2005 15:28, cbwaters wrote: I'm in the waiting room at the shop waiting for my car to get some service done. They have a bunch of magazines I don't read and one Sports Illustrated. I'm flipping the pages when I come upon a photo of Kobe Bryant lying on the basketball court grabbing at his ankle in obvious pain. He'd come down on somebody's foot and rolled his ankle over causing a serious sprain. This was obviously an opportunity photo where the shooter was just in the right place at the right time. He got a two page photo in SI for his efforts (!). Now, on the TV in the waiting room at just that moment, I see a story on CNNHN about Kobe walking without crutches for the first time since his injury. The showed a couple replays of the incident and wha-da-ya-know? I SAW the guy sitting there on the baseline lift his camera as Kobe fell and wait for just the right moment to fire off a frame or six (I even saw the strobe flash!). It struck me as a pretty heavy moment. I've seen the replays of the injury play over and over on TV before and that guy undoubtedly shot the photo just the same every time (the magic of video, ya know) but THIS time, I'm holding in my hand the results of his efforts. Pretty cool. Cory is glad to have you guys to share the moment with since my family thinks I'm nuts. -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?
Cotty wrote on 25.01.05 10:31: This is the closest Canon offering: http://www.tanchung.com/canon/ef135mmf2x.htm I'd say rather this: http://www.tanchung.com/canon/ef135mmf28softfocus.htm the same focal lengh, the same aperture, soft focus is only optional, you can use it as a normal 135f2.8. And it is not that much bigger or heavier than FA 135f2.8 despite having additional soft focus functionality. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: PESO: Cool Macro Photograph
Way cool,Bill Nice detail. Dave(my mail is not sorting properly again)Brooks 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
Re: New Member
Quoting David S [EMAIL PROTECTED]: G'day to all PDML'ers, Allow myself to introduce...myself ;-) 'Morning, David! The name's David after a year of lurking in the archive I've finally plucked up the courage and subscribed. I've got to say, you certainly are a voluble lot. Here hoping I can add to the mayhem ;-) My Pentax history goes back 13 years (I'm only 27). It started with a little ps I was given as a birthday present. All through high school I used the K1000. I had a brief laps in judgement for about a year and had a Minolta SRT Super g. On a trip to Canada in '93 I picked up a Z-20 (PZ-20), which has served me well until November last year when I got an *ist D. For those of you interested in putting a face to the name: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/Me.htm Oh, look, y'all -- he's got one of the gold *istD bodies that Ryan originally told us about! and some of my pic's are here (images between 50-200 kb): http://au.msnusers.com/OzSavage/shoebox.msnw ... and he knows how to use it REALLY well, too! Any comments criticisms more than welcome Very cool shots, especially (in my opinion) the macro ones. E.R.N. Reed
Re: OT: Chimping????
On 24/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I've heard this term used before - by Frank - but it behooves me to understand what it means. I don't believe I saw it on Graywolfs FAQ so... will someone (I'm sure someone will) care to inform me regarding this? :) Go here: http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/index.html scroll down to the 12th item 'Everybody Chimps'... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: Chimping????
On 24/1/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: I forgot to mention: Digital Canon users do it far more than users of other equipment. LOL All taken in my stride, FRANK. ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: New Member
Thanks Paul, I really liked Let's Bar-B-Q that you posted recently. I've always liked the texture of fresh snow. And the sky never looks that blue here. Dave On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:44:13 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Welcome David, I enjoyed your pics, particularly Morning After the Storm, Customs House, and Crane. I'm sure you'll enjoy the list. Paul
Re: PP: Digital Grain
WR Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 WR silver prints from the rest. [of colour prints, note by Fra] Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints. Or are they ;-) grin, duck run Good light! fra
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Frantisek asked, Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints. Or are they ;-) In my experience, they very well could be g. But I'm going to ask some photographer's reps and, hopefully, some photographers as well. Paul WR Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 WR silver prints from the rest. [of colour prints, note by Fra] Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints. Or are they ;-) grin, duck run Good light! fra
Re: New Member
Thanks E.R.N. You've made me blush. Dave http://au.msnusers.com/OzSavage/shoebox.msnw ... and he knows how to use it REALLY well, too! Any comments criticisms more than welcome Very cool shots, especially (in my opinion) the macro ones. E.R.N. Reed
Re: New Member
Thanks Doug, Our recent weather has me imune to anything hot :-) Dave Welcome to the PDML. Make sure you have asbestos clothing ready (for the periodic flame wars) and some paper towels handy (for wiping the beer, cola, etc. off the screen when you catch a funny post while drinking). TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PESO: The Moon
Jens, Nicely exposed! Archive it for possible future use. 900mm (equivalent w/2x conv.) tough to support adequately, especially at 1/4 sec.. My experience requires mirror lock up, a larger aperture/faster shutter. Was it '68 or '69? Jack --- Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't resits the full moon yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/3762744/ BTW: Where did they leave that American flag, in june 1968? And a brand new Hassie - I want it! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: New Member
Welcome David, I enjoyed your pics, particularly Morning After the Storm, Customs House, and Crane. I'm sure you'll enjoy the list. Paul G'day to all PDML'ers, Allow myself to introduce...myself ;-) The name's David after a year of lurking in the archive I've finally plucked up the courage and subscribed. I've got to say, you certainly are a voluble lot. Here hoping I can add to the mayhem ;-) My Pentax history goes back 13 years (I'm only 27). It started with a little ps I was given as a birthday present. All through high school I used the K1000. I had a brief laps in judgement for about a year and had a Minolta SRT Super g. On a trip to Canada in '93 I picked up a Z-20 (PZ-20), which has served me well until November last year when I got an *ist D. For those of you interested in putting a face to the name: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/Me.htm and some of my pic's are here (images between 50-200 kb): http://au.msnusers.com/OzSavage/shoebox.msnw Any comments criticisms more than welcome Anywho, Happy Australia Day to all the Aussies. And a special thanks to Thibouille for the Gmail invitation. David Savage
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I'm not trying to determine whether film or digital is better. I'm trying to determine if experts can distinguish between MY prints from digital and MY prints from film. Obviously, if half of the film prints are optical and the digital prints are inkjet, anyone could tell at a glance. Paul But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. I don't think that's true. If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize the information loss (it could be different in the 2 cases). Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:23 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. I don't think that's true. If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize the information loss (it could be different in the 2 cases). Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:23 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true.
Re: Pentax 50mm News
What's the big deal? If you buy into a Pentax digital body now, you'll need one wider lens to handle wide field of view needs. I'd much prefer to save the money and spend it on a good 36mm x 24mm digital body. I would need more then one W/A lens or a very good zoom to replace 24mm, 28mm and 35mm lenses not to mention 17mm rectilinear and 16mm Fisheye that I also use from time to time. The current trend for not putting the aperture ring on the lens really isn't to my taste either, it worked perfectly on the well for years, it's the logical place to control the diaphragm from. If it isn't broke don't fix it! I don't consider myself stuck with this size sensor. Nor me because I refuse to buy one :) John -- Original Message --- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:03:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Pentax 50mm News --- John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will it ever happen or will we be stuck with the present format, I'm not going digital until I know one way or the other. What's the big deal? If you buy into a Pentax digital body now, you'll need one wider lens to handle wide field of view needs. If/When Pentax chooses to release a larger sensor, you go back to the way you are currently working with your 35mm camera system. If you decide to sell off the smaller sensor body, you sell the lenses specific to it as well. I don't consider myself stuck with this size sensor. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail --- End of Original Message ---
Re: K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party
I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105. What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better than the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105? I would prefer the Sigma 105 EX to either the K or M 100mm Macro as it goes to life size 1:1 as opposed to 1:2 with either Pentax lens, the optical quality of the Sigma is truly excellent as well. I've never used the A, F or FA versions so cannot comment, the only Pentax macro lens I have kept is the 50mm f4. John -- Original Message --- From: Greg Lovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:41:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party How does the old K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro compare optically to the F/FA 100/2.8 Macro? From http://www.pbase.com/steephill/image/38667710, it looks like the 2.8 resolves more detail. What about other factors? I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105. What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better than the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105? Also, I'm surprised at how much smaller and lighter the new D FA 100/2.8 is compared to its FA predecessor. Does it sacrifice image quality compared to the FA? Thanks, Greg --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Question for the Brotherhood...
Hi Tim - Just a few thoughts - 1; if the 6x7 does not have a TTL meter, you will need to buy a hand held meter. Not a major issue, but something to keep in mind. (I use a on-TTL 6x7.) 2; Mirror Lock-Up is a pretty important feature for this camera for some types of photography. If you are shooting flash in a studio, it probably does not matter. Longer exposures - 1/15th or longer - even on a rock solid tripod - you need MLU. 3. There is a mixed bag on the 55mm lens. The old 55mm f 3.5 is well regarded. I have no experience with it, but the main draw back is that it requires a rather large and odd sized filter - like a 105mm (I think). If you don't use filters, or have a bunch of big ones on hand, no problem. It is a Takumar, 55mm, f 3.5. The next generation 55mm f4 (the one I have) is a quirky lens. I've shot hundreds of shots with it. Some are tack sharp, magnificent, no problems. Other times there is an odd look to some of the out of focus areas. I have not been able to figure out the pattern to it. But at some combinations of focusing distance and aperture, and the angle at which the subject's light is hitting the lens, the results are not good. 90% of the time the results are great, the other 10% of the time the results are not so good, though the main subject area is sharp, the background can be distracting.. So if it's a bargain, go for it, but be prepared for a surprise or two. I will probably replace mine some day, but most of the time it works fine. The later 55mm f4 is generally considered to be outstanding, with no qualifications. That's second hand info from me, but I suspect it is great. The early 55 f4 is the 5x7 55 f4. The later model is the 57 55 f4 (note the '5x7 vs '57'.). 4. If you get the setup, find a Takumar 205 f2.4. It's my main lens, and really shines. My favorite and most used lens, with a 'normal' perspective, and available dirt cheap these days. HTH - MCC - Original Message - From: Tim Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 8:00 PM Subject: Question for the Brotherhood... ...the 67 Brotherhood, that is. I have the opportunity to pick up a 6x7 with 55mm and 135mm lenses. I don't have the details yet, but the person selling them doesn't seem to know that much about them. Inheritance? I'm not going to ask. A quick ebay check suggests that they didn't do much research before figuring out their asking price. Is there anything I need to know about the lenses? What should I check on the body to determine its condition beyond surface cosmetics? Thanks, Tim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RE: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
I suspected that Rob's question was rhetorical, but as Ryan has tried to figure it out I'll put in my two cents before the floodgates open. This page: http://www.erik-krause.de/index.htm?./panohead/index.htm shows the gear that is used, pretty basic pano gear IMO. I wouldn't be surprised if the author is using something more elaborate and 'neglecting' to tell us. My guess as to technique: Firstly the rig needs to be mounted on a sturdy pole so it can be extended into the gap. A full panorama is shot in EVERY direction including above and below and every point between and around. This is why I reckon that a servo controlled rig is the minimum requirement, because the rig shown would need to be withdrawn after each shot to be advanced to the next position. The size of the pole and its support is of no consequence, it could even be mounted on, and extended from, a vehicle. It won't show up in the result because. Secondly, the mount is moved to a new location, BUT, the camera is extended to exactly (ideally) the same point in space. This time the rig would be mounted in the opposite orientation to the first series, i.e. if the rig was first mounted above the pole with its vertical arm on the left of the camera, the second time it would be suspended beneath the pole with the arm on the right. The second series doesn't need to be a full panorama, but just enough to replace the vehicle, pole, and mount (that would have been visible in the first series) with clean landscape. Thirdly, spend very much time stitching the shots together. Et viola a fully immersive panorama. Easy peasy. regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed- just spent 10 minutes trying to figure it out. Where are the tripod legs even! I don't think he was in mid air, I'm guessing he was on the edge of the cliff and the mid air illusion is a result of the stitching software. Perhaps it can choose which axis it rotates on (and compensates accordingly?). I thought at first it may have been one of those Benbo tripods, but then it wouldn't have been, at some point, looking back on itself.. Interesting. Cheers, Ryan
RE: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
You are right, if you don't mind carrying all that stuff. As far as moisture is conscerned it's not just about rain or water getting into bags and stuff. It's about condenced water. Fast shifts from hot to cold environments may cause water (in the air) to condence inside cameras etc. Waterproof bags won't help. In fact - on the contrary - cause they may not be able to breathe. Shifts from a heated room to an outdoor enmvironment or to a cold car may cause the air to condense anyehere and cause loss of functionality, bad contacts or shortcuts. For on the road I'd prefere to use cameras that are kinda dispoasble or at least without too much sofisticated, miniature surface-mount electronics. I guess if you can keep you gear at 15-25 degerees Celsius at all times, condence is not a problem. But if it has to put up with changes from -10 to +50 degrees many times during a day, it's a totally different story. People who are wearing glasses know what I'm talking about! All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. januar 2005 09:48 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish) Hmm. I've carried digital cameras exclusively since 2002 on my travels and not had a single problem with them. From visiting Japan, to Australia, to the UK, to Paris, to Singapore, to Brazil, to Mexico, to London and points east in the British Isles. They're no more liable to be stolen than either my Hassy or Leica or Nikons were, no worries about film through the airport, etc. Carry enough battery and memory, a backup storage device. Carry a decent bag that will keep them from getting soaked in rain. And don't worry about it, just take proper care and take pictures as normal. Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PAW: A bad Hair Day
--- Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html I can never see the image on your webpage (am using mozilla). I looked in the source and was able to load the image drectly into the browser. Don't know why the other way doesn't work - is it because just the width is specified in the code and no height? Anyway, back to the picture. Are those his real antlers or is he wearing an extension? Certainly looks odd! Wendy
Re: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Slanting (editorializing news articles) has been going on since the first broadside was printed. Anyone who doesn't realize that is pretty gullible. Actually it is pretty hard to write anything without your own biases creeping in, so it is not always deliberate. You used to (40-50 years ago) be able to get a pretty neutral idea of the news by reading the city's competing daily newspapers and comparing them to each other, but those have pretty much disappeared. I use to listen to Radio Havana and Radio America, and figured the truth was someplace in between the two on the international front. Now I almost never listen to or read the news. That helps with the ulcers. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter J. Alling wrote: It's that way in the US but with some papers opinion has been creeping into what's supposed to be simply factual news for years. Michael Heim wrote: Interesting point: in german media (and german speaking switzerland) opinions are marked as commentary or Opinion in most newspapers or newsmagazines. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: Travelling *istD/DS
BTW has anyone noticed that Hassleblad now has a 16mp back for the old style (V) cameras? Haven't seen a review on it but I believe it comes with its own portable harddrive. Only $9975 (grin). Add a $750 used 500C kit and you have a nice fully manual MF digital camera. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 25 Jan 2005 at 9:16, Peter Smekal wrote: Well, that was enlightening Jens. It seems to be better after all to stick to film cameras as serious travelling gear. I have a portable hard drive storage unit which will allow me to store around 6500 shots, it is far more convenient (and far cheaper) than lugging around 180 135/36 films. It can also charge my AA cells for the camera plus it has a universal switch mode supply and 12V car lighter adaptor cable. It can also be very easily mounted without software on most any computer with USB interface so that back-ups can be made en-route at any so equipped cyber cafe. I've used the *ist D in light rain and had no problems, I generally just have it slung over my shoulder whilst bush walking and even after some good thumps it functions flawlessly. I have no problems making it my (serious) primary travel camera. It will be coming to Ireland with me next trip which would likely be Christmas (cold and wet). 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: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The truth, as you say, is somewhere in between. Paul Slanting (editorializing news articles) has been going on since the first broadside was printed. Anyone who doesn't realize that is pretty gullible. Actually it is pretty hard to write anything without your own biases creeping in, so it is not always deliberate. You used to (40-50 years ago) be able to get a pretty neutral idea of the news by reading the city's competing daily newspapers and comparing them to each other, but those have pretty much disappeared. I use to listen to Radio Havana and Radio America, and figured the truth was someplace in between the two on the international front. Now I almost never listen to or read the news. That helps with the ulcers. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter J. Alling wrote: It's that way in the US but with some papers opinion has been creeping into what's supposed to be simply factual news for years. Michael Heim wrote: Interesting point: in german media (and german speaking switzerland) opinions are marked as commentary or Opinion in most newspapers or newsmagazines. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: Pentax 50mm News
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Whittingham wrote: What's the big deal? If you buy into a Pentax digital body now, you'll need one wider lens to handle wide field of view needs. I'd much prefer to save the money and spend it on a good 36mm x 24mm digital body. Start saving. Disregarding the good bit (;-) the Canon is 5.2KGBP. That's 500 times more than what you paid for your MZ-3 (and no, it is not recommended that one buy a used digital camera, as discussed here in the recent past). I would need more then one W/A lens or a very good zoom to replace 24mm, 28mm and 35mm lenses not to mention 17mm rectilinear and 16mm Fisheye that I also use from time to time. Just get the 16-45. The 17 you are using may be awful on digital, full-frame or otherwise, because of CA. Only you can judge if the fisheye is enough to justify your decision. The current trend for not putting the aperture ring on the lens really isn't to my taste either, it worked perfectly on the well for years, it's the logical place to control the diaphragm from. If it isn't broke don't fix it! It *is* broke, check http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg205063.html It's a goner; do other manufacturers support it even in the way Pentax does? I have anti-digital arguments myself and I am not considering it at the moment, just thought to point out that we are on a one-way street with lots of lemming-like traffic all around you at the moment; you can slow down but it will be damn difficult to go back. Kostas
Fw: PENTAX *istDS FIRMWARE UPDATE VERSION (1.01)
a.. At the long time exposure situation such as astronomical photography, green noise might be generated partially on the image when the noise reduction is turned on. This phenomenon only occur rarely under special shooting condition such as starry sky, and will never occur at the general situation that we are assuming. The version 1.01 will minimize this phenomenon as much as possible for the customer who use *istDS for this purpose. The above is a quote from the Pentax Japan website http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/support/ the download site is http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/info/20050121e.html This is only for the *istDS. Larry in Dallas -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: New Member
We are going to have to start setting quotas for the number of Aussies on the list the are taking over (grin). Welcome aboard, David. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- David S wrote: G'day to all PDML'ers, Allow myself to introduce...myself ;-) The name's David after a year of lurking in the archive I've finally plucked up the courage and subscribed. I've got to say, you certainly are a voluble lot. Here hoping I can add to the mayhem ;-) My Pentax history goes back 13 years (I'm only 27). It started with a little ps I was given as a birthday present. All through high school I used the K1000. I had a brief laps in judgement for about a year and had a Minolta SRT Super g. On a trip to Canada in '93 I picked up a Z-20 (PZ-20), which has served me well until November last year when I got an *ist D. For those of you interested in putting a face to the name: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/Me.htm and some of my pic's are here (images between 50-200 kb): http://au.msnusers.com/OzSavage/shoebox.msnw Any comments criticisms more than welcome Anywho, Happy Australia Day to all the Aussies. And a special thanks to Thibouille for the Gmail invitation. David Savage -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Well, from that point of view you're right. But then you're not comparing digital with film, but the results of 2 different workflows. Hmmm... look who's talking... I have absolutely no ideea what a really good print looks like. Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:48:24 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not trying to determine whether film or digital is better. I'm trying to determine if experts can distinguish between MY prints from digital and MY prints from film. Obviously, if half of the film prints are optical and the digital prints are inkjet, anyone could tell at a glance. Paul But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. I don't think that's true. If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize the information loss (it could be different in the 2 cases). Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:23 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true.
Re: Fw: PENTAX *istDS FIRMWARE UPDATE VERSION (1.01)
The webpage says 'Please read the readme.txt file attached to the firmware update before updating the firmware.' Unhappily 'readme.txt' is unreadable - I'm assuming that its in Japanese. -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: Pentax 50mm News
--- John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd much prefer to save the money and spend it on a good 36m x 24mm digital body. Well, then you're into a long wait. I don't expect to see 24x36mm sensors being available in volume production quantities for at least 3-5 years, and the price will likely be quite a bit higher for a while beyond that. The current trend for not putting the aperture ring on the lens really isn't to my taste either, it worked perfectly on the well for years, it's the logical place to control the diaphragm from. If it isn't broke don't fix it! I've grown very comfortable with having both shutter speed and aperture setting controllable from the body, to the point that reaching for an aperture ring elsewhere seems awkward now. On the Contax G2, manual focus was also controlled from the body ... That took some getting used to. :-) Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: New Member
Quoting Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We are going to have to start setting quotas for the number of Aussies on the list the are taking over (grin). Welcome aboard, David. Oh, Graywolf, it's not so bad. *Most* of them post in a language we all can understand ... :-) ERNR
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Normally when I hang a show, I group photos based upon aesthetics and theme, not necessarily anything to do with how they were produced. So in some cases, my matted and framed all-digital inkjet photos get hung right next to scanned film-inkjet and wet-lab produced prints. People often ask how a particular photograph was made. The most telling comment, from what seemed a fairly knowledgeable individual, that came back was, Hmm. From film, you say? That's mighty good for a film image. ;-) Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
RE: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
--- Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are right, if you don't mind carrying all that stuff. All that stuff amounts to a small bag smaller than a sock, Jens. MUCH less to carry than the 24-36 rolls of 35mm film I'd otherwise need. As far as moisture is conscerned it's not just about rain or water getting into bags and stuff. It's about condenced water. I've lived and visited in cold climates too. It's not been a problem at all. ... For on the road I'd prefere to use cameras that are kinda dispoasble or at least without too much sofisticated, miniature surface-mount electronics. I guess if you can keep you gear at 15-25 degerees Celsius at all times, condence is not a problem That's your choice. The hardware seems to be well up to the challenge. Use it with reasonable care and it will just keep working and working. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: New Member
Thanks Graywolf, Could be worse, it could be taken over by poms ;-) Dave On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:13:39 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are going to have to start setting quotas for the number of Aussies on the list the are taking over (grin). Welcome aboard, David. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof ---
Re: New Member
Welcome. David S wrote: G'day to all PDML'ers, Allow myself to introduce...myself ;-) The name's David after a year of lurking in the archive I've finally plucked up the courage and subscribed. I've got to say, you certainly are a voluble lot. Here hoping I can add to the mayhem ;-) My Pentax history goes back 13 years (I'm only 27). It started with a little ps I was given as a birthday present. All through high school I used the K1000. I had a brief laps in judgement for about a year and had a Minolta SRT Super g. On a trip to Canada in '93 I picked up a Z-20 (PZ-20), which has served me well until November last year when I got an *ist D. For those of you interested in putting a face to the name: Oooh, Oooh, his is imprinted in gold, I want mine to be imprinted in gold, (and it has a gold shutter release too). Ok, so that was childish, but I feel better now, really. http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/Me.htm and some of my pic's are here (images between 50-200 kb): Nice some nice photos there. I wish I could get my macros to come out that good. http://au.msnusers.com/OzSavage/shoebox.msnw Any comments criticisms more than welcome Anywho, Happy Australia Day to all the Aussies. And a special thanks to Thibouille for the Gmail invitation. David Savage -- 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: Chimping????
If I dood it, I get a wippin'... I dood it. But, what about the implied offense of comparing Humans and Chimps to journalists... Cotty wrote: On 25/1/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed: When a big gaggle of journalists does that, it sure looks like chimpanzees looking over something (no offence meant to chimpanzees, by comparing them to humans!), all in unison... I think the addition of the exclamations (oooh, oooh, ooh, oooh) that one also hears, helps the satirical vision 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: PESOS on a snowy day
In a message dated 1/24/2005 9:41:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course comments are welcome... There are eight thumbnails here at this click - so it will load fast. They are all people I know or knew from slightly to very well. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459913 ann = Nice gallery, ann. The only one that appears weak to me (read as ordinary) is the Pinar Yolacan one. I especially like the Alfred Butts and Dave Shulman one. Nice. Marnie aka Doe (Post resent.)
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
In a message dated 1/24/2005 10:36:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All, Interesting debate. I'm going to step back a little bit and touch on what grain gives an image rather than worrying about how it is created. To my eye, grain increases contrast at a microscopic level, increasing accutance and adding a crunchy texture to smooth areas. I think that the effect also smooths out tonal gradients at a macrosopic level. One way I like to use this effect is to lower contrast at the macroscopic level to render detail in shadows and highlights while adding the punch that comes with the high accutance and crunchy texture. Now, grain can be created in an image in many ways. First, you can use an inherently grainy film. You can also accentuate grain through careful choice of exposure and film development process (i.e., chemicals, temperature, and time). You can also add grain at the printing stage by using, for example, lith or other alternative processes. Finally, you can add or accentuate grain in digital images in many different ways via Photoshop. It seems to me that there is little go be gained in arguing about the merits of the method used to create an effect. If I see an effect I like and want to use it in my own work, does it matter what technique I use to get to my desired result? I'm much more interested in the results-- what does the effect do to the image? Does it strengthen it or merely create a distraction? Thoughts? --Mark Not many. :-) I really hadn't given grain a great deal of thought before (except in thinking about paper). Don't know enough about photography or BW. So not sure about contrast, etc. But maybe grain is sometimes more intriguing to the eye. Engages it more than a completely smooth, cartoon :-) image might. The eye does like having something to do when viewing an image (like following diagonals/leading lines). Was that a worth while thought? Marnie aka Doe :-) (Post resent.)
Re: PESOS on a snowy day
Jerome Reyes wrote: Ann, Is that who I think it is? yup :) ann
Re: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
Seems to me that there are conditions when traveling that would warrant one type of kit versus another. When there is nothing adverse (weather, crime, etc), a digital kit can be much easier to deal with. Use AA lithium batteries and either shoot jpg or carry a storage bank. No dealing with film through the airports, no dealing with not having the right type/speed of film, etc. If going to a place where battery power will be a major problem (2 sets of AA lithiums will give you a couple thousand frames), then consider a film kit. If it will be raining on you all the time, take a sealed camera - film or digital. I think we get caught up in the hypothetical area of what COULD happen instead of what WILL happen when planning these things. The reality is that most of us don't really travel in those extreme conditions, so frankly, any kit would work - based on what we own and like. Those who do travel in the extreme areas probably already have themselves outfitted for that. A close friend of mine travels the world - about 3 major trips per year (retired and rich) and has always carried a Nikon DSLR and has never had a lick of problem doing so. So, in conclusion, outside of extremes, any kit will do just fine. Whatever you like and enjoy. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 12:48:25 AM, you wrote: GD Hmm. GD I've carried digital cameras exclusively since 2002 on my GD travels and not had a single problem with them. From visiting GD Japan, to Australia, to the UK, to Paris, to Singapore, to GD Brazil, to Mexico, to London and points east in the British GD Isles. They're no more liable to be stolen than either my Hassy GD or Leica or Nikons were, no worries about film through the GD airport, etc. GD Carry enough battery and memory, a backup storage device. Carry GD a decent bag that will keep them from getting soaked in rain. GD And don't worry about it, just take proper care and take GD pictures as normal. GD Godfrey GD __ GD Do You Yahoo!? GD Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around GD http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: Chimping????
In a message dated 1/25/2005 5:58:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 24/1/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: I forgot to mention: Digital Canon users do it far more than users of other equipment. LOL All taken in my stride, FRANK. ;-) Cheers, Cotty == Hey, Cotty, what does he know? After all, he still uses FILM! Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: New Member
Original message Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:07:55 +0800 From: David S [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks Graywolf, Could be worse, it could be taken over by poms ;-) too late Christian
Re: Fw: PENTAX *istDS FIRMWARE UPDATE VERSION (1.01)
also available on the Pentax USA website http://www.pentaximaging.com/customer_care/show_firmware? firmId=3 christian
Re: Calibrating for CCD/CMOS noise
I've uploaded some samples, so you can see what it was like. Here's one with noise reduction turned on: http://www.oksne.net/lyn/lyn_med_nr.jpg And a 1:1 detail from around the lightning: http://www.oksne.net/lyn/lyn_med_nr_detalj.jpg Here's one without noise reduction: http://www.oksne.net/lyn/lyn_uten_nr.jpg And a 1:1 detail: http://www.oksne.net/lyn/lyn_uten_nr_detalj.jpg The shot with NR is f/9, 30 s, at ISO 400. The shot without NR is f/10, 30s, at ISO 200. Conversion from raw file done with photoshop CS. I believe the noise would have shone through even with a wider aperture. What do you think? Jostein - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:44 AM Subject: Re: Calibrating for CCD/CMOS noise how noisy was the non-flashed part of the image without NR enabled? i would guess that the reflected light from clouds and so on would overwhelm the noise signal. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Calibrating for CCD/CMOS noise Last summer I tried to photograph lightning flashes. With the dark-frame subtraction (DFS) on, I lost half the thunderstorm. Of course, with the precision of Murphy's Law, all the best lightnings happened during DFS. :-)
Re: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
In a message dated 1/25/2005 9:35:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, in conclusion, outside of extremes, any kit will do just fine. Whatever you like and enjoy. -- Best regards, Bruce = Until, of course, the whole world plunges into a severe electrical shortage (remember how fragile the power grids in the US are, for instance). Then, because energy is severely rationed world-wide, home processing becomes almost impossible for the amateur/hobbyist. At which point we have to go back to using mechanical film cameras. Just thought I'd throw that in there. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: SMC FA-28-90
Hello Toralf, Fed Widall uses one, he should comment Best, Bernd -- Toralf Lund Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:59:33 -0800 Has anyone tried the FA28-90, i.e. this one, I would assume: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/FA28-90f3.5-5.6.html ? Just found a used one for sale, and I've considered getting myself another short(ish) zoom after I did a little trick involving my 28-80 and superglue, that means I no longer have one in fully working order (more about that later, perhaps...) - Toralf
Re: New Member
In a message dated 1/25/2005 5:27:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: and some of my pic's are here (images between 50-200 kb): http://au.msnusers.com/OzSavage/shoebox.msnw Any comments criticisms more than welcome Anywho, Happy Australia Day to all the Aussies. And a special thanks to Thibouille for the Gmail invitation. David Savage Welcome to the list! Some nice photos there. I especially like Clock Bit and Customs Building. Remember, now that you have declared yourself, you no longer have the option of lurking and must immediately plunge into some of the livelier threads. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: PP: Digital Grain
When I saw some digital (D100) and 35mm film (some Fuji slides I think, couldn't get more details) prints exposed in a gallery in several cases I liked the digital result better (they were cleaner, which imho would have worked well for some portraits). In other prints however the film grain wasn't intrusive, but the reflection from the uncoated glass was. I don't know if that's the best both mediums could do (I doubt it), but I was amazed at the quality one can get from both 6MP DSLR and 35mm slides - and can't wait to see a real, large format print :) Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:51:28 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally when I hang a show, I group photos based upon aesthetics and theme, not necessarily anything to do with how they were produced. So in some cases, my matted and framed all-digital inkjet photos get hung right next to scanned film-inkjet and wet-lab produced prints. People often ask how a particular photograph was made. The most telling comment, from what seemed a fairly knowledgeable individual, that came back was, Hmm. From film, you say? That's mighty good for a film image. ;-) Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: Travelling *istD/DS (was:Digital anguish)
JB But if it has to put up with changes from -10 to +50 degrees many times JB during a day, it's a totally different story. JB People who are wearing glasses know what I'm talking about! Of course for that, you usually keep the camera in the bag, until it tempers. One or two hours is usually enough. Of course fully sealed camera like the pro versions would be better for this, and it was one thing I liked on the LX. Or use a Leica ;-) Good light! fra
Re: PESOS on a snowy day
In a message dated 1/25/2005 9:34:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jerome Reyes wrote: Ann, Is that who I think it is? yup :) ann = The painting? Marnie aka Doe
Re: SMC FA-28-90
Yes, I do. It came as the kit lens with my MZ-7. I've never done any testing of it, but I find it just fine for my needs. Popular Photography reviewed it back in August 2002. http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2article_id=362 -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall -- On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bernd Scheffler wrote: Hello Toralf, Fed Widall uses one, he should comment Best, Bernd
Re: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Actually I don't mind biased news as long as the bias is acknowledged. Graywolf wrote: Slanting (editorializing news articles) has been going on since the first broadside was printed. Anyone who doesn't realize that is pretty gullible. Actually it is pretty hard to write anything without your own biases creeping in, so it is not always deliberate. You used to (40-50 years ago) be able to get a pretty neutral idea of the news by reading the city's competing daily newspapers and comparing them to each other, but those have pretty much disappeared. I use to listen to Radio Havana and Radio America, and figured the truth was someplace in between the two on the international front. Now I almost never listen to or read the news. That helps with the ulcers. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter J. Alling wrote: It's that way in the US but with some papers opinion has been creeping into what's supposed to be simply factual news for years. Michael Heim wrote: Interesting point: in german media (and german speaking switzerland) opinions are marked as commentary or Opinion in most newspapers or newsmagazines. -- 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: Travelling *istD/DS
If Pentax would do that with the LX we'd be able to do away with medium format gear entirely... (Ducking and running for cover... Note to self: must invest in asbestos shorts). Graywolf wrote: BTW has anyone noticed that Hassleblad now has a 16mp back for the old style (V) cameras? Haven't seen a review on it but I believe it comes with its own portable harddrive. Only $9975 (grin). Add a $750 used 500C kit and you have a nice fully manual MF digital camera. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 25 Jan 2005 at 9:16, Peter Smekal wrote: Well, that was enlightening Jens. It seems to be better after all to stick to film cameras as serious travelling gear. I have a portable hard drive storage unit which will allow me to store around 6500 shots, it is far more convenient (and far cheaper) than lugging around 180 135/36 films. It can also charge my AA cells for the camera plus it has a universal switch mode supply and 12V car lighter adaptor cable. It can also be very easily mounted without software on most any computer with USB interface so that back-ups can be made en-route at any so equipped cyber cafe. I've used the *ist D in light rain and had no problems, I generally just have it slung over my shoulder whilst bush walking and even after some good thumps it functions flawlessly. I have no problems making it my (serious) primary travel camera. It will be coming to Ireland with me next trip which would likely be Christmas (cold and wet). 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 -- 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: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! === We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains, as yet, undiscovered. The observer affects the observed. Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If there is no external reality then there is no observed. Many people claim that there is no external reality - everything is a product of their mind. However, they all act consistently with the belief that there is an external reality. For example, by emailing people to claim that there is no external reality, you act as though you believe there is at least one mind out there who can read your email. In making your claim you refute it. Similarly, when you leave your flat to go outside, you demonstrate that you believe there is a flat to be inside, and there is an outside to go to. When you hesitate before crossing the road you show that you believe there is a road to cross, that cars and trucks go very fast on it, and that they have the power to crush you. Somebody who truly believed that there was no external reality would be unable to do any of these things. That's why I said earlier that their behaviour would be indistinguishable from insanity. During the Red Terror in Ethiopia, the killers in Mengistu's death squads took a dislike to 'pointy-headed intellectuals'. Just before they shot them, they would say 'and this, my friend, is the objective reality'. The idea that the observer affects the observed is a piece of folk-philosophy nonsense from quantum theory which is meaningless at the level we live at. -- Cheers, Bob
