Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?

[Wilko Bulte]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 12:07:40AM +0100, Jens Bladt wrote..
> Many brand names have been reused as names for products that have nothing to
> do with the original brand/manufacturer. Trading companiers, that have no
> production anymore or have no real realations with the original brand buy
> old names. Exakta, Contax, Voigtländer - are examples - to mention a few. I
> believe ther's a market for just "names". When a manufacturer closes down,
> they can make a profit by selling or licensing their name/brand.
> 
> A Cosina named Porst is still not a Porst, just a Cosina with "borrowed"
> name tag.
> 
> BTW, I may be confusing Alpha (made by Zeiss) with Acra Swiss, a large

Arca Swiss, not Acra Swiss.

-- 
Wilko

Re: teleconverters

[John Whittingham]

> I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility to 
> put a teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not?

The Sigma EX converters were actually optimised for a zoom lens originally, 
the 70-200 f/2.8 EX.

John


-- Original Message ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:51:49 EST
Subject: Re: teleconverters

> In a message dated 2/7/2005 6:09:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better 
> > results than 
> > a 2x.
> 
> Thanks for all the great input, everyone! I want to do some more 
> research, but I'm starting to lean towards a 7-element Kenko. I 
> think when I get my D back from the shop, I might buy the 1.4x and 
> the 2x and test them both with the zoom I plan to use them with. I'm 
> going to ask around but my lens might be too new for anyone to have 
> tested it much.
> 
> Thanks,
> Amita
> ===
> Just a general sort of question to anyone willing to answer.
> 
> I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility to 
> put a teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not?
> 
> Marnie aka Doe
--- End of Original Message ---

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[John Francis]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused:
> 
> In a message dated 2/7/2005 10:17:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The first outing was a Muir Woods and Pt. Reyes.  There was another at Pt.
> Reyes as well, yes?
> 
> Shel 
> 
> Yup, last year. I got some half-way decent shots. I think buildings, maybe a 
> mission, might be a nice change of pace.
> 
> Marnie aka Doe 
> 

This is a gallery I put together after the first PDML trip to Nuir Woods:




Here's a page I've just created showing a few shots from the three
San Jose locations I've suggested as possible photo opportunities:

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[John Francis]

Royal Gold 25 was another pretty nice Kodak emulsion, too.
Some claimed it was the consumer version of the Pro Ektar 25.
It's been discontinued for around five years, though.

Guess what I'm planning to put in my MZ-S for our field trip :-)

Bruce Dayton mused:
> 
> That has got to be one of the saddest things about the film issue -
> discontinuing such great films like that.  Almost like Kodak wanted to
> dig an early grave.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Monday, February 7, 2005, 11:35:13 PM, you wrote:
> 
> SB> Dug out some old negs t'nite and found a few rolls that had been shot 
> using
> SB> Kodak's Extar 25.  My, oh my, what a nice film.
> 
> 
> SB> Shel 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[John Francis]

Bruce Dayton mused:
> 
> John,
> 
> I'll put you on the list.  I really hope that you'll be able to make
> it.
> 
> So is Sonoma too far away for everyone or
> should we put that on the list of potential places?
> 
> Bruce

The last two trips have been North of the Golden Gate;
why don't we try for something a little further South this time?

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[John Francis]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused:
> 
> wild flowers on Mt. Diablo (not sure how many there are in early March)

Not really a plausible NorCal PDML meet, but apparently the high
rainfall means there will be some spectacular desert blooms in
Death Valley this year.   I'm seriously considering taking two
or three days off and heading out there.   Anyone else interested?

Re: PESO - Jet Trail

[Keith Whaley]

You're right, Bruce. Also called a sweet gum.
I have one in my back yard, with a double trunk. Lovely all year 'round, 
but in the fall, it's spectacular!

keith whaley
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Thanks, I believe the tree is called a Liquid Amber.

Re: teleconverters

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Well, I'm selling off my Canon gear and have both the 70-200/4L
and 300/4L IS as well as the 1.4x Extender II. If you're
interested in any of those bits, let me know. 

Godfrey

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sheesh, my parade is rained on.
> 
> But thanks for the info.
> 
> Sigh. One of these days I'll just have to break the bank and
> get some long glass.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?

[keller.schaefer]

Porst is not my primary brand of interest but I still think that what has been
said do far does not do this name justice.

Porst certainly is one of the great names in the German photo industry since the
twenties, although he - to my knowledge - never actually made cameras. However,
he had many, many cameras made to his specs before WWII (not just rebadged) and
has played his part as the largest (by far) retailer (mainly mail order) before
and after the war. Porst is and always was a 'West-German' company. They
imported Japanese as well as east German (GDR) cameras.
Since the late eighties Porst is no longer family owned and the brand has since
then changed ownership several times.

Sven


Zitat von Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Many brand names have been reused as names for products that have nothing to
> do with the original brand/manufacturer. Trading companiers, that have no
> production anymore or have no real realations with the original brand buy
> old names. Exakta, Contax, Voigtländer - are examples - to mention a few. I
> believe ther's a market for just "names". When a manufacturer closes down,
> they can make a profit by selling or licensing their name/brand.
>
> A Cosina named Porst is still not a Porst, just a Cosina with "borrowed"
> name tag.
>
> BTW, I may be confusing Alpha (made by Zeiss) with Acra Swiss, a large
> format Swiss camera - portable large format, great for landscapes etc. I was
> reviewed in Outdoor Photographer a couple of years back.
>
> Jens Bladt
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>
>
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Raimo K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 7. februar 2005 22:30
> Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Emne: Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?
>
>
> I wrote: "IIRC the later SLRs were rebadged Chinons." Do you have
> difficulties in reading?
> And by "later" I do not mean fifties SLRs which were indeed made in DDR like
> the pictures clearly show. Try to find some info concerning the eighties,
> for
> instance. Here is one sample:
> http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4702&item=3872139519&r
> d=1
> Looks like the still later ones were made by Cosina - and maybe by some
> others as well. Porst filed for bankruptcy in 2002.
> And there was no Swiss camera by the name Alpha, it was the prestigious
> Alpa, made by Pignons SA, no connection with Porst whatsoever.
> All the best!
> Raimo K
> Personal photography homepage at:
> http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 10:18 PM
> Subject: RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?
>
>
> > Rebadged Chinons - in the GDR (German Democratic Republic) in the fifties?
> > Come on! I seriously doubt it!
> > They were from Dresden:
> >
> http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=8275&item=3871653324&r
> > d=1
> >
> http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=8275&item=3871653324&r
> > d=1
> > In this last add it actually says it's baugleich (built like/the same as)
> > a
> > Praktica (Pentacon, Dresden, DDR)!
> >
> > This one even has a Praktica lens!
> >
> > Jens Bladt
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
> >
> >
> > -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> > Fra: Raimo K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sendt: 7. februar 2005 20:52
> > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Emne: Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?
> >
> >
> > No, it is just a trading company, rebadging only, no manufacturing
> > facilities anywhere (?). IIRC the later SLRs were rebadged Chinons.
> > All the best!
> > Raimo K
> > Personal photography homepage at:
> > http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 9:32 PM
> > Subject: RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?
> >
> >
> >> Yes, German company. I seem to remember a connection with Swiss "Alpha",
> >> but
> >> I'm not shure.
> >> Perhaps realated to DDR kameras from the Dresden manufacturers, Pentacon,
> >> Ihagee, Zeiss Ikon etc
> >> Anyway, look:
> >> http://www.praktica-collector.de/134_Porst_reflex_FX2.htm
> >> http://www.praktica-collector.de/162_Porst_FX4.htm
> >>
> >>
> >
> http://search.ebay.de/porst_Porst_W0QQcatrefZC12QQcoactionZcompareQQcoentryp
> >
> ageZsearchQQcopagenumZ1QQfromZR2QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQftrtZ1QQftrvZ1QQsaatsZ77QQ
> >> sacatZ4702
> >>
> >> All the best
> >> Jens Bladt
> >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
> >>
> >>
> >> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> >> Fra: Wilko Bulte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sendt: 7. februar 2005 08:36
> >> Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >> Emne: Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 08:44:44PM -0500, Larry Cook wrote..
> >>> I have run across a 135/1.8 lens for Pentax K mount that I have never
> >>> heard of. It is a Porst. Porst I believe is a German camer

Re: PESO - Jet Trail

[Cotty]

On 7/2/05, Bruce Dayton, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I was playing baseball with my son as the son was starting to go down.
>I ran in the house and got the camera and two lenses.  This shot was
>taken with the *istD and Tokina ATX 400/5.6 AF handheld - working on
>those techniques that "Steady Stenquist" shared with us.
>
>http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1130.htm

I really like it Bruce, nice composition.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, keller.schaefer wrote:

> Porst is not my primary brand of interest but I still think that what has been
> said do far does not do this name justice.

Any comments on the Porst 55/1.2? What is its provenance, given that
it was not them who made it?

Thanks,

Kostas

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[Pat K]

John,

Very nice panorama of the Japanese Friendship Garden. Can you tell us how that
was done?

Pat in SF

--- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>This is a gallery I put together after the first PDML trip to Nuir Woods:
>
>
>
>
>Here's a page I've just created showing a few shots from the three
>San Jose locations I've suggested as possible photo opportunities:
>
>



__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

--- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I wouldn't suggest trying to photograph *inside* the museum.
> But it's in a public park, which doesn't require anything
> special.

Hmm, I'm not sure about the "public park" business. Far as I'm
aware, the grounds are all owned by the museum. 

Regardless, though, I saw someone mentioned Alcatraz. That I'd
love to do! 

Godfrey

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: PESO - Jet Trail

[Paul Stenquist]

Nice shot. The foreground silhouette is a nice way of making it more 
interesting. It looks quite sharp and steady to me. Good work.
Paul
On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:57 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:

Where I live (Sacramento, California), we don't get beautiful snowy
winters - mostly just fog and rain.  But sometimes, the clouds and sun
work together to provide some really nice sunsets.
I was playing baseball with my son as the son was starting to go down.
I ran in the house and got the camera and two lenses.  This shot was
taken with the *istD and Tokina ATX 400/5.6 AF handheld - working on
those techniques that "Steady Stenquist" shared with us.
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1130.htm
ISO 400, 1/1500 @ f9.5 - Converted in C1 to Tiff and sized/sharpened
for web.
--
Best regards,
Bruce

Re: RE: Copyrighting Public Space?

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/02/08 Tue AM 12:27:57 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: Copyrighting Public Space?
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that you cannot stop someone from 
> photographing outside in a public area.  If it were truly on private 
> grounds, that's another matter.
> 
> I also don't see what copyright is being protected.  Were I to make a 3-d 
> replica of the sculpture and then try to sell  it, that's one matter.  But I 
> don't understand how a photograph would impinge on copyright.  I assume the 
> sculptor wishes the item to be seen... he erected it in a public park.  I 
> assume he knew it would be photographed as well.  I don't see how capturing 
> reflected photons from the item is harmful to copyrights.
> 
> What about any piece of architecture, building, etc.?  They were all 
> designed by someone...
> 
> More politically correctness BS.

My first thought would be: "How much is the artist paying to have public 
servants work for him/her?"




-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
 - virus-checked by McAfee -
 visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
 

Re: PESO - Jet Trail

[Paul Stenquist]

Ah, one of my favorite shade trees. They're quite prevelant on the east 
coast where they're known as Liquidumbar or Sweet Gum. Unfortunately, 
they're not hardy enough for Michigan.
Paul
On Feb 8, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:

Thanks, I believe the tree is called a Liquid Amber.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, February 7, 2005, 9:59:32 PM, you wrote:
DS> Excellent shot Bruce. Totally irrelevant question,  What sort of 
tree is that?

DS> Dave S
DS> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:57:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton
DS> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Where I live (Sacramento, California), we don't get beautiful snowy
winters - mostly just fog and rain.  But sometimes, the clouds and 
sun
work together to provide some really nice sunsets.

I was playing baseball with my son as the son was starting to go 
down.
I ran in the house and got the camera and two lenses.  This shot was
taken with the *istD and Tokina ATX 400/5.6 AF handheld - working on
those techniques that "Steady Stenquist" shared with us.

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1130.htm
ISO 400, 1/1500 @ f9.5 - Converted in C1 to Tiff and sized/sharpened
for web.
--
Best regards,
Bruce

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Mat Maessen]

I haven't been photographing long enough to mourn those two, but I am
still mourning the passing of Supra/Royal Gold 100. Very nice film,
that...
Anybody still got a few rolls in the fridge? :-)

-Mat


On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 03:28:08 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Royal Gold 25 was another pretty nice Kodak emulsion, too.
> Some claimed it was the consumer version of the Pro Ektar 25.
> It's been discontinued for around five years, though.
> 
> Guess what I'm planning to put in my MZ-S for our field trip :-)
> 
> Bruce Dayton mused:

RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?

[keller.schaefer]

Kostas,

probably a 6-element Cosina lens as it was offered by Porst together with Cosina
made cameras.
I have found only one other reference to a 1.2/55 lens and that points towards
Vivitar - but Vivitar never made lenses themselves.
According to the Vivitar lens numbering code, a "9" as the first digit means it
was made by Cosina (see http://www.cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm). So if
your 'Porst' lens number begins with a 9 and if it follows the same numbering
system...

Regards,

Sven


Zitat von Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, keller.schaefer wrote:
>
> > Porst is not my primary brand of interest but I still think that what has
> been
> > said do far does not do this name justice.
>
> Any comments on the Porst 55/1.2? What is its provenance, given that
> it was not them who made it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kostas
>
>

RE: FA 50 f1.4 est mort. Vive FA 50 f1.4!

[Pål Jensen]

Joseph wrote:

I wonder if it will take Pentax 8 to 10 years to bring out a full series of D 
FA primes. It can't be good for their business if they do. I wonder how many of 
Pentax's 300 R&D employees (thanks to Alan Chan for that figure) are working on 
D FA lenses?



REPLY:

Ken Takeshita more than hinted awhile back that Pentax was working on a 
"digital friendly" version of the 50/1.4 lens. Quite obvious it is a D FA lens. 
If the stock of the old one is depleted, the new one shouldn't be far away. 
After all, the new D FA macro lenses where released shortly after the stock of 
the old ones was empty.
The number of 300 R&D empoyees seems a bit odd to me as a japanese newspaper 
printed a few years back (was it 2 years?) that Pentax was increasing the 
number of R&D employees in digital alone with 300 persons. 


Pål

Pentax Pro DSLR (WAS: RE: Spotted on another group ...)

[Pål Jensen]

Jens wrote:

I doubt Pentax will aim at a pro-level DSLR. I Pentax wanted to, they would
have manufactured the full frame MZ-D.
I guess what we might see from Pentax will be a 8-10Mp prosumer DSLR. Pretty
much like the *ist DS, but with more MP's.



REPLY:

In my opinion they have to. The MD-S (that was its intended name) was shelved 
not because Pentax reconsidered the idea of making a "pro-level" DSLR, but 
because it simply wasn't competitive (Mind you, I'm certain Pentax and others 
have had several DSLR's in the pipeline that was shelved at the last minute due 
to the volative state of sensor prices).
Pentax have been making pro cameras from about 1968, regardless of what 
definition you choose for pro-level, so I cannot see why they should stop now. 
Pentax have labeled at least six different bodies as "pro-grade" since 1968 and 
they have sold hundreads of thousand, perhaps approaching a million in sales. 
For digital, having an upgrade path is far more important than it ever was for 
film slrs as higher end for digital is directly related to image quality. Even 
in the pre digital age every SLR manufacturer that concentraded on value for 
money are out of (this) business. The likes of Petri, Fujica, Konica, Mamiya 
etc went away for good reasons. A DSLR manufacturer who will strictly make 
entry level to prosumer DSLR's are evn worse off, and will face a downward 
spiral into oblivion. The Nikon D70 outsell all Pentax DSLR by a factor 
probably somewhere in the area of 5-10 times, and it is not because it is five 
to ten times the camera.  
If it is indeed correct what Herb cites that Pentax will increase their focus 
on DSLR at the expensve of compact cameras, it can only mean in my opinion a 
wholehearted approach. The once profitable compact camera sector is now under 
far more competitive pressure than it ever was when film cameras dominated; now 
seeing the attention of the electronic giants. The SLR sector (and lets not 
forget that until about 20 years ago Pentax was an SLR only camera 
manufacturer) is basically wide open with only two dominant players in an 
increasing market sector. Pentax is still a venerable SLR manufacturer but the 
large potential for Pentax is only there if they offer in due course a complete 
line-up. 

Pål 

Pentax Software Update

[Cotty]

Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Shel Belinkoff]

And guess what I found in the fridge a few weeks ago:  that roll of RG25
you gave me at Sears Point a couple of years back ;-))

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: John Francis
>
> Royal Gold 25 was another pretty nice Kodak emulsion, too.
> Some claimed it was the consumer version of the Pro Ektar 25.
> It's been discontinued for around five years, though.
>
> Guess what I'm planning to put in my MZ-S for our field trip :-)

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Shel Belinkoff]

It's a shame that a whole generation of photographers will never know the
joy of emulsions like Ektar 25, Panatomic-X,  RG25, Agfa APX-25, and other
similar emulsions.  

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Mat Maessen 

> I haven't been photographing long enough to mourn those two, but I am
> still mourning the passing of Supra/Royal Gold 100. Very nice film,
> that...

Re: PESO: Bizarre Architecture...

[Albano Garcia]

Better later than never :-)
Thanks for comments. I think he didn't smoked
anything, he was simply crazy...
Regards

Albano

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> In a message dated 2/2/2005 5:17:53 AM Pacific
> Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Albano Garcia wrote:
> > > Hi gang,
> > > This is a building built in the 30s by a freak
> > > architect called Salamone. He came to Argentina
> > and
> > > convinced government to build several public
> > buildings
> > > in very small towns (3000 inhabitants). He built
> > > cemetaries entries, cityhalls and
> slaughterhouses.
> > All
> > > were huge and pastiche, out of scale in their
> > > enviroments.
> > > This is a cityhall:
> > > 
> > > http://www.flaneur.com.ar/18.htm
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > =
> > > Albano Garcia
> ===
> I am playing catch up with PDML. Whew, what a
> building! Thanks for sharing.
> 
> I wonder what he smoked?
> 
> Marnie aka Doe 
> 
> 


=
Albano Garcia
Photography & Graphic Design
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
http://www.flaneur.com.ar
 
 

 






__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 

RE: Yummy Ektar 25

[J. C. O'Connell]

I believe the reason that the recent Kodak 25 speed emulsions
were discontinued was they were able to make signifigant improvements
in the 100 emulsions to the point that the 25 was obsolete and they
were unable to make the corresponding improvements in the 25's so
goodbye 25. The films that came out at same time of 25 ending were
gold 100, royal gold 100, and supra 100. I think the current film
"Bright Sun" (100, damn tacky name). is most likely as good as any
100 they ever made and probably matches those old 25s too.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Mat Maessen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:05 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Yummy Ektar 25


I haven't been photographing long enough to mourn those two, but I am
still mourning the passing of Supra/Royal Gold 100. Very nice film,
that... Anybody still got a few rolls in the fridge? :-)

-Mat


On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 03:28:08 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 
> Royal Gold 25 was another pretty nice Kodak emulsion, too. Some 
> claimed it was the consumer version of the Pro Ektar 25. It's been 
> discontinued for around five years, though.
> 
> Guess what I'm planning to put in my MZ-S for our field trip :-)
> 
> Bruce Dayton mused:

RE: Yummy Ektar 25

[J. C. O'Connell]

Its also a shame that the great photographer of the past generations
never got a chance
to use the great emulsions of TODAY. There are far more great films
today
that ARE available that werent back in the day than great films of the
past
that arent available today. Im not saying nothing from the past is
missed
or doesn't have a modern counterpart, but there arent many and there are

whole landfills of long gone inferior emulsions we don't have to live
with
any more...I certainly wouldn't trade all of today's films for films of
20, 40, or 60
years ago.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:10 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Yummy Ektar 25


It's a shame that a whole generation of photographers will never know
the joy of emulsions like Ektar 25, Panatomic-X,  RG25, Agfa APX-25, and
other similar emulsions.  

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Mat Maessen

> I haven't been photographing long enough to mourn those two, but I am 
> still mourning the passing of Supra/Royal Gold 100. Very nice film, 
> that...

RE: Yummy Ektar 25

[Shel Belinkoff]

The great photographers of the past who haven't had a chance to use
contemporary emulsions are dead.  They won't miss the new emulsions.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell 

> Its also a shame that the great photographer of the past generations
> never got a chance to use the great emulsions of TODAY. 

RE: Yummy Ektar 25

[Shel Belinkoff]

I think the reason is in great part because of the huge prevalence of
slow-speed zoom lenses that practically required faster film.  Had Kodak
wanted to improve slower speed emulsions they could have.  The money,
however, was elsewhere. 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell 
>
> I believe the reason that the recent Kodak 25 speed emulsions
> were discontinued was they were able to make signifigant improvements
> in the 100 emulsions to the point that the 25 was obsolete and they
> were unable to make the corresponding improvements in the 25's so
> goodbye 25. The films that came out at same time of 25 ending were
> gold 100, royal gold 100, and supra 100. I think the current film
> "Bright Sun" (100, damn tacky name). is most likely as good as any
> 100 they ever made and probably matches those old 25s too.

Re: Pentax Pro DSLR (WAS: RE: Spotted on another group ...)

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Pål Jensen wrote:

> Pentax is still a venerable SLR
> manufacturer but the large potential for Pentax is only there if
> they offer in due course a complete line-up.

Pål,

When you write something, I always make a point of reading it. I don't
know what you mean by line-up, but to me (as an observer) the biggest
drawback that Pentax has at the moment as an option is that it does
not offer a complete system. Even Olympus has a better lens line-up. I
have been asking for years: where is the 70-200 (equivalent) midrange
lens, to (now) match the 16-45? I do not believe you can lure new
customers by pointing them to ebay for a used F70-210/4-5.6 or
A70-210/4.

To me this exudes lack of commitment.

Kostas

PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window

[Rick Womer]

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102193

Last January my wife and I had lunch in the old
section of Zurich, and this was the scene through the
window.  There are some hazy reflections from the
glass; it's too bad Photoshop doesn't have a
polarizing filter!  I took it with my 33L because
there wasn't nearly enough light for the 100-speed
film in my PZ-1p, especially with a polarizing filter!

Comments and (especially) tricks to avoid such
flare-like reflections welcome.

Rick



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 

Re: Pentax Pro DSLR

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

All I can say is that if Pentax releases a new DSLR with the
size, ergonomics and design integrity of the *ist DS, uprated to
a more robust build spec, with improved speed and performance,
and with the same or better image quality, I'll be beating down
their door to buy it. I like the camera, the lenses a lot. 

This camera has already taken over for nearly all my picture
taking needs, to the point where most everything else is on the
way to being sold. I'll soon want to buy a second body for
backup. I'm just waiting to see if there's an improved follow-up
to the D/DS in the next few months before springing for another
body.

Godfrey



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Re: PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window

[Kenneth Waller]

>"it's too bad Photoshop doesn't have a
>polarizing filter!"

Why not try using a polarizer with your 33L?
I occasionally use one with my Optio.

After the fact, I suppose you could clone out the reflections in PS

Nice capture by the way.

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 8, 2005 10:57 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102193

Last January my wife and I had lunch in the old
section of Zurich, and this was the scene through the
window.  There are some hazy reflections from the
glass; it's too bad Photoshop doesn't have a
polarizing filter!  I took it with my 33L because
there wasn't nearly enough light for the 100-speed
film in my PZ-1p, especially with a polarizing filter!

Comments and (especially) tricks to avoid such
flare-like reflections welcome.

Rick



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 




PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Henri Toivonen]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It's a shame that a whole generation of photographers will never know the
joy of emulsions like Ektar 25, Panatomic-X,  RG25, Agfa APX-25, and other
similar emulsions.  

Shel 
 

That's what I'm feeling, as a newbie photographer. Started photographing 
a bit more seriously about a year ago, so I missed all these.
I tried to buy some APX25 on a Swedish online auction buy I got sniped 
in the last min.

If anyone wants to donate a roll or two of these films, I'll happily 
accept. ;-)

/Henri

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Wilko Bulte]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 07:10:22AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote..
> It's a shame that a whole generation of photographers will never know the
> joy of emulsions like Ektar 25, Panatomic-X,  RG25, Agfa APX-25, and other
> similar emulsions.  

Go and buy some Efke 25 or Efke 50.  They are *neat*...

-- 
Wilko

Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "Wilko Bulte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Arca Swiss, not Acra Swiss.
Be careful about spilling words, I'd say...
nietsoJ

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Bill D. Casselberry]

"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:

>  I think the current film "Bright Sun" (100, damn tacky name). 
> is most likely as good as any 100 they ever made and probably 
> matches those old 25s too.

No, it doesn't

Bill

PAW: Enter?

[frank theriault]

Yeah, I know, the title hoovers.  If you can do better (which you
undoubtedly can), any suggestions will gratefully be considered.

In the meanwhile, let me know what you think:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102348&size=lg

Utilizing the rather narrow dof at f1.2 ...

cheers,
frank
-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window

[Rick Womer]

Thanks, Kenneth.  Holding my polarizer in front of the
33L made the shutter speed way to slow to hand-hold;
the day was much darker than the photo shows.

--- Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >"it's too bad Photoshop doesn't have a
> >polarizing filter!"
> 
> Why not try using a polarizer with your 33L?
> I occasionally use one with my Optio.
> 
> After the fact, I suppose you could clone out the
> reflections in PS
> 
> Nice capture by the way.
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Feb 8, 2005 10:57 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102193
> 
> Last January my wife and I had lunch in the old
> section of Zurich, and this was the scene through
> the
> window.  There are some hazy reflections from the
> glass; it's too bad Photoshop doesn't have a
> polarizing filter!  I took it with my 33L because
> there wasn't nearly enough light for the 100-speed
> film in my PZ-1p, especially with a polarizing
> filter!
> 
> Comments and (especially) tricks to avoid such
> flare-like reflections welcome.
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
>   
> __ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> All your favorites on one personal page – Try My
> Yahoo!
> http://my.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
> 
> 




__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[John Mullan]

I just realized that I didn't sign my name to the note indicating an 
interest in the gathering.  I'm John.

John C. Mullan
Exit Realty Advantage
(707) 837-7111
- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: NorCal PDML Outing


In a message dated 2/7/2005 8:08:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Pat K mused:
Where abouts are the NorCal people situated? Sounds like
Bruce is in the Sacramento area and John somewhere in the South Bay?
Pat in SF
Correct - I'm actually in San Jose.  Then there's Shel (Berkely?),
Marnie, and a fairly recent list addition in the Walnut Creek area;
I hope she stuck around and is considering attending.
===
So far, those speaking up:
Bruce Dayton -- Sacramento
Marnie Parker -- Walnut Creek
John Francis -- San Jose
Shel Belinkoff -- Berkeley
Pat in SF -- San Francisco
kd2l? -- Sonoma
There are also two recent additions to PDML:  Phantom Queen 
(Berkeley/Oakland
border), and John Celio (Walnut Creek), who have not yet made any comment.

So, yes, we are all in Northern California, but fairly widely scattered, 
so
it makes it a bit hard to figure out where to meet.

http://missions.bgmm.com/
Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Mat Maessen]

the"bright sun 100" film is the Gold 100 emulsion. Not the same as
Royal Gold/Supra 100,  which were ostensibly replaced by Royal Supra
200.
Having shot all three films, the RS200 may be a technically better
film in terms of resolution, but it renders colors differently, and
has quite a bit more contrast than the 100 speed films. And those two
qualities are what I liked about Supra 100.

-Mat

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:28:54 -0500, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the reason that the recent Kodak 25 speed emulsions
> were discontinued was they were able to make signifigant improvements
> in the 100 emulsions to the point that the 25 was obsolete and they
> were unable to make the corresponding improvements in the 25's so
> goodbye 25. The films that came out at same time of 25 ending were
> gold 100, royal gold 100, and supra 100. I think the current film
> "Bright Sun" (100, damn tacky name). is most likely as good as any
> 100 they ever made and probably matches those old 25s too.
> JCO

Re: A few PUG Comments

[frank theriault]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:10:16 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Blue Girl by Frank Theriault
> 
> Interesting shot. Red and blue. I like the streaky overlay on the girl --
> makes it a semiabstract portrait and it makes you take a second look.
 

Thanks, Marnie!


-frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Graywolf]

One of the things that I notice people doing is letting the cops make law.
We fought a war to prevent that and other things. But we are letting the cops 
make all kinds of laws that have no existance except in their minds. 
Unfortunately us little people do not have the funds to fight back and get the 
courts to set them straight. Presently we have federal laws that violate several 
of the amendments to the consitution. (I have noticed that those who wish to 
control others are able to interpet those amendments in ways that no one who 
understands the English language could possibly interpet them however.)

If that is a temporary display by the generousity of the artist then the artist 
has the right to protect her designs, but if the city paid for them and allowed 
her to retain those rights. Then the people of that city needs to fire a bunch 
of wasters of the tax payers money.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
Folks,
I'm behind on my list reading so I don't know whether this has 
already been discussed, but just in case it hasn't ... :


	"The Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist 
	Warren Wimmer's attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor's 
	sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as 'the Bean'). 
	When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the 
	sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that 
	they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that 
	it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to 
	photograph public art in a city-owned park."

The explanation (they're protecting the _artist's_ copyright) makes 
some sense to me as well, but the "guards will stop you if you try
to take photos in public" aspect still feels ... troublingly odd.

-- Glenn


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005

Re: teleconverters

[ernreed2]

Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Well, I'm selling off my Canon gear ...

Oh, my goodness!
After sadly seeing a few PDMLers go over to the "dark side," it's so 
refreshing to hear of the reverse happening!!

;-)

ERN

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[Mark Erickson]

Bruce, 

I've been lurking too long--put me on the list, too.  I'm in Sacramento 
(East Sac, to be exact).  Regarding location, I propose that we go somewhere 
interesting (of course), but also slightly exotic.  SF itself is 
interesting, but it is so over-photographed that I don't consider it exotic. 

I would love to go to San Juan Bautista 

--Mark

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Graywolf]

You have that one right, Cotty. If you use a tripod, you are defacto a 
commercial photographer,unless you are in a college town where you then are a 
student doing an assignment(grin). If you do not use a tripod you are a 
obviously only a snapshooter.

BTW many cities do have anti-tripod laws on the books. They claim they are 
traffic control measures. In such a city you do need a permit to set up a tripod 
on public property. Note: that is to set up a tripod, not to take photos.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
The photographer referred to above was daft to set up his tripod - if
he's shot hand-held, nobody would have batted an eyelid. get away with
what you can - publish and be damned!

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Graywolf]

per Dr Wayne Dyer.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Tom C wrote:
RULE # 1:
NEVER TAKE A 'NO' ANSWER FROM SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO 
SAY 'YES'.

WOOF.
Tom C.

From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:37:14 -0600
It's what happens when you give a small mind an equally small bit of 
authority.
Sadly, people will shut up and go away rather than exercising their 
rights. No one wants a confrontation, and so the small minds get bolder.
It's the same mechanism that makes dogs bark at people on the other 
side of a fence.

William Robb




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005

Re: PESO - Jet Trail

[frank theriault]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:57:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where I live (Sacramento, California), we don't get beautiful snowy
> winters - mostly just fog and rain.  But sometimes, the clouds and sun
> work together to provide some really nice sunsets.
> 
> I was playing baseball with my son as the son was starting to go down.
> I ran in the house and got the camera and two lenses.  This shot was
> taken with the *istD and Tokina ATX 400/5.6 AF handheld - working on
> those techniques that "Steady Stenquist" shared with us.
> 
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1130.htm
> 
> ISO 400, 1/1500 @ f9.5 - Converted in C1 to Tiff and sized/sharpened
> for web.
> 

Very cool!

Love the way the trail bisects the frame, the lovely muted sky
colours, the silhouette of the bush with the berries.  Nice
composition.

What's not to like?Very well done.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Yves Caudano]

At 00:13 8/02/2005, you wrote:

In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish night 
pictures of the citadel and of the bridges on the rivers nearby (all public 
space and the city landmarks) because the artist who designed the lighting 
claims he has a copyright on it. He won in court against a local photographer 
if I remember correctly.

Examples of copyrighted views would be: 
http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=misc&pic=13 and 
http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=misc&pic=14

I find very disturbing that it is not allowed to take pictures of the main 
cityscape at night.

Yves

--
Yves Caudano, Namur, Belgium

Photography website: http://www.yvescaudano.be
Physics website: http://physics.yvescaudano.be

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Tom C]

Yeah, him as well. :)
Tom C.

From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:22:52 -0500
per Dr Wayne Dyer.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Tom C wrote:
RULE # 1:
NEVER TAKE A 'NO' ANSWER FROM SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO 
SAY 'YES'.

WOOF.
Tom C.

From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:37:14 -0600
It's what happens when you give a small mind an equally small bit of 
authority.
Sadly, people will shut up and go away rather than exercising their 
rights. No one wants a confrontation, and so the small minds get bolder.
It's the same mechanism that makes dogs bark at people on the other side 
of a fence.

William Robb




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Tom C]

OK PDML Police, it's time to turn this guy in!
Both very beautiful pictures, Yves.
Yeah, that decision is ridiculous.  Just think if God copyrighted the night 
sky.

Tom C.

From: Yves Caudano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:30:14 +0100
At 00:13 8/02/2005, you wrote:
In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish 
night pictures of the citadel and of the bridges on the rivers nearby (all 
public space and the city landmarks) because the artist who designed the 
lighting claims he has a copyright on it. He won in court against a local 
photographer if I remember correctly.

Examples of copyrighted views would be: 
http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=misc&pic=13 and 
http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=misc&pic=14

I find very disturbing that it is not allowed to take pictures of the main 
cityscape at night.

Yves
--
Yves Caudano, Namur, Belgium
Photography website: http://www.yvescaudano.be
Physics website: http://physics.yvescaudano.be

Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?

[Gonz]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with
external reality. A common mistake.

I'm intrigued.  Since you brought it up, what's the difference?  This
isn't a trap, I really don't know.
cheers,
frank
===
There are consensual shared truths (families, nations, political parties). 
But not going to get into that.

True:  In accordance with the actual state of affairs. Being that which is 
the case rather than what is manifest or assumed.

Well, some people believe there are hard and fast universal objective truths. 
Right? And some people also feel those truths can be found in external 
reality. That they exist independent of us, just laying out there waiting to be 
discovered.


 My original statement was that we always perceive reality through the filter 
of our own world view, our own experience, our own lens -- whatever you want 
to call it. 

How can we not? We are inside ourselves, looking out.
Are you confusing belief with reality maybe?  What we perceive, what we 
believe, and what is reality may be 3 different things.  But it would be 
very strange to think there is no reality without a perception of it or 
a belief of it.

So how do you know what's true? What's a universal objective truth out there 
in reality? Are you sure? Or is it something someone else told you? Let's take 
scientific truths. Don't they change all the time? Isn't that what someone 
else told you? (Or did you do experiments in the lab to prove it? :-)) And don't 
scientists disagree all the time? And, even now, don't they not know how some 
basic things work? So what is scientific truth?

Again, I think that what we believe and what is reality are two 
different things.  If we didn't exist, then do these realities go away? 
 This would mean that the world and everything we know would go away as 
soon as we die.  So why is everything still here, yet people have died.
Take political truth -- George Bush, I think he is the worst President, the 
worst thing to happen to the US in my life time. Others thing he is an okay 
guy. I also think, no, he isn't our President, that he only apparently won by 
fraud and lying, but he didn't actually win (in the previous election). Others 
think he did win.

You don't think he's the President because you don't believe he won? 
Does that alter reality?  It is only your perception.  But is there a 
fact here:  The person signing the bills presented by congress is who? 
If its not George Bush, then who is signing these bills?  Who lives in 
the White House?  John Kerry?  Is it John Kerry because you believe it 
should have been John Kerry, so now in your perception/belief he lives 
there? Is 1 + 1 = 2?  Or is this simply what you believe.  Is it false 
because I do not believe that 1 + 1 = 2?
What's true, what I believe, or what they believe?
If you think there are hard and fast truths out there that you can discover, 
you believe there are some immutable facts. You believe that things don't 
change. That our perception of them doesn't change. That cultures doesn't change 
truths. That science doesn't change truths. That we don't change truths 
sometimes just by our very existence, and our investigations.

Aren't simple mathematical facts true and immutable?  And you can build 
up these facts into more abstract concepts that can be reduced to these 
basic mathematical truths.  Just because our 
understanding/belief/perception of the universe is not complete, and we 
are constantly revising our theory about its composition, does not imply 
that there is no basis in reality for it.  If this was the case, then 
all theories would be false.  Including the one that says that there is 
no reality.

Assuming we can perceive reality untainted by our own perspective is rather 
presumptuous. IMHO.

This is true, our senses and sensibility is limited.
We are not "god like" with the ability to be totally impassive. To stand 
outside ourselves.

And I can't explain it any better than that. And I don't want to. That's it.
I also said, I don't believe we have discovered the nature of reality yet.
And it may never be discovered, but I detect a hint of acknowledgement 
that there is a fundamental reality here.

As a postscript -- debating rules are silly, because they have a person take 
one side and another person take another side. And somehow by debating, the 
"truth" is supposed to emerge. When maybe to the person on one side, that is 
their truth, and to the person on the other side, that is their "truth." No 
amount of arguing is going to change that. Debating doesn't arrive at truths, it 
just sometimes arrives at a winner and loser (if both sides agree to abide by 
debating rules). The winner is just the most persistent and articulate. See, 
there is a presumption that by arguing, one side will see the logic of the other 
side, and "give way." But maybe

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space?


OK PDML Police, it's time to turn this guy in!
Both very beautiful pictures, Yves.
Yeah, that decision is ridiculous.  Just think if God copyrighted 
the night sky.
There are two aspects of copyright that have to be taken into account 
when considering whether one is guilty of infringing on someones 
rights.
One, if course, is has a copy been made.
It strikes me as somewhat absurd that a two dimensional rendering of 
a three dimensional object can be considered a copy in the eyes of 
the law.
A three dimensional rendering (a model for example) would be a good 
example of breach of copyright of a three dimensional object.
The other thing that must be accounted is commercial gain.

Copyright law is there to prevent someone from making commercial gain 
off someone else's work. If there is no commercial gain, there is no 
injury to the creator of the peice, and hence copyright doesn't enter 
into the equation.

Add to that, common law dicates that anyone may photograph anything, 
provided the photography is being done on/from public land.
In addition, taking the belgian example, his lighting is owned by a 
government, one would presume.
Contrary to popular belief, governments are not self owned entities 
(at least not in democratic countries, what happens in a dictatorship 
is different). Govenments are owned by the people who elect them, and 
support them with their taxes.
What the government buys is, in fact, owned by the citizens of that 
government.

I submit that if you are stopped from photographing a publicly owned 
artifact which resides on public property, and you are photographing 
from a public place, then you are living in a dictatorship, no matter 
what you may happen to think about your government, and the little 
game called election that they let you play every few years.

William Robb 

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Tom C]

William Robb wrote:

I submit that if you are stopped from photographing a publicly owned 
artifact which resides on public property, and you are photographing from a 
public place, then you are living in a dictatorship, no matter what you may 
happen to think about your government, and the little game called election 
that they let you play every few years.


Exactly the point of episode four of the "The Prisoner", entitled "Free for 
All".

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or 
numbered. My life is my own... I am not a number. I am a free man."

Tom C.

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[John Francis]

Godfrey DiGiorgi mused:
> 
> 
> --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't suggest trying to photograph *inside* the museum.
> > But it's in a public park, which doesn't require anything
> > special.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure about the "public park" business. Far as I'm
> aware, the grounds are all owned by the museum. 

Well, I've never had any problem there.  They encourage folks to
just wander around the grounds, even if not visiting the museum.

Perhaps if we all wandered as a group, there *might* be an issue.
But four or five individuals?  That seems unlikely to me.
 
> Regardless, though, I saw someone mentioned Alcatraz. That I'd
> love to do! 

I'm not sure I'd want to visit Alcatraz this early in the year.
 
> Godfrey
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Raimo K]

Back in the USSR.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
- Original Message - 
From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space?


One of the things that I notice people doing is letting the cops make law.

Re: teleconverters

[jtainter]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=197&b=29&a=65_437&shs=&ci=278&ac=&Submit.x=16&Submit.y=9&Submit=Go

-
Bruce, these are all the older models, not the new models from Kenko and Tamron 
that Jens referred us to with this link:

http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm#Overall%20results

These new ones don't seem to be available yet (ever?) in Pentax autofocus 
mount, except that Adorama has the Tamron 1.4x version.

At $550 the A 2.0x L is just too expensive for a TC.

Joe

Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 9:49:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you confusing belief with reality maybe?  What we perceive, what we 
believe, and what is reality may be 3 different things.  But it would be 
very strange to think there is no reality without a perception of it or 
a belief of it.
=
Don't think I said that. But what we believe may affect reality.

I don't want to discuss this:  1.) I don't have time. 2.) With difficult 
concepts, it takes me a long time to verbalize what I mean -- or verbalize 
effectively enough that I know I am making my conceptualization come across 
clearly. 
3.) I don't turn my verbalizations of difficult concepts into writing easily. 
It takes a lot of pain and effort on my part to write that kind of thing down 
effectively. See 3. 4.) I don't have time. 5.) I don't need my belief system 
to be nailed down in every small detail for my own satisfaction. My belief 
system is coherent enough for me, and I do not need for anyone else to believe 
it 
and I do not need to defend it.

6.) Read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra instead of trying to debate me.

7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net). I've been 
involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly usenet -- 
"conversations" to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also think debate 
about religion/politics/belief systems to be fairly pointless.

HTH!, Marnie aka Doe 

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 10:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure I'd want to visit Alcatraz this early in the year.
==
Truthfully, I really wouldn't either. The beginning of March, the weather is 
likely still to be too iffy to be that near the water. Or too cold.

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: PAW: Enter?

[Peter J. Alling]

You're right, the shot is interesting, but the title hoovers...
frank theriault wrote:
Yeah, I know, the title hoovers.  If you can do better (which you
undoubtedly can), any suggestions will gratefully be considered.
In the meanwhile, let me know what you think:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102348&size=lg
Utilizing the rather narrow dof at f1.2 ...
cheers,
frank
 


--
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: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Tom C]

Graywolf wrote:

One of the things that I notice people doing is letting the cops make law.
We fought a war to prevent that and other things.
Which war was that?  I thought most wars fought are to prevent abroad what 
is implicitly sanctioned at home.  :)

Police, prosecutors, judges are all part of the same arm of the law, are 
they not?  The system is set up in a way that allows the system to wield 
excessive power over the individual.  It's only if the individual has enough 
guts and resources to fight, that the system is checked.  Unfortunately that 
doesn't happen often enough.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the freedoms we 
presently have, but I'm a little cynical in this regard.

If you've seen the 60's cult series 'The Prisoner', you probably know what I 
mean.  Throughout the whole series, the prisoner (Patrick McGoohan) is kept 
isolated in a small village, never really sure who his captors are.  In the 
end, he is released.  But one can't help concluding that the village was 
simply  a microcosm of the world at large and that we're all prisoners of a 
system that wants us to believe we are free, because it's easier to keep us 
enslaved that way.

Of course I realize there are big differences between different governments 
and countries... nevertheless...

Tom C.

Re: PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window

[Peter J. Alling]

Frank will like it.
The flare doesn't really detract much from the photo. It might have been 
better with a polarizer, or it might just have been different.
I think it evokes a time a place quite nicely as it is...

Rick Womer wrote:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102193
Last January my wife and I had lunch in the old
section of Zurich, and this was the scene through the
window.  There are some hazy reflections from the
glass; it's too bad Photoshop doesn't have a
polarizing filter!  I took it with my 33L because
there wasn't nearly enough light for the 100-speed
film in my PZ-1p, especially with a polarizing filter!
Comments and (especially) tricks to avoid such
flare-like reflections welcome.
Rick
		
__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.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: PAW: Enter?

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:53:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102348&size=lg

Utilizing the rather narrow dof at f1.2 ...

cheers,
frank
===
I like it, frank. The context, the framing, etc. BUT... in this case I'd like 
*something* in focus -- either the screen, the hand, or the girl. Sorry. 

LOL.

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[frank theriault]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:13:48 -0500 (EST), D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I'm behind on my list reading so I don't know whether this has
> already been discussed, but just in case it hasn't ... :
> 
> 
> 
> "The Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist
> Warren Wimmer's attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor's
> sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as 'the Bean').
> When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the
> sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that
> they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that
> it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to
> photograph public art in a city-owned park."
> 
> The explanation (they're protecting the _artist's_ copyright) makes
> some sense to me as well, but the "guards will stop you if you try
> to take photos in public" aspect still feels ... troublingly odd.
> 

Okay, I've read the responding posts (that have shown up ) to this
original one, and here's what I understand about this rather sticky
issue (as it pertains to most Common Law Countries).  As with all of
my opinions, I reserve the right to be absolutely mistaken about what
I say, and invite and encourage those in the know to refute my post in
whole or in part.

Now, we have several intersecting and possibly conflicting issues here.

First of all, there's the public versus private space thing.  That's
not as simple as it sounds, because there are now privately owned
"quasi-public" spaces, such as shopping malls and privately owned
gardens and plazas adjacent to, for instance, office buildings.

Generally speaking, if you're in a private space, you can be asked to
leave by the owners or their authorized agents.  They don't need a
reason.  If they (or their principals) own it, they can ask you to
leave.

If you're in a public space, basically, you can't be asked to leave or
move along, unless you're breaking the law.

It's those quasi-public spaces, the privately owned spaces wherein the
public are clearly invited to enter and enjoy, that are more
problematic.  It may be that whilst you can be asked to leave, it
can't be for arbitrary or capricious reasons (however, this may vary
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).  FWIW, were it me, I'd ask any
security guard or other grunt-like creature for the basis of his
authority.  The owners can't just give their agents carte blanche to
boot out anyone they please.  There really should be clear and
unambiguous guidelines available, not just boilerplate "and whomever
the security guard deems from time to time to be an undesirable
element who bugs his ass" sort of thing.

I've changed the minds of such power-hungry demi-humans who've asked
me to stop shooting (in Toronto's BCE Place, to be exact), by pointing
out that many tourist-types were taking photos with impunity with
little point and shoot cameras, so why ask me to stop?  They responded
that I looked like a "pro", and the area had been copyrighted.  I
simply pointed out that I was shooting a Pentax, and they backed right
off!   Seriously, I told them that I was merely an
enthusiastic hobbyist with 20 year old equipment, I assured them that
I was shooting for my own enjoyment and not for commercial gain, and
they backed right off.

Which segues nicely into the next issue:  Copyrighting of Public
Buildings/Space/Art

Basically, most if not all public art is copyrighted.  A newer trend
is emerging, whereby the owners of buildings, especially iconic,
well-known ones, are copyrighting their buildings'/spaces' image.  So,
AFAIK, the Empire State Building and (I think) the Chrysler Building
in New York have now been copyrighted, along with many other such
spaces.  Most newly constructed large public buildings are copyrighted
from the outset.

This is because images of such places have been used for commercial
gain without compensation by so many photographers and other artists.

What I understand it to mean is that no one can stop you from
photographing those places, or even reproducing those photos.  They
can stop you from publishing them for financial gain.  Technically, I
suppose that means that if I took a pic of the Empire State Building,
I couldn't turn around and sell it on eBay, or through my website, or
anywhere else.  But, of course, there's the issue of enforcement. 
What are the chances that I'll be caught, or that they'd even care
that some schmuck from Toronto is selling pix of their building at $20
a pop?  Probably not much.

Realistically, it means that I can't start the "Empire State
Drycleaning Company" and use an image of the building on the side of
my delivery trucks.  Especially if my company is in NYC.  That they'll
stop.

So, in answer to the initial question, Wimmer should have been allowed
to photograph the Bean.  They really can't stop him.  Whether he can
then publish or sell those ph

Re: PAW: Enter?

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:37:36 -0800 (PST), Bourgeois Marnie opined:

> I like it, frank. The context, the framing, etc. BUT... in this case I'd like
> *something* in focus -- either the screen, the hand, or the girl. Sorry.
> 
> LOL.

The right edge of the screen is more in focus than much of the rest of
the image.  That's enough for me.  

Seriously, the edge of the stainless steel table behind the laptop is
nicely focused to my eye.  Of course, that's not what I was going
for...  

Thanks for the comment, Marnie.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PAW: Enter?

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:36:42 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right, the shot is interesting, but the title hoovers...
> 

I know it hoovers.  I didn't ask you to merely confirm that.  I asked
if anyone had any suggestions as to a better (non-hoovering) title. 


Thanks anyway for your comment.  

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 10:41:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, in answer to the initial question, Wimmer should have been allowed
to photograph the Bean.  They really can't stop him.  Whether he can
then publish or sell those photos is a whole different issue, but
that's beyond the security guards' purvue.

cheers,
frank
==
Thanks, frank. Good talking points (i.e. arguing points if it ever happens to 
me).

Marnie aka Doe  Interesting discussion.

Re: PAW: Enter?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Frank ...
 
Saw your recent PAW when cruising the archives.
 
Interesting idea but perhaps the execution is a bit flawed. It would be
nice to see what's on the computer screen. I tried to raise the info in PS
but couldn't :-((. 
 
The narrow focus was a good idea, but the focus is, imo, a bit off. The
area behind the screen seems to be sharper than the keyboard. I ~think~ the
pic would have had more punch had the screen and keyboard been in
harmonious focus. IAC, nothing appears to be "critically" sharp.
 
I like the idea and the shot overall, though.
 
 
Shel 

Re: PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:57:32 -0800 (PST), Rick Womer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102193
> 
> Last January my wife and I had lunch in the old
> section of Zurich, and this was the scene through the
> window.  There are some hazy reflections from the
> glass; it's too bad Photoshop doesn't have a
> polarizing filter!  I took it with my 33L because
> there wasn't nearly enough light for the 100-speed
> film in my PZ-1p, especially with a polarizing filter!
> 
> Comments and (especially) tricks to avoid such
> flare-like reflections welcome.
> 

Bikes are always good.  Especially old-school lugged steel framed ones
like that one.  Lovely!

I like the contrast of the bright red bike against the greys and
browns of the rest of the frame.  I like the tilted sidewalk.  It kind
of looks like everything's a bit off kilter, which is fine by me. 
Interesting look.

I like it.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PAW: Enter?

[Bob W]

Hi,

Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 4:51:47 PM, frank wrote:

> Yeah, I know, the title hoovers.  If you can do better (which you
> undoubtedly can), any suggestions will gratefully be considered.

here's a few:
http://archive.salon.com/21st/chal/1998/02/10chal2.html

> In the meanwhile, let me know what you think:

> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102348&size=lg

Nice picture.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: PESO: Through a Zurich restaurant window

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:38:51 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank will like it.

Am I that predictable?  

-frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[Bob W]

Hi,

> In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to
> publish night pictures of [...]

> I find very disturbing that it is not allowed to take pictures of the main 
> cityscape at night.

there is a world of difference between publishing pictures, and simply
taking pictures.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[Ryan Brooks]

Yup.  

I've got family members who worked at Kodak.   Ektar was killed due to 
cost/line consolidation.

What a wonderful film.   Royal Gold 25 was equivalent.
(still got several hundred rolls of APX25 in 35 and 120 in the fridge, 
though)

-Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:10 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Yummy Ektar 25

It's a shame that a whole generation of photographers will never know
the joy of emulsions like Ektar 25, Panatomic-X,  RG25, Agfa APX-25, and
other similar emulsions.  

Shel 

 


 

Re: PAW: Enter?

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 10:51:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
here's a few:
http://archive.salon.com/21st/chal/1998/02/10chal2.html

> In the meanwhile, let me know what you think:

> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102348&size=lg

Nice picture.

-- 
Cheers,
Bob

Hehehehehehehehehe.

I wouldn't mind getting a few of those error messages instead of what I do 
get.

Marnie aka Doe   Hehehehehehehe. 

Re: teleconverters

[Bruce Dayton]

Joe,

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were talking about the newer "Pro"
versions.  My understanding is that only the Sigmas are available in
Pentax mount and the Sigmas only fit certain lenses.

If you don't need AF in the converter, KEH has a couple of 2X-L's for
about $160.

Bruce


Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 10:19:43 AM, you wrote:

j> 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=197&b=29&a=65_437&shs=&ci=278&ac=&Submit.x=16&Submit.y=9&Submit=Go

j> -
j> Bruce, these are all the older models, not the new models from
j> Kenko and Tamron that Jens referred us to with this link:

j> http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm#Overall%20results

j> These new ones don't seem to be available yet (ever?) in Pentax
j> autofocus mount, except that Adorama has the Tamron 1.4x version.

j> At $550 the A 2.0x L is just too expensive for a TC.

j> Joe

Re: PESO - Jet Trail

[Rolling Red]

Beautiful!
I am such a "city girl", who often looks at vistas wondering: "pretty,
so what..?"
I think your pictures start answering my question.

cheers,


On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:57:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> ...
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1130.htm
> 
> ISO 400, 1/1500 @ f9.5 - Converted in C1 to Tiff and sized/sharpened
> for web.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Bruce

-- 
Patricia Pawlak
http://www.neisthai.blogspot.com

PESO: Saturday

[Juan Buhler]

Last Saturday I spent some time in Chinatown in San Francisco (it
helps that I live about six blocks from it,) enjoying the crowds and
the new year celebrations.

http://www.jbuhler.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=2

(ist D @ISO800, FA35/2)

BTW, I shot a bit that day with the Industar 50/3.5, a 39mm mount film
for the very first Zenit SLRs. There's something about shooting a
digital SLR with a lens made in 1959!  I like that lens, it has low
contrast but nice bokeh. I'll need to lubricate it a bit because
focusing is stiff, though.

Also, I'm testing a new photoblog software. I think it does a nice job
of simplifying and presenting a clean page. Comments on this (and the
picture) welcome.

j

-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

Re: PESO - Jet Trail

[Juan Buhler]

That is an excellent interpretation of a jet trail, Bruce. I really like it.

Very good eye.

j


On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:57:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where I live (Sacramento, California), we don't get beautiful snowy
> winters - mostly just fog and rain.  But sometimes, the clouds and sun
> work together to provide some really nice sunsets.
> 
> I was playing baseball with my son as the son was starting to go down.
> I ran in the house and got the camera and two lenses.  This shot was
> taken with the *istD and Tokina ATX 400/5.6 AF handheld - working on
> those techniques that "Steady Stenquist" shared with us.
> 
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1130.htm
> 
> ISO 400, 1/1500 @ f9.5 - Converted in C1 to Tiff and sized/sharpened
> for web.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 


-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

PAW/PESO: The Tim Hamel Trio

[frank theriault]

Bike courier by day, jazz band leader by night:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102712&size=lg

I was going to wait a couple of days on this one, but since a couple
of people (quite accurately) noted my missed focus on the last one, I
thought I'd show that I can, from time to time at least, nail it! 
(and there's even lots of really OOF stuff in the frame to make me
happy)  

Comments always encouraged.

thanks,
frank  
-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PAW: Enter?

[Juan Buhler]

It seems like I'm still losing messages--I only saw the answers to
this, never your initial post, Frank.

I like this one a lot. As Shel says, maybe the focus could be a bit
better, but it doesn't bother me too much. The way she's out of focus
and the computer is in focus makes the picture, I think.

j


-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

lol ... I love taking pictures in fog and just after rain. Cold
doesn't bother me too much, as long as I'm prepared for it. But
then again, I am the person who would prefer to live on an
island in the Irish Sea. ;-)

Regards the Egyptian, it's probably an "ok" place to shoot as
long as you don't make a pest of yourself. I don't know what
they'd think about tripods, though, and people setting up for
precise work. 

Whatever ... There are so many places in the greater SF Bay Area
to go make photographs. How about coastal places, like Pigeon
Point, Davenport, etc? Or wandering further afield ... I would
love another expedition to Point Lobos. Or I could spend (will
spend...) weeks in SF downtown, North Beach, The Castro, the
Presidio, etc. 

As of the end of this month, my present contract work is over
and I'm back to full time photography again. I also have a nice
little Land Rover which can seat five in a pinch, with plenty of
space to carry photo gear in the back. So there are always
options, even for those who might not want to do so much driving
themselves... ;-)

Godfrey


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/8/2005 10:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm not sure I'd want to visit Alcatraz this early in the
year.
> ==
> Truthfully, I really wouldn't either. The beginning of March,
the weather is 
> likely still to be too iffy to be that near the water. Or too
cold.




__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 

Re: PESO: Saturday

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:24:15 -0800, Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last Saturday I spent some time in Chinatown in San Francisco (it
> helps that I live about six blocks from it,) enjoying the crowds and
> the new year celebrations.
> 
> http://www.jbuhler.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=2
> 

Yeah!

Really like this one.  Very cute kid, but the look of apprehension on
her face is what makes it, along with the indifference on the other
faces.  Love the old guy in the background;  it's as if he's looking
"right through" you.

Beautifully framed.

Great street shot.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Copyrighting Public Space?

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:56:48 +, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> there is a world of difference between publishing pictures, and simply
> taking pictures.
> 

Precisely!

Another thing to remember, is that the laws vary (often significantly)
from country to country, and often even within a country.

Generally, but not always, the laws tend to be more relaxed in Common
Law countries (ie:  those whose system of law is based on the English
Common Law system) than those based on the European Continental
System.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

OT: Film is dead

[Daniel J. Matyola]

But Costco is running a special on film  and slide scanners:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=10039838&whse=&topnav=&cat=&s=1

Re: Day at the beach.Funny Paw

[frank theriault]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:16:26 +0100, Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The real reason salt "melts" ice is that the affinity of water to salt
> ions is greater than the affinity towards other water molecules. So
> the salt grabs the water away from the ice crystal grid.
> 
> So there...:-)
> 

Thank you, Professor Oksne...



cheers,
frank (seriously, I never knew how or why salt melts ice - now I do)


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Day at the beach.Funny Paw

[frank theriault]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:11:19 +0100, Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Marnie, it apparently lowers the temperature snow and ice melts, as
> IIRC salt water has lower freezing point. Apart from that, it damages water
> reserves, is not much good for the environment and destroys your
> leather shoes in no time ;-) That's why I dislike having to be in a
> city during the winter with its melting snow slush... Not mentioning
> that is looses all the beauty of snow filled streets ;-)
> 

I ~hate~ the crap!

Here in Toronto, it's used as a substitute for proper snow-plowing. 
We salt the streets to melt the snow until two inches have fallen, and
only then bring out the snow-plows.

It makes the streets giant slush pits.  I know, I ride my bike through
the crap all winter long.  It works well below -25C, and let me tell
you, wet feet at that temperature is no fun.

Funny thing is, it's easy to drive on hard packed snow.  When I was a
kid in Montreal, they sanded the streets, not salted.  It worked great
for traction on icy bits and hard-packed snow, and was much more
environmentally friendly - not perfect, but better.

It seems that here in Ontario, Canada, the salt lobby is particularly
strong (we have huge salt mines in Windsor, Ontario, right across the
river from Detroit, Michigan).  They make much more money off salt for
highways than for table (eating) salt.

Oh yeah, good pic, Dave.  I got some (being developed) of the 20 foot
high ice cliffs on Lake Ontario a couple of weeks ago.  Hope they turn
out as good as yours.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Yummy Ektar 25

[mike wilson]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It's a shame that a whole generation of photographers will never know the
joy of emulsions like Ektar 25, Panatomic-X,  RG25, Agfa APX-25, and other
similar emulsions.  
But Shel, you haven't been paying attention this last few years.  All 
those "effects" can be "emulated" in digital.  Just ask around...

8-)))

Re: PESO -- Canon Girl Becomes Coffee House Girl

[frank theriault]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:48:26 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems the subject of a couple of my latest pesos has gotten a job at
> the local coffee house...
> So Cannon Girl has become Coffee House Girl.
> 
> The main purpose for this image is to see what I can do with my Vemer
> 12mm f8 fish-eye.
> First I'll describe the lens, it's a solidly built early 1970's
> ultrawide.  T-mount, which means
> that you lose nothing in operation when using it on the *ist-D.
> Program, Tv and Manual modes
> all work as expected.  This is designed for use on a 35mm camera as a
> semi-circular fisheye
> which makes it a full frame fisheye on an APS sensor.
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_cgbchg.html
> 
> This is a surprisingly good lens, it is however no SMC-P 17mm Fisheye.
> Nothing is exactly sharp, the
> lens depends on DOF for focus, there is no focusing helical, and at f8,
> it's widest aperture, as you can see
> even in the reduced size photo for the web only the center portion of
> the frame really looks in focus.  There
> is also a pronounced color fringing that becomes worse the further from
> the center of the frame you look.  I'm
> not sure if this comes from chromatic aberration of from poor color
> correction.  Still this lens and it's sisters,
> (made by Sigma and sold under a number of different names, from the mid
> 1960's to mid 1970's), seem to be the
> only full frame fisheye solutions available to those of us shooting the
> *ist-D and maybe even the Canon and Nikon
> APS frame digitals.
> 
> Technical Data
> Pentax *ist-D ISO 1600 shutter 1/10sec
> Vemer Fish-eye ultra-wideangle 1:8 f=12mm @ f8
> 
> As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored.
> 
> --
> 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

That's in interesting shot.  I like the way you've got the salesgirl
(sorry, salesperson) off in the corner, seeming quite small and
insignificant (but quite an important part of the photo).  The blank
look on her face is quite telling.

One thing that I like about my fisheye, is that people have no idea
they're in the frame, as they're 45 degrees or more from the centre
axis of the lens.  Easy to catch them unawares.

Yup.  I like it a lot.  Good shot, fun lens.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

PAW PESO - Trombone

[Shel Belinkoff]

Frank's pic of the trumpet player reminded me of a photo of a trombonist. 
This guy's a member of a jazz band comprised of older, retired guys who
play various venues around the Bay Area, mostly outdoors and off the back
of their old, restored truck.  Here's the trombonist:  

http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/trombone.html

and a quick snap of the whole gang:

http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/group.html


Shel 

Re: NorCal PDML Outing

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 11:49:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
lol ... I love taking pictures in fog and just after rain. Cold
doesn't bother me too much, as long as I'm prepared for it. But
then again, I am the person who would prefer to live on an
island in the Irish Sea. ;-)

Regards the Egyptian, it's probably an "ok" place to shoot as
long as you don't make a pest of yourself. I don't know what
they'd think about tripods, though, and people setting up for
precise work. 

Whatever ... There are so many places in the greater SF Bay Area
to go make photographs. How about coastal places, like Pigeon
Point, Davenport, etc? Or wandering further afield ... I would
love another expedition to Point Lobos. Or I could spend (will
spend...) weeks in SF downtown, North Beach, The Castro, the
Presidio, etc. 

As of the end of this month, my present contract work is over
and I'm back to full time photography again. I also have a nice
little Land Rover which can seat five in a pinch, with plenty of
space to carry photo gear in the back. So there are always
options, even for those who might not want to do so much driving
themselves... ;-)

Godfrey
=
B. I would much prefer doing something like that from late May on. Then 
it would sound good. :-)

Yeah, I am a wimp.

No, reason, though we couldn't get together again more than once this year. 
We could discuss another outing when we meet.

Marnie aka Doe   My .20 again. (Inflation.)

Re: PAW/PESO: The Tim Hamel Trio

[Rolling Red]

It's a nice setup, but I wish the bottom of the trumpet head didn't
scrape the lower frame.
Be it either more in, or more obviously cut. A wider lens would
accentuate the frontal "trumpet in your face" effect. But, that's only
me..

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:38:26 -0500, frank theriault
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bike courier by day, jazz band leader by night:
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102712&size=lg
> 

-- 
Patricia Pawlak
http://www.neisthai.blogspot.com

Re: PESO - Falls

[frank theriault]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:53:14 -0800, Bruce Dayton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I took my daughter, Erin, out shooting Saturday afternoon.  We went
> somewhere that neither of us had been before.  Quite a pretty area and
> we had a good time.  I'll try to post some of hers soon (have to scan
> them - she is shooting film with an MX).
> 
> Pentax *istD, ISO 400, FA 135/2.8, tripod
>1/4 sec @ f32
> 
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1114.htm
> 
> Converted to TIFF in C1 - converted to jpg and sized/sharpened for web - no
> other post processing.
> 
> --

It may be just me, but I've tried this url a couple of times now, and
it keeps timing out.  Anyone else have this problem or is it just me?

Maybe it's a high-traffic time.  I'll try again later.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PAW PESO - Trombone

[Shel Belinkoff]

BTW, the trumpet player is blind ...

I may put up another little snap as I know Paul might like a better shot of
the old truck.

Yes, I deserved that one, but then, I'm so bourgeois 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: frank theriault

> I wish the background were a bit more in focus, and the bell of his
> horn were a bit more OOF .  (you deserved that one...   -
> private joke, to all you listers).
>
> Seriously, I like it.  Good photo.  
>
> The snap of the band works, too.
>
> cheers,
> frank 
>
>
> -- 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PAW PESO - Trombone

[Keith Whaley]

The heck with the pictures... I'd love to HEAR them!  
What a team!
keith
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Frank's pic of the trumpet player reminded me of a photo of a trombonist. 
This guy's a member of a jazz band comprised of older, retired guys who
play various venues around the Bay Area, mostly outdoors and off the back
of their old, restored truck.  Here's the trombonist:  

http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/trombone.html
and a quick snap of the whole gang:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/group.html
Shel 

Re: PESO -- "Cat Portrait"

[frank theriault]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:27:41 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just in case some of you thought I only shot portraits of girls and
> dogs, here's something a little
> different, or not depending on your point of view...
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_catportrait.html
> 
> Technical Information:
> 
> Pentax *ist-D ISO 800 shutter speed 1/30th
> SMC-Pentax M 85mm f2.0 @ f2.0
> 
> This by the way is my brothers baby.  He's the reason that my dog is
> banned to the car whenever I visit, so he won't be frightened.
> (He's spoiled rotten too).


Patches (my cat) doesn't like it, but she doesn't really like other
cats much.  That's why it's so much fun living in a house with 4 cats.

Frank (Patches' staff) likes it.  Everything works.  Well executed
portrait, regardless of the species.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO: Saturday

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 11:26:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.jbuhler.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=2

(ist D @ISO800, FA35/2)

BTW, I shot a bit that day with the Industar 50/3.5, a 39mm mount film
for the very first Zenit SLRs. There's something about shooting a
digital SLR with a lens made in 1959!  I like that lens, it has low
contrast but nice bokeh. I'll need to lubricate it a bit because
focusing is stiff, though.

Also, I'm testing a new photoblog software. I think it does a nice job
of simplifying and presenting a clean page. Comments on this (and the
picture) welcome.

j
===
I really like it. I do find the man's face over the woman's face a bit 
distracting. Maybe you could blur him down (up?) a bit with some photo editing 
software. I think it would strengthen the focus/attention on the girl. But just 
a 
suggestion.

What a cutie.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: OT: Film is dead

[Tim Sherburne]

There doesn't seem to be many reviews of the PrimeFilm 3650U on the net.
Anyone have personal experience with it?

Tim

On 2/8/05 12:00, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

> But Costco is running a special on film  and slide scanners:
> 
> http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=10039838&whse=&topnav=&cat=&s
> =1
> 
> 
> 

Re: PAW/PESO: The Tim Hamel Trio

[Keith Whaley]

A fastidious man... nice separation on those eyelashes...  
Oh, and the OOF areas are clean...what lens did you use?
keith
Rolling Red wrote:
It's a nice setup, but I wish the bottom of the trumpet head didn't
scrape the lower frame.
Be it either more in, or more obviously cut. A wider lens would
accentuate the frontal "trumpet in your face" effect. But, that's only
me..
I"d like to see a WA shot, just to see if it did enhance the effect. It 
might well...
But, it's okay as is. Good focus, nicely framed.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:38:26 -0500, frank theriault
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bike courier by day, jazz band leader by night:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3102712&size=lg

Re: PESO - Falls

[Keith Whaley]

frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:53:14 -0800, Bruce Dayton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I took my daughter, Erin, out shooting Saturday afternoon.  We went
somewhere that neither of us had been before.  Quite a pretty area and
we had a good time.  I'll try to post some of hers soon (have to scan
them - she is shooting film with an MX).
Pentax *istD, ISO 400, FA 135/2.8, tripod
  1/4 sec @ f32
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1114.htm
Converted to TIFF in C1 - converted to jpg and sized/sharpened for web - no
other post processing.

It may be just me, but I've tried this url a couple of times now, and
it keeps timing out.  Anyone else have this problem or is it just me?
Nope. Me too.
keith
Maybe it's a high-traffic time.  I'll try again later.
cheers,
frank

Re: OT: Film is dead

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Film has always been dead. I have yet to see any film alive 

Godfrey

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: PESO: Saturday

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Juan,

I like this shot.  The timing is just right with the little girl
looking right at you with the mom oblivious to the scene.  I kinda
wish the guy right behind them wasn't there, but then the timing would
have been off.

Lens looks like it performs well, too.  I'm curious if you use AF in
these situations or not - and if so, center sensor only.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 11:24:15 AM, you wrote:

JB> Last Saturday I spent some time in Chinatown in San Francisco (it
JB> helps that I live about six blocks from it,) enjoying the crowds and
JB> the new year celebrations.

JB> http://www.jbuhler.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=2

JB> (ist D @ISO800, FA35/2)

JB> BTW, I shot a bit that day with the Industar 50/3.5, a 39mm mount film
JB> for the very first Zenit SLRs. There's something about shooting a
JB> digital SLR with a lens made in 1959!  I like that lens, it has low
JB> contrast but nice bokeh. I'll need to lubricate it a bit because
JB> focusing is stiff, though.

JB> Also, I'm testing a new photoblog software. I think it does a nice job
JB> of simplifying and presenting a clean page. Comments on this (and the
JB> picture) welcome.

JB> j