RE: PAW PESO - Snoozer
Somehow I missed this the first time around. That baby is just darling! I'm guessing he never goes far without his stuffed lion (who also seems to be buckled in). Someone else recently recently posted a photo that also included a stuff cat. Do I detect a theme here? -Patsy Pat in SF In a message dated 3/15/2005 7:50:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Taken last year at the Berkeley Kite Festival. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/snoozer.html Shel __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: AF lenses for astrophotography?
I think the electronics are well protected inside the lens. I've had both my sigma EX 70-200/2.8 and my FA*400/5.6 out on a tripod all night, to shoot something in the morning twilight. On two occasions, the FA experienced a light drizzle so that the whole lens barrel was wet when I woke up, but to no ill effect. The MZ-S that was attached to it was fine too. :-) Jostein - Original Message - From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 7:24 AM Subject: RE: AF lenses for astrophotography? I'll second what Jostein said. Shouldn't be a problem unless it's a downpour. And what would you see in the heavens, but clouds then...? I was just thinking of dew. I've only been shooting AF lenses for about 9 months and I don't know how much they can tolerate yet. I'm used to the old lenses that you could use to hammer tent pegs if you had to. ;) Thanks, Amita
Re: Is this dust?
Looks very much like dust. Btw, I cleaned my sensor yesterday. It's been a very long while since last time. The gas blaster didn't remobe all of it this time. :-( After Easter I'll pick up some of those specially designed swabs. Yesterday, in lack of other options, I dared using an ordinary Q-tip, and it actually worked very well. No solvents or anything, just the cotton. It left a long white fibre in there, but that was very easy to get out compared to those invisible little dots that only show up in the pictures. Jostein - Original Message - From: Dave Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 4:09 AM Subject: Is this dust? Ok, I'm new with the DSLR thing (DS), and I just noticed a couple of light 'blobs' on my pics. see here : http://www.pbase.com/davekennedy/image/40990668 Is this dust on the CCD? Stays with the camera, still there after changing lenses. Does this mean I'll have to (gulp) clean the ccd? dk
Re: Weekend WTB. ;)
Hi, I just went to the fire-proof air-tight vault in my basement, the one with 12 inch stainless steel walls encased in 3 feet of reinforced concrete. I dialed in the 15 number combination that only Jostein, Doug the List Guy and I know. If one gets the combination wrong more than twice in succession, tear gas is emitted by this vault. Prior to dialing the combination, I put on my hazmat suit (so as not to contaminate anything with my bodily oils, secretions, scents, vapours, etc.), and very carefully removed the Sacred PDML Charter from said vault. Upon referring to the Charter, I can state unequivocally that the issue of WTB is a lacuna. you could have saved yourself the trouble. I've had it put online so everyone can refer to it: http://tinyurl.com/4ehm2. Sorry about all the coffee stains. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PAW PESO - Coffee Royalty
I like this improve version better.
-Patsy
Pat in SF
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I redid the pic. Maybe it's better now. The boards were too dark.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/royal-01.html
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Pat K
I really like the brightness of the white and the bold red and blue along
the
edges. However, the dark chocolate of the fence boards in the center is
distracting. I can just *barely* make out a knot or two in the wood or
some
swirl patterns, but not *quite* and it's distracting.
-Patsy
Pat in SF
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It just caught my eye, and since I'm trying to work a little more in
color
taken at a breakfast place I sometimes visit.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/royal-01.html
Shel
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Is this dust?
On 20 Mar 2005 at 10:14, Jostein wrote: Yesterday, in lack of other options, I dared using an ordinary Q-tip, and it actually worked very well. No solvents or anything, just the cotton. It left a long white fibre in there, but that was very easy to get out compared to those invisible little dots that only show up in the pictures. I suspect the people who sell all these special sensor cleaning implements are just counting down until the market realizes that there is no magic, nearly any appropriate material carefully applied will do the trick. 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: Weekend WTB. ;)
No, Bob. That's the old one we had when Pentax USA was hosting the list. The real reason they threw us out was that they discovered the fine print we put in the sealing wax. :-( Jostein - Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: Weekend WTB. ;) Hi, I just went to the fire-proof air-tight vault in my basement, the one with 12 inch stainless steel walls encased in 3 feet of reinforced concrete. I dialed in the 15 number combination that only Jostein, Doug the List Guy and I know. If one gets the combination wrong more than twice in succession, tear gas is emitted by this vault. Prior to dialing the combination, I put on my hazmat suit (so as not to contaminate anything with my bodily oils, secretions, scents, vapours, etc.), and very carefully removed the Sacred PDML Charter from said vault. Upon referring to the Charter, I can state unequivocally that the issue of WTB is a lacuna. you could have saved yourself the trouble. I've had it put online so everyone can refer to it: http://tinyurl.com/4ehm2. Sorry about all the coffee stains. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Exiting Left (Unsubscribing)
mental_beam Hey, get a good rest, Marnie. /mental_beam Jostein
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Jens Bladt wrote: What is the misery? Die Rundfunk Turm? I've been there many years ago :-) That was my first thought, too. Then I scrolled down - all the way down - and found the lady begging. For the presentation medium, the picture is too big.
Re: AF lenses for astrophotography?
On Mar 20, 2005, at 6:24 PM, Amita Guha wrote: I was just thinking of dew. I've only been shooting AF lenses for about 9 months and I don't know how much they can tolerate yet. I'm used to the old lenses that you could use to hammer tent pegs if you had to. ;) You can wrap the lens in a plastic bag if you like, just make sure you poke a hole in the end :) Seriously though, I've been known to do this in damp weather. A deep lens hood helps too, but I guess if you're shooting stars then the front element is still going to be exposed to whatever gravity throws at it. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Taking photos in the Swiss alps - seeking for advice
For mountains, I definitely would suggest a medium long lens. Last time in the Alps I have used M35/2 and M75-150/4 on MX, usually not missing a wider lens (only a few times). With the medium long zoom, I could frame nicely onto shapes of mountains and so. Good light! fra
Re: OT: HTML/JS help
Thanks a lot for the suggestions, guys! Looking it all up and learning more now. Good light! fra
Protection foil advice
Hi folks, a local store sells Crocfol's LCD-monitor protection foil for the *istD. However, in order to adjust it on the display you have to dip the foil into water. Would you recommend to do that? Couldn't some of the water on the foil penetrate into the camera at the edge of the monitor? Is this kind of display protection useful at all? Peter
Re: Is this dust?
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:16:18 -0500, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: probably dust. is this a 1:1 crop of an image? yes. Thanks for the feed back all.
Re: Is this dust?
Wow. I thought that using a q-tip was a big no-no. Time for a trip to the camera store. dk On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:14:01 +0100, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks very much like dust. Btw, I cleaned my sensor yesterday. It's been a very long while since last time. The gas blaster didn't remobe all of it this time. :-( After Easter I'll pick up some of those specially designed swabs. Yesterday, in lack of other options, I dared using an ordinary Q-tip, and it actually worked very well. No solvents or anything, just the cotton. It left a long white fibre in there, but that was very easy to get out compared to those invisible little dots that only show up in the pictures. Jostein - Original Message - From: Dave Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 4:09 AM Subject: Is this dust? Ok, I'm new with the DSLR thing (DS), and I just noticed a couple of light 'blobs' on my pics. see here : http://www.pbase.com/davekennedy/image/40990668 Is this dust on the CCD? Stays with the camera, still there after changing lenses. Does this mean I'll have to (gulp) clean the ccd? dk
RE: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Oh Yes. Now I see! It seems to me that the richer the county, the greater the difference between rich and poor! Luckily this is not allways true. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. marts 2005 11:18 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin Jens Bladt wrote: What is the misery? Die Rundfunk Turm? I've been there many years ago :-) That was my first thought, too. Then I scrolled down - all the way down - and found the lady begging. For the presentation medium, the picture is too big.
Re: Is this dust?
depends on confident you are that the dust isn't gritty and the cotton wasn't manufactured with any grit or abrasive material trapped. you don't want to scratch the glass cover over the sensor. Herb... - Original Message - From: Dave Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 6:51 AM Subject: Re: Is this dust? Wow. I thought that using a q-tip was a big no-no. Time for a trip to the camera store.
Re: PESO foggy harbour
John: A nice shot... good composition and also a great catch vis-a-vis the seagulls. A bit warmer though, I think. E-6? Whose chemicals? Jobo? Jim Francis wrote: Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Francis P.S. In case you were wondering this is a REAL photo, no post processing (aside from dusting off the hair balls and trying to get the colors to match the slide (hopeless))
Re: Protection foil advice
Adding water to the foil is probably to activate some adhesive. Then water should be spread thin on the foil, before applied to the camera. If that can be achieved, I suppose there's not enough excess water to penetrate the camera. OTOH, are you sure this kind of thing will not leave some residue on the LCD when it's taken off? Oh, well.. Who am I to ask. I don't use any LCD protection myself. Sounds like a sensible idea, though. Jostein - Original Message - From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:45 PM Subject: Protection foil advice Hi folks, a local store sells Crocfol's LCD-monitor protection foil for the *istD. However, in order to adjust it on the display you have to dip the foil into water. Would you recommend to do that? Couldn't some of the water on the foil penetrate into the camera at the edge of the monitor? Is this kind of display protection useful at all? Peter
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Frank, http://www.misenet.sk/Berlin/ Commenting on the photo in and of itself, my problem with it is that the woman sort of gets lost down there in the corner. I know you wanted to get the majestic statues in there to contrast the old lady, but I think in doing that she sort of gets lost. I was going to say, if I were taking the photo... and then give some advice, but I'm not taking the photo, and really, to be fair, I should only comment on what's being presented. vbg you are hereby allowed to modify this picture in any way you like. :-) So, I think that the photo as is, is still a good one; it's a good idea, to be sure. But I think it ~could~ be a lot stronger, if done just a bit differently. Honestly, I'm really anxious to see (or imagine) your version. BTW, the comment Bill made about Caveman, refers to a former lister (he'll be back, we all know it g) who really didn't like photos of so called street people at all. He railed against them every time one was posted, and IIRC, the last time he took leave of this list was after a flame war WRT an apparently homeless person. thank you for explanation. I don't fully understand the fate of these people however I feel it's a big failure of our society. :-( Cheers, Bedo.
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Jens, What is the misery? Die Rundfunk Turm? I've been there many years ago :-) All my photographs came out green, because of the coloured glass in the dome! although it wasn't intended this way your interpretation is quite cool :-) Bedo.
RE: PESO foggy harbour
That's quite nice. Good work! Shel [Original Message] From: Francis http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html
RE: PESO October Roses featuring the url
Hi David I like the composition and DOF of your rose picture but would need to see it more enlarged to understand why you had to do so much processing and converting ? Would you like to show the unmanipulated picture so I can see... greetings and thanks for your PESO Markus I humbly introduce my first PESO. This was taken way back in October and I finally got around to working on it this last week. Camera Info: Pentax *ist D Pentax 28-70mm F/4 @ 65mm F/7.1 1/125 iso 200 Photoshop processing: Noise ninja, Nik Color Effects brilliance/warmth, Highpass filter sharpening, converted to black and white using some process I found online a while back, burned in some of the pedals, and added film grain. http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/6767390/ Comments are welcome -david
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Frank, It may not be a good idea to critique a critique of a critique :-) But then again I do think both yours and Cotty's comments are very interesting. I too have a problem with the passersby. I think the wheelchair adds another dimension to the two foremost persons' gaze at the beggar. Therefore, I think the shot would have been a lot better if they were not on the edge of the frame. Jostein - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 2:00 AM Subject: Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:12:38 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20/3/05, Peter Lacus, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.misenet.sk/Berlin/ Bedo. Bedo, half of all photography is not photographing at all. a...n...t..i..c..i...p...a...t..i..o..n Let the passers by do some passing by ;-) Cheers, Cotty I disagree. (sorry to critique a critique, but I know Cotty will take it in the spirit intended g). I think the passersby looking at the unfortunate lady are an important part of the photo. Commenting on the photo in and of itself, my problem with it is that the woman sort of gets lost down there in the corner. I know you wanted to get the majestic statues in there to contrast the old lady, but I think in doing that she sort of gets lost. I was going to say, if I were taking the photo... and then give some advice, but I'm not taking the photo, and really, to be fair, I should only comment on what's being presented. vbg So, I think that the photo as is, is still a good one; it's a good idea, to be sure. But I think it ~could~ be a lot stronger, if done just a bit differently. BTW, the comment Bill made about Caveman, refers to a former lister (he'll be back, we all know it g) who really didn't like photos of so called street people at all. He railed against them every time one was posted, and IIRC, the last time he took leave of this list was after a flame war WRT an apparently homeless person. That being said, I think you handled the sticky issue of photographing the less fortunate well, here. We can't see her face, and you really are trying to make a statement here, not just exploit her, IMHO. I think it's a sensitive photo. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Hi Bedo this picture does not really match my taste but I like the details on the sculptures and the shadows of the group. Is there a chance of having the man on the right and the stick of the woman uncutted on the negative? This Fuji Sensia looks like a fine film too. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Peter Lacus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:18 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin http://www.misenet.sk/Berlin/ Bedo.
Re: PAW: My Baby Girl
Sorry, I moved it. Someone (not on this list) left a stupid comment, and I didn't want my daughter to see it, so I deleted the photo and then uploaded it again. It's here now: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3178492 On Mar 19, 2005, at 10:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is what i get for waiting to late to answer Paws. No pic available :-( Dave My daughter Ingrid in the studio. I've been trying to get her to sit for me for a long time. Today, she needed a passport photo, so I talked her into a couple extra shots. She's a junior at Michigan State, and will be studying in France this summer. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3175165size=lg
Re: Is this dust?
Yes. On Mar 19, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote: Ok, I'm new with the DSLR thing (DS), and I just noticed a couple of light 'blobs' on my pics. see here : http://www.pbase.com/davekennedy/image/40990668 Is this dust on the CCD? Stays with the camera, still there after changing lenses. Does this mean I'll have to (gulp) clean the ccd? dk
Re: PESO: Candles in the studio
Thanks for the input. I shot them for stock. I'll probably just submit both, since there is divided opinion. The stock house will probably want both of them in any case. Variety is a good thing in stock. Paul On Mar 19, 2005, at 11:10 PM, Pat K wrote: Hi Paul, As I was switching between the two photos, I couldn't decide which one I liked better. I opened Candles II (f/22)first. It grabbed me right away. Very sharp defined candle holders. Lovely curvy light reflections on the left of each of the holders. Then I opened Candles (f/2.5) which isn't a bad photos, but it doesn't grab me the same way that that Candles II did. -Patsy Pat in SF --- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I photographed some candles this afternoon. They were shot with the SMC Pentax 135/2.5 on the *istD. I decided to try this two ways. Once with a lot of depth of field and consistently sharp images, the other with very limited depth of field and diminishing sharpness. One is at f22, 20 seconds, the other is at f2.5, .3 second. Two studio flashes. One firing off the ceiling , the other into an umbrella. 3/4 power for the f22 shot, 1/16th power for the f2.5 shot. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210253size=lg http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210251size=lg __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: PAW PESO - Coffee Royalty
Okay Shel, photoshop a couple into the doorway vbg. The new version is much improved by the way. On Mar 20, 2005, at 1:17 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: Veryu funny, but I kinda miss seeing a couple in the doorway! Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. marts 2005 03:32 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: PAW PESO - Coffee Royalty It just caught my eye, and since I'm trying to work a little more in color taken at a breakfast place I sometimes visit. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/royal-01.html Shel
Re: Is this dust?
Or the drug store. A sterile ear syringe works great. Just squeeze the bulb and you get a blast of perfectly clean, dry air. I blow off my sensors once a week using the ear syringe. By cleaning it often, I've never had to resort to anything more aggressive. My oldest camera is about 14 months old. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Dave Kennedy wrote: Wow. I thought that using a q-tip was a big no-no. Time for a trip to the camera store. dk On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:14:01 +0100, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks very much like dust. Btw, I cleaned my sensor yesterday. It's been a very long while since last time. The gas blaster didn't remobe all of it this time. :-( After Easter I'll pick up some of those specially designed swabs. Yesterday, in lack of other options, I dared using an ordinary Q-tip, and it actually worked very well. No solvents or anything, just the cotton. It left a long white fibre in there, but that was very easy to get out compared to those invisible little dots that only show up in the pictures. Jostein - Original Message - From: Dave Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 4:09 AM Subject: Is this dust? Ok, I'm new with the DSLR thing (DS), and I just noticed a couple of light 'blobs' on my pics. see here : http://www.pbase.com/davekennedy/image/40990668 Is this dust on the CCD? Stays with the camera, still there after changing lenses. Does this mean I'll have to (gulp) clean the ccd? dk
RE: OT Drag (races) shots
Hi Rob I like the real men smoke Bridgestone shot and slogan a lot, thanks! greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 6:19 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT Drag (races) shots Some cool shots for the drag heds on the list, by a photog from another forum that I frequent: http://forums.overlander.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=25057 http://forums.overlander.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=25064 :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PESO: Candles in the studio
Hi Paul, My feelings are just the opposite of Patsy's. I much prefer the one with the OOF candles, but I can certainly see why you'd submit both. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Thanks for the input. I shot them for stock. I'll probably just submit both, since there is divided opinion. The stock house will probably want both of them in any case. Variety is a good thing in stock. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210253size=lg http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210251size=lg
RE: PESO foggy harbour
Hi Francis your pic looks like a dream, wonderful. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 7:27 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO foggy harbour Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Francis P.S. In case you were wondering this is a REAL photo, no post processing (aside from dusting off the hair balls and trying to get the colors to match the slide (hopeless))
Re: PAW: My Baby Girl
Hi Paul, You have a lovely daughter, although she looks a little uncomfortable in this situation. As a portrait, however, this is far from your best work. Ingred's eyes look a little bloodshot, her bra strap is showing, and there seems to be some artifacting on her nose. The two highlights in each eye are something of a distraction as well. One highlight might be better, yes? More traditional in a formal portrait, in any case? Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3178492
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Markus, this picture does not really match my taste but I like the details on the sculptures and the shadows of the group. Is there a chance of having the man on the right and the stick of the woman uncutted on the negative? I just checked the original slide and no, unfortunately it's already cut on it. :-( This Fuji Sensia looks like a fine film too. indeed it is, but with one minor complaint - it could be too bluish sometimes, so I would recommend to use Skylight or Cloudy filter when there's a chance to catch deep shadows on it. Bedo.
RE: Taking photos in the Swiss alps - seeking for advice
Hi Frantisek I have the M75-150mm too but maybe it is a good idea to limit myself for the first excursion to the Pentax A24mm and Tamron SP 90mm Macro. I will see what I miss and can change equipment for the next tour. It's good that I can repeat the shootings if I have too and that I have no time pressure. Was I you that posted a very lovely picture of the brigde in Lucerne with Seagulls in the evening some times ago? I would love to have that picture for my friends brochures of her tour to Lucerne? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Frantisek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 11:31 AM To: Markus Maurer Subject: Re: Taking photos in the Swiss alps - seeking for advice For mountains, I definitely would suggest a medium long lens. Last time in the Alps I have used M35/2 and M75-150/4 on MX, usually not missing a wider lens (only a few times). With the medium long zoom, I could frame nicely onto shapes of mountains and so. Good light! fra
RE: Swiss Alps
Hi Bill thanks. I was expecting to do some exposure correction in the snow, some of my books on photography say that too. Could you salvage the pictures later on the computer? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Bill Lawlor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 3:59 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Swiss Alps Markus, don't forget to open up a stop or even two when metering glaciers and snow in sunny conditions. In 1989 I forgot this rule and ended up with pictures of nice gray snow on the Jungfrau. The meter did what it was supposed to do-reduce the image to gray. Bill Lawlor
Re: Protection foil advice
Jostein wrote: Adding water to the foil is probably to activate some adhesive. Then water should be spread thin on the foil, before applied to the camera. If that can be achieved, I suppose there's not enough excess water to penetrate the camera. Once I had to apply some large, self-adhesive vinyl signs to a sheet of plastic. I ruined three with bubbles and creases before I asked the sign manufacturer (slow developer) what to do. He advised a light application of slightly soapy water to the base and then apply the sign. I was thoroughly sceptical but all bubbles and creases were easy to remove, which I was expecting, and the sign became firmly adhered after 24 hours, which I was not. I would think that it is suggested here for the same reason but I would also think that, PJ's and other busy people apart, it should be much easier to apply the film without defects to such a small area. mike
Re: PAW PESO - Coffee Royalty
This one's for Jens. There was another pic with some people in it, so here it is, by request: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/royal-01+.html Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Okay Shel, photoshop a couple into the doorway vbg. The new version is much improved by the way. Veryu funny, but I kinda miss seeing a couple in the doorway! Jens Jens Bladt It just caught my eye, and since I'm trying to work a little more in color taken at a breakfast place I sometimes visit. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/royal-01.html Shel
Re: PESO: Candles in the studio
Thanks Shel. The shot with the limited depth of field was my intent going in. That and the stacking effect are why I used a relatively long lens. The f22 shot was an afterthought. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Paul, My feelings are just the opposite of Patsy's. I much prefer the one with the OOF candles, but I can certainly see why you'd submit both. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Thanks for the input. I shot them for stock. I'll probably just submit both, since there is divided opinion. The stock house will probably want both of them in any case. Variety is a good thing in stock. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210253size=lg http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210251size=lg
Re: PAW: My Baby Girl
She's definitely uncomfortable :-). She's extremely shy and normally won't pose. I was only able to get her to pose here because she needed a passport photo. I didn't notice the bra strap. (DOH). Thanks, I'll have to PS that out of there. I don't see any artifacts on the nose. Theirs a small highlight that I could remove, but I kind of like it. Double catchlights in the eyes are common in a lot of fashion photography these days. Again, I could easily remove one from each eye, but I'm not sure which way to go on this. Thanks for the comments. On Mar 20, 2005, at 9:17 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Paul, You have a lovely daughter, although she looks a little uncomfortable in this situation. As a portrait, however, this is far from your best work. Ingred's eyes look a little bloodshot, her bra strap is showing, and there seems to be some artifacting on her nose. The two highlights in each eye are something of a distraction as well. One highlight might be better, yes? More traditional in a formal portrait, in any case? Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3178492
Re: PAW PESO - Coffee Royalty
HAR! You should be an illustrator, Shel! Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 9:37 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: This one's for Jens. There was another pic with some people in it, so here it is, by request: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/royal-01+.html Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Okay Shel, photoshop a couple into the doorway vbg. The new version is much improved by the way. Veryu funny, but I kinda miss seeing a couple in the doorway! Jens Jens Bladt It just caught my eye, and since I'm trying to work a little more in color taken at a breakfast place I sometimes visit. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/royal-01.html Shel
DIY: How to make your own FA-J lens
PDMLers, With another holiday coming up, I thought I might publish this little DIY project I developed last Christmas. I mean, in case some of you get bored and need an amusing activity to fill the time. I call it: How to make your own FA-J lens in 10 simple steps (using equipment you can find around the house) . You'll need: * 1 slightly broken FA power zoom lens * 1 small bottle of superglue * 1 flat-nose screwdriver * 1 small carrier bag. * 1 pair of tweezers. * 1 larger bag full of clothes. The steps: 1. Pick up the lens, whose power zoom motor won't quite move in a continuous fashion, but which is otherwise fully functional. Make sure the aperture ring is left in the A position. Gently shake it. You'll notice a rattling sound. 2. Move the focus ring as far to the left as it will go. With on hand, hold the lens with the front elements facing upwards. With the other, squeeze the screwdriver down between the focus ring and the outer cover, and bend it slightly downwards. Move the screwdriver round to the opposite side of the lens and repeat. The focus ring will now come loose, and you can take it off by pulling it upwards. Twist the inner section of the lens - the one containing the front elements - even further to the left so as to remove that, too. 3. You'll now have access to the lens internals. Take a closer look at the components. You'll notice two small perforated wheels, which are part of the regulators for the autofocus and power zoom, respectively. Further inspection will reveal that the latter has come loose; its moving about was what caused the rattling sound. Take it out and put it down next to you. 4. Bring out your superglue. Identify the position where the wheel now lying next to you, was originally located (it should be fairly straight forward.) Apply a tiny drop of superglue to the wheel, then attach it to its proper position. Use tweezers for help if necessary. 5. Re-assemble the lens. How it is done should be quite obvious based on step 2). 6. Try the lens. In particular, test the power zoom function. It will now work just fine for a short while, but then return to the faulty behaviour. That happens because you didn't quite manage to fully affix the wheel. 7. Decide to try once more. Repeat 2). 8. Run out of time. After all, you were just about to leave your home and go to spend the rest of the holiday with the family. 9. Collect all the lens parts in the plastic bag. Toss in the bottle of superglue, too. Then put it in the larger bag of clothes, and bring it along on your little trip - since you may have time to take another look at it all one of those long, dark evenings... 10. That's it, really. All that remains is to observe the effect of applying a certain pressure associated with stuffing equipment into a bag packed with even more bags in the boot of a car, to lens components and a bottle of superglue... -- - Toralf
Curious Anomoly? or something more?
Over the last few days I've been experimenting with some PEF files and some files scanned from various color films. When I resize the files to the same dimensions, the scanned files are always larger (in kb's) than the files from the istD. While I know that there will always be some differences in the size of files of the same dimensions, regardless of the medium, this has me perplexed. I try to compare files with similar information, and consistently the film files are larger. I've only done this with about a dozen or so files, but I'd think that at least one or two may not give such a result. Film files are larger by about a minimum of 10%. Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so? Shel
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so? What format are you saving to? William Robb
RE: How to make your own FA-J lens
That's the best laugh I've had in a while! ;-) Sounds JUST like something I'do. Don -Original Message- From: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:49 AM To: pdml Subject: DIY: How to make your own FA-J lens PDMLers, With another holiday coming up, I thought I might publish this little DIY project I developed last Christmas. I mean, in case some of you get bored and need an amusing activity to fill the time. I call it: How to make your own FA-J lens in 10 simple steps (using equipment you can find around the house) . You'll need: * 1 slightly broken FA power zoom lens * 1 small bottle of superglue * 1 flat-nose screwdriver * 1 small carrier bag. * 1 pair of tweezers. * 1 larger bag full of clothes. The steps: 1. Pick up the lens, whose power zoom motor won't quite move in a continuous fashion, but which is otherwise fully functional. Make sure the aperture ring is left in the A position. Gently shake it. You'll notice a rattling sound. 2. Move the focus ring as far to the left as it will go. With on hand, hold the lens with the front elements facing upwards. With the other, squeeze the screwdriver down between the focus ring and the outer cover, and bend it slightly downwards. Move the screwdriver round to the opposite side of the lens and repeat. The focus ring will now come loose, and you can take it off by pulling it upwards. Twist the inner section of the lens - the one containing the front elements - even further to the left so as to remove that, too. 3. You'll now have access to the lens internals. Take a closer look at the components. You'll notice two small perforated wheels, which are part of the regulators for the autofocus and power zoom, respectively. Further inspection will reveal that the latter has come loose; its moving about was what caused the rattling sound. Take it out and put it down next to you. 4. Bring out your superglue. Identify the position where the wheel now lying next to you, was originally located (it should be fairly straight forward.) Apply a tiny drop of superglue to the wheel, then attach it to its proper position. Use tweezers for help if necessary. 5. Re-assemble the lens. How it is done should be quite obvious based on step 2). 6. Try the lens. In particular, test the power zoom function. It will now work just fine for a short while, but then return to the faulty behaviour. That happens because you didn't quite manage to fully affix the wheel. 7. Decide to try once more. Repeat 2). 8. Run out of time. After all, you were just about to leave your home and go to spend the rest of the holiday with the family. 9. Collect all the lens parts in the plastic bag. Toss in the bottle of superglue, too. Then put it in the larger bag of clothes, and bring it along on your little trip - since you may have time to take another look at it all one of those long, dark evenings... 10. That's it, really. All that remains is to observe the effect of applying a certain pressure associated with stuffing equipment into a bag packed with even more bags in the boot of a car, to lens components and a bottle of superglue... -- - Toralf
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:05:05 +0100, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank, you are hereby allowed to modify this picture in any way you like. :-) I really am not very good at editing the work of others. Some here on this list are good at cropping or otherwise re-working any photograph; I have enough difficulty doing that stuff with my own work! LOL Honestly, I'm really anxious to see (or imagine) your version. Well, I think that maybe I was being unfair to Cotty with my comment earlier. I think that what I should have said is that I would have chosen between the juxtaposition between beggar-lady and majestic statues or the juxtaposition between beggar-lady and disinterested passersby. There are two reasons for that. First, physically, it's hard to get both the statues way above her, and the passersby in the same frame. Whichever I would have chosen, I think I'd have gone with a wider lens, to get close to the lady while still allowing the other elements to be in the frame. I think that might have had more impact. Now, you might well say, but I wanted both the statues and the passersby in there - that was my vision, or what I was trying to communicate. And, that's fair enough. But my thinking WRT street photography or reportage or whatever one wishes to call it is that simpler is better. If one wants to make a point, do it with as few elements as possible. There's enough room for interpretation and mis-communication with very simple scenarios. I often (but not always) try to isolate my subject by making them dominate the frame, or, lately, by narrow dof, or by panning (not applicable here) or whatever. But for me the less ambiguity (from a compositional point of view) the better. That doesn't mean that there can't be ambiguity or tension in the subject(s) themselves: far from it. Such ambiguity or tension makes the viewer think, and that's good. Keep in mind that this is only how I would have done it, or how I think when I'm doing it. I only mention this since you asked. And, I'm not saying I'm right or more right than anyone else. Far from it. vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
Both to JPEG. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so? What format are you saving to? William Robb
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Over the last few days I've been experimenting with some PEF files and some files scanned from various color films. When I resize the files to the same dimensions, the scanned files are always larger (in kb's) than the files from the istD. While I know that there will always be some differences in the size of files of the same dimensions, regardless of the medium, this has me perplexed. I try to compare files with similar information, and consistently the film files are larger. I've only done this with about a dozen or so files, but I'd think that at least one or two may not give such a result. Film files are larger by about a minimum of 10%. Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so? noise? Usually pictures coming from a digital cameras are much more noise free than those scanned from an analog medium. Bedo.
RE: PESO foggy harbour
Hi Francis Very nice. It looks like a book cover for a murder mystery. Could possibly use a touch of contrast in curves, but not too much or you'll lose the mood. Also, I don't recognize the name, so if you are new to the list, or to posting on the list, welcome. Butch
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Both to JPEG. I bet you will find you are saving more noise with the film files (as Peter surmised). William Robb
Re: PESO foggy harbour
This is just beautiful, I hate you, (Frank, make a note). Francis wrote: Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Francis P.S. In case you were wondering this is a REAL photo, no post processing (aside from dusting off the hair balls and trying to get the colors to match the slide (hopeless)) -- 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: DIY: How to make your own FA-J lens
Toralf Lund wrote: PDMLers, With another holiday coming up, I thought I might publish this little DIY project I developed last Christmas. I mean, in case some of you get bored and need an amusing activity to fill the time. I call it: How to make your own FA-J lens in 10 simple steps (using equipment you can find around the house) . You'll need: * 1 slightly broken FA power zoom lens * 1 small bottle of superglue * 1 flat-nose screwdriver * 1 small carrier bag. * 1 pair of tweezers. * 1 larger bag full of clothes. The steps: 1. Pick up the lens, whose power zoom motor won't quite move in a continuous fashion, but which is otherwise fully functional. Make sure the aperture ring is left in the A position. Gently shake it. You'll notice a rattling sound. 2. Move the focus ring as far to the left as it will go. With on hand, hold the lens with the front elements facing upwards. With the other, squeeze the screwdriver down between the focus ring and the outer cover, and bend it slightly downwards. Move the screwdriver round to the opposite side of the lens and repeat. The focus ring will now come loose, and you can take it off by pulling it upwards. Twist the inner section of the lens - the one containing the front elements - even further to the left so as to remove that, too. 3. You'll now have access to the lens internals. Take a closer look at the components. You'll notice two small perforated wheels, which are part of the regulators for the autofocus and power zoom, respectively. Further inspection will reveal that the latter has come loose; its moving about was what caused the rattling sound. Take it out and put it down next to you. 4. Bring out your superglue. Identify the position where the wheel now lying next to you, was originally located (it should be fairly straight forward.) Apply a tiny drop of superglue to the wheel, then attach it to its proper position. Use tweezers for help if necessary. 5. Re-assemble the lens. How it is done should be quite obvious based on step 2). 6. Try the lens. In particular, test the power zoom function. It will now work just fine for a short while, but then return to the faulty behaviour. That happens because you didn't quite manage to fully affix the wheel. 7. Decide to try once more. Repeat 2). 8. Run out of time. After all, you were just about to leave your home and go to spend the rest of the holiday with the family. 9. Collect all the lens parts in the plastic bag. Toss in the bottle of superglue, too. Then put it in the larger bag of clothes, and bring it along on your little trip - since you may have time to take another look at it all one of those long, dark evenings... 10. That's it, really. All that remains is to observe the effect of applying a certain pressure associated with stuffing equipment into a bag packed with even more bags in the boot of a car, to lens components and a bottle of superglue... Sounds more like an FA-KT lens to me. 8-(
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
what file format? it's most likely noise, specifically film grain. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:55 AM Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so?
RE: PESO foggy harbour
Inexpensive camera, cheap lens, first E-6 experience. You are either very,very lucky or a very good photographer. I suspect the latter. Absolutely stunning, almost surreal. If you decide to sell prints, consider me first in line. How was this scanned? Don -Original Message- From: Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:27 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO foggy harbour Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Francis P.S. In case you were wondering this is a REAL photo, no post processing (aside from dusting off the hair balls and trying to get the colors to match the slide (hopeless))
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
frank theriault wrote: snip snip ... BTW, the comment Bill made about Caveman, refers to a former lister (he'll be back, we all know it g) who really didn't like photos of so called street people at all. He railed against them every time one was posted, and IIRC, the last time he took leave of this list was after a flame war WRT an apparently homeless person. That being said, I think you handled the sticky issue of photographing the less fortunate well, here. We can't see her face, and you really are trying to make a statement here, not just exploit her, IMHO. I think it's a sensitive photo. cheers, frank -- Bedo, I agree with Frank about the placement of the woman and your not disrespecting her because we can't see her face... but I find the full color of this shot distracting. I think it begs for black and white. (oh dear, that pun really was unintended!) annsan
RE: PESO foggy harbour
And what film? And developer, and shutter speed, and aperture? Details, man, I need details! ;-) = very large grin. Don -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:00 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: PESO foggy harbour Inexpensive camera, cheap lens, first E-6 experience. You are either very,very lucky or a very good photographer. I suspect the latter. Absolutely stunning, almost surreal. If you decide to sell prints, consider me first in line. How was this scanned? Don -Original Message- From: Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:27 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO foggy harbour Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Francis P.S. In case you were wondering this is a REAL photo, no post processing (aside from dusting off the hair balls and trying to get the colors to match the slide (hopeless))
Re: any further comments on the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF ?
Thanks for the comments on this lens! It sounds good, I may have to try one out. I don't expect these relatively inexpensive, medium-speed midrange zooms to compete with primes, but they are very convenient. I've been working with the F35-70/3.5-4.5 the past few days. I bought it pretty cheap and am finding it to be more than just satisfactorily useful, with darn good quality for the money. The 28-105 range would be even more to my liking. It's funny: I'm finding I much prefer AF when I have a zoom on the camera, but much prefer manual focus when I have a prime lens fitted. A travel kit comprised of the 16-45, 35-70 (28-105), 100-300 plus an A50/1.4, A24/2.8, M85/2 is shaping up ... Godfrey
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
It's noise from grain causing the poorer JPEG compression. Godfrey On Mar 20, 2005, at 7:07 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Both to JPEG. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so? What format are you saving to? William Robb
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
So, not showing someone's face = non exploitive photo. Are you saying that when you show someone's face you're exploiting them? Shel [Original Message] From: Ann Sanfedele Bedo, I agree with Frank about the placement of the woman and your not disrespecting her because we can't see her face...
Re: DIY: How to make your own FA-J lens
mike wilson wrote: Toralf Lund wrote: PDMLers, With another holiday coming up, I thought I might publish this little DIY project I developed last Christmas. I mean, in case some of you get bored and need an amusing activity to fill the time. I call it: How to make your own FA-J lens in 10 simple steps (using equipment you can find around the house) . You'll need: [ snip ] Sounds more like an FA-KT lens to me. 8-( Nah. It works, sort of. It's just that there's absolutely no way I can get the aperture ring off the A position...
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of grip and grin photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie. Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But their leaving something out that is not relevant to the story is not a lie, it is just ordinary editing (cutting the irrelevant). graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: While I tend to agree with you, there are a few points that may merit more discussion. First, as to my Photoshop skills - they really are rudimentary. To call them superior in any way surprises me, although I have to admit feeling OK about it ;-)) Oh, I don't see presenting your interpretation as competition. Frankly, I was hoping to see what you had to offer and to learn something from it. More interesting to me is framing and cropping. Let's use Frank's work and my work as examples, only because we (the list in general) are familiar with them. Frank has often said that he doesn't crop. He's also said that he often doesn't notice certain elements in his photos until he's viewing contact sheets or prints. It's likely that he frequently ends up with elements in his photos that, had he seen them when looking through the finder, may not have been included in the image. He's also said that he's included elements in his photos that he knew were inappropriate for any number of reasons, such as being in a hurry, using a wider lens than necessary for the shot, and so on. Does removing or reducing those unneeded and unwanted elements really change what was originally seen as the photo? I think not, because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place, so getting rid of them by cropping, burning, dodging, or any other means would bring the image closer to what was intended, closer to the photographers original vision. OTOH, I crop a lot. Most all my photos are presented in a 5x7 format although I shoot 35mm format. But I crop because that's how I most often see the world through the viewfinder. I wear glasses, generally don't see the full frame (except when using certain lenses on certain Leicas) often shoot quickly, and what I usually end up framing through the finder fits closer to the 5x7 format than the 35mm format. So I crop the final results, but I'm not cropping what I saw and how the final photograph was envisioned. So, the question then is this: in the situations described, is cropping really changing the intended image, or does cropping bring the image to where it was intended to be as seen at the time by the photographer? I don't think you can make a blanket statement that cropping changes the image (speaking only of the photographers original vision) even though it may change what has been caught on the film or the sensor. I also think, depending on a number of variables, that enhancing an image in Photoshop can change it more than cropping. As for De gustibus non disputandum est, I cannot comment, for I am ignorant of the meaning. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes I actually liked Frank's original framing of this picture, and wouldn't wish to change it. It works for me. I think that you, with your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of the image (if that's a suitable word) to produce an excellent final print. I can't compete with you on this, and wouldn't dream of trying. I also think that with your tight cropping you have in both cases produced a punchy image which grabs the attention. I like both. However, I think that when you crop an image (as opposed to trimming) you are changing it rather than just enhancing it. You are in effect making a new image. Simply dodging and burning some areas doesn't create a new image; it's still the same picture, seen at its best. I'm not making a philosophical point here, or criticising what you've done. I just like Frank's original framing, and in my view all that's needed is to do what you have done, without the cropping. I also take your point about the importance of balance and symmetry. It might be that HCB could have produced a picture that contained all the information in Frank's picture, but with more poetry. However, Frank did what he did, and for me the picture is more satisfying with all it's elements intact than with some of them removed or reduced in the name of balance. I might think otherwise in the case of a more abstract image, but here I like the contrast between the two performers, and don't want to see element that downplayed. De gustibus non disputandum est. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
Are you saving with the same software? The amount of jpeg compression can vary widely. In PhotoShop the degree of compression is, of course, selectable. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 10:29 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Both to JPEG. I bet you will find you are saving more noise with the film files (as Peter surmised). William Robb
Re: Paw: Trumpeter Swans for Markus
Hey, I like that one. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh and here is the Swan shot.:-) http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/swansong.jpg -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Re: any further comments on the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF ?
Hi Godfrey, I'm still rather pleased with the FA 38-105/3.2-4.5. In addition to good sharpness, it focuses reasonably close. Here's a pic from last summer: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2541504size=lg On Mar 20, 2005, at 11:11 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Thanks for the comments on this lens! It sounds good, I may have to try one out. I don't expect these relatively inexpensive, medium-speed midrange zooms to compete with primes, but they are very convenient. I've been working with the F35-70/3.5-4.5 the past few days. I bought it pretty cheap and am finding it to be more than just satisfactorily useful, with darn good quality for the money. The 28-105 range would be even more to my liking. It's funny: I'm finding I much prefer AF when I have a zoom on the camera, but much prefer manual focus when I have a prime lens fitted. A travel kit comprised of the 16-45, 35-70 (28-105), 100-300 plus an A50/1.4, A24/2.8, M85/2 is shaping up ... Godfrey
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
I don't buy that. I tend to feel that showing their face is more honest in some ways. At least you're not trying to catch them when they're not looking. I've found that very few homeless people object to having their picture taken, although I would never shoot someone just because they're homeless. But when I find something of interest, Like you, I sometimes engage the person first. If I do go for a candid, and they object, I simply delete it and apologize. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, not showing someone's face = non exploitive photo. Are you saying that when you show someone's face you're exploiting them? Shel [Original Message] From: Ann Sanfedele Bedo, I agree with Frank about the placement of the woman and your not disrespecting her because we can't see her face...
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
Yes, all saved in PS to the same degree of compression. A few have suggested that it's noise, but I don't know for sure what noise is. The images look nice and smooth and don't show any artifacts or junk. Someone suggested film grain ... maybe that's what it is. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Are you saving with the same software? The amount of jpeg compression can vary widely. In PhotoShop the degree of compression is, of course, selectable.
Re: PESO foggy harbour
I am a sucker for boat photos, and this is a good one. I do not like how the gulls look like they are attached to the boat, but then I know how hard it is to get gulls to do exactly what you want. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Francis wrote: Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Francis P.S. In case you were wondering this is a REAL photo, no post processing (aside from dusting off the hair balls and trying to get the colors to match the slide (hopeless)) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
FS: ZX-10 and 28-80 cheap?
Would anyone like a black ZX-10 and Pentax-F 28-80/3.5-4.5 in good shape except for the lazy flash syndrome for $75.00 delivered in the 48 states before I re-list it on eekBay? Lazy flash just means you have to pop it up with the tip of your finger, stays up fine. Make a great kids first or a cheap spare, lens is sharp and in EX+ condition, does a very good job, just not SMC. Pics: http://www.donsauction.com/ebay/10a.jpg http://www.donsauction.com/ebay/10b.jpg http://www.donsauction.com/ebay/10c.jpg I'll re-list tonite if not. PayPal to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
I have to disagree with Cotty (a few posts back) too. I think the contrast between the person in the forground, and the person in the the wheelchair is profound. It shows the difference is really between having family and friends, and not, rather than the physical disability. The grand monuments in the background show what is important to the government (not people). This is not an exploitive photo, but a statement about our instututions in the current world. I would however have preferred that the guy in the wheelchair was not quite so close to the edge of the frame. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter Lacus wrote: http://www.misenet.sk/Berlin/ I don't fully understand the fate of these people however I feel it's a big failure of our society. :-( -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
I've noticed that photos with a lot of detail and multiple colors don't compress very well. I imagine grain vs. the absence thereof would have the same effect. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes, all saved in PS to the same degree of compression. A few have suggested that it's noise, but I don't know for sure what noise is. The images look nice and smooth and don't show any artifacts or junk. Someone suggested film grain ... maybe that's what it is. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Are you saving with the same software? The amount of jpeg compression can vary widely. In PhotoShop the degree of compression is, of course, selectable.
Re: PESO foggy harbour
Yes, great shot. It a classic boat pic. Of course to really do this right vbg you would need some trained gulls and a gull wrangler. No grin there. I bet that both are available in Hollywood. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 11:47 AM, Graywolf wrote: I am a sucker for boat photos, and this is a good one. I do not like how the gulls look like they are attached to the boat, but then I know how hard it is to get gulls to do exactly what you want. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Francis wrote: Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Francis P.S. In case you were wondering this is a REAL photo, no post processing (aside from dusting off the hair balls and trying to get the colors to match the slide (hopeless)) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
For me, the placement of the people at the right part of the frame is correct; they appear to feel pity and revulsion for the old woman and are trying to pass as far away as possible, almost moving out of the picture, although their shadows will pass over her, which is all the interaction they're comfortable with. It would look tidier if they were completely within the frame, but it would lose the effective visual and emotional tension that appears to me. A good shot. Pat White
Re: any further comments on the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF ?
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote: I'm still rather pleased with the FA 38-105/3.2-4.5. In addition to good sharpness, it focuses reasonably close. This is a big plus of the FA lenses. I have an F35-135; the range is much closer to what I like but the closest it focuses (modulo the 135 macro setting) is ~1.5 meters. Kostas
Re: FS: ZX-10 and 28-80 cheap?
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Don Sanderson wrote: Would anyone like a black ZX-10 and Pentax-F 28-80/3.5-4.5 Just a note that the -10 is *not* a cripple mount. Kostas
Re: Is this dust?
On 19/3/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed: see here : http://www.pbase.com/davekennedy/image/40990668 Is this dust on the CCD? Yes. (You've also got red-arrow fungus, but at least you don't have the dreaded copyright infestation ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: FS: ZX-10 and 28-80 cheap?
Thanks Kostas, that's true, any lens from screw mount to FA will work fine. Don -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:13 PM To: PDML Subject: Re: FS: ZX-10 and 28-80 cheap? On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Don Sanderson wrote: Would anyone like a black ZX-10 and Pentax-F 28-80/3.5-4.5 Just a note that the -10 is *not* a cripple mount. Kostas
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
On 19/3/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.misenet.sk/Berlin/ Bedo. Bedo, half of all photography is not photographing at all. a...n...t..i..c..i...p...a...t..i..o..n Let the passers by do some passing by ;-) Cheers, Cotty I disagree. (sorry to critique a critique, but I know Cotty will take it in the spirit intended g). I think the passersby looking at the unfortunate lady are an important part of the photo. I didn't make myself clear enough. My intention was that the passers by should have been more prominent, more into the frame. Where they are is neither here nor there. Waiting a few more seconds would have placed the wheelchair user between the bridge parapets and IMO made the shot more interesting. That is what I mean by anticipation. Or indeed to wait until they are gone, if that is the photographer's intention. So when I wrote 'let the passers-by do some passing by' I meant that they could be photographed in the act of 'passing by'. Hope this helps. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
On 20/3/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed: I too have a problem with the passersby. I think the wheelchair adds another dimension to the two foremost persons' gaze at the beggar. Therefore, I think the shot would have been a lot better if they were not on the edge of the frame. and hence my advice about a...n...t..i..c..i...p...a...t..i..o..n look at the whole frame - know what has happened in the last few seconds, what is happening, what will be happening in the next few seconds. If the shot as it is http://www.misenet.sk/Berlin/ is cropped, can it be loosened up a bit to include more of the people at right? If not, personally i would lose them altogether. .02 :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
On 20/3/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: Well, I think that maybe I was being unfair to Cotty with my comment No you weren't Frank. I was not clear in my post. You are hereby fully exonerated! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
I do actually agree with what you (and Shel) are saying. My point was that a time comes when what you do to a picture is no longer an improvement but a new picture. When that point is reached is of course very subjective, which is what gave rise to this discussion. I actually liked what Shel did, but I thought that what he had done was so major that in both cases he produced a new image, rather than an improvement to the original image. Another way of saying this is that he removed elements in the original picture that I liked, and that I felt belonged in the picture. Shel thought otherwise. Both our points of view are surely equally valid as they simply reflect our own personal responses to the original image. John On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:22:12 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of grip and grin photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie. Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But their leaving something out that is not relevant to the story is not a lie, it is just ordinary editing (cutting the irrelevant). graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: While I tend to agree with you, there are a few points that may merit more discussion. First, as to my Photoshop skills - they really are rudimentary. To call them superior in any way surprises me, although I have to admit feeling OK about it ;-)) Oh, I don't see presenting your interpretation as competition. Frankly, I was hoping to see what you had to offer and to learn something from it. More interesting to me is framing and cropping. Let's use Frank's work and my work as examples, only because we (the list in general) are familiar with them. Frank has often said that he doesn't crop. He's also said that he often doesn't notice certain elements in his photos until he's viewing contact sheets or prints. It's likely that he frequently ends up with elements in his photos that, had he seen them when looking through the finder, may not have been included in the image. He's also said that he's included elements in his photos that he knew were inappropriate for any number of reasons, such as being in a hurry, using a wider lens than necessary for the shot, and so on. Does removing or reducing those unneeded and unwanted elements really change what was originally seen as the photo? I think not, because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place, so getting rid of them by cropping, burning, dodging, or any other means would bring the image closer to what was intended, closer to the photographers original vision. OTOH, I crop a lot. Most all my photos are presented in a 5x7 format although I shoot 35mm format. But I crop because that's how I most often see the world through the viewfinder. I wear glasses, generally don't see the full frame (except when using certain lenses on certain Leicas) often shoot quickly, and what I usually end up framing through the finder fits closer to the 5x7 format than the 35mm format. So I crop the final results, but I'm not cropping what I saw and how the final photograph was envisioned. So, the question then is this: in the situations described, is cropping really changing the intended image, or does cropping bring the image to where it was intended to be as seen at the time by the photographer? I don't think you can make a blanket statement that cropping changes the image (speaking only of the photographers original vision) even though it may change what has been caught on the film or the sensor. I also think, depending on a number of variables, that enhancing an image in Photoshop can change it more than cropping. As for De gustibus non disputandum est, I cannot comment, for I am ignorant of the meaning. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes I actually liked Frank's original framing of this picture, and wouldn't wish to change it. It works for me. I think that you, with your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of the image (if that's a suitable word) to produce an excellent final print. I can't compete with you on this, and wouldn't dream of trying. I also think that with your tight cropping you have in both cases produced a punchy image which grabs the attention. I like both. However, I think that when you crop an image (as opposed to trimming) you are changing it rather than just enhancing it. You are in effect making a new image. Simply dodging and burning some areas doesn't create a new image; it's still the same picture, seen at its best. I'm not making a philosophical point here, or criticising what you've done. I just like Frank's original framing, and in my view all
RE: PESO foggy harbour
Good evening every one! I developed my first batch of slides yesterday! (a hundred and fifty dollars! @#^% ) Here is one of the best ones (in my opinion). http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/boatsea-gulls.html Taken with my P3n and some no-name screw mount 28mm. All comments appreciated (even the ones I don't get around to relying to ;-\ ). Lovely shot! Almost too good to be true. Looks like you got just the right amount of DOF here. The vignetting compliments the mood. Amita
1st Day of Spring in Eastern Massachusetts
About 10 miles NE of Boston http://www.hemenway.com/1stDayofSpring-05/pages/TwistedTree.htm isDS with 43mm Limited
Re: PESO: Candles in the studio
I like them both. Prefer the colour in the f22, a nice ruby red. The f2.5 is tending a bit to an orange foggy look. Maybe a bit of curves? Powell At 03:12 PM 19/03/2005 , you wrote: I photographed some candles this afternoon. They were shot with the SMC Pentax 135/2.5 on the *istD. I decided to try this two ways. Once with a lot of depth of field and consistently sharp images, the other with very limited depth of field and diminishing sharpness. One is at f22, 20 seconds, the other is at f2.5, .3 second. Two studio flashes. One firing off the ceiling , the other into an umbrella. 3/4 power for the f22 shot, 1/16th power for the f2.5 shot. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210253size=lg http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210251size=lg
Re: PESO October Roses featuring the url
Color (unedited): http://www.nwracephoto.com/colorIMGP8199.jpg I've forgotten what settings I used to convert the raw so it looks alot warmer to me than it did when I first converted it. Black and White: http://www.nwracephoto.com/IMGP8199.jpg Most of the processing that I did is stuff that I do to most of my pictures. I used noise ninja just out of habit even though it probably didn't need it at 200. The sharpening is because I've always preferred sharpening photos in processing rather than leaving it to the camera. The black and white processing and film grain was just something I've been playing with lately. The burning was done because the furthest left flower didn't pop out from the back ground as much as I'd like. david Markus Maurer wrote: Hi David I like the composition and DOF of your rose picture but would need to see it more enlarged to understand why you had to do so much processing and converting ? Would you like to show the unmanipulated picture so I can see... greetings and thanks for your PESO Markus I humbly introduce my first PESO. This was taken way back in October and I finally got around to working on it this last week. Camera Info: Pentax *ist D Pentax 28-70mm F/4 @ 65mm F/7.1 1/125 iso 200 Photoshop processing: Noise ninja, Nik Color Effects brilliance/warmth, Highpass filter sharpening, converted to black and white using some process I found online a while back, burned in some of the pedals, and added film grain. http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/6767390/ Comments are welcome -david
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
if there is film grain, it's not nice and smooth by definition. Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more? A few have suggested that it's noise, but I don't know for sure what noise is. The images look nice and smooth and don't show any artifacts or junk. Someone suggested film grain ... maybe that's what it is.
Union Pacific Big Boy on the Move
Last weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month they'll move one of the few remaining Centennial diesel engines to the same location. The stills were taken with an istD and the videos were shot with an OptioMX. http://georges.smugmug.com/gallery/443099 See you later, gs -- George Sinos e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://georgesoptions.net Photos: http://georgesphotos.net --
Re: PESO: Candles in the studio
Nice shots, but something's missing. Oh yeah, the attractive model... g Pat White
Re: Protection foil advice
Jostein mused: Oh, well.. Who am I to ask. I don't use any LCD protection myself. Sounds like a sensible idea, though. Various manufacturers make small protectors for PDAs, cellphones, etc. which work well on digital camera LCDs. Before my *ist-D left the house it had a screen cover - I picked up some (made by Fellowes) at an office supply store. I don't know whether they are necessary, and they do degrade the LCD image slightly. But a friend of mine (with a D100) managed to get a scratch on his LCD, and that's definitely much worse.
RE: LIfe Span of a D (was Re: Pulled the trigger)
I've taken 2,500 in a year, so about 20 years for me. I'm still using a lot of film too, having recently acquired an LX and a P645. Nick -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins[EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, folks, the big question: Given the rate at which you shoot with your *ist D/DS, how long will it take you to get to 50,000 shutter firings?
Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?
Shel Belinkoff mused: Over the last few days I've been experimenting with some PEF files and some files scanned from various color films. When I resize the files to the same dimensions, the scanned files are always larger (in kb's) than the files from the istD. While I know that there will always be some differences in the size of files of the same dimensions, regardless of the medium, this has me perplexed. I try to compare files with similar information, and consistently the film files are larger. I've only done this with about a dozen or so files, but I'd think that at least one or two may not give such a result. Film files are larger by about a minimum of 10%. Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so? Assuming you've got everything right here, you're simply seeing the fact that noisy images (such as those scanned from film) don't compress quite as well as the digital images.
Re: Is this dust?
Cotty mused: On 19/3/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed: see here : http://www.pbase.com/davekennedy/image/40990668 Is this dust on the CCD? Yes. (You've also got red-arrow fungus I didn't see any aircraft ...
RE: Union Pacific Big Boy on the Move
Hi George. This is REALLY great stuff. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the videos to play and I've both QT and Windows Media Player. All I got was a whit screen, although the QT logo popped up. Any suggestions? Shel [Original Message] From: George Sinos Last weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month they'll move one of the few remaining Centennial diesel engines to the same location. The stills were taken with an istD and the videos were shot with an OptioMX. http://georges.smugmug.com/gallery/443099
Re: Union Pacific Big Boy on the Move
George Sinos mused: Last weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month they'll move one of the few remaining Centennial diesel engines to the same location. It's amazing watching something like this, isn't it? A few years ago they moved a hotel in San Jose from one end of the block to the other, using very much the same sort of equipment. Supposedly this was the largest building (and thus the heaviest object) ever moved. I did get some photographs, but they just don't convey the effect.
Re: 1st Day of Spring in Eastern Massachusetts
Jim Hemenway mused: About 10 miles NE of Boston http://www.hemenway.com/1stDayofSpring-05/pages/TwistedTree.htm isDS with 43mm Limited B. I'm definitely glad I moved to California.
Re: Union Pacific Big Boy on the Move
On 20/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: Hi George. This is REALLY great stuff. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the videos to play and I've both QT and Windows Media Player. All I got was a whit screen, although the QT logo popped up. Any suggestions? Stay with it, the logo disappears and the first frame pops up, with the rest loading Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:42:04PM +0100, Jostein wrote: Frank, It may not be a good idea to critique a critique of a critique :-) But then again I do think both yours and Cotty's comments are very interesting. I too have a problem with the passersby. I think the wheelchair adds another dimension to the two foremost persons' gaze at the beggar. Therefore, I think the shot would have been a lot better if they were not on the edge of the frame. That's what I felt. I couldn't uinderstand why anyone would want to crop out this group - the comparison between the person on the street and the person in the wheelchair is fascinating.
Re: How much do you have invested in your camera equipment ??
At 06:53 AM 3/17/2005 +0200, Boris wrote: Anyway, I am probably the least enabled guy of the bunch, which is a title, don't you think? I think that is very unlikely. I have spent a total of about $90 Canadian for a de funked K1000 with a nice K 50mm f2.0 and a teleconverter. Other than that I was given both my P3n and K200mm f2.5 plus two slow zooms which I don't use. But then, it sounds like you're over the hump in terms of having what you want, while I'm sill definitely in the high risk category. Speaking of which, does any one have one of those 400mm f2.8 weighing down their bag? Or a used D/Ds that they would like to donate to a good cause? ;) But don't forget I've got a whole *istD as a gift... Son of a gun... Me that is :). What was that they were saying about green faces? Francis, always optimistic
Re: PESO: Candles in the studio
Thanks Powell. The slight color difference is probably due to more flash lighting on the f22 versions, particularly at the top of the glass. I could cool off the f2.5 version in curves. I could have done it in conversion as well but elected not to because I wanted to keep the flame color very warm. I may look again at some PS adjustment. I'm not going back to RAW. Too much retouching of reflections on this one. I like them both. Prefer the colour in the f22, a nice ruby red. The f2.5 is tending a bit to an orange foggy look. Maybe a bit of curves? Powell At 03:12 PM 19/03/2005 , you wrote: I photographed some candles this afternoon. They were shot with the SMC Pentax 135/2.5 on the *istD. I decided to try this two ways. Once with a lot of depth of field and consistently sharp images, the other with very limited depth of field and diminishing sharpness. One is at f22, 20 seconds, the other is at f2.5, .3 second. Two studio flashes. One firing off the ceiling , the other into an umbrella. 3/4 power for the f22 shot, 1/16th power for the f2.5 shot. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210253size=lg http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3210251size=lg
Re: PESO October Roses featuring the url
These links don't work. Color (unedited): http://www.nwracephoto.com/colorIMGP8199.jpg I've forgotten what settings I used to convert the raw so it looks alot warmer to me than it did when I first converted it. Black and White: http://www.nwracephoto.com/IMGP8199.jpg Most of the processing that I did is stuff that I do to most of my pictures. I used noise ninja just out of habit even though it probably didn't need it at 200. The sharpening is because I've always preferred sharpening photos in processing rather than leaving it to the camera. The black and white processing and film grain was just something I've been playing with lately. The burning was done because the furthest left flower didn't pop out from the back ground as much as I'd like. david Markus Maurer wrote: Hi David I like the composition and DOF of your rose picture but would need to see it more enlarged to understand why you had to do so much processing and converting ? Would you like to show the unmanipulated picture so I can see... greetings and thanks for your PESO Markus I humbly introduce my first PESO. This was taken way back in October and I finally got around to working on it this last week. Camera Info: Pentax *ist D Pentax 28-70mm F/4 @ 65mm F/7.1 1/125 iso 200 Photoshop processing: Noise ninja, Nik Color Effects brilliance/warmth, Highpass filter sharpening, converted to black and white using some process I found online a while back, burned in some of the pedals, and added film grain. http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/6767390/ Comments are welcome -david
