MZ/ZX bodies built-in flash refuse to pop-up?
It's the fragile plastic which is broken. http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41973085.jpg How about made one out of aluminium rod? http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41973286.jpg This is how it looks when installed. http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41973287.jpg Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
Wow, this is a gorgeous piece of work. Was this taken from Treasure Island? -Patsy Pat in SF --- John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html > (make sure > you click the image to see the large version) > > Shot this last december, just before xmas. I made a > big 8.5"x44" print for > my brother and his wife for their wedding gift, and > it turned out so well, > about half the people at the reception wanted a > copy. > > Technical details: *istD, smc Takumar 105mm f2.8 at > f11 (IIRC), 20 second > exposures, over 19 vertical frames (I cropped off > the sides of each due to > some loss of sharpness at the corners). Stitched > together in Photoshop CS.
Re: PESO PADs: more NorCal PDML stuff
Hello John, You've got some nice shots there. The one I really like the most is the Dentist. The lighting is great and so is the composition. It could have used just a little more depth of field to make it even stronger. But very nice, nonetheless. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 11, 2005, 6:24:52 PM, you wrote: JC> The Photo-A-Day gallery has been chugging along! JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/index.html JC> Engine 1 JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/engine1.html JC> Engine 2 JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/engine2.html JC> Dentist JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/dentist.html JC> Model 1 JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model1.html JC> Model 2 JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model2.html JC> Model 3 JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model3.html JC> I'd particularly like to know what people think of Model 2 and Model 3. I JC> like them both, but can't decide which is better. JC> John Celio JC> -- JC> http://www.neovenator.com JC> http://www.newpixel.net JC> AIM: Neopifex JC> "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a JC> statement."
Re: PESO: Daffodils
I've never considered shooting daffodils with a fisheye - dandelions, yes, but not daffodils. Exposure looks good, but the DOF seems just too shallow. At least having the entire main flower in focus would improve the shot for me. I am a bit surprised with how shallow the DOF is. You must have been very close. This is certainly something that I would explore some more. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 11, 2005, 5:05:22 PM, you wrote: AG> The daffodils are in bloom finally! AG> http://sunny16.smugmug.com/gallery/478517 AG> Amita
Beware of ProDigital2000 aka Carman's!
Hello all, Following the largely diffused opinion that the Sigma EF500 DG Super is the best flash unit for the D, I was looking for one for some time. I ended up buying one on ebay from Prodigital2000/Carman's Foto Source. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7503677104&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1 I paid them via Paypal the same day the auction closed (April 4th). Price 175 US$ S/H to Italy 40US$ Total 215 US$ I received item last April 7th via UPS. The flash was the older EF500 Super, not the DG, hence no P-TTL, no exposure compensation, etc. I emailed them 4 times in 5 days for complaining. Each time I received an automated response just acknowledging me they received the message, but no human reply at all. Then I started a Paypal refund request. They replied with Ebay "non paying buyer" action. I can proof I paid them, and they only ship items after receiving payment from buyer, hence this is pure crap! PLEASE BEWARE OF SUCH JERKS! I'll keep you informed on how things will develop. Dario Bonazza
Re: PESO: Blackbird
Very nice shot of the bird - seems to have a bit of attitude. The blurred background is great. Nice shot. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 11, 2005, 5:01:20 PM, you wrote: FW> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwwidall/9152199/ FW> On Sunday afternoon while watching Tiger's Masters victory I set up FW> my *istDS, F70-210mm, hooked up a homemade cable release and practiced FW> taking some bird shots. This was probably my best shot of the afternoon. FW> Focal Length: 210mm FW> Shutter: 1/125 FW> Aperture: F5.6 FW> ISO: 800 FW> Manual focus FW> 2 second delay FW> -- FW> Fred Widall, PeopleSoft Developer, FW> Applications Technology, Information Systems & Technology Dept, FW> University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. FW> Phone:(519) 885-1211 x6440 FW> Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FW> URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall FW> --
Re: PESO Ardea herodias
Hello Francis, For the bird itself, I like #2 the best. For the overall picture, #3 because of the surroundings. The bird almost seems out of place - you probably could have even taken a scenic without the bird and had a great shot. Nice work. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 11, 2005, 6:42:49 PM, you wrote: F> Hi everyone! F> I I've been rather delinquent recently (this is my first post in a F> month). I only have three thousand one hundred and sixty-one unread F> messages :-) . Anyway I have still been snapping away so I thought I'd F> post a few for evaluation. F> Here is a series of great blue heron photos. F> http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/blue-heron.html F> Your critiques are greatly appreciated despite the fact that I never F> manage to acknowledge them :-[ (I barely manage to post the few peso F> that I do, having to fight my way to my brother's computer and all ;-) ). F> Francis F> PS It is actually the first one that's shot with the TC. I rearranged F> them and then forgot to change the text, then didn't bother to.
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If you think this is amusing wait till you see Doug's... > I did and it was :-) This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: RAW Files from Pentax Optio? Secret or Hoax?
Shel Belinkoff mused: > > http://tinyurl.com/52kr9 > > http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@.3bb6a85c.3bb91 > 9d8/0 > > Just read this thread on the Adobe Camera Raw forum. It looks like there's > a method of getting usable RAW files from the Optio (and other brands of > similar cameras). Might be interesting reading for some of the folks here, > and maybe the more technically minded can comment. It's kind of hard to understand what the original poster is saying. In any case, I assume there must be at least one other Pentax camera besides the D and DS that can produce RAW files - the list of Pentax tags in ExifTool includes some tags and/or values new to me.
RAW Files from Pentax Optio? Secret or Hoax?
http://tinyurl.com/52kr9 http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@.3bb6a85c.3bb91 9d8/0 Just read this thread on the Adobe Camera Raw forum. It looks like there's a method of getting usable RAW files from the Optio (and other brands of similar cameras). Might be interesting reading for some of the folks here, and maybe the more technically minded can comment. Shel
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:39:40 -0400, Peter J. Alling wrote: > If you think this is amusing wait till you see Doug's... IOCCC anyone? [International Obfuscated C Code Contest] TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
If you think this is amusing wait till you see Doug's...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ok in C.
int main()
{
int i;
for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
printf( "He is not William.\n" );
return 0;
}
Very amusing :-)
This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
--
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: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ok in C.
>
> int main()
> {
> int i;
> for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
> printf( "He is not William.\n" );
> return 0;
> }
>
Very amusing :-)
This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:01:00 -0400, Peter J. Alling wrote:
> int main()
> {
> int i;
> for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
> printf( "He is not William.\n" );
> return 0;
> }
void HeIsNotWilliam(int n)
{
if ( --n ) HeIsNotWilliam(n);
printf( "He is not William.\n" );
}
int main()
{
HeIsNotWilliam(100);
}
In C that wants to be something LISP-like. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PESO - Blue
I use Picture Window Pro and it can use full 16 bit for all parts of the program - don't know about CS, but certainly thought that it could. Perhaps she uses some plug-ins that are 8 bit only? -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 11, 2005, 8:05:27 PM, you wrote: JM> Bruce, the gal who does my Photoshop work wants my RAWs converted to 8 JM> bit tiffs - she says Photoshop CS can't work on the 16 bit tiffs. Is JM> she mistaken? Perhaps you use another photo program? JM> Thanks - John JM> Bruce Dayton wrote: JM> "16 bit has more working room to manipulate the image when altering with JM> curves and such - for a quick explanation. Since the sensor captures at JM> 12 bits, if you convert to 8 bit jpg or tiff you are throwing away JM> information."
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
Very cool, John. One of the better panos that I have seen. The scene and exposure are great! -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 11, 2005, 6:35:14 PM, you wrote: JC> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html (make sure JC> you click the image to see the large version) JC> Shot this last december, just before xmas. I made a big 8.5"x44" print for JC> my brother and his wife for their wedding gift, and it turned out so well, JC> about half the people at the reception wanted a copy. JC> Technical details: *istD, smc Takumar 105mm f2.8 at f11 (IIRC), 20 second JC> exposures, over 19 vertical frames (I cropped off the sides of each due to JC> some loss of sharpness at the corners). Stitched together in Photoshop CS. JC> John Celio JC> -- JC> http://www.neovenator.com JC> http://www.newpixel.net JC> AIM: Neopifex JC> "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a JC> statement."
Re: PESO: Blackbird
Rick Womer wrote: > > Very nice pic; and he looks every bit as nasty and > malevolent as starlings actually are. > > Rick > I guess you didn't read "Arnie, the darling starling" :) Fred - I can't get the page to read :( ann > --- Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwwidall/9152199/ > > > > On Sunday afternoon while watching Tiger's Masters > > victory I set up > > my *istDS, F70-210mm, hooked up a homemade cable > > release and practiced > > taking some bird shots. This was probably my best > > shot of the afternoon. > > > > Focal Length: 210mm > > Shutter: 1/125 > > Aperture: F5.6 > > ISO: 800 > > Manual focus > > 2 second delay > > > > > -- > > Fred Widall, PeopleSoft Developer, > > Applications Technology, Information Systems & > > Technology Dept, > > University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. > > Phone:(519) 885-1211 x6440 > > Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall > > > -- > > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Shel Belinkoff mused: > > Layers also increase the size of a file and the save time, especially when > using TIFF files. Using a PSD file with layers usually results in smaller > file sizes on disk compared to TIFF and, for many people, open and save > faster in many instances. If you want to save the layer structure you really should just use a PSD. Saving as a TIFF file doesn't gain you anything (and may well lose some of the layer relationships), loses you the editing history, etc., etc. Furthermore it may well confuse some programs which think they know how to deal with a TIFF, but aren't pepared to handle multiple layers.
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Ok in C.
int main()
{
int i;
for ( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
printf( "He is not William.\n" );
return 0;
}
Done.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Thanks, William. I'll look for it.
I'm not William ;-)
I'm Peter Williams.
Write out 100 times:
He is not William.
This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
--
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: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Adjustment layers are the great power of PS and similar programs. Very much worth the time to learn how to use them, even in the most basic form. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There is another feature that I have left largely unexplored. > I rarely use adjustment layers, typically when I do it is while following a > tutorial and they are specified. > > So much to learn...
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
I use it on a duplicate layer. There was a discussion with some of the developers concerning why the tool couldn't be used on an adjustment layer - a bunch of technical reasons that, frankly, were beyond my grasp or need to know. Layers also increase the size of a file and the save time, especially when using TIFF files. Using a PSD file with layers usually results in smaller file sizes on disk compared to TIFF and, for many people, open and save faster in many instances. Of course, this is on a PC, although I don't imagine a Mac would be much, if any, different. Depending on the number and type of layers, I see anywhere from a 15% to a 50% reduction in file size with PSD compared to TIFF, mostly in the 25% or so range. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > Hmm. Well, you can use selections and masks, but you can use them on > anything. I just read the documentation on it and also looked at a > couple of website tutorials. It looks like it has some ability to > automate what I do with adjustment layers, curves and masks, but why > they didn't put it in an adjustment layer I don't know. Adjustment > layers allow you to make corrections without touching the original > data. The only way I'd use this tool is the same way I use sharpening > and noise reduction tools ... make a layer copy of the original image > first, then operate on that layer copy. It increases the size of the > files and the save time. > > I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted > image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the > rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain > when you are modifying the original data. > > I'll play with it a little more. Sometimes I wonder about all these > more automated image-processing tools... I like knowing exactly what a > given tool is doing. > > Godfrey > > > On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Godfrey, > > > > You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well, and, at > > least for me, the results can sometimes be superior to levels and > > curves - > > far superior. IAC, it's another tool that can help you achieve good > > results - you really should give it a try. > > > > Shel > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > > > >> I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more > >> narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a > >> mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use > >> Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be > >> convinced. ;-) > >> > >> Godfrey > > > >
Re: Tamron Lens
Kevin, I've used 2 of the Tamron 28-200mm. The first was labeled 171D (if I remember right), I bought it off ebay for around $50, and the second is a 571D, bought from KEH for about $60. I got rid of the first when the outer element got some play in it and it turned into a soft focus lens. The second has held up alot better. I've used it just as a general use lens but I try to keep it between 50mm and 150mm, before that it's got too much distortion and after that its too soft. Autofocus is rather slow in low light and the contrast sucks 90% of the time. I still have it around because it fits a gap in my lens selection. I suppose it would be a great lens to take on vacation (if you're just taking snap shots) since you wouldn't have to carry another lens to get a good range. Here's an shot from the lens: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9177736&size=o This was shot with an *Ist D, at 200mm F/5.6. You can tell that its plenty soft at the long end. http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/Guy/tamron28200.html - This page talks about the differences between the different versions but it doesn't mention anything before the 571D version, I think there were 2 before that. Joseph Tainter wrote: I just purchased a second *istD and it came with an in the box Tamron AF 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical (if) Is it worth keeping or worth eBaying it? - Kevin, I have not used this. Probably some list members have. I believe, though, that Tamron has brought out different models of this, with newer ones being better performers. Older ones, from what I have read, weren't so good. You might want to determine which version you have. If this was bundled with a D, it may be old stock that someone was trying to move. You know, of course, that zooms with this great a range are not as good as zooms with a more conservative range. Joe
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted > image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the > rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain > when you are modifying the original data. > There is another feature that I have left largely unexplored. I rarely use adjustment layers, typically when I do it is while following a tutorial and they are specified. So much to learn... This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well In my rush to fit in a quick pic between work stuff I just didn't think of using a mask, then when I got home I was rushed again and just did the Shadow/Highlight thing to the whole pic, again not even think of using a mask. This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Hmm. Well, you can use selections and masks, but you can use them on anything. I just read the documentation on it and also looked at a couple of website tutorials. It looks like it has some ability to automate what I do with adjustment layers, curves and masks, but why they didn't put it in an adjustment layer I don't know. Adjustment layers allow you to make corrections without touching the original data. The only way I'd use this tool is the same way I use sharpening and noise reduction tools ... make a layer copy of the original image first, then operate on that layer copy. It increases the size of the files and the save time. I like to be able to go all the way back to the original RAW-converted image at any time in my adjustment workflow to see exactly what the rendering adjustments have done. Easy with adjustment layers, a pain when you are modifying the original data. I'll play with it a little more. Sometimes I wonder about all these more automated image-processing tools... I like knowing exactly what a given tool is doing. Godfrey On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Godfrey, You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well, and, at least for me, the results can sometimes be superior to levels and curves - far superior. IAC, it's another tool that can help you achieve good results - you really should give it a try. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be convinced. ;-) Godfrey
Re: PESO - Blue
John, The beautiful thing about CS is that it CAN work on 16-bit TIFF files, including many filters and brushes that in earlier versions of PS (7.0) would only work on 8-bit files. Bruce uses another program, but that doesn't change Photoshop's capabilities. maybe you need another "gal" to do your Photoshop work. Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Munro > Bruce, the gal who does my Photoshop work wants my RAWs converted to 8 > bit tiffs - she says Photoshop CS can't work on the 16 bit tiffs. Is > she mistaken? Perhaps you use another photo program? > > Thanks - John > > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > "16 bit has more working room to manipulate the image when altering with > curves and such - for a quick explanation. Since the sensor captures at > 12 bits, if you convert to 8 bit jpg or tiff you are throwing away > information."
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Godfrey, You can use a selection and mask in Shadows/Highlights as well, and, at least for me, the results can sometimes be superior to levels and curves - far superior. IAC, it's another tool that can help you achieve good results - you really should give it a try. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more > narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a > mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use > Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be > convinced. ;-) > > Godfrey
pdml@pdml.net
Quoting Butch Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > According to DP review the Pentax Optio 50 that Bill Owens was talking > about > uses AA's > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_optio50.asp Also according to Bill Owens' post ...
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
I filled up a 1gig card on the weekend with my *ist D and maxed out at 76 RAW files. OTOH it's the first time I've filled an entire card. Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 11:39 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 11, 2005, at 6:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> The *ist DS file size is much > >> improved but still not as good as most. > > > > I'm always suprised when I hear how many Canon raw files fit on a xxx > > sized > > card. They seem to get quite high compression levels for their raw > > files. > > With the 10D, writing RAW format with the camera set to its defaults, I > obtain 127 RAW files per a 1G CF card. If I modify the defaults with a > custom function and minimize the embedded JPEG file, I can get 143 RAW > exposures per 1G card. > > With the *ist DS, I get 100-105 RAW format exposures on a 1G SD card. > > So the Canon will store 27-43% more RAW exposures per 1G card. While > this is a useful improvement in space efficiency, I don't really > consider that significant. Yeah, sure, I need 3 1G SD cards for the DS > compared to 2 1G CF cards for the 10D, but they're cheap enough as to > not be that much of a burden nowadays. I don't often need more than one > 1G card anyway, unless I'm traveling. > > Godfrey > >
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Apr 11, 2005, at 7:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've never used the Shadow/Highlight adjustments ... I always use Levels and Curves in Adjustment Layers, with masking to apply the adjustment selectively. I think if you play with Shadow/Highlights for a while, you'll find it's a very valuable tool. It allows you to achieve more narrowly targeted control of highlight and shadow areas than does either curves or levels. It also has the ability to restore midtone contrast after bringing up the shadow areas. According to documents I've read, it's actions can't be fully duplicated with other PSCS controls. I'll have to learn more about it. I don't know how you can target more narrowly than adjusting Levels and Curves in adjustment layers with a mask to control what is affected. It may be easier to use Shadow/Highlight controls, but more precise/narrower? I'll have to be convinced. ;-) Godfrey
RE: PESO Concert Piano Pic
Hi, Shel. Thanks for your nice comments. Regards --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good work, Albano - nice use of light and shadow. > Too many people would > have given the scene more exposure to "capture > detail," and ruined the > shot. Nice exposure choice. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Albano Garcia > > > Alla Elton... > > > http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar/dacalCCC/pages/DacalCCC11.htm > > > Albano Garcia Photography & Graphic Design http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar http://www.flaneur.com.ar __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
On Apr 11, 2005, at 6:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *ist DS file size is much improved but still not as good as most. I'm always suprised when I hear how many Canon raw files fit on a xxx sized card. They seem to get quite high compression levels for their raw files. With the 10D, writing RAW format with the camera set to its defaults, I obtain 127 RAW files per a 1G CF card. If I modify the defaults with a custom function and minimize the embedded JPEG file, I can get 143 RAW exposures per 1G card. With the *ist DS, I get 100-105 RAW format exposures on a 1G SD card. So the Canon will store 27-43% more RAW exposures per 1G card. While this is a useful improvement in space efficiency, I don't really consider that significant. Yeah, sure, I need 3 1G SD cards for the DS compared to 2 1G CF cards for the 10D, but they're cheap enough as to not be that much of a burden nowadays. I don't often need more than one 1G card anyway, unless I'm traveling. Godfrey
Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
The M. Sorry. I meant to put that in. William Robb - Original Message - From: "David Savage" Subject: Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse? Such a helpful soul Dave S > The M or the ST? Yup. William Robb
Re: PESO - Blue
Quoting John Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bruce, the gal who does my Photoshop work wants my RAWs converted to 8 > bit tiffs - she says Photoshop CS can't work on the 16 bit tiffs. Is > she mistaken? Perhaps you use another photo program? > It can do more with 16 bit files than any previous version, but as yet, not everything you'd likely want to do with a photo. It does pay to keep it in 16 bit for as many operations as you can, particularly the gross ones that would result in posterisation and like ills on 8 bit files. Quite a lot of filters and third-party plugins are 8 bit only. -- Peter Williams This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
Such a helpful soul Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 11:08 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Don Sanderson" > Subject: RE: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse? > > > The M or the ST? > > Yup. > > William Robb > >
Re: Best "mid-speed" 70/80-200/210 AF zoom?
> I have several 70/80-200/210 zooms in the F/4-5.6 range for > autofocus. > All of them have their strengths and weaknesses. > Some are good at the short end and poor at the long end. > Others are just the opposite. > **What is your favorite mid-range zoom?** I do have some experience with a few different "70/80-200/210 zooms", so I thought I'd chime in with a few comments. > The ATX 80-200/2.8 is fantastic but it's large, heavy and manual focus. Among the f/2.8's, I really like the FA* 80-200/2.8 (what's not to like, except I would have preferred a one-touch zoom, but I know it's an AF lens, so...). I also really like the ol' manual focus Tokina ATX 80-200/2.8 (which I'm reluctant to give up, even though I now have the FA*). I don't care as much for the autofocus ATX 80-200/2.8 (although, to be honest, I have not used it as much as the others). All three lenses do seem very well built. However, about as was said, all of these are big and heavy - not exactly walking around lenses - . (Of course, the "heavy" goes hand-in-hand with the "well built".) But, when you're short on photons... > The F70-210/4-5.6 is good when it wants to be but I get inconsistent > results with it, both exposure and image quality wise. I still haven't gotten excited about the F 70-210/4-5.6. (I know some people love this lens, but I can say that there is not a universal admiration of it.) I find that the A 70-210/4 is better (unless maybe I just have a "dud" of an F lens) in all ways (except maybe in autofocus speed - ). In fact, jumping directly to the "bottom line question", the A 70-210/4 is my favorite all-around flavor of the "70/80-200/210 zooms". Among some of the 3rd-party models, I've used the five different VS1 70-210's: The original VS1 70-210/3.5 is solid, but is not quite as sharp as the second VS1 70-210/3.5 (which is optically identical, as far as I can tell, to the Tokina 70-210/3.5), which I'd say is tied with the VS1 70-210/2.8-4. The fourth and fifth VS1 70-210's (both f/2.8-4) are not as good as their predecessors (although the Q-DOS version, i.e., the fifth version, is a lot of fun to play with). So, my "bottom line" choice for this category is still the A 70-210/4. Fred
Re: Film writers (digi to neg, digi to slide)
- Original Message - From: "Frantisek" Subject: Film writers (digi to neg, digi to slide) Hi, as sacrilegous as it is to me, I have some B&W conversions from digital which I would really like to have as fiber B&W prints (e.g. the frontpage photograph on my website). This is what my friend tells me: It is running, resolution options are; 2K - 2048 x 1366 pixels 4K - 4096 x 2732 8K - 8192 x 5464 for 35mm the image is 7.33 x 11 inches. @ 2K - 186 ppi, 4K - 372 ppi, 8K - 745 ppi 6x78.5 x 11 2K - 160372 642 4x5 7.88 x 11 173346 693 or thereabouts. William Robb
Re: PESO Ardea herodias
- Original Message - From: "Francis" Subject: PESO Ardea herodias Here is a series of great blue heron photos. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/blue-heron.html The bottom one is way cool. William Robb
pdml@pdml.net
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Some Optio models use AAs. My question is, do *those* Optios like NiMH batteries? Sorry, misread the question. I don't think there would be a problem with NiMh batteries, probably the camera will run better with them. I would check the manual just to be safe though. Just a quick look over at the pentax website disclosed this: Quoted from the following webpage: http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_specs/digital_camera--Optio_S50/reqID--1008/subsection--optio '" Power Source - One Lithium battery CR-V3 (allows approximately 420 shots*), or two AA batteries (Lithium, alkaline, nickel and rechargeable Ni-MH), AC adaptor kit (optional)" This is just the first one I found that uses AA batteries, there might be others William Robb
Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: RE: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse? The M or the ST? Yup. William Robb
Re: Metering Confusion With K Lenses & The *ist D S
Mucho Thanks, Cory! Cory Papenfuss wrote: "The "green button" operation of the -D is synonymous with hitting the AE button while in 'M' mode with a K lens. Basically: - Put on a 'K' lens or an 'A' lens turned to other than 'A' - Set knob to 'M' - Turn aperture ring to desired f-stop - (Manually stop down if using screwmount lens with K adapter) - Compose and hit the AE button. The -DS will stop down, meter, and set shutter speed to the appropriate value. Note that ONLY center-weighed or spot mode are options... matrix will revert to CW. - Any EV compensation you do by cranking the shutter speed up/down from the value just set.
Re: PESO - Blue
Not Bruce, but, Yes. Only thing you can't use, that comes to mind, on 16 bit tiff files are some of the effects filters. Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 11:05 AM, John Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce, the gal who does my Photoshop work wants my RAWs converted to 8 > bit tiffs - she says Photoshop CS can't work on the 16 bit tiffs. Is > she mistaken? Perhaps you use another photo program? > > Thanks - John > > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > "16 bit has more working room to manipulate the image when altering with > curves and such - for a quick explanation. Since the sensor captures at > 12 bits, if you convert to 8 bit jpg or tiff you are throwing away > information." > >
Re: PESO - Blue
Another excellent shot Bruce. I love the saturated colours. These walks of yours as well as being good for you, are very productive. On my walks all I see is the SSDD :-) Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 3:16 AM, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another walk this morning. The poppies are just about through for the > season. But a new wildflower has come out. > > Pentax *istD, Tokina AT-X SD 400/5.6 AF > ISO 800, 1/750 sec @ f/5.6, handheld, manual focus > > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1732.htm > > Converted from Raw to Tiff 16 bit in Capture One LE, sized/sharpened > for web in BreezeBrowser. > > Comments welcome. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > >
Re: PESO - Blue
Bruce, the gal who does my Photoshop work wants my RAWs converted to 8 bit tiffs - she says Photoshop CS can't work on the 16 bit tiffs. Is she mistaken? Perhaps you use another photo program? Thanks - John Bruce Dayton wrote: "16 bit has more working room to manipulate the image when altering with curves and such - for a quick explanation. Since the sensor captures at 12 bits, if you convert to 8 bit jpg or tiff you are throwing away information."
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
Absolutely stunning John. If your selling I'll take one :-) I wish I could get my panoramas to come out that good :-(. Well done Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 9:35 AM, John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html (make sure > you click the image to see the large version) > > Shot this last december, just before xmas. I made a big 8.5"x44" print for > my brother and his wife for their wedding gift, and it turned out so well, > about half the people at the reception wanted a copy. > > Technical details: *istD, smc Takumar 105mm f2.8 at f11 (IIRC), 20 second > exposures, over 19 vertical frames (I cropped off the sides of each due to > some loss of sharpness at the corners). Stitched together in Photoshop CS. > > John Celio > > -- > http://www.neovenator.com > http://www.newpixel.net > > AIM: Neopifex > > "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a > statement." > >
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 09:39:31PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:35:14 -0700, John Celio wrote: > > > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html > > (make sure you click the image to see the large version) > > Just freakin' awesome. If prints are for sale, sign me up. :-) > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Me too!
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused: > > Quoting Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > The *ist DS file size is much > > improved but still not as good as most. > > > > I'm always suprised when I hear how many Canon raw files fit on a xxx sized > card. They seem to get quite high compression levels for their raw files. Several other people have been surprised by that, too. There have even been suggestions that the Canon compression scheme might not be 100% lossless.
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused: > > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I didn't mention Knoll by name because it seemed that few people would know > > who he is, and even though he's the primary developer of ACR he's still > > following company policy. > > > > As far as I'm aware he wrote Photoshop in the first instance. > His name still appears first on the PS CS splash screen list of developer too. My point was that this is as close to the horse's mouth as possible; if Thomas says something, you can be pretty sure the facts are correct.
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
One of the features I like most about the upcoming DNG 3.x release is that it will be possible to convert from Pentax raw to DNG without losing *any* information, while still keeping the size reductions that the DNG compression schemes offer. Herb Chong mused: > > a megabyte per megapixel is pretty close to what Canon achieves, and just > about everyone else comes close. with the *istD, it is over 2 megabytes per > megapixel. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:38 PM > Subject: Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw > > > > The RAW format they imbedded in the *ist D was just poor, each file was > > twice > > the size of any other 6MP camera so apart from being demanding on storage > > media > > volume wise it also made saving much slower. The *ist DS file size is much > > improved but still not as good as most. >
Re: PAW PESO - Sunken Houseboat (Link to Color Version)
Joe, You're my man! I am, and always have been, drawn to old, worn, damaged, decrepit objects and scenes. There's something within me that draws me to them. One of my fantasies is to live in a small, old house that's badly in need of paint out in some rural area, and drive a 1960 Dodge PowerWagon pickup into town to get groceries Now that the brakes are repaired on my 20 year old sedan, it's about time to go back to the marina ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Joseph Tainter > I am a sucker for ruin and desolation. (What do you expect? I'm an > archaeologist.) So I enjoyed the chair and the houseboat very much, > Shel. The latter was much better in grayscale. A foggy or rainy day > would have improved it even more. A rotting beached whale would have > been icing on the cake.
pdml@pdml.net
According to DP review the Pentax Optio 50 that Bill Owens was talking about uses AA's http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_optio50.asp Butch
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
a megabyte per megapixel is pretty close to what Canon achieves, and just about everyone else comes close. with the *istD, it is over 2 megabytes per megapixel. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw The RAW format they imbedded in the *ist D was just poor, each file was twice the size of any other 6MP camera so apart from being demanding on storage media volume wise it also made saving much slower. The *ist DS file size is much improved but still not as good as most. -- Between the Pentax RAW converter and this, It sound like Pentax needs to hire a few good software writers. Butch
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
Very nice. Well composed. I bet that would be a big seller in a tourist area gallery. Paul > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html (make sure > you click the image to see the large version) > > Shot this last december, just before xmas. I made a big 8.5"x44" print for > my brother and his wife for their wedding gift, and it turned out so well, > about half the people at the reception wanted a copy. > > Technical details: *istD, smc Takumar 105mm f2.8 at f11 (IIRC), 20 second > exposures, over 19 vertical frames (I cropped off the sides of each due to > some loss of sharpness at the corners). Stitched together in Photoshop CS. > > John Celio > > -- > http://www.neovenator.com > http://www.newpixel.net > > AIM: Neopifex > > "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a > statement." > >
Re: PAW PESO - Sunken Houseboat (Link to Color Version)
I am a sucker for ruin and desolation. (What do you expect? I'm an archaeologist.) So I enjoyed the chair and the houseboat very much, Shel. The latter was much better in grayscale. A foggy or rainy day would have improved it even more. A rotting beached whale would have been icing on the cake. I might have been tempted to crop off about half of the sky. To my eye it doesn't add. Joe
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
I think if you play with Shadow/Highlights for a while, you'll find it's a very valuable tool. It allows you to achieve more narrowly targeted control of highlight and shadow areas than does either curves or levels. It also has the ability to restore midtone contrast after bringing up the shadow areas. According to documents I've read, it's actions can't be fully duplicated with other PSCS controls. > > On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit > >> opening > >> up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask. > >> I'll send that to you for your evaluation. > >> > > > > And a pretty good job it was too, especially considering you worked > > from the web > > version of the pic. I'm not too clever with curves, I need to spend > > more time > > playing and reading tutorials with the Curves and also with the (new > > to me) > > Shadow/Highlight adjustments. > > Thanks. > > I've never used the Shadow/Highlight adjustments ... I always use > Levels and Curves in Adjustment Layers, with masking to apply the > adjustment selectively. > > > I don't mind if you put up your version of the pic for 24 hours or so > > to show > > others what you managed to get out of it. > > Sure ... Just remind me to delete it soon as I tend to forget... > > http://homepage.mac.com/godders/yarra-pw/ > > Godfrey >
Re: Tamron Lens
I just purchased a second *istD and it came with an in the box Tamron AF 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical (if) Is it worth keeping or worth eBaying it? - Kevin, I have not used this. Probably some list members have. I believe, though, that Tamron has brought out different models of this, with newer ones being better performers. Older ones, from what I have read, weren't so good. You might want to determine which version you have. If this was bundled with a D, it may be old stock that someone was trying to move. You know, of course, that zooms with this great a range are not as good as zooms with a more conservative range. Joe
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
Quoting John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html (make sure > you click the image to see the large version) > It is very attractive John. I'm not suprised others wanted one. This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400
no-one has done any really stringent testing that i know of. anecdotally, the discussions i have heard center on the paper life more than anything else. it appears that most papers designed for this work will not last more than a few years, maybe even less than 5, without significant yellowing. i have thrown away all my older Phaser prints but from what i remember before tossing them, about 2 or 3 years after having printed, they seemed to be OK otherwise. one thing that i noticed with the older wax-based solid inks was that they scratched very easily. i don't know what the newer ones are like anymore. i think this month's Shutterbug has an informal article about someone trying to do the same thing as you. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jim Colwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:51 PM Subject: Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400 I'll try anything and everything on the 8400, but I hope most of all that it will provide good results for glossy B&W prints. Your point about longevity is very important, especially if I'm selling the prints - don't want those fine dots to fall off before the customers get home - do you have any specific information on how long these solid ink prints are expected to last under 'normal' conditions ?
RE: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
Absolutely gorgeous John! Tom C. From: "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Subject: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:35:14 -0700 http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html (make sure you click the image to see the large version) Shot this last december, just before xmas. I made a big 8.5"x44" print for my brother and his wife for their wedding gift, and it turned out so well, about half the people at the reception wanted a copy. Technical details: *istD, smc Takumar 105mm f2.8 at f11 (IIRC), 20 second exposures, over 19 vertical frames (I cropped off the sides of each due to some loss of sharpness at the corners). Stitched together in Photoshop CS. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.newpixel.net AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
PESO Ardea herodias
Hi everyone! I I've been rather delinquent recently (this is my first post in a month). I only have three thousand one hundred and sixty-one unread messages :-) . Anyway I have still been snapping away so I thought I'd post a few for evaluation. Here is a series of great blue heron photos. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/blue-heron.html Your critiques are greatly appreciated despite the fact that I never manage to acknowledge them :-[ (I barely manage to post the few peso that I do, having to fight my way to my brother's computer and all ;-) ). Francis PS It is actually the first one that's shot with the TC. I rearranged them and then forgot to change the text, then didn't bother to. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:35:14 -0700, John Celio wrote: > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html > (make sure you click the image to see the large version) Just freakin' awesome. If prints are for sale, sign me up. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html (make sure you click the image to see the large version) Shot this last december, just before xmas. I made a big 8.5"x44" print for my brother and his wife for their wedding gift, and it turned out so well, about half the people at the reception wanted a copy. Technical details: *istD, smc Takumar 105mm f2.8 at f11 (IIRC), 20 second exposures, over 19 vertical frames (I cropped off the sides of each due to some loss of sharpness at the corners). Stitched together in Photoshop CS. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.newpixel.net AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
On Apr 11, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Fred wrote: The M85 is the list's favourite short telephoto to abuse and slander. It's not the sharpest lens wide open, but get it stopped down a little and it's pretty darned good. Agreed. It's a useful 85mm lens, especially if portraiture is your main reason for using an 85. Heck if I know why. I have an M85/2. I find it great lens for portaits wide open and very sharp when stopped down to f/4-f/5.6. It has beautiful out of focus rendering qualities. I've never used the other 85 that was talked about so I cannot offer anything in way of comparison. Godfrey
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit opening up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask. I'll send that to you for your evaluation. And a pretty good job it was too, especially considering you worked from the web version of the pic. I'm not too clever with curves, I need to spend more time playing and reading tutorials with the Curves and also with the (new to me) Shadow/Highlight adjustments. Thanks. I've never used the Shadow/Highlight adjustments ... I always use Levels and Curves in Adjustment Layers, with masking to apply the adjustment selectively. I don't mind if you put up your version of the pic for 24 hours or so to show others what you managed to get out of it. Sure ... Just remind me to delete it soon as I tend to forget... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/yarra-pw/ Godfrey
Re: PESO PADs: more NorCal PDML stuff
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:24:52 -0700, John Celio wrote: > Model 2 > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model2.html > > Model 3 > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model3.html > > I'd particularly like to know what people think of Model 2 and Model 3. I > like them both, but can't decide which is better. I guess 3, but what I'd really like is 2 with more DOF. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Tamron Lens
I just purchased a second *istD and it came with an in the box Tamron AF 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical (if) Is it worth keeping or worth eBaying it? Any reports greatfully recieved Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
PESO PADs: more NorCal PDML stuff
The Photo-A-Day gallery has been chugging along! http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/index.html Engine 1 http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/engine1.html Engine 2 http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/engine2.html Dentist http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/dentist.html Model 1 http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model1.html Model 2 http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model2.html Model 3 http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/bw3/model3.html I'd particularly like to know what people think of Model 2 and Model 3. I like them both, but can't decide which is better. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.newpixel.net AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear? > Thanks Rob, but no thanks. ;-) This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: updated website, please comment
Very nice, Fra (though that B&W photo on the first screen is a bit depressing...). It worked fine through 10 minutes of surfing with Safari on a Mac. Rick --- Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, >I have finally finished new design of my website, > redoing most of >the pages to have uniform look (before it was > every one different >, not intentionally! but each was done at a > different time with >different software, handcoded/...). > >Not much new photographs yet, but I would like to > get some comments >on the design, portfolio and also there are any > "bugs" e.g. showing >in Safari or other browsers I didn't try. I am > still converting >them completely to CSS, so there might be some > :-( I am still >learning it all. > >I would also like comments about the portfolio, > especially if it >works as a whole for you. I didn't want to make > it general but I >wanted some more interesting angles and > photographs. > >Thanks a lot! > >http://www.frantisekvlcek.com > > Good light! >fra > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: updated website, please comment
Hi Frantisek, The site is very attractive and works well with the majority of the categories. However,in the section "other work" there are a few pages that come up completely different and don't allow backing up to the previous page. These include "Refugee children..." "Home for the mentally handicapped...," and "Theater performance in derelict..." Nice to see these shots again. A lot of great work here. Paul > Hi, >I have finally finished new design of my website, redoing most of >the pages to have uniform look (before it was every one different >, not intentionally! but each was done at a different time with >different software, handcoded/...). > >Not much new photographs yet, but I would like to get some comments >on the design, portfolio and also there are any "bugs" e.g. showing >in Safari or other browsers I didn't try. I am still converting >them completely to CSS, so there might be some :-( I am still >learning it all. > >I would also like comments about the portfolio, especially if it >works as a whole for you. I didn't want to make it general but I >wanted some more interesting angles and photographs. > >Thanks a lot! > >http://www.frantisekvlcek.com > > Good light! >fra >
Re: PESO: Blackbird
Very nice pic; and he looks every bit as nasty and malevolent as starlings actually are. Rick --- Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwwidall/9152199/ > > On Sunday afternoon while watching Tiger's Masters > victory I set up > my *istDS, F70-210mm, hooked up a homemade cable > release and practiced > taking some bird shots. This was probably my best > shot of the afternoon. > > Focal Length: 210mm > Shutter: 1/125 > Aperture: F5.6 > ISO: 800 > Manual focus > 2 second delay > > -- > Fred Widall, PeopleSoft Developer, > Applications Technology, Information Systems & > Technology Dept, > University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. > Phone:(519) 885-1211 x6440 > Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall > -- > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
Quoting Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The *ist DS file size is much > improved but still not as good as most. > I'm always suprised when I hear how many Canon raw files fit on a xxx sized card. They seem to get quite high compression levels for their raw files. This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 100 times: he is not William. Okay? > (I'll not soon forget after that) > When I post through the ISP's webmail interface you just get the williamsp version of my email address, when I post from home using a mail programme you get the Peter Wiliams prefix as well (not to mention a sig with my name). So I don't entirely blame you :-) This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: PESO: Blackbird
Paul, Thanks for pointing out my mistaken identification. Photography is such an educational hobby and the PDML is a font of information on all subjects . -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
updated website, please comment
Hi, I have finally finished new design of my website, redoing most of the pages to have uniform look (before it was every one different , not intentionally! but each was done at a different time with different software, handcoded/...). Not much new photographs yet, but I would like to get some comments on the design, portfolio and also there are any "bugs" e.g. showing in Safari or other browsers I didn't try. I am still converting them completely to CSS, so there might be some :-( I am still learning it all. I would also like comments about the portfolio, especially if it works as a whole for you. I didn't want to make it general but I wanted some more interesting angles and photographs. Thanks a lot! http://www.frantisekvlcek.com Good light! fra
pdml@pdml.net
Quoting William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > BTW, something on another thread causes me to inquire: Do Optios that use > > > AA > > batteries like NiMH? > > > Check the specs for the camera you are interested in. I think most of them > > are using proprietary batteries. Some Optio models use AAs. My question is, do *those* Optios like NiMH batteries? I have one of the Optios that don't use AAs but a proprietary battery, that's why I don't know much about the ones that use AAs. ERNR
Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400
Herb, I'll try anything and everything on the 8400, but I hope most of all that it will provide good results for glossy B&W prints. Your point about longevity is very important, especially if I'm selling the prints - don't want those fine dots to fall off before the customers get home - do you have any specific information on how long these solid ink prints are expected to last under 'normal' conditions ? Jim www.jcolwell.ca
Re: PESO: Blackbird
Good one. It's a Starling, another bird that is sometimes called a "flying rat" . However we can't blame the Canadians for this one. The Starling was a gift from the Brits . Paul
RE: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
Thanks Fred, I read your comments on Stans site. One of the reasons I'm interested. The others are smaller size, lighter and open aperture with the Green Button than stop-down. Don > -Original Message- > From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:25 PM > To: William Robb > Subject: Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse? > > > > The M85 is the list's favourite short telephoto to abuse and slander. > > It's not the sharpest lens wide open, but get it stopped down a little > > and it's pretty darned good. > > Agreed. It's a useful 85mm lens, especially if portraiture is your main > reason for using an 85. > > Fred > >
RE: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
The M or the ST? Don > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:58 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse? > > The 85 has nicer bokeh > William Robb > >
Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400
my understanding from others who have tried this is that the tonal range of the printers isn't good enough to replace inkjet prints. it's good for proofing and other things where color fidelity and longevity aren't important. they are supposed to be far faster than typical inkjet printers. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jim Colwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:23 PM Subject: Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400 I'm not asking if I should get one, I already have one. It's sitting in my basement, working its virtual butt off for my wife's business, which bought it. My concern is what type of paper I should use for photos. I think it's been established that glossy paper is worth trying, and I'm going to assume that it should be colour laser paper, since both the Phaser and colour lasers are relatively hot printing processes, while an ink jet is cold (or room temp) print process.
pdml@pdml.net
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Due to their size, I'd be surprised if any of the Option models use AA >batteries at all. My Optio S5i came with this nifty little flat >battery that's about the size of a piece of Bazooka bubble gum, for >those of you old enough to remember that stuff. I think most of the Optios use the D-LI7 battery, but the Optio 33L (a nifty little budget camera, IMO) used AA Lithiums or a CRV3. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
> The M85 is the list's favourite short telephoto to abuse and slander. > It's not the sharpest lens wide open, but get it stopped down a little > and it's pretty darned good. Agreed. It's a useful 85mm lens, especially if portraiture is your main reason for using an 85. Fred
Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400
Scott, I'm not asking if I should get one, I already have one. It's sitting in my basement, working its virtual butt off for my wife's business, which bought it. My concern is what type of paper I should use for photos. I think it's been established that glossy paper is worth trying, and I'm going to assume that it should be colour laser paper, since both the Phaser and colour lasers are relatively hot printing processes, while an ink jet is cold (or room temp) print process. Jim www.jcolwell.ca
Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
> I've been eyeing an M85/2, my question for those familiar with > both it and the Super Takumar 85/1.9 is this: > Is it better or worse or just different? > Here's a shot you may remember made with the ST85: > http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/Eyes.htm > Is this the kind of result the M85 will give? > It's going to be pricey so I want to be sure it's worth it. I think that the M 85/2 is just a bit sharper than the ST 85/1.9 - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/ (cat photos to match your dog photo - ) Fred
Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400
We have an 8400DP at work. Seems to have decent resolution, but, as others have noted, the ink seems to have a different gloss factor than the paper. Would be curious to see how it turns out with some glossy paper. -Mat On 4/10/05, Jim Colwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody have experience with the Xerox Phaser 8400 colour printer ? > The recommended high res photo paper is Phaser Professional Solid Ink High > Resolution Photo Paper. I'm going to order a package to try it out, but > it's not easily available here in Halifax NS. Any recommendations for other > papers ? Thanks, Jim. www.jcolwell.ca > >
PESO: Daffodils
The daffodils are in bloom finally! http://sunny16.smugmug.com/gallery/478517 Amita
PESO: Blackbird
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwwidall/9152199/ On Sunday afternoon while watching Tiger's Masters victory I set up my *istDS, F70-210mm, hooked up a homemade cable release and practiced taking some bird shots. This was probably my best shot of the afternoon. Focal Length: 210mm Shutter: 1/125 Aperture: F5.6 ISO: 800 Manual focus 2 second delay -- Fred Widall, PeopleSoft Developer, Applications Technology, Information Systems & Technology Dept, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. Phone:(519) 885-1211 x6440 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I didn't mention Knoll by name because it seemed that few people would know > who he is, and even though he's the primary developer of ACR he's still > following company policy. > As far as I'm aware he wrote Photoshop in the first instance. His name still appears first on the PS CS splash screen list of developer too. This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse?
- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: SMCP-M85/2 vs ST85/1.9, Better/worse? I've been eyeing an M85/2, my question for those familiar with both it and the Super Takumar 85/1.9 is this: Is it better or worse or just different? Here's a shot you may remember made with the ST85: http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/Eyes.htm Is this the kind of result the M85 will give? It's going to be pricey so I want to be sure it's worth it. The 85 has nicer bokeh The M85 is the list's favourite short telephoto to abuse and slander. It's not the sharpest lens wide open, but get it stopped down a little and it's pretty darned good. Certainly, it is as good as a digital sensor. William Robb
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >100 times: he is not William. Okay? Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
a megabyte per megapixel is pretty close to what Canon achieves, and just about everyone else comes close. with the *istD, it is over 2 megabytes per megapixel. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw The RAW format they imbedded in the *ist D was just poor, each file was twice the size of any other 6MP camera so apart from being demanding on storage media volume wise it also made saving much slower. The *ist DS file size is much improved but still not as good as most.
Re: Pentax ist DS shutter.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:12 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: > A friend of mine has the "miaow" set for power up on her Optio, every > time she powers it up at home around the cat he's off on a hunt to find > the intruder ;-) Wow, now I'm going to _have_ to go see if there's a "miaow" sound in my S5i ... at least one or two of my four cats will be flummoxed by that. They go hide when I put on the "thunderstorm in the forest" CD. ;-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: A Real B&W Negative from Digital Output?
View Camera ran an article on that subject a few months ago. Looks like some fun. Collin
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I took a copy of your original JPEG and made a very slight edit opening > up the shadow areas only with a Curves Adjustment Layer and a mask. > I'll send that to you for your evaluation. > And a pretty good job it was too, especially considering you worked from the web version of the pic. I'm not too clever with curves, I need to spend more time playing and reading tutorials with the Curves and also with the (new to me) Shadow/Highlight adjustments. I don't mind if you put up your version of the pic for 24 hours or so to show others what you managed to get out of it. This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: OT - I'm on strike tomorrow!
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:19:00 +0100 (BST), Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > I would think that their mortgage *is* on the line because of the > practice: one can set enough cameras and a few sensors and get rid of > you going tsk-tsk-tsk. > > I *so* hope I am talking my usual shite... Well, you _could_ just set up several high-speed video cams, let them run all the time, and extract frames for stills later. I'm not saying it's the most efficient way, but it could be done, and at 24-30 fps, you're unlikely to miss much. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: A Real B&W Negative from Digital Output?
On 12 Apr 2005 at 1:42, Frantisek wrote: > I am also wondering about 35mm film writers - they exist, but I do not > know if they are contone or halftone. One local lab does offer this > service, but they send the files to somebody else who has the writer, > and they can't tell me any more information and specs about it!! > Crazy.. All the desktop CRT based film writers are con-tone AFAIK. 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
pdml@pdml.net
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:31:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > BTW, something on another thread causes me to inquire: Do Optios that > use AA batteries like NiMH? Due to their size, I'd be surprised if any of the Option models use AA batteries at all. My Optio S5i came with this nifty little flat battery that's about the size of a piece of Bazooka bubble gum, for those of you old enough to remember that stuff. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: A Real B&W Negative from Digital Output?
On 11 Apr 2005 at 9:15, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I just started reading this site. Thought some here might like to know > about it or comment on the process. > > http://bowhaus.com/services/lvtmain.htm Whatever gear they are using is pretty new, I've never seen those sorts of specs out of a colour film printer. If the profiles are well matched to the films the results would likely be pretty impressive. Very interesting and good to know that such services exist. 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: A Real B&W Negative from Digital Output?
Monday, April 11, 2005, 6:15:48 PM, Shel wrote: SB> I just started reading this site. Thought some here might like to know SB> about it or comment on the process. SB> http://bowhaus.com/services/lvtmain.htm That's exactly what interests me. Thanks for the link. They claim contone output, unlike most imagesetters which produce halftone dot pattern. That is very nice. I am also wondering about 35mm film writers - they exist, but I do not know if they are contone or halftone. One local lab does offer this service, but they send the files to somebody else who has the writer, and they can't tell me any more information and specs about it!! Crazy.. Good light! fra
