RE: MZ/ZX bodies built-in flash refuse to pop-up?
Alan, Thanks for this visual depiction of what seems wrong with my Zx-5n (flash refuses to stand up on its own). I will be sending it off to Pentax one of theses days. Although I still get great use for outdoors or when I put a flash on top. -Patsy Pat in SF > -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:50 PM > > 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
Re: PESO Ardea herodias
Francis, http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/blue-heron.html nice, especially third one - it does have some mystical feel to it, IMHO. I can easily imagine a witch reincarnated to this bird. ;-) Bedo.
End of Contax-Kyocera
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05041201contaxend.asp -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: MZ/ZX bodies built-in flash refuse to pop-up?
... and here is a drawing - dimensions taken from the original part. Clearly, bad engineering in the first place. www.kellerschaefer.mynetcologne.de/teil.jpg Do you know whether the MZ-S has the same part? Regards, Sven Zitat von Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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: Re: PESO: Blackbird
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue AM 12:46:43 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: 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 Whatever it is, it's not a British (or, more correctly, a Russian) Starling. Ours are flecked all over. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
PESO The flowers that bloom in the Spring
http://www.johnpforbes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/htm/IMGP1162.jpg Took this shot of the geraniums on my balcony, with the sun shining through them (though out of the picture). I wasn't sure of exposure, so left it to the camera, and this resulted. The strange thing is that it was broad daylight, and the background was as bright as day (which figures, because it was day). *ist D, F 300mm f4.5, 1/640, f7.1 Comments solicited. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 11/04/2005
Re: PESO Ardea herodias
All nice, and I agree with the comment that No 3 stands on its own as a very good landscape even without the bird. My favourite is No 1, for the simplicity, and the lovely muted colours. John On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:42:49 -0700, Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 11/04/2005
Re: PESO - Blue
Great use of colour. Lovely shot. John On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:16:54 -0700, 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. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 11/04/2005
Re: RAW Files from Pentax Optio? Secret or Hoax?
> > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue AM 05:16:08 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: 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. Very interesting indeed. Thank you very much for the link. But how does one access the "secret" menus on these cameras? mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue AM 05:52:10 GMT > To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" > Subject: 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] No thanks. I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap. C you later. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail
On Apr 12, 2005, at 3:01 AM, David Savage wrote: http://tinyurl.com/5by3b In this photo he looks a lot like a New Zealand Robin, but they are a little smaller (slightly bigger than a sparrow). http://www.nzbirds.com/Toutouwai.html Here's the gallery (9 images between 100 -130k): My fav is the same one that Bruce liked. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Best "mid-speed" 70/80-200/210 AF zoom?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Fred wrote: > 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...). Heft. Judging from specs. I blame PZ :-) > 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 - ). And heft, again. This time from handling one. Kostas
Re: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail
On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Sounds like you had fun. Little birds being bold really helps in photographing them. I once had a blackbird come so close I couldn't photograph him with my FA 400mm lens. Min focus distance is 2 metres. I had to step back but I did end up with a good pic. The blackbirds in my back yard take off if they even see me through the window! I hate photographing friendly cats as they come running when they see me crouch down. I like cats but sometimes I just want them to stay put! Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: MZ/ZX bodies built-in flash refuse to pop-up?
> > From: Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue AM 06:49:47 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: 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 Excellent work, Alan. Got any spares? 8-) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO - Blue
On Apr 12, 2005, at 3:05 PM, John Munro 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? CS works fine with 16-bit files but it needs much more memory to do so. It's also a bit slower but I only really notice that with big (>100Mb) files or multiple layers. Many of the built-in filters don't speak 16-bit yet but all of the "core" functions work. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: PESO: Blackbird
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Fred Widall wrote: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwwidall/9152199/ We have starlings here but they look a little different to that... not quite so menacing. BTW a starling is a black bird but is not a blackbird ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Re: MZ/ZX bodies built-in flash refuse to pop-up?
> > From: "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue AM 08:10:45 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: MZ/ZX bodies built-in flash refuse to pop-up? > > ... and here is a drawing - dimensions taken from the original part. Clearly, > bad engineering in the first place. > > www.kellerschaefer.mynetcologne.de/teil.jpg Excellent stuff. Thanks very much for this. > > Do you know whether the MZ-S has the same part? > > Regards, > > Sven > > > Zitat von Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
RE: RAW Files from Pentax Optio? Secret or Hoax?
-Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:09 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: 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. I remember that the Optio that came out after the original 3 Meg S model (I think it was the S4?) had a hidden menu option that enabled raw output. Can anyone else remember the details?
Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
On Apr 12, 2005, at 1:35 PM, 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) I'm only echoing what everyone else said, but that really is a fantastic photo. You'd better stock up on black ink... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: RAW Files from Pentax Optio? Secret or Hoax?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:09:13 -0400 (EDT), John Francis wrote: >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. It is not a HOAX. I have tested the procedure whith my OPTIO S4 long ago ... The procedure (see details listed below) uses an undocumented (or hidden :-) menu on the Optio that is for service purposes. You activate it by power-up and holding down the 'menu' and 'delete' buttons while doing that. That will get you to the special menu with at least 10 items. A few items are DESTRUCTIVE in the sense that they will reset lots of things, requiring a reload of the firmware! Anyway, there is a 'BAYER MODE' option in there that will switch the camera to a mode where the output files are not processed (RAW). All pictures taken after that will be in this 'RAW' mode until you power off the camera if I recall correctly. (there is no easy way to toggle between JPG and RAW) I don't think there was (and is ?) any RAW converter that supports the OPTIO though ... Regards, JvW +++ OPTIO hidden menu details ++ Using RAW mode from the Optio-S4 Note JvW: Works on my S4 too, files are 6114240 bytes, name like 0297IMGP.RAW Number is same as 'next' JPG would be. The next JPG will use this same number, but with a different format like: IMGP0297.JPG RAW converter will be possible, but not very usefull since all camera-info (like white-balance) seems to be missing + Using the secret menu ok on my s4 when i start it up i hold down the "menu" button and the "flash/trashcan" button and then press the on button after i do that then a screen will pop up saying ++ KB359 ++ PR:03. 08. 29. 17. 57 LD1. 45 MI: 17 then on the 4-way rocker button i press "--->, >, menu" and then i list menu will pop up go down to "6: bayer mode" press enter (down on middle of rocker) and then it will say bayer mode-on---off press "right" on the rocker button to turn it on then i press "menu" twice to back out and the camera will start up normal when you take a picture it will save the bayer image until you shut it off then it will restart + RAW format specification for Optio-S4: I've figured out the order of the red, green and blue sensors on the Optio S4 CCD. It is none other than the classic Bayer pattern. Odd rows: red, green, red, green, etc. Even Rows: green, blue, green, blue, etc. Guess I should have known that in the first place, especialy since it says "Bayer mode" in big fat letters in the secret menu... So to sum things up: The S4 RAW file is a simple 3520 by 1737 matrix, with the last 34 bytes of each line unused and set to zero. The remaining 3486 bytes are actually 2324 12 bit values corresponding to each sensor, the colors of which are distributed following the normal bayer pattern. There are no headers or footers in the file. + -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: OT - I'm on strike tomorrow!
On Apr 12, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Doug Franklin wrote: 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. :-) How about sticking with still cameras but in a bullet-time setup? That'd make for some fantastic action-replays. Actually it'd be even better if they were all video cameras. The director could do all sorts of cool stuff. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: photo paper for Xerox Phaser 8400
Herb, Thanks. I'll try a few things over the next few months & summarize in a posting. Jim www.jcolwell.ca
Re: PESO - Blue
She is mistaken. If she truly believes that, she's not qualified to do your PhotoShop work. On Apr 11, 2005, at 11:05 PM, John Munro 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: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail
G'day Dave I was having the same problem with the 80-320, that's what made me change to the FA 100. Cat's don't like me. I think they can sense that the feeling is mutual ;-) Dave S On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:43:11, David Mann wrote: > >>On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >>Sounds like you had fun. Little birds being bold really helps in >>photographing them. > > >I once had a blackbird come so close I couldn't photograph him with my FA >400mm lens. Min focus distance is 2 metres. I had to step back but I did end up >with a good pic. The blackbirds in my back yard take off if they even see me >through the window! > >I hate photographing friendly cats as they come running when they see me >crouch down. I like cats but sometimes I just want them to stay put! > >Cheers, > >- Dave > >http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
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. I've corresponded with someone at Pentax and told them they should enable/disable the RAW+JPEG function. Basically, either remove the full-sized JPEG embedded in the -DS RAW, or make it high enough quality to be useful. As it is, it's roughly 1MB... low enough quality to be fairly useless, but large enough to waste 15% of the space of the file. With the *ist DS, I get 100-105 RAW format exposures on a 1G SD card. The *only* variable in how large the -DS RAW files are is how well the three embedded JPEGs compress. The RAW data itself is uncompressed (although packed), 12-bit Bayer data. 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. Aside from a bit of computational issues, there's no reason not to compress the RAW data. There could even be a "compress all now" you could use to "pack" the files on the flash card and make more room if it was too slow to do on the fly. Unlikely, though, given how slow flash memory is. It'd probably be faster to compress on the fly and spool to the card than to just spool the uncompressed onto the card. I think Pentax was just a bit behind on the design schedule and had to let something slip... sorta like USB-2.0 lacking on the -D. Just for a datapoint, I took 25 -DS RAW files and compressed them losslessly with a couple of different methods: 249355733 bytes uncompressed(Full size, 9.5MB avg) 209182171 bytes compressed with 'gzip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) 209185296 bytes compressed with 'zip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) 158154181 bytes compressed with 'bzip2' (63% original size, 6.0MB avg) A few of those pictures probably compress a bit better than most, since they were pictures taken out of my airplane (lots of sky, clouds, haze). Even with that, they could certainly be compressed to roughly 1MB/Mpixel, but it would take firmware work, and winders/mac software work. -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
It's not always necessary to use a mask with Shadow/Highlight, because the tonal width can be adjusted to dial in the shadow areas you want to affect. Paul On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
If I'm happy with a final rendering, I don't always save the layers. For some very special images I will do that. But by and large, I just save the result. Of course I save all the RAW files, so I always have the option of starting over. Paul On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:38 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 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: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail
G'day Bruce, I had a great time. Put a smile on my face for the rest of the day. Thanks for looking. Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 12:39 AM, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds like you had fun. Little birds being bold really helps in > photographing them. In looking through the gallery, my favorite is > 2090. For some reason, I prefer a full body with this little guy. > > Thanks for sharing. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > Monday, April 11, 2005, 8:01:11 AM, you wrote: > > DS> G'day Folks, > > DS> Yesterday the Savage household had a small visitor. Willy Wagtail > DS> (Rhipidura leucophrys or Djidi djidi in the local aboriginal > DS> dialect...gotta love Google ). They're a small native bird about > DS> the size of a budgie. > > DS> Anyway, after Dad finished mowing the lawn he was doing some > DS> maintenance on the mower when this little guy/gal (?) paid him a > DS> visit: > > DS> http://tinyurl.com/3uhgt > > DS> They're generally not too afraid of people, or anything for that > DS> matter, but I've never seen one this fearless (Though I have seen them > DS> attack crows & magpies that got too close to there nest. :-)). It > DS> would follow you around the yard like a puppy, going after the small > DS> flying insects you disturbed as you walked. It was quite happy with > DS> this arrangement, however, if you stopped and sat down it would start > DS> chirping at you as if to say "Hey, no sitting down on the job". When > DS> the chirping didn't get it any results, it'd start jumping all over > DS> you. > > DS> I ended up spending about an hour and a half taking pictures (and just > DS> enjoying the moment). Started off using the FA 80-320 & finished with > DS> the FA100 macro. Towards the end I could get it to fly onto my left > DS> hand while I took pictures with the right. > > DS> This is my favorite of the lot: > > DS> http://tinyurl.com/5by3b > > DS> Here's the gallery (9 images between 100 -130k): > > DS> http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/ > > DS> Just though I'd share. Comments always welcome. > > DS> Dave S > >
RE: RE: PESO: Cell Squat
Ummm, yeah, I don't recall seeing any headlight, whether too bright or otherwise. 'S'matter of fact, I don't recall even seeing a car in the shot ;-) regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/04/11 Mon AM 04:45:52 GMT > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: RE: PESO: Cell Squat > > > > > toning down the headlight of the other side of the pic so the eye is more > > willing to focus on the woman. > > How old are you again? > 8-)) > > m >
Re: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail
G'day Dave, I can see a similarity. One thing I noticed is that these guys feathers are quite course compared to most birds this size I've seen. Seems to be the consensus the 2090 is the pick of the lot. I like 2152 because it's not as static as the rest, though I do agree that the background sucks big time :-) Thanks for looking. Dave S >>http://tinyurl.com/5by3b >> >In this photo he looks a lot like a New Zealand Robin, but they are a little smaller >(slightly bigger than a sparrow). >http://www.nzbirds.com/Toutouwai.html > >>Here's the gallery (9 images between 100 -130k): > >My fav is the same one that Bruce liked. > >Cheers, > >- Dave > >http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: RE: PESO: Cell Squat
Anthony, I think it's a bit like those magic 3D posters, that you stare at cross-eyed. If you look long enough you'll see the car Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 7:30 PM, Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ummm, yeah, I don't recall seeing any headlight, whether too bright or > otherwise. 'S'matter of fact, I don't recall even seeing a car in the shot > ;-) > > regards, > Anthony Farr > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: 2005/04/11 Mon AM 04:45:52 GMT > > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > > Subject: RE: PESO: Cell Squat > > > > > > > > toning down the headlight of the other side of the pic so the eye is > more > > > willing to focus on the woman. > > > > How old are you again? > > 8-)) > > > > m > > > >
Re: Fw: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail
G'day Krishna, I'm glad you enjoyed them. Everyone who's seen these shots say that they prefer 2090. I guess I have no taste :-) 2131 is a fun shot, every time I see it I just start smiling like an idiot. Thanks for looking, Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 12:42 AM, Krishna M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a gallery of lively pictures - particularly your 2090 is the best - > great composition - the bird covering the frame diagonally -- and background > fully thrown out of focus making the bird stand out. > Among the portraits I think the 2146 is the best; the 2152 is very good in > lighting and focus, but I felt, it has a distracting background. > The topper is the 2131 which is just great -- it is not very often that you > get a picture like that. It instantly brings a smile to the viewer -- a real > enjoyable picture. > Regards > Krishna > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:01 AM > > Subject: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail > > > > > >> G'day Folks, > >> > >> Yesterday the Savage household had a small visitor. Willy Wagtail > >> (Rhipidura leucophrys or Djidi djidi in the local aboriginal > >> dialect...gotta love Google ). They're a small native bird about > >> the size of a budgie. > >> > >> Anyway, after Dad finished mowing the lawn he was doing some > >> maintenance on the mower when this little guy/gal (?) paid him a > >> visit: > >> > >> http://tinyurl.com/3uhgt > >> > >> They're generally not too afraid of people, or anything for that > >> matter, but I've never seen one this fearless (Though I have seen them > >> attack crows & magpies that got too close to there nest. :-)). It > >> would follow you around the yard like a puppy, going after the small > >> flying insects you disturbed as you walked. It was quite happy with > >> this arrangement, however, if you stopped and sat down it would start > >> chirping at you as if to say "Hey, no sitting down on the job". When > >> the chirping didn't get it any results, it'd start jumping all over > >> you. > >> > >> I ended up spending about an hour and a half taking pictures (and just > >> enjoying the moment). Started off using the FA 80-320 & finished with > >> the FA100 macro. Towards the end I could get it to fly onto my left > >> hand while I took pictures with the right. > >> > >> This is my favorite of the lot: > >> > >> http://tinyurl.com/5by3b > >> > >> Here's the gallery (9 images between 100 -130k): > >> > >> http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/ > >> > >> Just though I'd share. Comments always welcome. > >> > >> Dave S > >> > >> > > > >
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Hi Paul, There are times when I just want to adjust a small section of a photo. For example, I've a pic of a man looking at a map, and the map is but a very small part of the total frame. However, it's tonality and brightness is the same as some other parts of the image, which I didn't want to adjust. By carefully selecting only the map, I was able to use S/H in that very specific area of the pic. S/H worked a lot better than Curves or Levels in this instance. Maybe you're better at using the feature than I (not unlikely), but for things of this nature using a selection has been very helpful. I'll certainly agree that it's not always necessary to use a mask or selection. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > > It's not always necessary to use a mask with Shadow/Highlight, because > the tonal width can be adjusted to dial in the shadow areas you want to > affect. > On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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.
Re: Re: Fw: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail
> > From: David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 12:00:01 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Fw: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail > > >> They're generally not too afraid of people, or anything for that > > >> matter, but I've never seen one this fearless (Though I have seen them > > >> attack crows & magpies that got too close to there nest. :-)). It > > >> would follow you around the yard like a puppy, going after the small > > >> flying insects you disturbed as you walked. It was quite happy with > > >> this arrangement, however, if you stopped and sat down it would start > > >> chirping at you as if to say "Hey, no sitting down on the job". When > > >> the chirping didn't get it any results, it'd start jumping all over > > >> you. Very similar behaviour to European wagtails which, in addition, chase things down through the vegetation. It's extremely amusing watching them running about like little velociraptors, head down, tail parallel to the ground, searching for food. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:21:38 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I did and it was :-) You're being immortalized in code! It's sort of the 21st century version of being immortalized in song. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PESO The flowers that bloom in the Spring
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:13:08 +0100, John Forbes wrote: > http://www.johnpforbes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/htm/IMGP1162.jpg > > Took this shot of the geraniums on my balcony, with the sun shining > through them (though out of the picture). I like it John. The only suggestion I'd make is maybe a little more space on the left. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 8:34:58 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > IOCCC anyone? > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest] > > No thanks. I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap. C you later. Algol away then. I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing you. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> -Original Message- > From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You're being immortalized in code! It's sort of the 21st century > version of being immortalized in song. :-) > I'm a williams and I'm OK, I photograph all day and I sleep all night, -- Peter Williams
Re: ist D jams mouse!
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:30:40 -0400, Andre Langevin wrote: >When I attach the ist D cable between camera and computer (mas with >usb 1), the mouse jams and I cannot get it back unless I unplug the >camera. The camera is not getting in PC mode either. A known issue? Andre I'm not aware of this, but here are a couple of things to try. If you are running them both through a USB hub, don't. Try swapping the ports so the mouse is in the port used by the *istD and the D is in the port used by the mouse. Update the driver for your USB ports. Hope this helps. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 12:21:12 GMT > To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" > Subject: Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 8:34:58 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > IOCCC anyone? > > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest] > > > > No thanks. I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap. C you later. > > Algol away then. I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing > you. That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
I'm Back
Got in late last night. Had a great time: Mostly talked (or in the case of my Mother, listened ), ate and drank beer. All good things to do, IMHO. Didn't shoot much - didn't get the chance to. Maybe 2, 2 1/2 rolls. In was nice to see my Mom and Sister, who I haven't seen in about 2 1/2 years, and my eldest, Anne, who I hadn't seen since Christmas. Mom lives in Mahone Bay, a beautiful little fishing village: http://urbancaravan.com/graphics/Graphic%20Pages/Bay%20at%20Dusk.htm She recently sold her house, and at the end of May will be moving into Halifax into an apartment. It might have been the last time I'll see Mahone Bay, and was certainly the last time I'll be in her big old house. Too bad, but it's time for her to downsize and move on. So, it was kind of a wistful visit, but it was great fun none-the-less. I'm pretty much just deleting just now, as I wait to start my workday. I'll be posting and getting back into the swing of things tonight, once I get home. I've seen my name mentioned on one or two other threads. Been talking about me behind my back, eh? cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: A Small Gallery
On Apr 9, 2005 11:12 AM, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Frank I thought you weren't here - I guess > they have > internet access in Halifax now :) > > ann (... ducking) Ann, I might have sent that one early Thursday morning, as I was awaiting my taxi on the way to the airport. I think they do have internet access in Halifax, but I wasn't on-line while I was there. Mom disconnected and sold her computer in anticipation of her upcoming move, so I was blissfully free of you jokers! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: ist D jams mouse!
This remind anybody else of the days of Windows yore and the port conflicts that plagued us for years? Oh, you used an Apple? Shut up... Buy a serial mouse? Probably just need to swap the USB ports a bit to get it working but do let us know how it goes. CW - Original Message - From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:30 AM Subject: ist D jams mouse! When I attach the ist D cable between camera and computer (mas with usb 1), the mouse jams and I cannot get it back unless I unplug the camera. The camera is not getting in PC mode either. A known issue? Andre -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/2005
Re: I'm Back
Shh...shh everyone, Franks back Welcome back Frank. Good to hear you had a pleasant visit. Dave S :-) On Apr 12, 2005 8:47 PM, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Got in late last night. Had a great time: Mostly talked (or in the > case of my Mother, listened ), ate and drank beer. All good things > to do, IMHO. > > Didn't shoot much - didn't get the chance to. Maybe 2, 2 1/2 rolls. > > In was nice to see my Mom and Sister, who I haven't seen in about 2 > 1/2 years, and my eldest, Anne, who I hadn't seen since Christmas. > > Mom lives in Mahone Bay, a beautiful little fishing village: > > http://urbancaravan.com/graphics/Graphic%20Pages/Bay%20at%20Dusk.htm > > She recently sold her house, and at the end of May will be moving into > Halifax into an apartment. It might have been the last time I'll see > Mahone Bay, and was certainly the last time I'll be in her big old > house. Too bad, but it's time for her to downsize and move on. > > So, it was kind of a wistful visit, but it was great fun > none-the-less. I'm pretty much just deleting just now, as I wait to > start my workday. I'll be posting and getting back into the swing of > things tonight, once I get home. > > I've seen my name mentioned on one or two other threads. Been talking > about me behind my back, eh? > > cheers, > frank > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > >
Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:33:27 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest] > > > > > > No thanks. I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap. C you later. > > > > Algol away then. I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing > > you. > > That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-) Go Forth then, young man, and spread your perls of wisdom, but beware of the python with the ruby eyes. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: I'm Back
Hey, welcome back. So glad you got to see your family Boy, do I remember Mahone Bay. Apart from the no-seeums, I loved that summer i spent on Nova Scotia. I wonder just how much it's changed - it's been a long time since i was there. Memories of Blue Rocks anT tanner's Cove and the truly wonderful and hospitable people I met there, are dancing thru my head. Anyway, the list has been very quiet without you. You contribute a lot of posts here (message count is down 67%, messages about beer are down 92% ) Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: PDML > Date: 4/12/2005 5:48:38 AM > Subject: I'm Back > > Got in late last night. Had a great time: Mostly talked (or in the > case of my Mother, listened ), ate and drank beer. All good things > to do, IMHO. > > Didn't shoot much - didn't get the chance to. Maybe 2, 2 1/2 rolls. > > In was nice to see my Mom and Sister, who I haven't seen in about 2 > 1/2 years, and my eldest, Anne, who I hadn't seen since Christmas. > > Mom lives in Mahone Bay, a beautiful little fishing village: > > http://urbancaravan.com/graphics/Graphic%20Pages/Bay%20at%20Dusk.htm > > She recently sold her house, and at the end of May will be moving into > Halifax into an apartment. It might have been the last time I'll see > Mahone Bay, and was certainly the last time I'll be in her big old > house. Too bad, but it's time for her to downsize and move on. > > So, it was kind of a wistful visit, but it was great fun > none-the-less. I'm pretty much just deleting just now, as I wait to > start my workday. I'll be posting and getting back into the swing of > things tonight, once I get home. > > I've seen my name mentioned on one or two other threads. Been talking > about me behind my back, eh?
RE: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama
Nice, John ... Looks like it may have been photographed from the old Berkeley pier ... good work! Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Celio > http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html (make sure > you click the image to see the large version)
220 in the 6x7
A while back I bought 20 rolls of Fuji NPS in 220 format. I assume that using 220 film in the 6x7 is simply a matter of setting the switch on the right side of the camera (near the shutter button) and moving the pressure plate to 220 position. Is there any other glitch, gotcha, or foible that I have to watch out for? Hmmm - just occurred to me - do I need a 220 spool on the uptake end ? (I assume that these rolls have smaller cores than 120's.) - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > 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. Adjustment layers are also useful when you might want to fine-tune the intensity of the effect (just vary the transparency of the layer) -- that's my main use for them. ERNR
Re: 220 in the 6x7
On 12 Apr 2005 at 9:08, Mark Cassino wrote: > A while back I bought 20 rolls of Fuji NPS in 220 format. > > I assume that using 220 film in the 6x7 is simply a matter of setting the > switch on the right side of the camera (near the shutter button) and moving > the > pressure plate to 220 position. Is there any other glitch, gotcha, or foible > that I have to watch out for? > > Hmmm - just occurred to me - do I need a 220 spool on the uptake end ? (I > assume that these rolls have smaller cores than 120's.) That should work and the 120/220 spools are exactly the same, the 220 only has backing paper at the top and tail hence it's thinner. 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: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 12:21:12 GMT > > To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" > > Subject: Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX > > > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 8:34:58 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > IOCCC anyone? > > > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest] > > > > > > No thanks. I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap. C you later. > > > > Algol away then. I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing > > you. > > That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-) Well none of the above makes any sense to me except that I *know* SNO-BOL is a toilet cleaner. ERNR housewife switched to another brand of cleaner though
RE: Beware of ProDigital2000 aka Carman's!
So much for PayPal being helpful ... I hope you've posted a strong negative feedback for the seller. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 4/11/2005 11:41:51 PM > Subject: 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&sspagenam e=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: RAW Files from Pentax Optio? Secret or Hoax?
I'm sure my brother would be delighted to know how to turn on RAW on his Optio MX ... Any clue yet ? On Apr 12, 2005 11:09 AM, Jan van Wijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:09:13 -0400 (EDT), John Francis wrote: > > >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. > > It is not a HOAX. > > I have tested the procedure whith my OPTIO S4 long ago ... > > The procedure (see details listed below) uses an undocumented > (or hidden :-) menu on the Optio that is for service purposes. > > You activate it by power-up and holding down the 'menu' > and 'delete' buttons while doing that. > > That will get you to the special menu with at least 10 items. > A few items are DESTRUCTIVE in the sense that they will > reset lots of things, requiring a reload of the firmware! > > Anyway, there is a 'BAYER MODE' option in there that > will switch the camera to a mode where the output files > are not processed (RAW). > > All pictures taken after that will be in this 'RAW' mode > until you power off the camera if I recall correctly. > (there is no easy way to toggle between JPG and RAW) > > I don't think there was (and is ?) any RAW converter > that supports the OPTIO though ... > > Regards, JvW > > +++ OPTIO hidden menu details ++ > > Using RAW mode from the Optio-S4 > > Note JvW: > > Works on my S4 too, files are 6114240 bytes, name like 0297IMGP.RAW > Number is same as 'next' JPG would be. The next JPG will use this > same number, but with a different format like: IMGP0297.JPG > > RAW converter will be possible, but not very usefull since all > camera-info (like white-balance) seems to be missing > > + > > Using the secret menu > > ok on my s4 when i start it up i hold down the "menu" button > and the "flash/trashcan" button and then press the on button > after i do that then a screen will pop up saying > > ++ KB359 ++ > > PR:03. 08. 29. 17. 57 > LD1. 45 > MI: 17 > > then on the 4-way rocker button i press "--->, >, menu" > and then i list menu will pop up > > go down to "6: bayer mode" press enter (down on middle of rocker) > and then it will say bayer mode-on---off press "right" on the > rocker button to turn it on then i press "menu" twice to back out > and the camera will start up normal > > when you take a picture it will save the bayer image until you shut > it off then it will restart > > + > > RAW format specification for Optio-S4: > > I've figured out the order of the red, green and blue sensors on the > Optio S4 CCD. It is none other than the classic Bayer pattern. > Odd rows: red, green, red, green, etc. > Even Rows: green, blue, green, blue, etc. > > Guess I should have known that in the first place, especialy since it > says "Bayer mode" in big fat letters in the secret menu... > So to sum things up: > > The S4 RAW file is a simple 3520 by 1737 matrix, with the last 34 bytes > of each line unused and set to zero. > > The remaining 3486 bytes are actually 2324 12 bit values corresponding > to each sensor, the colors of which are distributed following the normal > bayer pattern. There are no headers or footers in the file. > > + > > > -- > Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery > > -- -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
OT?:Resize for web question
Hi Gang. Sorry for the OT.:-) Just wondering how others do this. I generally use PS web gallery for my pages,but i have been using Ifranview to resize the pictures and add my copyright text. If i resize to 640 by 480 and have the compression around 25 i get a nice size file,but they seem not as clear or nice as other picture of the same size on other web sites. In the jpg options i have all the dialoge boxes turned off,ie: -save as proggressive jpg -disable colour sampling -keep original exif data -keep original iptc data -keep original jpg comment By experiment this gives me around a 15-20K file. Any tips on doing this,maybe something in Ifran view to try or do something else in PS etc.Should i res up the dpi from 72 to 100, that sort of thing. All tips welcome. Dave Brooks
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
I'd be interested to know how well these RAWs would compress with either RAR, ACE or 7zip format (best settings of course). On Apr 12, 2005 12:41 PM, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > >I've corresponded with someone at Pentax and told them they should > enable/disable the RAW+JPEG function. Basically, either remove the > full-sized JPEG embedded in the -DS RAW, or make it high enough quality to > be useful. As it is, it's roughly 1MB... low enough quality to be fairly > useless, but large enough to waste 15% of the space of the file. > > > With the *ist DS, I get 100-105 RAW format exposures on a 1G SD card. > > >The *only* variable in how large the -DS RAW files are is how well > the three embedded JPEGs compress. The RAW data itself is uncompressed > (although packed), 12-bit Bayer data. > > > 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. > > >Aside from a bit of computational issues, there's no reason not to > compress the RAW data. There could even be a "compress all now" you could > use to "pack" the files on the flash card and make more room if it was too > slow to do on the fly. Unlikely, though, given how slow flash memory is. > It'd probably be faster to compress on the fly and spool to the card than > to just spool the uncompressed onto the card. I think Pentax was just a > bit behind on the design schedule and had to let something slip... sorta > like USB-2.0 lacking on the -D. > >Just for a datapoint, I took 25 -DS RAW files and compressed them > losslessly with a couple of different methods: > > 249355733 bytes uncompressed(Full size, 9.5MB avg) > 209182171 bytes compressed with 'gzip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) > 209185296 bytes compressed with 'zip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) > 158154181 bytes compressed with 'bzip2' (63% original size, 6.0MB avg) > >A few of those pictures probably compress a bit better than > most, since they were pictures taken out of my airplane (lots of sky, > clouds, haze). Even with that, they could certainly be compressed to > roughly 1MB/Mpixel, but it would take firmware work, and winders/mac > software work. > > -Cory > > * > * Cory Papenfuss* > * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * > * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * > * > > -- -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: PESO: Blackbird
Fred Widall wrote on 4/11/2005, 8:01 PM: > 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. Nice shot. The bird's positioning and pose really work. Unfortunately it is not a starling either... It's a common grackle "Quiscalus quiscula" Starlings have yellow, much thinner bills. Technically a grackle is a "blackbird" because it is in the family "Icteridae" grackle: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/i5110id.html starling: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/i4930id.html -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT?:Resize for web question
Hi Dave - I like Irfan but have found that using PS gives me more controllable and slightly better results when resizing. PS just has more options. Have you tried the Save For Web feature in Photoshop? You can see previews of how the pic will look at different resolutions, and can have a choice of four versions to compare. Plus, you should be doing your sharpening after down sizing. Are you doing that? Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Just wondering how others do this. > > I generally use PS web gallery for my pages,but i have been using Ifranview to resize the > pictures and > add my copyright text. > If i resize to 640 by 480 and have the compression around 25 i get a nice size file,but > they seem not as > clear or nice as other picture of the same size on other web sites. > In the jpg options i have all the dialoge boxes turned off,ie: > > -save as proggressive jpg > -disable colour sampling > -keep original exif data > -keep original iptc data > -keep original jpg comment > > By experiment this gives me around a 15-20K file. > > Any tips on doing this,maybe something in Ifran view to try or do something else in PS > etc.Should i res > up the dpi from 72 to 100, that sort of thing. > > All tips welcome. > > Dave Brooks > > >
Re: RAW Files from Pentax Optio? Secret or Hoax?
This procedure does not work on my Optio 33L. It only gets me a black screen with "Version 1.0" in the top right corner, and releasing or pressing any button from there starts the camera in its usual mode. Of course, maybe that's a good thing... Rick [snip] >>The procedure (see details listed below) uses an undocumented (or hidden :-) menu on the Optio that is for service purposes. >>You activate it by power-up and holding down the 'menu' and 'delete' buttons while doing that. >>That will get you to the special menu with at least 10 items. A few items are DESTRUCTIVE in the sense that they will reset lots of things, requiring a reload of the firmware!<< __ 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
I definitely agree. I frequently select an area or paint a mask when I want to deal with the tonality of a section. I was thinking more of the shot from the bridge that prompted this discussion. The shadow problems in that pic are an easy fix in S/H without masks or selections. > Hi Paul, > > There are times when I just want to adjust a small section of a photo. For > example, I've a pic of a man looking at a map, and the map is but a very > small part of the total frame. However, it's tonality and brightness is the > same as some other parts of the image, which I didn't want to adjust. By > carefully selecting only the map, I was able to use S/H in that very > specific area of the pic. S/H worked a lot better than Curves or Levels in > this instance. Maybe you're better at using the feature than I (not > unlikely), but for things of this nature using a selection has been very > helpful. I'll certainly agree that it's not always necessary to use a mask > or selection. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Paul Stenquist > > > > It's not always necessary to use a mask with Shadow/Highlight, because > > the tonal width can be adjusted to dial in the shadow areas you want to > > affect. > > > On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > 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. > >
RE: OT?:Resize for web question
Ummm, 25 compression would result in a pretty low rez file. Try 50 and see what you get. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If i resize to 640 by 480 and have the compression around 25 i get a nice size file,but > they seem not as clear or nice as other picture of the same size on other web sites.
Re: PESO PADs: more NorCal PDML stuff
John, I prefer Model 3, but Model 2 is very intriguing. If it had a bit more depth of field, so that more of the car was in focus and the boy was a bit more distinct, it would be the winner. I really like the others, too. Rick --- John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
"FS" Selling a couple items (bodies, lens)
Any reasonable offer welcome. Otherwise these will go on Ebay ... * (P)Z-1 (not p model) in very good state. Just missing the hot shoe cover. * P3(0)t in good state. Just a bit of brassing in the corners where the strap goes. * SuperA / ProgramA in good state. Just brassing on the sides. Comes with the MotorA and BatteryPack A. Bought in second hand from a shop (had a revision) about 6 months ago. * MX seems in good state but exterior isn't that beautiful because previous owner had the nice idea (!!) to engrave its address/phone number on a side of the prism and bottom plate. But otherwise is very OK. Meter seems consistent with my other cameras. * Ricoh KR10x: Little plasticky thing. Comes handy when you know you won't regret it you lose it (like bad weather situations etc.) * SMCP-M 50mm f1.4 in a good state. * I can also supply with the SuperA a Metz SCA372 (provides TTL with SuperA and up) Mmm mighty DS, have to sell about everything... -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
Using Winzip 8.1, a single 13.1 MB *ist D .pef file compressed down to 8.5 MB. Converting the same .pef using the Adobe RAW converter, to an uncompressed .dng resulted in a 11.8 MB file. Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 9:37 PM, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd be interested to know how well these RAWs would compress with > either RAR, ACE or 7zip format (best settings of course). > > > On Apr 12, 2005 12:41 PM, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > >I've corresponded with someone at Pentax and told them they should > > enable/disable the RAW+JPEG function. Basically, either remove the > > full-sized JPEG embedded in the -DS RAW, or make it high enough quality to > > be useful. As it is, it's roughly 1MB... low enough quality to be fairly > > useless, but large enough to waste 15% of the space of the file. > > > > > With the *ist DS, I get 100-105 RAW format exposures on a 1G SD card. > > > > >The *only* variable in how large the -DS RAW files are is how well > > the three embedded JPEGs compress. The RAW data itself is uncompressed > > (although packed), 12-bit Bayer data. > > > > > 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. > > > > >Aside from a bit of computational issues, there's no reason not to > > compress the RAW data. There could even be a "compress all now" you could > > use to "pack" the files on the flash card and make more room if it was too > > slow to do on the fly. Unlikely, though, given how slow flash memory is. > > It'd probably be faster to compress on the fly and spool to the card than > > to just spool the uncompressed onto the card. I think Pentax was just a > > bit behind on the design schedule and had to let something slip... sorta > > like USB-2.0 lacking on the -D. > > > >Just for a datapoint, I took 25 -DS RAW files and compressed them > > losslessly with a couple of different methods: > > > > 249355733 bytes uncompressed(Full size, 9.5MB avg) > > 209182171 bytes compressed with 'gzip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) > > 209185296 bytes compressed with 'zip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) > > 158154181 bytes compressed with 'bzip2' (63% original size, 6.0MB avg) > > > >A few of those pictures probably compress a bit better than > > most, since they were pictures taken out of my airplane (lots of sky, > > clouds, haze). Even with that, they could certainly be compressed to > > roughly 1MB/Mpixel, but it would take firmware work, and winders/mac > > software work. > > > > -Cory > > > > * > > * Cory Papenfuss* > > * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * > > * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * > > * > > > > > > -- > -- > Thibouille > -- > Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ... > >
RE: Beware of ProDigital2000 aka Carman's!
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > So much for PayPal being helpful ... I hope you've posted a strong negative > feedback for the seller. Will do nothing to them, they are in the order of 5-6K feedbacks, from memory. Kostas
Re: Suggestion regarding flash
Thanks for helping to decide. I will go with Metz Mz4i Regards, Ramesh From: Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Ramesh Kumar Subject: Re: Suggestion regarding flash Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 02:54:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from host24.websitesource.com ([209.239.33.40]) by MC6-F32.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:55:04 -0700 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by host24.websitesource.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id j390t4dX008342;Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:55:04 -0400 X-Message-Info: m0MZ22IVDAXPJorhBQzBFjMuF5nMVTp8Ow7rdQpzevY= Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:54:23 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: host24.websitesource.com: dbrewer set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/158179 X-Loop: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2005 00:55:04.0867 (UTC) FILETIME=[C478AF30:01C53C9E] RK> -should be compatible with my current Pentax system. RK> -should be compatible with my future Canon system (say Canon 20D or higher) RK> -I do not understand flash technology well, so I need the one that needs few RK> settings from me. For serious photography using flash, you need one that has both tilt and swivel. So you can bounce it off a ceiling or close wall. If it has only tilt (upwards), you can't bounce it off ceiling in camera's portrait orientation. If you want to have TTL even in the Canon system (or any other), you need a Metz flash. The newest Mecablitz 54 MZ-4 is a good bet, as it has interchangeable modules for TTL with all current DSLRs including Canon's E-TTL (maybe even e-TTL2) and Nikon's iTTL, and of course Pentax's P-TTL. Older Metz flashes do not support the E-TTL or iTTL, but they still work on Pentax's DSLRs in plain TTL (which according to some doesn't work so well under some circumstances). Adorama lists it exactly at 350$ :-) It's Metz's most advanced shoemount flash. Good light! fra
L plate for *istD
How to mount the *istD on tripd in prortarit mode like this? http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/horiz/horiz_panos_L-plate.jpg I thought of using L plate. Pls let me know, if any company makes it. Thanks Ramesh
Re: L plate for *istD
http://www.kirkphoto.com/lbracketso.html Ramesh Kumar wrote on 4/12/2005, 10:12 AM: > How to mount the *istD on tripd in prortarit mode like this? > http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/horiz/horiz_panos_L-plate.jpg > > I thought of using L plate. Pls let me know, if any company makes it. http://www.kirkphoto.com/lbracketso.html Nothing specific for ist D but the "Big L" should work. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PESO The graduate
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2123B&W.jpg (~61kB) ...and from now on I will rule this world. Bedo.
OT: Warning about Nigeria Buyer
I just want to share a recent experience with everyone so that you folks are aware of this type of fraud. I advertised a digital camera for sale in the Recycler.com, which I believe is a southern California circulation for mostly private individuals selling used items (some businesses also sell new items in this paper). The Recycler ads are also posted at their website. I have sold several items (bicycle, cameras, computer printers, etc.) to local buyers through this method. Usually the buyer and I would meet at an agreed location to complete the transaction. I got several emails from people who are interested in buying the camera. I followed up with the first interested party and was told that this lady was from Michigan. She agreed to send me a Western Union money order and got my mailing address. I subsequently received an email that appeared to be a confirmation email from Western Union that a money order should arrive in 4-7 days. The lady told me that she would take care of the shipping cost and would send me a FEDEX label. She also told me to go ahead and drop off the package once I receive the confirmation email from Western Union. I told her to go ahead and send me that label but I would only send the package after I receive the money order. She emailed me the label for a Nigerian address and also arranged FEDEX to pick up the package from my house. I wasn't at home when FEDEX came and told her again that I would not release the package until I receive the payment. Later I got another email from her stating that she had put the payment on hold since I had not released the package. An email supposedly from Western Union arrived stating that the payment had been witheld until I release the package. I have sent a copy of the Western Union email to Western Union for verification. I did some research in the internet and found a lot of stories about frauds with ties to Nigeria. I also got two other emails about buying my camera and both also said that they want to send the camera to either a brother or a husband in Africa. So please be aware. __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Re: OT: Warning about Nigeria Buyer
Richard Chu wrote: I just want to share a recent experience with everyone so that you folks are aware of this type of fraud. This type of fraud is very common. Be very cautious with any kind of shipment to Africa, especially Nigeria. Also, don't trust emails if you can't verify it's origin. The "From:" part is extremely easily manipulated. You don't need any skills to do it, all you have to do is change the "your email" part in your email client. /Henri
Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
> > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 12:57:02 GMT > To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" > Subject: Re: Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:33:27 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > [International Obfuscated C Code Contest] > > > > > > > > No thanks. I'm a pretty Basic sort of chap. C you later. > > > > > > Algol away then. I don't have a SNOBOL's chance in heck of convincing > > > you. > > > > That's because it's all COBOLers to me 8-) > > Go Forth then, young man, and spread your perls of wisdom, but beware > of the python with the ruby eyes. OK, I give up 8-) You might like (and probably already know about) this: http://www.westnet.com/mirrors/99bottles/beer.html mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: 220 in the 6x7
> > From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/12 Tue PM 01:08:05 GMT > To: > Subject: 220 in the 6x7 > > A while back I bought 20 rolls of Fuji NPS in 220 format. > > I assume that using 220 film in the 6x7 is simply a matter of setting the > switch on the right side of the camera (near the shutter button) and moving > the pressure plate to 220 position. Is there any other glitch, gotcha, or > foible that I have to watch out for? > > Hmmm - just occurred to me - do I need a 220 spool on the uptake end ? (I > assume that these rolls have smaller cores than 120's.) No doubt someone has already spoken about this - I have no experience but understand that 220 has no backing paper. I assume you will need a changing bag to load/unload. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
That's odd ... I just converted about 10 PEF files ranging in size from 13099kb to 13637kb to uncompressed DNG format and got sizes from 4957kb to 6253kb, IOW, about 1/2 the size of the original files. Using Winzip 8.1 resulted in sizes similar to yours. How were you able to use the Adobe RAW converter to convert a PEF to a DNG? I used the DNG converter. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Savage > Using Winzip 8.1, a single 13.1 MB *ist D .pef file compressed down to 8.5 MB. > > Converting the same .pef using the Adobe RAW converter, to an > uncompressed .dng resulted in a 11.8 MB file. >
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:38 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 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. Yes ... No different on Mac OS X. Size matters. ;-) I use .PSD file format exclusively for this reason. Godfrey
Re: OT?:Resize for web question
bcin> -save as proggressive jpg bcin> -disable colour sampling bcin> -keep original exif data bcin> -keep original iptc data bcin> -keep original jpg comment I use this: IrfanView jpg quality of 75% (remember, quality 100% is least compression and best quality, 25% is much more compression and quite ugly quality). disable colour subsampling is CHECKED. This gives slightly larger files but much better colour gradations with some photographs (otherwise, jpeg would "subsample" the colours into larger blocks, which do look ugly sometime). All the other checkboxes are clear, unless I want to save it as grayscale, for B&W photographs, which produces better files (smaller and without colour, of course). Also, you should use Lanczos resampling for reducing the resolution to 640 pixels (it's the best algorithm) and most files _do_ need sharpening after resampling to smaller size. You can usually just use the sharpen filter in Irfan, although that might sometimes be too strong. Hope this helps, Frantisek
Re: OT - I'm on strike tomorrow!
Tuesday, April 12, 2005, 10:42:26 AM, David wrote: DM> On Apr 12, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Doug Franklin wrote: >> 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. :-) DM> How about sticking with still cameras but in a bullet-time setup? DM> That'd make for some fantastic action-replays. Actually it'd be even DM> better if they were all video cameras. The director could do all sorts DM> of cool stuff. Oh NO! That would relegate photographers to just camera technicians, and freelancing, I would have no option of going on strike as Cotty ;-) Even Wi-Fi is bad enough, letting the editor see all the bad unfocused shots of grass under your feet when tripping the shutter on accident Good light! fra
Re: updated website, please comment
pcn> majority of the categories. However,in the section "other work" pcn> there are a few pages that come up completely different and don't pcn> allow backing up to the previous page. These include "Refugee pcn> children..." "Home for the mentally handicapped...," and pcn> "Theater performance in derelict..." Hi Paul, thanks - I somehow forgot to upload them. They are now online in the new version. However, the Slaughterhouse theater I will have to redo some other time. Perhaps I will just pull it before it is done. pcn> Nice to see these shots again. A lot of great work here. pcn> Paul Thank you! The worst is always the editing of the keepers - especially with stories that were emotional... that's why unbiased critique from the list is so good. Say, is there some photograph in the portfolio that bothers you ;-) ? Frantisek
Re: Film writers (digi to neg, digi to slide)
WR> This is what my friend tells me: WR> It is running, resolution options are; WR> 2K - 2048 x 1366 pixels WR> 4K - 4096 x 2732 WR> 8K - 8192 x 5464 WR> for 35mm the image is 7.33 x 11 inches. @ 2K - 186 ppi, 4K - 372 ppi, 8K - WR> 745 ppi WR> 6x78.5 x 11 2K - 160372 642 WR> 4x5 7.88 x 11 173346 693 WR> or thereabouts. Great, thanks! >From the resolution figures for each film size it almost looks like it zooms to maintain the same resolution on both small and big films? Good light! fra
RE: OT?:Resize for web question
> Hi Dave - > > I like Irfan but have found that using PS gives me more controllable and > slightly better results when resizing. PS just has more options. Yes i suppose thats true.I use PS when i do 1-2 pictures,say for Paw or Pug,but if i have 200-300 from a horse show to put on my website i use the Ifranview as its prety fast. Is there a way in PS to do this many resizes fairly fast. > > Have you tried the Save For Web feature in Photoshop? You can see previews > of how the pic will look at different resolutions, and can have a choice of > four versions to compare. Yes. I use this for my Paw's and Pug's etc. > > Plus, you should be doing your sharpening after down sizing. Are you doing > that? No. I;ll try that. I have about 250 to do from Sunday. Thanks Dave > > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Just wondering how others do this. > > > > I generally use PS web gallery for my pages,but i have been using > Ifranview to resize the > > pictures and > > add my copyright text. > > If i resize to 640 by 480 and have the compression around 25 i get a nice > size file,but > > they seem not as > > clear or nice as other picture of the same size on other web sites. > > In the jpg options i have all the dialoge boxes turned off,ie: > > > > -save as proggressive jpg > > -disable colour sampling > > -keep original exif data > > -keep original iptc data > > -keep original jpg comment > > > > By experiment this gives me around a 15-20K file. > > > > Any tips on doing this,maybe something in Ifran view to try or do > something else in PS > > etc.Should i res > > up the dpi from 72 to 100, that sort of thing. > > > > All tips welcome. > > > > Dave Brooks > > > > > > > >
Re: OT?:Resize for web question
The degree of sharpening can be adjusted in Irfan, although Photoshop allows much more control and better sharpening alternatives, such as sharpening the luminosity layer, sharpening selective areas of an image, fading the degree of sharpening, and so on. A good technique when sharpening with Irfan is to set the degree of sharpening to a low amount, like 5%, and then sharpen more than once until you've gotten to the point where you like the result. If you over sharpen a bit you can step back with the undo command. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Frantisek > Also, you should use Lanczos resampling for reducing the resolution to > 640 pixels (it's the best algorithm) and most files _do_ need > sharpening after resampling to smaller size. You can usually just use > the sharpen filter in Irfan, although that might sometimes be too > strong. > > Hope this helps, Frantisek >
Re: A pic from second roll of film in MX
Peter Williams wrote: -Original Message- From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You're being immortalized in code! It's sort of the 21st century version of being immortalized in song. :-) I'm a williams and I'm OK, I photograph all day and I sleep all night, How could anyone write doggerel worse than the original... -- 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: OT?:Resize for web question
> I use this: > > IrfanView jpg quality of 75% (remember, quality 100% is least > compression and best quality, 25% is much more compression and quite > ugly quality). Yes this is what i am finding. > > disable colour subsampling is CHECKED. This gives slightly larger > files but much better colour gradations with some photographs > (otherwise, jpeg would "subsample" the colours into larger blocks, > which do look ugly sometime). Ok i'll try that on this new batch. > > All the other checkboxes are clear, unless I want to save it as > grayscale, for B&W photographs, which produces better files (smaller > and without colour, of course). > > Also, you should use Lanczos resampling for reducing the resolution to > 640 pixels (it's the best algorithm) and most files _do_ need > sharpening after resampling to smaller size. You can usually just use > the sharpen filter in Irfan, although that might sometimes be too > strong. > > Hope this helps, Frantisek Me to. Dave
Re: OT?:Resize for web question
SB> A good technique when sharpening with Irfan is to set the degree of SB> sharpening to a low amount, like 5%, and then sharpen more than once until SB> you've gotten to the point where you like the result. If you over sharpen SB> a bit you can step back with the undo command. Thanks. I didn't know that - I just used the shift-S shortcut to sharpen and didn't find the effect browser where the sharpen amount can be controlled :) Good light! fra
RE: OT?:Resize for web question
Hi Dave ... You can write an action to do this and then use the Automate feature to implement the action. OTOH, you might want to try the web gallery feature to resize the pics, saving the images into a separate folder, and then finish your processing on the resized images. However, if you follow Fra's suggestion, the suggestion on sharpening later, and use a higher quality JPEG in Irfan, you'll certainly get better results than you are now, and that might be all you need. BTW, since I'd never done it before (just talkin' like I know what I'm doing ), I just wrote an action that takes a 4000ppi scan and resizes it to a width or height of 600 pixels @ 72ppi and saves it as a JPEG. Took all of two minutes. It just occurred to me that I could have added sharpening to the action as well, which I may try later. By putting all the files you want to convert into one folder, and sending the conversions to another folder, everything is kept nice and orderly, and you can use the file browser to select the files you want to resize. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I like Irfan but have found that using PS gives me more controllable and > > slightly better results when resizing. PS just has more options. > > Yes i suppose thats true.I use PS when i do 1-2 pictures,say for Paw or Pug,but if i have > 200-300 from > a horse show to put on my website i use the Ifranview as its prety fast. > Is there a way in PS to do this many resizes fairly fast. > > > > Have you tried the Save For Web feature in Photoshop? You can see previews > > of how the pic will look at different resolutions, and can have a choice of > > four versions to compare. > > Yes. I use this for my Paw's and Pug's etc. > > > > Plus, you should be doing your sharpening after down sizing. Are you doing > > that? > > No. I;ll try that. > I have about 250 to do from Sunday. > Thanks > Dave > >
Re: PESO - Gobsmacking Light
On 10/4/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: >There's another, extremely rude version that denotes a person as >completely untrustworthy, such that all they say is excrement. Mike's too posh to say gobshite ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO - Blue
On 11/4/05, Ann Sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed: >Another lovely shot! Looks like Lupine to me - >yes? Stand and deliver! Give us your Lupins. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax ist DS shutter.
On 10/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: >"Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Bottom line is that everyone's correct, it just depends >>on which generation/type of technology is being referred >>to. > >Don, I'm really disappointed that you of all people would take this >attitude. There's only one way to answer this question for certain: >Where's your screwdriver?* > > > >* For Cotty, one can insert "hacksaw" in place of "screwdriver" Cheeky bugger. Your card's marked Roberts! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT?:Resize for web question
Yeah, it took me quite a while to discover that when I first started using Irfan. Glad you found it. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Frantisek > SB> A good technique when sharpening with Irfan is to set the degree of > SB> sharpening to a low amount, like 5%, and then sharpen more than once until > SB> you've gotten to the point where you like the result. If you over sharpen > SB> a bit you can step back with the undo command. > > Thanks. I didn't know that - I just used the shift-S shortcut to > sharpen and didn't find the effect browser where the sharpen amount > can be controlled :) > > Good light! >fra
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Thibouille wrote: I'd be interested to know how well these RAWs would compress with either RAR, ACE or 7zip format (best settings of course). 249355733 bytes uncompressed(Full size, 9.5MB avg) 209182171 bytes compressed with 'gzip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) 209185296 bytes compressed with 'zip' (84% original size, 8.0MB avg) 158154181 bytes compressed with 'bzip2' (63% original size, 6.0MB avg) bzip2 seems to be about the tightest compression for general-purpose data, so I'd be surprised if you could get much more than that. Remember that the amount of compresison possible is somewhat dependent on the content of the picture (e.g. polar bear in a blizzard is easy to compress). -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
PESO: On My Way to Work: Dogwood Blossoms
The flowering trees are out all over Philadelphia. I took this on a cloudy day last year. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3275629 Pentax 33L, resized and sharpened in Photoshop Elements 2. Not up to Bruce's standards, to be sure, but I kinda like it anyway. Comments welcome. Rick __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: End of Contax-Kyocera
It was only a matter of time... Thibouille wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05041201contaxend.asp -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ... -- 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: OT?:Resize for web question
On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like Irfan but have found that using PS gives me more controllable and slightly better results when resizing. PS just has more options. Yes i suppose thats true.I use PS when i do 1-2 pictures,say for Paw or Pug,but if i have 200-300 from a horse show to put on my website i use the Ifranview as its prety fast. Is there a way in PS to do this many resizes fairly fast. Learn to use actions, automate and batch features. I'm learning how to apply these tools to my work more and more. It speeds things up substantially. I downrez and sharpen all web images outside of using the automated tools to make web pages. I tell the automation in Photoshop to use the image's native size. Have you tried the Save For Web feature in Photoshop? You can see previews of how the pic will look at different resolutions, and can have a choice of four versions to compare. Yes. I use this for my Paw's and Pug's etc. One thing: Be sure to find and set the option to embed a colorspace profile. I know sRGB images are supposed to be the "web default" but in my testing I have found that JPEGs with an embedded profile, on both Windows and Mac OS, display far more consistently even if they've been converted to sRGB. Godfrey
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
Oops, my mistake. You are of course right, it's the Adobe DNG Converter. I was using version 2.3. I have now downloaded & installed the current version. Just re-converted the 13.1 MB .pef file with the updated DNG converter. Using the following preferences: Compression: No Compression Image Conversion Method: Preserve Raw Image Original Raw File: Not Embedded ...it's now down to a 11.9 MB .dng file (which is larger than the conversion made with v2.3 using the same settings) Using lossless compression it goes down to 4.7 MB. If I embed the original RAW file, with no compression, it goes up to 21 MB. Are you sure your not using compression? If not, I'd like to know how you getting the converted files so small. Anyway at least my software is now up to date. Thanks for making me check Shel. It's getting late. I need sleep. Dave S On Apr 12, 2005 10:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's odd ... > > I just converted about 10 PEF files ranging in size from 13099kb to 13637kb > to uncompressed DNG format and got sizes from 4957kb to 6253kb, IOW, about > 1/2 the size of the original files. Using Winzip 8.1 resulted in sizes > similar to yours. > > How were you able to use the Adobe RAW converter to convert a PEF to a DNG? > I used the DNG converter. > > Shel > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Savage > > > Using Winzip 8.1, a single 13.1 MB *ist D .pef file compressed down to > 8.5 MB. > > > > Converting the same .pef using the Adobe RAW converter, to an > > uncompressed .dng resulted in a 11.8 MB file. > > > >
RE: OT?:Resize for web question
> Hi Dave ... > > You can write an action to do this and then use the Automate feature to > implement the action. I'v never tried to write any actions before. I quess its time to do some.:-) > > By putting all the files you want to convert into one folder, and sending > the conversions to another folder, everything is kept nice and orderly, and > you can use the file browser to select the files you want to resize. I put all my steps into seperate folders so i can keep track of everything. I learned that the hard way when i started dealing in pictures on the web.LOL Dave > > Shel > >
RE: Warning about Nigeria Buyer
Richard Chu wrote: > I told her to go ahead and send me that label but I would > only send the package after I receive the money order. She > emailed me the label for a Nigerian address and also arranged > FEDEX to pick up the package from my house. I wasn't at home > when FEDEX came and told her again that I would not release > the package until I receive the payment. Later I got another > email from her stating that she had put the payment on hold > since I had not released the package. An email supposedly > from Western Union arrived stating that the payment had been > witheld until I release the package. I wonder how long these scams will last. From what I have read, many packages are going to the places specified not filled with cameras or other quality goods, but cat litter or old paper. Scamming the scammer. Malcolm
Re: The Future of Adobe's Camera Raw
Whoops! Yes, I did use compression- my carelessness ...compression was checked by default and I just left it that way. Didn't try an uncompressed conversion. I imagine that the results would then be similar to yours. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Savage > Oops, my mistake. You are of course right, it's the Adobe DNG Converter. > > I was using version 2.3. I have now downloaded & installed the > current version. > > Just re-converted the 13.1 MB .pef file with the updated DNG > converter. Using the following preferences: > > Compression: No Compression > Image Conversion Method: Preserve Raw Image > Original Raw File: Not Embedded > > ...it's now down to a 11.9 MB .dng file (which is larger than the > conversion made with v2.3 using the same settings) > > Using lossless compression it goes down to 4.7 MB. If I embed the > original RAW file, with no compression, it goes up to 21 MB. > > Are you sure your not using compression? If not, I'd like to know how > you getting the converted files so small. > > Anyway at least my software is now up to date. Thanks for making me > check Shel. > > It's getting late. I need sleep. > > Dave S > > On Apr 12, 2005 10:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's odd ... > > > > I just converted about 10 PEF files ranging in size from 13099kb to 13637kb > > to uncompressed DNG format and got sizes from 4957kb to 6253kb, IOW, about > > 1/2 the size of the original files. Using Winzip 8.1 resulted in sizes > > similar to yours. > > > > How were you able to use the Adobe RAW converter to convert a PEF to a DNG? > > I used the DNG converter. > > > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: David Savage > > > > > Using Winzip 8.1, a single 13.1 MB *ist D .pef file compressed down to > > 8.5 MB. > > > > > > Converting the same .pef using the Adobe RAW converter, to an > > > uncompressed .dng resulted in a 11.8 MB file. > > > > > > >
RE: OT?:Resize for web question
Writing a simple action like resizing seems ... well, simple ;-)) Got it to work on the first try, although I'm not sure what the best way would be to adjust the longest dimension if it's the height. I'm gonna find out, though. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 4/12/2005 9:19:41 AM > Subject: RE: OT?:Resize for web question > > > Hi Dave ... > > > > You can write an action to do this and then use the Automate feature to > > implement the action. > > I'v never tried to write any actions before. I quess its time to do some.:-)
Re: Pentax ist DS shutter.
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 10/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>"Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>Bottom line is that everyone's correct, it just depends >>>on which generation/type of technology is being referred >>>to. >> >>Don, I'm really disappointed that you of all people would take this >>attitude. There's only one way to answer this question for certain: >>Where's your screwdriver?* >> >> >>* For Cotty, one can insert "hacksaw" in place of "screwdriver" > >Cheeky bugger. Your card's marked Roberts! http://www.robertstech.com/temp/cottycam.jpg -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
My istD went to a BlueJay game
Hey gang. You may remember i lent Aaron my istD and Sigma 300 f 4 for his baseball shoot last week. He has put up several pictures from the stadium and the game, link below. http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/PotW/Hinske_IGP1369POTW Pictures 8,9,10 and 11 are from the istD. The dome was closed and the lighting gave him AWB problems,and he shot at 1/500 F4 at iso 1600. He fixed them up pretty good i think. Dave
Re: PESO: On My Way to Work: Dogwood Blossoms
I gotta say that I'm impressede with what you're getting out of that little P&S. You have a good eye. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, April 12, 2005, 8:54:00 AM, you wrote: RW> The flowering trees are out all over Philadelphia. I RW> took this on a cloudy day last year. RW> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3275629 RW> Pentax 33L, resized and sharpened in Photoshop RW> Elements 2. RW> Not up to Bruce's standards, to be sure, but I kinda RW> like it anyway. RW> Comments welcome. RW> Rick RW> __ RW> Do you Yahoo!? RW> Make Yahoo! your home page RW> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
