Re: PESO - Dimples

[Peter J. Alling]

I second Shel,  Aaaw.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello pentax-discuss,
I was needing to test the A 28-135/4 lens for suitability for some of
my wedding and portrait work.  So I requested my 4 year old daughter
to help me out.  She can be a ham at times, but is a good sport.  I do
like the rendering this lens has on skin - reasonably sharp, but not
harsh.  Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.
Pentax *istD, A 28-135/4 near 100-135mm
ISO 400, 1/250 sec @ f/5.6
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1790.htm
Converted from Raw to 16 bit Tiff with Capture One LE and
sized/sharpened for web with BreezeBrowser Pro.
 


--
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

Frank is not alone ...

[John Francis]

On the local (CBS) news tonight was coverage of the current
wave of attacks on the San Francisco homeless (some deranged
excrescence is taking pot-shots at them with a BB gun).
They interviewed a group of three homeless guys, one of whom
was wearing a set of rabbit ears which appeared to me to be
identical to those Frank has been seen to wear.

FS Friday: Pentax Spotmatic F Body + SMC Takumar Lenses + Peleng Fish Eye + Nikon Gear

[Krishna M]

Dear All,
To partly finance my move to digital, I want to sell my pentax gear:
Pentax Spotmatic F body
SMC Takumar screwmount lens: 1.4/50mm; 1.8/85mm; 4/100mm Macro; 4/200mm
All in good working condition.
Also available:
Vivitar 2.8/24mm lens;
Belarus-made MC Peleng 3.5/8mm fisheye circular lens - with screw mount and
Nikon adaptor (Like new - hardly used - shot less than 15 pictures)
Nikon N80 with Nikkor AF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6D;  Nikkor AF75-240mm 1:4.5-5.6D
(entire Nikon set in Very good condition  9+)
Please make offer. Pictures and any more details on request.
If you are in and around Chicago, you are welcome to see the items
physically.
Thanks and Warm Regards
Krishna.

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[Peter Smekal]

That's the paradox. You probably have not read H C Andersen :-)
Peter
>If the Emperor of Digital Photography has no clothes, how can anyone
>disrobe her?
>
>Godfrey

Re: Pentax Sf-1

[Ann Sanfedele]

John Forbes wrote:
> 
> I got a couple from Ebay, because they came with lenses which I wanted.  I
> have kept one.
> 
> It's chunky, some might say ugly, but pretty well made.  You can't, for
> instance, accidentally change the autofocus mode (as you can with the
> (P)Z1-P), because it has a little button which you have to depress before
> the slider will slide.  It's heavier than any other Pentax K-mount camera,
> save the K2.
> 
> It offers manual or programmed exposure modes, and the system for
> switching between modes, speeds, ISO, etc., is simple and quick.
> 
> Auto-focus is OK in daylight, but struggles in low light.
> 
> The top plate displays aperture and shutter speed, but only the speed is
> displayed in the viewfinder.  There is no DOF preview.
> 
> It's a cart-horse, rather than a race-horse, with all that that implies.
> 
> John
> 
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:03:50 -0400, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > PRos, cons and age range please :)
> >
> > A friend of mine has one - i'll see it next week
> > but
> > wondered what I'll be looking at would like
> > opinions
> > from folks I know rather than some website
> >
> > T I A
> > annsan
> >
> >

Thanks much, John --
I don't know what lens she has on it  - I'll be
looking at a bunch
of camera equipment of hers she wants to unload
and has asked me to
help her I was thinking I didn't know the SF-1
because it was too old -
not the case, I see now :)

ann



> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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: 266.9.9 - Release Date: 13/04/2005

FS Friday: SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL on eBay

[David Oswald]

Friday's a couple hours away, so here goes:
Redundancy in my assortment of lenses has given me a reason to sell off 
a few pieces.  This week, it's the SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL. 
As everyone here probably knows, this is a lens designed only to be used 
on Pentax's digital SLR's such as the *ist-D and *ist-DS.

Without further fanfair:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7508279914
Enjoy!

Re: PESO: San Francisco Nighttime Panorama

[John Celio]

http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d5/panorama_2_med.html
(make sure you click the image to see the large version)
Just freakin' awesome. If prints are for sale, sign me up. :-)
Thanks to everyone who responded.  All the positive comments are making me 
seriously consider making prints to sell.  I have no idea how to go about 
selling my photos, as I've only given prints away as gifts in the past.  For 
instance, what percentage markup do photographers put on their prints, 
framed and unframed?  Anything else I should know?

Thanks,
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.newpixel.net
AIM: Neopifex
"Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a 
statement." 

Re: PAW PESO - The Conversation

[williamsp]

Quoting Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> bluetooth wireless headset
> like they are mentally disturbed.
> 

Or like they fancy themselves in the next "Matrix" or "Star Trek" sequel when
you can see the Bluetooth headset. Beam me up Agent Smith.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: PAW PESO - The Conversation

[Bruce Dayton]

Of course, it is even stranger to see someone talking with a bluetooth
wireless headset.  They are just talking to the air, almost like they
are mentally disturbed.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Thursday, April 14, 2005, 9:36:58 PM, you wrote:

wnna> Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>> Today one never knows to whom or what people are talking.
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/convers.html
>> 

wnna> I'm sometimes startled when the person walking or standing next to me 
suddenly
wnna> starts talking (often loudly) with no indication of who they are talking 
to.
wnna> That thin black wire snaking down from your
wnna> conversationalists neck/head is a
wnna> little clue :-)


wnna> 
wnna> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[williamsp]

Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> It wasn't the B&W inkjet prints that had this effect.
> 

I suspected I was slightly unclear...
The bronzing happens with colour and B&W inkjet prints.
I just let the two things run in together without changing the B&W context I'd
established at the beginning when talking about metamerism.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: PAW PESO - The Conversation

[williamsp]

Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Today one never knows to whom or what people are talking.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/convers.html
> 

I'm sometimes startled when the person walking or standing next to me suddenly
starts talking (often loudly) with no indication of who they are talking to.
That thin black wire snaking down from your conversationalists neck/head is a
little clue :-)



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: PAW PESO - The Conversation

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Bruce,

You might be right about showing a little more wall.  I think the looser
framing does add something to the pic (just gave it a quick look-see). 
Thanks ... 

Nice thing about layers in PS, I can just xfer them to the new pic quite
simply by dragging them from the layers palette to the image, so redoing
the pic should be pretty simple.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> The name and description helped me to look and see a small wire going
> up to her ear - likely conversing with someone on a cell phone.  I
> think it is important to show context here, so having the other guy
> oblivious to her adds to the image.  I do wish that I could see just a
> bit more wall in front of her, to strengthen the impression of her
> talking to seemingly nobody.  The tonality of the B&W is quite nice -
> technically well done.  Overall a thumbs up.
>
> Nice job.


> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/convers.html
>
> SB> Shel 
>
>
>

Re: 50mm lenses test pages: help with japanese translation (help with math)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Cassino" Subject: Re: 50mm lenses test pages: help with japanese 
translation (help with math)


I> Is my math wrong on that, or are most of these lenses equal on the 
*ist-D / DS? And for that matter, more or less equal with most films except 
the highest performing slide films (I seem to recall that Velvia could 
resolve something like 160 lpm?  Or maybe that was DPI... My memory is 
about as good as my math.)

The high resolution number is a 1000:1 (10 stop knife edge) test target.
For a more practical resolution, you want to look at the 1.6:1 (about a 1 
stop transition) resolution numbers.
You will note, they are a much less impressive set of numbers.

William Robb 

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Lindamood, Mark wrote:
The Emperor of Digital Photography has no clothes.
If the Emperor of Digital Photography has no clothes, how can anyone 
disrobe her?

Godfrey

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

All this fuss because someone didn't like a couple of prints
Extrapolating the "decline and fall" of anything but common sense from 
that isn't worth much in way of a response.

Godfrey

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Shel Belinkoff]

It wasn't the B&W inkjet prints that had this effect.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 4/14/2005 9:13:54 PM
> Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph
>
> Quoting John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mused:
> > > 
> > > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > 
> > > > A couple of prints that I received showed "bronzing" in certain
light,
> > > > although that's not the correct term and it may be misleading.  It's
> > when
> > > > the color changes a bit and appears a little metallic -
metatastizing or
> > > > something similar I believe it's called. 
> > > 
> > > Metamerism, looking different under different lighting conditions.
> > 
> > Many inks show a metallic sheen when viewed at high angles of incidence.
> > (Those of us old enough to remember inkwells in school desks may well
> > also remember the copper or bronze appearance of the dried-up ink).
> > Viewed head-on the colour may look just fine, but 'flop' the print so
> > you're viewing it almost edge-on and you'll get a very different look.
> > 
>
> Bronzing and metamerism are two different things which I think John is
saying
> subtley. The apparent colour change of B&W inkjet printing under different
> lighjting types is metamerism. The metallic sheen when viewed at an angle
that
> John explains is indeed commonly called bronzing.
>
>
>
> 
> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

RE: PESO - Dimples

[Shel Belinkoff]

A ... 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> I was needing to test the A 28-135/4 lens for suitability for some of
> my wedding and portrait work.  So I requested my 4 year old daughter
> to help me out.  She can be a ham at times, but is a good sport.  I do
> like the rendering this lens has on skin - reasonably sharp, but not
> harsh.  Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.
>
> Pentax *istD, A 28-135/4 near 100-135mm
> ISO 400, 1/250 sec @ f/5.6
>
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1790.htm

Re: PAW PESO - The Conversation

[Bruce Dayton]

The name and description helped me to look and see a small wire going
up to her ear - likely conversing with someone on a cell phone.  I
think it is important to show context here, so having the other guy
oblivious to her adds to the image.  I do wish that I could see just a
bit more wall in front of her, to strengthen the impression of her
talking to seemingly nobody.  The tonality of the B&W is quite nice -
technically well done.  Overall a thumbs up.

Nice job.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Thursday, April 14, 2005, 9:02:35 PM, you wrote:

SB> When I was a kid and disobeyed my mom's orders, she'd often say that
SB> talking to me was "like talking to a wall."  To my surprise, I found this
SB> woman having a conversation with a wall ... or was she?  Today one never
SB> knows to whom or what people are talking.

SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/convers.html

SB> Shel 

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[williamsp]

Quoting John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mused:
> > 
> > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 
> > > A couple of prints that I received showed "bronzing" in certain light,
> > > although that's not the correct term and it may be misleading.  It's
> when
> > > the color changes a bit and appears a little metallic - metatastizing or
> > > something similar I believe it's called. 
> > 
> > Metamerism, looking different under different lighting conditions.
> 
> Many inks show a metallic sheen when viewed at high angles of incidence.
> (Those of us old enough to remember inkwells in school desks may well
> also remember the copper or bronze appearance of the dried-up ink).
> Viewed head-on the colour may look just fine, but 'flop' the print so
> you're viewing it almost edge-on and you'll get a very different look.
> 

Bronzing and metamerism are two different things which I think John is saying
subtley. The apparent colour change of B&W inkjet printing under different
lighjting types is metamerism. The metallic sheen when viewed at an angle that
John explains is indeed commonly called bronzing.




This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

PESO - Dimples

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello pentax-discuss,

I was needing to test the A 28-135/4 lens for suitability for some of
my wedding and portrait work.  So I requested my 4 year old daughter
to help me out.  She can be a ham at times, but is a good sport.  I do
like the rendering this lens has on skin - reasonably sharp, but not
harsh.  Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.

Pentax *istD, A 28-135/4 near 100-135mm
ISO 400, 1/250 sec @ f/5.6

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1790.htm

Converted from Raw to 16 bit Tiff with Capture One LE and
sized/sharpened for web with BreezeBrowser Pro.


-- 
Best regards,
Bruce

PAW PESO - The Conversation

[Shel Belinkoff]

When I was a kid and disobeyed my mom's orders, she'd often say that
talking to me was "like talking to a wall."  To my surprise, I found this
woman having a conversation with a wall ... or was she?  Today one never
knows to whom or what people are talking.

http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/convers.html

Shel 

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[David Savage]

Shel,

You make some good points, but in all fairness, you are comparing
different technologies at different times in there history &
development. Traditional photographic processes have been around for a
long time. Digital capture & output is still in it's infancy.

While it may be a bit premature to say that current inkjet output is
equal to, or better than, traditionally produced prints, it's pretty
darn close. Think what digital prints were like 10, hell 5 years ago,
to what we can now produce with the current technology.

I struggle to get consistent results from my prints at home, but I'm
new to digital, less than 2 years & I bought my first digital camera 5
months ago. But I'm learning & slowly improving.

Have faith Shel, things will get better & better. The output from the
first photographic processes wasn't much  to look at, but the
technology evolved & look what you can do now. :-)

Dave S


On 4/14/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> During the past few months I've had a chance to closely examine a number of
> prints made from digital cameras and printed with inkjet printers of
> various brands.  The images were made with Canon, Pentax, and Nikon gear,
> printers (that I know of) were Epsons, HP's, and Canons. Most everyone who
> has sent me prints, and most that I have examined, were described by their
> makers as being of great quality, as good as anything made with
> conventional photography.
> 
> For the most part, Phooey!  Of the eleven prints I've received all but
> three were clearly over sharpened.  While this is not a result of the
> process specifically, it is a result of the print maker being either
> careless or unskilled at his or her craft, perhaps because they've not made
> their own prints before or not having had the chance to examine high
> quality prints carefully, or believing that sharpness is a very important
> quality.
> 
> The few that were supposed to be B&W renditions all had obvious color casts
> to them, and while one person on this list noted that there are numerous
> types of B&W (warm tones, cool tones to break it down into two main
> catagories), the color casts were really obvious and gross, and the prints
> looked nothing like any real B&W prints I've seen.  This is not to say that
> the tones and color casts were not always pleasing, but they were too
> obvious and too far removed from the traditional B&W print that I thought
> the photographer was striving for.
> 
> Just a few days ago I received two prints from a list member, one made on
> their HP inkjet printer and another, from the same image and file, made by
> a commercial outfit.  They were miles apart in color rendition - the green
> background, for example, was soft and almost desaturated in one version and
> much more saturated in another.  Neither looked anything like the same
> image posted here and viewed on my monitor.  This, and Rob Studdert's
> recent test of how monitors and computers treat a color image, only drives
> home the point that consistency is so often inconsistent, and what you see
> isn't always what you get.
> 
> A couple of prints that I received showed "bronzing" in certain light,
> although that's not the correct term and it may be misleading.  It's when
> the color changes a bit and appears a little metallic - metatastizing or
> something similar I believe it's called.  Unacceptable behvior for a print
> that should be neutral when viewed, imo.
> 
> And then there are the little inkjet dots that on some prints were clearly
> observable, although only upon very close scrutiny, and not from any
> distance, where the dots ran together nicely and looked like continuous
> tone.  Still, they were there, and I cannot wonder how they would affect
> our perception on a subliminal level.  Yeah, that may sound like a lot of
> bullshit psychbabble doublespeak to some, but I cannot wonder how things we
> don't clearly see and hear can affect our observations and feelings.
> 
> Overall, I am not impressed with the results from the purely digital
> workflow.  I think the processes involved, for the most part - especially
> on the consumer level - has a long way to go before consistent, quality
> results can be had.  Of course, as Herb Chong pointed out, the results may
> be consistently repeatable, but then I can eat a bad hamburger and get a
> repeatable result.
> 
> One thing I must add is that Paul Stenquist and Rob Studdert had agreed to
> make some prints from my own files so that I could compare them to results
> of a known quality, and I have been remiss in sending them the promised
> files from which they'd make the prints.  So while my comments here stand,
> the test and comparison is not yet complete.
> 
> 
> Shel
> 
>

Re: OT?:Resize for web question

[Rob Studdert]

On 14 Apr 2005 at 21:43, David Mann wrote:

> Hmm, I haven't looked at that.  I run 2.2 on my Mac because it's easier 
> on my eyes in a dimly-lit room.

That I can appreciate, I have generated a g1.8 profile for my monitor too, just 
so that I can see though Mac coloured glasses when I get depressed about owning 
a Windows PC :-) 

> IIRC 1.8 is the standard for broadcast video (PAL/NTSC/etc), but 2.2 is 
> the standard for HD video.  Feel free to correct me on that.

That I didn't realize.

> There is a setting but it's not in Safari... it picks up on the 
> ColorSync setting which is accessed under "Preferences" in the 
> ColorSync Utility.  I set mine to sRGB because that's what I expect 
> most untagged files to be.  I think the default setting is "Generic RGB 
> Profile".  The generic profile is virtually identical to sRGB 
> gamut-wise but I don't know about the gamma.

OK, so on your system I assume that files rendered as sRGB with and without 
profile look very similar on screen? So like anything it really comes down to 
knowing what you are doing, the generic colour settings in the Mac OS aren't 
necessarily optimised for dealing with the majority of graphics sources?

Given the lack of colour aware browsers for the Windows platform can only 
assume that the developers don't consider it a problem, it's a pretty sad 
situation really.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: PESO: Daffodils

[Amita Guha]

> When one gets a fisheye, it must be used!!  (I just used mine 
> for "non-traditional" fisheye shots this past weekend ).

Yep. I'm really having fun finding out what this lens can do. It's capable
of a lot more than just demonstrating the fisheye effect. :)
 
> I like this one.  The OOF bits of the main subject don't 
> bother me at all.  In fact I think they're kinda cool.

Thanks!
 
Amita

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Shel Belinkoff]

No I didn't ... show me where i said that.  All I said was that the eleven
prints I examined were of poor quality and that the results were wildly
inconsistent, and cited an example of one list member's prints that looked
substantially different in three separate instances.

What I love about some of the comments here is how my remarks have been
interpreted and how people have put words in my mouth to coincide with
their own thoughts on the subject. 

I wouldn't expect you to see any decline or fall ...

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Mishka 

> shel compares the best custom-made bw, done by great printers
> (i am sure he is one) to inkjets. it's like saying that swiss watch is
better
> made than a seiko. duh! get a drum scan, print at a lightjet and then
> compare.
>
> my comparison is a home-made inkjet to a lab print. 
> at a similar cost.
> an inkjet usually blows away anything that comes from the lab.
>
> i don't see any decline or fall. 
>
> best,
> mishka

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[Shel Belinkoff]

My point was to express my opinion of  a certain number of prints submitted
to me.  Draw whatever conclusions you like.  If you read the entire thread
you'll note that is was specific about consumer quality prints and that I
also mentioned that by using quality materials, quality tools that were
properly adjusted, and good skills, excellent results can be had from
digital work.  I've seen the shit that has been passed of as "quality" in
many places, and have seen work that is exemplary.  By and large, the
typical work produced by typical photographers is, typically, well below
the level that I know is possible.  Unfortunately, too many people think
their work is great - it isn't.  I'd wager they've never seen great work
and wouldn't know how to go about achieving it.  

My objective was not to compare a wet print to a digital print.  My
objective was exactly as stated: a lot of stuff that's produced digitally
and that is represented as quality stinks!

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Herb Chong 

> if Shel's objective was to compare a wet print to a digital print and say 
> that he likes wet prints better, he succeeded. most fine art pros around
me 
> have gone digital printing because they like the results better.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Mishka]

huh?
shel compares the best custom-made bw, done by great printers
(i am sure he is one) to inkjets. it's like saying that swiss watch is better
made than a seiko. duh! get a drum scan, print at a lightjet and then
compare.

my comparison is a home-made inkjet to a lab print. 
at a similar cost.
an inkjet usually blows away anything that comes from the lab.

i don't see any decline or fall. 

best,
mishka

On 4/14/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph
> 
> > compared to the printing that most labs do (including the "pro" labs),
> > most digital prints are just plain gorgeous, BW or not.
> >
> > and no, not everyone has a (color) darkroom.
> 
> So the failing of the photographer is the fault of the medium?
> 
> William Robb
> 
>

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[George Sinos]

Over on the luminous-landscape  they
sell the Video Journal, a DVD "magazine".

One of the segments on issue 11 that I found most interesting was an
interview with Ctein.  He made a statement that every technological
advance in printing had brought improvements in some area, but each
brought a degradation in image quality.

He said digital printing was the first advance that also improved image quality.

It was very interesting, in another segment he demonstrated making a
dye transfer print.  I'd read about this technique before, but until I
saw it done I didn't really grasp just how involved it really is.  He
stated that the materials are no longer made, and that he has enough
stockpiled to do a certain number of prints.  After that, it is no
more.

For me, that segment was worth the price of the DVD.

See you later, gs

Re: The good news ...

[Mat Maessen]

On 4/14/05, Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, getting into this digital stuff might not take too much cash.
> Now, if someone will just purchase my Adtran TSU 600 for $200 ...

Good luck, we've got a pair of them sitting on a shelf at work.
Now that 12" Ilex is tempting, especially if it comes w/ a shutter... :-)

-Mat

DA 50-200/4-5.6 ED, Any news?

[Don Sanderson]

Does anyone know if this lens will actually ever appear?
I'm about to buy the Sigma 55-200 DI but with this DA listed
on the Pentax web site at "under $300" I'd much rather wait
for it, if I won't be too old to use it by then! ;-)

Don

Re: 50mm lenses test pages: help with japanese translation (help with math)

[Rob Studdert]

On 14 Apr 2005 at 21:10, Mark Cassino wrote:

> I can't get the original page to load, so thanks to Fred for posting the 
> extracted page.
> 
> I'm rather surprised by how poorly the FA 1.7 does at wider apertures. 
> Similarly surprised that the Ricoh 50mm f2.0 did so poorly.
> 
> I'm trying to put these numbers into perspective with the *ist-D
> 
> Let's see -  23.5mm x a5.7 mm sensor with 3008 x 2008 pixels works out to 
> about 128 pixels per mm. With LPM being a factor of on half pixels per mm 
> (it takes one pixel for the line, one for the background) then the 
> theoretical maximum resolution of the *ist-D / DS is only 64 lpm 
> 
> Is my math wrong on that, or are most of these lenses equal on the *ist-D / 
> DS?
> And for that matter, more or less equal with most films except the highest
> performing slide films (I seem to recall that Velvia could resolve something
> like 160 lpm?  Or maybe that was DPI... My memory is about as good as my 
> math.)

Testing the resolution *ist D using USAF chart I found that the camera/best 
lens combos can manage no more than about 46lppm absolute resolution. 

>From the archives:

Subject: RE: *ist D resolution (was:Soon to be new istD owners)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:24:46 +1000

On 12 Jan 2004 at 22:28, Jens Bladt wrote:

> Hi Rob
> Hmmm. Not so sure about how to test lens resolution on film.
> I'm sure 100 linepairs pr. mm has been occationally achieved on film.

Hi Jens,

Plenty of resources here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lenstesting/

> Simple math tels me that 3000 pixel covering 24mm gives 125 pixel/mm. But you
> need three to make a PAIR of lines. Gives you appr. 43 line pairs/mm, right.
> So, using a 6MP body is like using the poorest lens ever made by Pentax -
> resoluton wise, of cource.

Sure, the Kell factor in this case appears to be about 0.7 therefore the 
resolution in lpmm can effectively be calculated as 
3008pixels/23.5mm/2pixels*0.7kell factor=44.8lpmm. I used a conventional test
chart in conjunction with a very high resolution lens in order to reduce it's
effect on the measurement and I calculated an optical resolution of 44.6lpmm 
and
this was before I made any theoretical calculations.

> Like 100 lp/mm seemed to be "the sound wall" of analog photography, it seems
> appr. 5000 dpi is "the sound wall" of current digital photography. But I'm
> sure they'll break throug this sometime soon. SONY is now marketing a 8MP
> consumer camera - with a 2.0 Carl Zeiss lens - for appr. 1000$ (Sony DSC
> F-828). Maybe we'll get there earlier than we relly want.

I don't think so, I doubt there will be that much to gain by making smaller
pixels, look at the noise generated by the Pentax *istD at higher ISO already.
Smaller pixels will reduce the effective exposure latitude, colour accuracy and
increase the noise floor.




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: GFM & PDML

[Cesar]

Kenneth,
The first year I brought all my Pentax gear.  Since then I have not done 
so - mainly because the trunk of a convertible was not big enough once I 
got the 645n kit.

I think I am in the minority in the amount of gear I bring along - some 
of it never sees the light of day though :-)

Is it ok to bring items for sale?  Just ask Stan - I did not buy a 
vehicle from him only because he did have one for sale :-P

Hope I can contribute to the 'Return Kenneth Home Fund',
César
Panama City, Florida
Kenneth Waller wrote:
As a GFM attendee newby, I have the following  question?
Is it usual for attendees to bring some or all their gear?
What range of lenses are "normally shot" @ GFM?
Are items for sale ok to bring?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Cesar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: GFM & PDML
snip
 

So are you saying that along with my K-mounts, screwmounts, 645, and
digital Pentax gear I should also bring along my Nikon F3 cameras and
gear?  I should also have a CoolPix sitting around somewhere...
Getting ready to host a shrimp & oyster festival this weekend,
César
Panama City, Florida
   

Re: GFM & PDML

[Cesar]

Bill Owens wrote:

Bill
Is it much of a hike from where the vehicles park to where the pdml 
group
congregate?
I might need a sherpa!

Kenneth Waller

The PDML group hangs out in the picnic area about 1/4 mile from the 
entrance.  You may have to walk 50 feet.  However, if you go out with 
Mark Roberts you will need a Sherpa.  Cesar has been known to perform 
that duty.

Bill
See Kenneth, I was not kidding you :-)  What better references do I need?
Okay, I will at least open the slide box now,
César
Panama City, Florida

Re: GFM & PDML

[Cesar]

Kenneth,
Not far at all.  As for a Sherpa, I have been known to work as such - 
and I have yet to see the photos from the 'ladder' too!
I may be a little guy, but I can make many trips with the vehicles being 
close...

Putting off culling and scanning of photos,
César
Panama City, Florida
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Bill
Is it much of a hike from where the vehicles park to where the pdml group
congregate?
I might need a sherpa!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: GFM & PDML
 

   

As a GFM attendee newby, I have the following  question?
Is it usual for attendees to bring some or all their gear?
What range of lenses are "normally shot" @ GFM?
Are items for sale ok to bring?
Kenneth Waller
 

It depends on how much "all" is.  I usually have one or 2 SLR's and all of
my 5 or 6 lenses.  I find I use my 75-300 Tamron and Pentax M100 Macro a
lot, but if you're into scenics, you may want a wide angle.  Bring on your
for sale gear, some got sold last year.
Bill
   

The good news ...

[Collin R Brendemuehl]

... is that Cord Camera has 2 *istDS kits in stock.
$899 standard price.
So let's play a *game* here ...
$899
- $200 for my black MX / winder just out of CLA & really nice
--
$699
- $125 for my 12" Ilex
--
$574
- $200 for either my A100/2.8 or K30/2.8 (but I really don't want to part 
with either.  Remember, this is just a game.)
--
$374
- $100 for the zoom lens in the kit
--
$274
- $125 for my 135mm Rodenstock Ysarex
--
$149

You know, getting into this digital stuff might not take too much cash.
Now, if someone will just purchase my Adtran TSU 600 for $200 ...
In practical terms ...
$100 for the kit zoom
$150 for a KX that I just got in Really Excellent condition, with K55/1.8
leaves just $650.
It's getting tempting.
Collin

Re: 50mm lenses test pages: help with japanese translation (help with math)

[Mark Cassino]

I can't get the original page to load, so thanks to Fred for posting the 
extracted page.

I'm rather surprised by how poorly the FA 1.7 does at wider apertures. 
Similarly surprised that the Ricoh 50mm f2.0 did so poorly.

I'm trying to put these numbers into perspective with the *ist-D
Let's see -  23.5mm x a5.7 mm sensor with 3008 x 2008 pixels works out to 
about 128 pixels per mm. With LPM being a factor of on half pixels per mm 
(it takes one pixel for the line, one for the background) then the 
theoretical maximum resolution of the *ist-D / DS is only 64 lpm 

Is my math wrong on that, or are most of these lenses equal on the *ist-D / 
DS? And for that matter, more or less equal with most films except the 
highest performing slide films (I seem to recall that Velvia could resolve 
something like 160 lpm?  Or maybe that was DPI... My memory is about as good 
as my math.)

- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message - 
From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: 50mm lenses test pages: help with japanese translation


Below is a link to an interesting page with test charts for all major
50mm lenses out there.
Just for simplicity (to make it easier to compare the K-mount 50's), I put
the Pentax and Ricoh lens charts on a page at
http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/xitek50/
If anyone can come up with English translations for the Chinese comments
below each chart (on the original site), I'll add them, too.
I think that the charts pretty much confirm my own experiences, although
I'm comparing all A lenses (substituting my A models for the FA 50/1.4 and
FA 50/1.7 lenses).  That is to say, I ~still~ think that -
1.  My favorite 50 is the A 50/1.4.
2.  The A 50/1.2 is a better lens than some people give it credit for.
3.  The A 50/2 has a high "bang for the buck ratio".
4.  And then there's the A 50/1.7...
Fred

Re: PESO Natural World II

[John Francis]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 07:03:56PM -0400, frank theriault wrote:
> On 4/14/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > "...so then I told that stupid redneck I'd flip his truck into the pond
> > if he kept throwing those stones..."
> 
> "Stupid Redneck";  isn't that a redundancy?
> 

All things are relative...

Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Might be time for a new system..
Yes, if I want to do RAW, otherwise its hard for me to justify the 
cost of a
new system just to pick up some speed.
I dunno ... Between 1997 and 2005 systems, you're not just picking up 
"some" speed. There's a world of difference between computer systems 
that old and current ones, whether Windows or Mac OS.

But you know better than I what you want to deal with. I know I 
couldn't get half as much work done per day if I had to work with 8 
year old hardware.

Godfrey

Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I don't think it would do you any good. The Pentax *ist D RAW files 
were not supported in the original Camera Raw plug-in, I think it came 
in with version 2, and the DS RAW files are only supported in v2.4.

Godfrey
On Apr 14, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Cause Adobe no longer sells it.
Anyone out there got a copy they want to get rid of?
Interested,
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

"I have PS 7.0 but can no longer get the RAW plug in that was 
available
for it."

Why not?
Joe

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[Herb Chong]

it doesn't matter how good some one is if you can't find them or obtain 
their services, as you have found out with your handyman skills.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor


It's the peril of the trades.
I had trouble getting carpenters, plumbers and electricians to do things 
right as well, to the point I just do it myself now.
Blaming the medium for a lack of good workmanship seems a bit foolish to 
me.

Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Mark Roberts]

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

>From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> "I have PS 7.0 but can no longer get the RAW plug in that was available 
>> for it."
>> 
>> Why not?
>
>Cause Adobe no longer sells it. 
>
>Anyone out there got a copy they want to get rid of?

Did Camera RAW for PS 7 ever do Pentax PEF files?


-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Pentax KX meter problem

[Mark Roberts]

"Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Sadly the KX meter is a one of a kind.  I think you can use Spotmatic F, 
>K1000 and KM meters interchangeably
>(I may be wrong about the KM).  The KX was a whole other bird.

You're right about all the above. The KX meter *was* unique. The K2 used
the same type silicon photo diode, but different metering circuitry due
to the autoexposure nature of the beast.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[John Francis]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused:
> 
> Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > A couple of prints that I received showed "bronzing" in certain light,
> > although that's not the correct term and it may be misleading.  It's when
> > the color changes a bit and appears a little metallic - metatastizing or
> > something similar I believe it's called. 
> 
> Metamerism, looking different under different lighting conditions.

Many inks show a metallic sheen when viewed at high angles of incidence.
(Those of us old enough to remember inkwells in school desks may well
also remember the copper or bronze appearance of the dried-up ink).
Viewed head-on the colour may look just fine, but 'flop' the print so
you're viewing it almost edge-on and you'll get a very different look.

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[Tom C]

I don't see Shel's conclusions as beng particularly earth-shattering news.  
Quality of prints has always been highly variable.  Totally dependent on the 
skill, attention and interest of the person doing the work. Ivey/Seright in 
Seattle is probably the best known pro-lab in that town.  I've never been 
totally happy with their product when it came to printing transparencies, 
while the Slide Printer in Denver impressed me greatly.

For consumers/non-pros just learning digital, it's a given that they/I will 
fart around and learn largely through trial and error.  Likely the same way 
most people learned what works best in a wet darkroom.

Digital will be more time consuming for anyone doing it all themselves, just 
as film processing in a wet darkroom would be.

I'm not downing Shel, simply saying that his observations are to be expected 
and don't apply only to digital

Tom C.

From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:52:28 -0600
- Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" Subject: Re: Hurrah for 
Shel Disrobing the Emperor


in a conversation with Hardie Truesdale, featured in Outdoor Photographer 
last year, on why he went to doing his own digital prints. "yes, it's a 
hell of a lot cheaper. it didn't matter how much i paid the top outfits on 
the east or west coast to make my prints, they still couldn't get it 
right."
It's the peril of the trades.
I had trouble getting carpenters, plumbers and electricians to do things 
right as well, to the point I just do it myself now.
Blaming the medium for a lack of good workmanship seems a bit foolish to 
me.

William Robb

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[pnstenquist]

I'm talking about prints for the portfolio. How long it takes to make them is 
irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how good they look. For the clients, 
the finished shots are delivered on CD or by FTP. 


> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> 
> 
> > It isn't economics. Guys who shoot for 15K a day can print any way they 
> > choose. Even the fine art photogs are printing inkjet. Control is part of 
> > it, but the quality is there as well.
> 
> Whose gonna get the job if one 15K guy sez he has to wait a week for a 
> custom to come back from the lab and another sez the job will be on your 
> desk tomorrow?
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 

Re:Demise of M/F

[Bill Lawlor]

Subject: The rise of Digital = the fall of Medium Format
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Last Monday we had a lecture to mark the 60th Anniversary of our camera club
(http://www.edmontoncameraclub.co.uk/) from Andy Rouse
(http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/), a well known wildlife photographer in the UK.
He uses Canon gear and used to rave about the Pentax 645nII, but has gotten
rid of it since getting the 1D Mk2. He says he gets far better quality and
better workflow from digital than from MF at any conceivable output size,
including billboard.

-

I saw a presentation a few months ago by Sebastao Salgado. He had always
been a Leica user. He said in the future he will be using Pentax 645
equipment because of the technical and artistic possibilities of the larger
negatives. When asked about digital he said "There is no black and white in
digital. Converted color images don't compare with true black and white."
He also said he was going to show the plight of animals and the environment
in the future. I wonder if he is stockpiling 120 and 220 film?

Bill Lawlor

Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Kenneth Waller]

Cause Adobe no longer sells it. 

Anyone out there got a copy they want to get rid of?

Interested,
Kenneth Waller


- Original Message - 
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion


> "I have PS 7.0 but can no longer get the RAW plug in that was available 
> for it."
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Joe
> 

Re: Hot pixels

[Rob Studdert]

On 13 Apr 2005 at 20:39, Alan P. Hayes wrote:

> Finding dead pixels (permanently stuck off) would presumably be 
> similar to the procedure for looking for dirt, except that you 
> wouldn't want to stop the lens down, just OOF picture of a uniformly 
> bright field. 

I haven't hear of any "dead" pixels mainly I expect due to the fact that the 
TIFF/JPG files used for assessment have been subjected to a de-mosaic process. 

> Anyhow, I don't seem to have *any* hot pixels on the istD, and my Oly 
> C5050 had them and my Nikon Coolpix 800 had them in spades.

I've never seen a *ist D without hot pixels, did you have NR one during the 
testing you undertook and were the exposures of duration less than 1/4s?


A post of mine from Feb 2004:

Subject:*ist D sensor noise survey

Hey it's a while since we had a survey...

I'm interested in making an informal survey of the noise performance of our 
*ist D cameras. Anyone with access to a PC who has permission to run the little 
test app at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm can participate.

One exposure is all that's required for the test however in order to achieve
consistency we need to make sure that each camera is set up the same. I propose
that the test shot should be made as follows:

10 seconds manual exposure (lens capped)
200ISO
Daylight WB
NR off
Saturation setting (middle)
Sharpness setting (left most)
Contrast setting (left most)
sRGB CS
TIFF L file

The tiff file can then be opened and tested under the default settings of the
DeadPixelTest application and the information file saved.

I ran the procedure above and the results were as follows:

[DeadPixelText]
Version=1.0
Description=
FileType=TIFF
NumBadPixels=15
0=Hot,2798,135,69
1=Hot,1954,339,113
2=Hot,1809,585,64
3=Hot,726,610,112
4=Hot,726,611,192
5=Hot,726,612,112
6=Hot,2312,753,121
7=Hot,323,766,94
8=Hot,572,1365,116
9=Hot,1627,1400,64
10=Hot,2163,1958,96
11=Hot,2162,1959,113
12=Hot,2163,1959,145
13=Hot,2164,1959,112
14=Hot,2163,1960,98

The first two numbers is the pixel location and the last number is the heat, 0
being off and 255 being full on. So I have one pixel that's 3/4 on at 10 
seconds.

If anyone would like to mail me their results I'll collate and publish the data
later down the track (I'll keep data sources anonymous if requested).

Cheers,


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: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Kenneth Waller]

> Might be time for a new system..

Yes, if I want to do RAW, otherwise its hard for me to justify the cost of a
new system just to pick up some speed.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion


> Wow, an 8 year old PC still running! And I thought I was bad running a
> PowerBook G3 from 2000. (It runs the latest Mac OS X and Photoshop CS
> without any problems, albeit somewhat slowly with respect to Photoshop
> and RAW conversion.)
>
> Might be time for a new system.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>
> > .. my problem isn't the cost of the program, its the age of my PC. I'm
> > using a 8 year old Sony, that is fine for most of what I ask it to do.
> > Elements, and most other RAW processing programs would require me to
> > get a new PC. BreezeBrowser is the only RAW convertor that I could run
> > on my current machine. I have PS 7.0 but can no longer get the RAW
> > plug in that was available for it.
>

Re: Pentax Sf-1

[Kenneth Waller]

Ann, I've had an SF1 since 1988 & have run thousands of rolls thru it. Still
have it but since I got the MZ-S & *ist D, it doesn't get much use. It did
require a little maintained, but given the usage I believe it has performed
well. Built like a tank. Doesn't have all the current bells & whistles that
later cameras have but I'd recommend it.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: Pentax Sf-1


>
> PRos, cons and age range please :)
>
> A friend of mine has one - i'll see it next week
> but
> wondered what I'll be looking at would like
> opinions
> from folks I know rather than some website
>
> T I A
> annsan
>

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Kenneth Waller]

>most of the local fine art pros that i have talked to have switched to an
> all digital workflow post capture

You can include Geo Lepp & John Shaw as totally digital. Have been for a
couple of years. Mainly for control, consistency &  quality. Cost is
secondary but it is a consideration. Both use Epson printers.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph


> from what Shel describes, some of the people who submitted prints have
> higher opinions of their abilities than warranted. i think it is just as
> hard to produce really high quality prints on digital media as on wet. the
> tools for accomplishing it are vastly different. once a digital print has
> been gotten right though, it stays right. paper and ink variation is much
> more manageable if you are that fussy.
>
> most of the local fine art pros that i have talked to have switched to an
> all digital workflow post capture (digital camera or scanned slides). they
> have done so for the following reasons: quality, control, consistency, and
> longevity, in that order. longevity really cuts into profits because the
> gallery display wet prints would fade noticeably after a month under
gallery
> lighting and would have to be replaced. archival digital prints don't have
> this problem, at least for the people i talk to. their prints move fast
> enough that it's not an issue.
>
> Herb...
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph
>
>
> > My feelings about digital workflow and inkjet printing differ widely
from
> > yours. But I get to see the cream of the crop. As I've mentioned before,
> > almost all the pro portfolios that get circulated through the big ad
> > agencies are 100% inkjet, and many of them are magnificent. (A
surprising
> > number are crap as well. But it's usually the photography that's
> > deficient, not the printing.) In any case, I look forward to printing a
> > couple of your files.
>
>

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[John Forbes]

I remember when Patrick Lichfield went digital, several years ago now, he  
said he saved £75,000 (that's GB pounds) a year on film and processing.   
Economics like that can't be ignored, whatever your daily rate.

John
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:51:11 +, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It isn't economics. Guys who shoot for 15K a day can print any way they  
choose. Even the fine art photogs are printing inkjet. Control is part  
of it, but the quality is there as well.


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> That only proves that you haven't met the emperor.
You have this idea that digital printing is somehow superior to  
tradition
custom printing.
At some point, it may end up that way, because the people doing custom  
work
are being forced to adapt to digital.
The pro boys like digital because because they can sit in front of a
computer and pretend to be talented, and because it is cheaper for them  
to
churn out inkjet prints, rather than pay for quality printing.

Paul, it's about economics, not quality.
William Robb






--
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: 266.9.9 - Release Date: 13/04/2005

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph


Metamerism, looking different under different lighting conditions.
Annoying as all hell is what I call it.
Interestingly enough, the new Kodak Edge 8 metamerizes as well, has done so 
since they revised it to react better to digital print writers.
Go figure.

William Robb 

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor


It isn't economics. Guys who shoot for 15K a day can print any way they 
choose. Even the fine art photogs are printing inkjet. Control is part of 
it, but the quality is there as well.
Whose gonna get the job if one 15K guy sez he has to wait a week for a 
custom to come back from the lab and another sez the job will be on your 
desk tomorrow?

William Robb 

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[williamsp]

Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> A couple of prints that I received showed "bronzing" in certain light,
> although that's not the correct term and it may be misleading.  It's when
> the color changes a bit and appears a little metallic - metatastizing or
> something similar I believe it's called. 

Metamerism, looking different under different lighting conditions.



This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Herb Chong" Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor


in a conversation with Hardie Truesdale, featured in Outdoor Photographer 
last year, on why he went to doing his own digital prints. "yes, it's a 
hell of a lot cheaper. it didn't matter how much i paid the top outfits on 
the east or west coast to make my prints, they still couldn't get it 
right."
It's the peril of the trades.
I had trouble getting carpenters, plumbers and electricians to do things 
right as well, to the point I just do it myself now.
Blaming the medium for a lack of good workmanship seems a bit foolish to me.

William Robb 

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph


compared to the printing that most labs do (including the "pro" labs),
most digital prints are just plain gorgeous, BW or not. 

and no, not everyone has a (color) darkroom.
So the failing of the photographer is the fault of the medium?
William Robb

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[pnstenquist]

It isn't economics. Guys who shoot for 15K a day can print any way they choose. 
Even the fine art photogs are printing inkjet. Control is part of it, but the 
quality is there as well.


> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> 
> 
> > That only proves that you haven't met the emperor.
> 
> You have this idea that digital printing is somehow superior to tradition 
> custom printing.
> At some point, it may end up that way, because the people doing custom work 
> are being forced to adapt to digital.
> The pro boys like digital because because they can sit in front of a 
> computer and pretend to be talented, and because it is cheaper for them to 
> churn out inkjet prints, rather than pay for quality printing.
> 
> Paul, it's about economics, not quality.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Mishka]

compared to the printing that most labs do (including the "pro" labs),
most digital prints are just plain gorgeous, BW or not. 

and no, not everyone has a (color) darkroom.

best,
mishka

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[Herb Chong]

in a conversation with Hardie Truesdale, featured in Outdoor Photographer 
last year, on why he went to doing his own digital prints. "yes, it's a hell 
of a lot cheaper. it didn't matter how much i paid the top outfits on the 
east or west coast to make my prints, they still couldn't get it right."

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor


You have this idea that digital printing is somehow superior to tradition 
custom printing.
At some point, it may end up that way, because the people doing custom 
work are being forced to adapt to digital.

Re: PESO: Natural World

[John Forbes]

Frank, spelling!  Your photos are really pretty, and they're really good.
John
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:58:03 -0400, frank theriault  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, inter alia:

b)  Not all photos have to be pretty to be good.  Look at mine.
They're rarely pretty.  And, they're rarely good.  Wait, that's not a
very good argument, is it?  Well, you know what I mean.  
cheers,
frank


--
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: 266.9.9 - Release Date: 13/04/2005

Re: PESO: Blackbird

[frank theriault]

On 4/11/05, Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwwidall/9152199/

Ooo!

That's a good 'un!

Love his pose, the way he's looking down with an almost quizzical look
on his face.  Also like the way one foot's wrapped around the perch a
bit more than the other.

I like it!

cheers,
frank


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

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[Herb Chong]

if Shel's objective was to compare a wet print to a digital print and say 
that he likes wet prints better, he succeeded. most fine art pros around me 
have gone digital printing because they like the results better.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor


Must be a matter of taste. One of the reasons that I went to digital for
printing several years ago was that I just *hate* Ilfochrome. I can get
much better prints (to my taste) with my Epson 2200 than I've ever seen
with Ilfochrome.

Re: PESO - Takeoff

[frank theriault]

On 4/14/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This morning when going on my walk, I decided to take the K 200/2.5
> out.  As I was walking up on this scene, there was a hawk perched on a
> signpost.  I set the exposure using the green button technique way in
> advance, knowing that I would have to act fast if he took off.  Now I
> was wishing for the 400mm instead of this 200.  Just couldn't get
> close enough before he did take flight.
> 
> Pentax *istD, Pentax K 200/2.5
> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec, Handheld
> 
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1762a.htm
> 
> Converted from Raw to 16 bit Tiff using Capture One LE.  Cropped in
> PictureWindow Pro. Sized/sharpened for web using BreezeBrowser Pro.
> 
> Comments welcome

Wow!

It has a real 3D quality to it.  Love the composition (especially with
the post in there), and I love that you got the wings at the top of
their "stroke".

A great photo, Bruce.

cheers,
frank 


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

Re: PESO -- Natural World III

[frank theriault]

On 4/14/05, Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yea, yea, I'm milking this but just one more.
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_nature3.html
> 

Now, ~that's~ cool!

It almost looks like a spacecraft, coming into dock to that
leave/piece of garbage.  It's almost as if there's no surface to the
water - everything's just eerily floating in space.

The message is different from the others (at least that's how I took
it), but it's pretty damned cool.

cheers,
frank

ps:  did you get the turtles to sign releases?

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

Re: Pentax KX meter problem

[Peter J. Alling]

Sadly the KX meter is a one of a kind.  I think you can use Spotmatic F, 
K1000 and KM meters interchangeably
(I may be wrong about the KM).  The KX was a whole other bird.

John Whittingham wrote:
My experience is that the meter electronics is the weak link of the KX.
It's not *much* of a weak link - they aren't exactly dropping like flies
- but I've seen more KX's with dead meters than any other Pentax I've
known.
   

If the worst comes to the worst I'll use it with an external meter I guess, 
but first I think I'll take a closer look, thanks for the information though.
Is there anything I could salvage the parts from, K1000?, or is it impossible 
to tell without a schematic?

John 

 


--
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: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Herb Chong]

from what Shel describes, some of the people who submitted prints have 
higher opinions of their abilities than warranted. i think it is just as 
hard to produce really high quality prints on digital media as on wet. the 
tools for accomplishing it are vastly different. once a digital print has 
been gotten right though, it stays right. paper and ink variation is much 
more manageable if you are that fussy.

most of the local fine art pros that i have talked to have switched to an 
all digital workflow post capture (digital camera or scanned slides). they 
have done so for the following reasons: quality, control, consistency, and 
longevity, in that order. longevity really cuts into profits because the 
gallery display wet prints would fade noticeably after a month under gallery 
lighting and would have to be replaced. archival digital prints don't have 
this problem, at least for the people i talk to. their prints move fast 
enough that it's not an issue.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph


My feelings about digital workflow and inkjet printing differ widely from 
yours. But I get to see the cream of the crop. As I've mentioned before, 
almost all the pro portfolios that get circulated through the big ad 
agencies are 100% inkjet, and many of them are magnificent. (A surprising 
number are crap as well. But it's usually the photography that's 
deficient, not the printing.) In any case, I look forward to printing a 
couple of your files.

Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor


That only proves that you haven't met the emperor.
You have this idea that digital printing is somehow superior to tradition 
custom printing.
At some point, it may end up that way, because the people doing custom work 
are being forced to adapt to digital.
The pro boys like digital because because they can sit in front of a 
computer and pretend to be talented, and because it is cheaper for them to 
churn out inkjet prints, rather than pay for quality printing.

Paul, it's about economics, not quality.
William Robb

RE: Pentax KX meter problem

[J. C. O'Connell]

Based on my experience buying, using and selling these
cameras, the problem is usually "PIT". Photographer
inducing trouble. The meter switching is weird. If
you press battery button the meter always responds
with a good battery but the meter does not work
until you pull out the wind lever part way and then
press the shutter button partially. Almost everyone
gets confused by this setup. You turn meter off by
pushing wind lever closed. Try it, the meter my be
fully working as it is

-Original Message-
From: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:00 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax KX meter problem


> My experience is that the meter electronics is the weak link of the 
> KX. It's not *much* of a weak link - they aren't exactly dropping like

> flies
> - but I've seen more KX's with dead meters than any other Pentax I've
> known.

If the worst comes to the worst I'll use it with an external meter I
guess, 
but first I think I'll take a closer look, thanks for the information
though. Is there anything I could salvage the parts from, K1000?, or is
it impossible 
to tell without a schematic?

John 

Re: GESO PESO : Willy Wagtail

[frank theriault]

On 4/11/05, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> G'day Folks, 

A lot of talking, but I guess you had a right to be enthused about
your birdie experience, and even moreso about your photos.

They're great!  

My fave is the one of the little fellow atop your dad's hat.  The
others are good, but fairly run-of-the-mill.  Close ups of birds. 
Yawn.

Okay, not "yawn", and I sure as hell can't take those types of shots
(I suck at all nature and wildlife photography), but as technically
proficient as they are, those are shots of a bird, doing what birds
do.

The one of your dad is something rare and special!  Love the tight
crop of his face.  Even though we can't see his mouth, we can see the
huge grin in his eyes.  That is an award-winning photo.  (I don't know
what award, but surely there has to be one out there for that one
)

cheers,
frank

 


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

RE: Meter vs Meter

[Jack Davis]

Nick,
The post exposure reading was taken on the LX after
unlocking the mirror. I set f/8, focused, locked up
the mirror and shot. I have no way of knowing what the
actual shutter speed was when the meter read the light
reflected by the film. Just seems a large drop and at
a speed which may not even allow a shutter speed
change after the reflective film shroud moves aside.
I will not be showing any image samples. My guess is
that the test will be inconclusive even using a 5000K
light box and a 15x loupe. If I'm convinced otherwise,
I'll pass it along. 
I brought up the test in case anyone had a thought
about filter performances.

Jack

--- Nick Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had the same problem (or is it really a solution)
> with my LX with a slow aperture actuator, probably
> caused by old lubricant. The aperture was slow in
> closing down and so more light reached the film so
> the LX ended the exposure early. If in manual mode I
> got overexposure, but Auto was fine.
> 
> How do you know the speed was 1/1000th rather than
> 1/350th? I would think they sound the same. In my
> case I noticed it because I was working at slower
> speeds.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: "Jack Davis"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 14/04/05 22:38:11
> All shots (16 in all) were made with the same
> lens set
> at f/8 with mirror lock-up. Post shot shutter
> speeds:
> LX 1/1000 and MZ-S 1/350. Time span between
> shots just
> moments. Sun movement or clouds (none) not
> considered
> factors.
> I realize that the actual LX exposure/shutter
> likely
> varied from pre-exposure reading, but I'm
> surprised at
> how much. Perhaps I'm just the last to discover
> this.
> 
>  
> 
> 

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

Re: PESO - Takeoff

[Herb Chong]

it's spring. they are busier and noisier this time of year. this is when i 
make a special effort to go out specifically for bird photos. carried the 
Gitzo 1327 and 1321 leveling base with Wimberley head and the A* 400/2.8 
over a mile each way specifically to get a peregrine falcon shot. it was 
still too far away. no easy way to get closer, even with the park ranger's 
assistance.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kenneth Waller" 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: PESO - Takeoff


You laugh, as one who knows.  I hadn't really ever shot birds much,
but lately, there seem to be more opportunities.  For those, no matter
what glass I have, it is never long enough.  Of course, then I'll have
to start carrying a monopod and finally a tripod with appropriate
head.  So much for a morning walk...

Re: OT: Warning about Nigeria Buyer

[Herb Chong]

M in the finance industry stands for Million the BBC tends to follow that 
convention too, when they don't spell it out. the Nigerian government isn't 
saying that they are counting it as government income. it's part of their 
GDP.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Warning about Nigeria Buyer


Not that it's all THAT important, but is "100M" meant to stand for 100 
thousand, or 100 million?
Different trades/industries don't agree on what the M symbol stands for, 
so if it is ever important to understanding, it's a good thing to spell it 
out.

To stay on thread, it's still amazing to me that there's any truth to this 
seemingly absurd claim that an entire government would rely on scamming 
income. And especially one as stretching of belief as their tale-of-woe 
letters offer.
But then, the claims go on and on, and people DO continue to discuss it as 
tho' it had merit...

Re: PESO Natural World II

[frank theriault]

On 4/14/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "...so then I told that stupid redneck I'd flip his truck into the pond
> if he kept throwing those stones..."

"Stupid Redneck";  isn't that a redundancy?



cheers,
frank

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

Re: PESO Natural World II

[frank theriault]

On 4/14/05, Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another turtle shot.  Same location.
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_nature2.html
> 
> As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored...
> 
> Technical:
> Pentax *ist-D/ iso 200/shutter speed 1/350sec.
> smc-PENTAX-F 70-210mm/210mm/f6.7.

I like this better than the first one (which I did like, as you know).

I think it says the same thing to me in terms of poor turkles swimming
and lounging about in garbage, in a more aesthetically pleasing way. 
Less clutter (in the photograph, that is).  Simpler composition, is
what I'm trying to say.

I think this is a more effective photo.  Great stuff.

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

Re: PESO - Rue Anenome

[Mark Cassino]

Thanks, Frank!
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: PESO - Rue Anenome


On 4/13/05, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Went for a wildflower walk in a state park today, and was delighted to 
see
actual wildflowers (it's been a long, cold, and dry spring.)  The
wildflowers were mostly Rue Anemone, False Rue Anemone, Adler's Tongue
(a.k.a. Trout Lily) and Spring Beauty.

One out take, Rue Anemone (I think):
http://www.markcassino.com/temp/peso/IMGP8958.jpg
Taken with an *ist-D, A* 200mm macro, RAW Mode, ISO 400, with a 
Stroboframe
'pop' diffuser and white reflector. I was happy that the *ist-D was able 
to
capture the subtle pink-ish tone to these flowers.

- MCC
Gorgeous!
Lovely, spare composition, amazing bokeh.
I really like this photo.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO: Natural World

[frank theriault]

On 4/13/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Well this is a comment you'll probably ignore.  If the photo is intended to
> be an environmental statement, then I can understand it in that context.  I
> suspect that is what you intended.
> 
> Other than that, I also suspect you and I wouldn't hang it on our
> study/den/library walls...
> 
> We typically try to crop the soda bottles out, yes? :)

Well, I don't want to make this into a huge discussion, but:

a)  Just because he left in the pop bottles (we call it "pop" in some
- but not all - parts of Canada), does he have to be making an
environmental statement?  Is he making a statement at all?  Or is he
just showing a photo, and letting the viewer decide what the statement
is?

b)  Not all photos have to be pretty to be good.  Look at mine. 
They're rarely pretty.  And, they're rarely good.  Wait, that's not a
very good argument, is it?  Well, you know what I mean.  

cheers,
frank


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

Re: Pentax KX meter problem

[John Whittingham]

> My experience is that the meter electronics is the weak link of the KX.
> It's not *much* of a weak link - they aren't exactly dropping like flies
> - but I've seen more KX's with dead meters than any other Pentax I've
> known.

If the worst comes to the worst I'll use it with an external meter I guess, 
but first I think I'll take a closer look, thanks for the information though.
Is there anything I could salvage the parts from, K1000?, or is it impossible 
to tell without a schematic?

John 

Re: PESO: Natural World

[frank theriault]

On 4/13/05, Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I've gotten enough comments about this being over exposed so I
> decided to give it a little rework.
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_nature1a.html
> 
> Just a few minor adjustments to brightness, and a bit more contrast.
> 

A noticeable improvement, to my mind.  

I've not compared old and new side by side (I'm not much for A/B
comparos anyway - I think they're over-rated), but as a stand alone,
I'm much more satisfied with the brightness/contrast of this one.

I know what you were thinking:  Geez, if ~frank~ thinks it's
overexposed, I gotta do something about this one!  

cheers,
frank


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

RE: Pentax KX meter problem

[John Whittingham]

> My first guess would be that at one time the battery
> was allowed to leak and the wire from the battery
> chamber to the top of the camera has corroded.
> The acid "wicks" up the wire, I've seen it go all the
> way to top of the camera.
> Usually there won't be a sign of this in the battery
> chamber, it doesn't corrode nearly as fast.
> If that's not it then the power switch that closes
> when the shutter release is pressed part way may not
> be contacting and need a cleaning.
> I'd bet on the first one, I've replaced that wire in
> K bodies many times.


Thanks Don, I think some dismantling and closer inspection is due this 
weekend, I'd really like to get this back to full working condition.

John 

Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
"I have PS 7.0 but can no longer get the RAW plug in that was 
available for it."

Why not?
The Camera Raw plug-in for PS 7 was a $100 optional purchase. It was 
discontinued on introduction of Photoshop CS, which bundled an updated 
version of Camera Raw. For the DS, you need at least Camera Raw v2.4, 
which will not work with PS 7.

Godfrey

RE: Meter vs Meter

[Nick Clark]

I had the same problem (or is it really a solution) with my LX with a slow 
aperture actuator, probably caused by old lubricant. The aperture was slow in 
closing down and so more light reached the film so the LX ended the exposure 
early. If in manual mode I got overexposure, but Auto was fine.

How do you know the speed was 1/1000th rather than 1/350th? I would think they 
sound the same. In my case I noticed it because I was working at slower speeds.

Nick

-Original Message-
From: "Jack Davis"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 14/04/05 22:38:11
All shots (16 in all) were made with the same lens set
at f/8 with mirror lock-up. Post shot shutter speeds:
LX 1/1000 and MZ-S 1/350. Time span between shots just
moments. Sun movement or clouds (none) not considered
factors.
I realize that the actual LX exposure/shutter likely
varied from pre-exposure reading, but I'm surprised at
how much. Perhaps I'm just the last to discover this.

 

Re: Pentax KX meter problem

[Mark Roberts]

"John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Great I thought I've got a nice user!
>
>However, the meter does not appear to work. Clean battery compartment, fresh 
>batteries, needle moves if you move the camera briskly. 
>
>Could it be a bad connection or is the meter shot?

My guess, from sad experience, is that it's a bad IC in the metering
circuit. I've purchased several KX's with bad meters (two were eBay
bargains sold As Is with the disclaimer "I don't know if the meter works
because I don't have a battery to test it" - yeah, right).
All three cameras had problems that were not related to the battery
compartment or wiring or the meter galvanometer itself. Without an
actual schematic diagram, all I could narrow it down to was the meter
electronics, but there's little more to the metering circuit than one
integrated circuit chip. It's probably just a comparator or op-amp, but
I can't even look for a substitute without at least a pinout diagram.

My experience is that the meter electronics is the weak link of the KX.
It's not *much* of a weak link - they aren't exactly dropping like flies
- but I've seen more KX's with dead meters than any other Pentax I've
known.



-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Joseph Tainter]

"I have PS 7.0 but can no longer get the RAW plug in that was available 
for it."

Why not?
Joe

The rise of Digital = the fall of Medium Format

[Nick Clark]

Last Monday we had a lecture to mark the 60th Anniversary of our camera club 
(http://www.edmontoncameraclub.co.uk/) from Andy Rouse 
(http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/), a well known wildlife photographer in the UK. He 
uses Canon gear and used to rave about the Pentax 645nII, but has gotten rid of 
it since getting the 1D Mk2. He says he gets far better quality and better 
workflow from digital than from MF at any conceivable output size, including 
billboard. 

He promotes RawShooter as the best software, and doesn't like gross 
manipulation, just levels adjustments and the like. The only time he's used 
image manipulation was on a primate picture  of mother and infant that showed a 
nipple - apparently it would be unsaleable in America.

Incidently, he says he doesn't like Canon, and has a better relationship with 
Nikon and Pentax, but at present they don't provide the tools he needs.

He is a very entertaining speaker and I recommend that you try to see him if he 
is in your area.

Nick 

Re: PESO Natural World II

[Tom Reese]

Re: PESO Natural World II
"Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another turtle shot.  Same location.
> >
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_nature2.html
then Mark Roberts replied:
> Needs cartoon balloons so we can see what the turtles are saying to
> each other ;-)
"...so then I told that stupid redneck I'd flip his truck into the pond 
if he kept throwing those stones..."

Tom Reese

Re: Meter vs Meter

[mike wilson]

Jack Davis wrote:
Anyone,
I was asked, by a local camera shop owner, to compare
a Promaster (Hoya) Skylight 1A Multicoated filter with
a shot of the same scene using no filter. 
Seems a customer claimed they were not getting as
sharp a picture with the Promaster as with whatever
they had been using. A shop employee made a similar
test and according to the owner, the results seemed to
verify the customer's claim.
I just finished a FILM test using the Promaster, a B+W
and a Pentax L39 (67mm).
My question; I used an MZ-S (Provia 100) and an LX
(Kodak Ultra Color 100). The shop owner likes print
film. He has asked me to perform other tests (lens,
etc.) and always insists that the print is what the
film shooting customer sees.
All shots (16 in all) were made with the same lens set
at f/8 with mirror lock-up. Post shot shutter speeds:
LX 1/1000 and MZ-S 1/350. Time span between shots just
moments. Sun movement or clouds (none) not considered
factors.
I realize that the actual LX exposure/shutter likely
varied from pre-exposure reading, but I'm surprised at
how much. Perhaps I'm just the last to discover this.
Were you going to show us something?
mike

Re: A 28-135/4 zoom opinions

[Bob W]

Hi,

> I am evaluating this zoom and wondering if anyone out there has one
> and cares to share your feelings about it.

Fred likes it. It has a great reputation.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Pentax Sf-1

[John Forbes]

I got a couple from Ebay, because they came with lenses which I wanted.  I  
have kept one.

It's chunky, some might say ugly, but pretty well made.  You can't, for  
instance, accidentally change the autofocus mode (as you can with the  
(P)Z1-P), because it has a little button which you have to depress before  
the slider will slide.  It's heavier than any other Pentax K-mount camera,  
save the K2.

It offers manual or programmed exposure modes, and the system for  
switching between modes, speeds, ISO, etc., is simple and quick.

Auto-focus is OK in daylight, but struggles in low light.
The top plate displays aperture and shutter speed, but only the speed is  
displayed in the viewfinder.  There is no DOF preview.

It's a cart-horse, rather than a race-horse, with all that that implies.
John
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:03:50 -0400, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PRos, cons and age range please :)
A friend of mine has one - i'll see it next week
but
wondered what I'll be looking at would like
opinions
from folks I know rather than some website
T I A
annsan



--
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: 266.9.9 - Release Date: 13/04/2005

Re: OT: BreezeBrowser Pro Raw conversion

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Wow, an 8 year old PC still running! And I thought I was bad running a 
PowerBook G3 from 2000. (It runs the latest Mac OS X and Photoshop CS 
without any problems, albeit somewhat slowly with respect to Photoshop 
and RAW conversion.)

Might be time for a new system.
Godfrey
On Apr 14, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
.. my problem isn't the cost of the program, its the age of my PC. I'm 
using a 8 year old Sony, that is fine for most of what I ask it to do. 
Elements, and most other RAW processing programs would require me to 
get a new PC. BreezeBrowser is the only RAW convertor that I could run 
on my current machine. I have PS 7.0 but can no longer get the RAW 
plug in that was available for it.

Meter vs Meter

[Jack Davis]

Anyone,
I was asked, by a local camera shop owner, to compare
a Promaster (Hoya) Skylight 1A Multicoated filter with
a shot of the same scene using no filter. 
Seems a customer claimed they were not getting as
sharp a picture with the Promaster as with whatever
they had been using. A shop employee made a similar
test and according to the owner, the results seemed to
verify the customer's claim.
I just finished a FILM test using the Promaster, a B+W
and a Pentax L39 (67mm).
My question; I used an MZ-S (Provia 100) and an LX
(Kodak Ultra Color 100). The shop owner likes print
film. He has asked me to perform other tests (lens,
etc.) and always insists that the print is what the
film shooting customer sees.
All shots (16 in all) were made with the same lens set
at f/8 with mirror lock-up. Post shot shutter speeds:
LX 1/1000 and MZ-S 1/350. Time span between shots just
moments. Sun movement or clouds (none) not considered
factors.
I realize that the actual LX exposure/shutter likely
varied from pre-exposure reading, but I'm surprised at
how much. Perhaps I'm just the last to discover this.

Jack







__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

RE: FS FRiday

[Jens Bladt]

Sure it is - east of Stockholm or Riga!

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 14. april 2005 23:02
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: FS FRiday 


Ok I know it is THursday where I am but it is
Friday somewhere on the list
and I may forget tomorrow :)

Nationale got sold to one of you lot - :)

the other two from the Paris series I have now
relisted

item numbers:

7315616977
7313328218

off to Scrabble club
annsan

Pentax Sf-1

[Ann Sanfedele]

PRos, cons and age range please :)

A friend of mine has one - i'll see it next week
but
wondered what I'll be looking at would like
opinions
from folks I know rather than some website

T I A
annsan

FS FRiday

[Ann Sanfedele]

Ok I know it is THursday where I am but it is
Friday somewhere on the list
and I may forget tomorrow :)

Nationale got sold to one of you lot - :)

the other two from the Paris series I have now
relisted

item numbers:

7315616977
7313328218

off to Scrabble club
annsan

A 28-135/4 zoom opinions

[Bruce Dayton]

I am evaluating this zoom and wondering if anyone out there has one
and cares to share your feelings about it.

Thanks,

Bruce

Re: Breezebrowser:was OT?:Resize for web question

[Bruce Dayton]

Dave,

You'll find them under Program
Files\Breezesys\BreezeBrowserPro\Templates and then a directory for
each named template that you can choose from in the UI.  You can add
your own right there by creating another directory with the name you
want and just copy into it the contents of the template that most
closely matches what you like.  Next time loading BreezeBrowser, that
template will show up as a choice.

Then you can look at the code in some of the other templates to
combine features of different ones.  That will get you started.  All
you really need is Notepad to edit them with.  They are just text.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Thursday, April 14, 2005, 1:12:36 AM, you wrote:

bcin> I really need to take a few days off and learn some stuff

bcin> Dave

bcin>   > It does.  I have edited two of the 
templates that 
bcin> came with it.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> Thursday, April 14, 2005, 9:50:44 AM, you wrote:
>> 
>> bcin>> I think i understand this now.
>> bcin>> Other than creating and loading the files in the new
>> bcin>> folder,i would just have to add a
>> bcin>> link,and text ,back 
>> bcin>> to the home page in the Breezbrowser generated index.html page.
>> 
>> F> Most possibly BreezeBrowser has a set of HTML templates, look in its
>> F> program folder - most html gallery maker programs have one. You can
>> F> edit the template as any other HTML file, adding e.g. your logo, the
>> F> link back to your start page, etc...
>> 
>> F> Of course I am not sure BB allows this, but I would be surprised if it
>> F> didn't.
>> 
>> F> Good light!
>> F>fra
>> 
>> 
>> 

RE: Pentax KX meter problem

[Don Sanderson]

My first guess would be that at one time the battery
was allowed to leak and the wire from the battery
chamber to the top of the camera has corroded.
The acid "wicks" up the wire, I've seen it go all the
way to top of the camera.
Usually there won't be a sign of this in the battery
chamber, it doesn't corrode nearly as fast.
If that's not it then the power switch that closes
when the shutter release is pressed part way may not
be contacting and need a cleaning.
I'd bet on the first one, I've replaced that wire in
K bodies many times.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:04 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Pentax KX meter problem
>
>
> Hi all
>
> Is there a serious KX expert out there amongst you?
>
> The reason I ask is this. I bought a non working KX a while back
> as a parts
> body for the one I already own, the previous owner said it would
> only wind on
> one or two frames, it had been repaired twice but still had the
> same problem.
>
> When I got the camera I loaded an out of date film and tried it,
> film advance
> was a little stiff but not to the point of damaging the film and
> provided you
> loaded the leader well no prolems at all. Great I thought I've got a nice
> user!
>
> However, the meter does not appear to work. Clean battery
> compartment, fresh
> batteries, needle moves if you move the camera briskly.
>
> Could it be a bad connection or is the meter shot?
>
> John
>
> John Whittingham
>
> Technician
>

Re: Breezebrowser:was OT?:Resize for web question

[brooksdj]

I really need to take a few days off and learn some stuff

Dave

> It does.  I have edited two of the templates 
that 
came with it.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Thursday, April 14, 2005, 9:50:44 AM, you wrote:
> 
> bcin>> I think i understand this now.
> bcin>> Other than creating and loading the files in the new
> bcin>> folder,i would just have to add a
> bcin>> link,and text ,back 
> bcin>> to the home page in the Breezbrowser generated index.html page.
> 
> F> Most possibly BreezeBrowser has a set of HTML templates, look in its
> F> program folder - most html gallery maker programs have one. You can
> F> edit the template as any other HTML file, adding e.g. your logo, the
> F> link back to your start page, etc...
> 
> F> Of course I am not sure BB allows this, but I would be surprised if it
> F> didn't.
> 
> F> Good light!
> F>fra
> 
> 
> 

Re: OT: Warning about Nigeria Buyer

[Mark Roberts]

Norman Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] = K*2
>Just thought I would clarify.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] * 2 = K2DMD
;-)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Pentax KX meter problem

[John Whittingham]

Hi all

Is there a serious KX expert out there amongst you?

The reason I ask is this. I bought a non working KX a while back as a parts 
body for the one I already own, the previous owner said it would only wind on 
one or two frames, it had been repaired twice but still had the same problem.

When I got the camera I loaded an out of date film and tried it, film advance 
was a little stiff but not to the point of damaging the film and provided you 
loaded the leader well no prolems at all. Great I thought I've got a nice 
user!

However, the meter does not appear to work. Clean battery compartment, fresh 
batteries, needle moves if you move the camera briskly. 

Could it be a bad connection or is the meter shot?

John

John Whittingham

Technician