Boathouse III
Yet another in the boathouse series... Probably some distortion here, the horizon seems to be trailing down to the right and the building leans to the left. Oh well. I'm too lazy and tired to correct it tonight. http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_boathouse3.html As usual comments are appreciated but may be totally ignored. --- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: PESO - wol updated
On 29/4/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: If your screen was calibrated and you then output an file converted to sRGB with embedded sRGB profile, I would see virtually no shift in Safari as Safari always honors profiles. Without a profile, it's rendering your file relative to the screen calibration ... that's the best it can do. I'll go back and have another look. It could be that Freeway is not publishing the pics with the profiles? Have to do it later as I'm working today and off to film fuel-tax campaigners blockading the M4 motorway more soon thanks btw Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: leaf film
Yes it is - very interesting, thanks. Aristotle provides the earliest known description of a camera obscura, from about 350 BC. A web page about Greek optics: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Optics.htm -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 April 2005 01:07 To: Pentax Discuss Subject: leaf film This is pretty cool. http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
Hello John, I couldn't have said it any better. I feel just about the same as you. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, April 29, 2005, 7:51:06 PM, you wrote: JF On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:36:33PM -0600, Tom C wrote: JF It sounds to me as though you had rather unreasonable expectations. JF When Canon had released five DSLRs (1D, 30D, 60D, 10D, 1Ds) before JF Pentax got their first one onto the shelves, it was quite obvious JF that Pentax were going to be at best playing catchup. JF If any diehard Pentax user expects Pentax to suddenly leapfrog to JF the front of the technology curve, they're viewing the last several JF decades through heavily rose-tinted glasses. JF Pentax will probably (if they manage to stay in business that long) JF introduce a follow-on model to the *istD sometime in 2006. But it's JF unlikely to be either cost- or feature- competitive with the Canon JF replacement for the 20D which I would expect to debut not much later JF (or, possibly, even before the Pentax). JF But, you know what? I don't care. My *ist-D seems perfectly adequate JF for the tasks I set it, just as my PZ-1p and MZ-S seemed to do about JF as well as the F5 and 1D bodies the other manufacturers offered. I JF don't need to be out there on the cutting edge, where the differences JF from those top-of-the-line models become apparent. Equally, I expect JF that the *ist-Dn, or whatever it is called, will meet my needs. JF I've looked at what it would take to switch to Canon; at present it JF might be possible without an enormous penalty (A* and FA* lenses JF seem to be fetching excellent prices on eBay, and I've got a few JF of those). But I'm not convinced that it would make a significant JF difference - I don't find my current equipment is the limiting factor. JF Sure, I'd like IS. I'd like USM. (I used to add AF TCs to that JF list, but at least I'll soon have a couple of Sigmas to cover that). JF My other major annoyance with the D (frame rate buffer size) will JF automatically be upgraded by any newer model as a matter of course, JF and I expect the pixel count will increase as well for those few JF occasions when 6MP isn't quite enough.
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use iPhoto occasionally but only with finished JPEG images that I've edited in Photoshop ... I use it to set up making inexpensive bound books of photos. I purchased Tiger today, will let you know how it goes Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: Exhibits
On 4/28/05, Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got back from the opening of the West Michigan Area Show at the Kalamazoo Institute of Arts. This is an all media show, with works from 17 counties in west Michigan. I didn't win any prizes, but two of my photos were accepted into the show this year. (I had one in last year.) For Pentax content, there is a 20 x 24 inch digital print of this 6x7 shot: http://www.markcassino.com/temp/peso/67_413.jpg And a smaller print of this Holga shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga02.htm That hunter perch shot has become my most exhibited piece, in terms of number of shows. It was in the 4th North American Landscape Exhibit in Annapolis, MD, last summer, another exhibit called The Rural Outdoors in upstate New Your last fall, and in a select works exhibit of the same show further upstate earlier this year. Aside from the show that opened tonight, it was recently accepted into a show called Man Nature that will open in Rolling Meadow, Illinois in June. The nicest thing about the Holga is not having to worry about exposure - shutter speed, aperture settings - it takes care of all that for you. :-) - MCC I love it! Light leaks and all! That's a great shot, Mark. When I hear people whining about their inferior equipment, and how it limits their vision, I'll think of that photograph. I think Holgas have a certain plasticity that other cameras don't have (sorry, Boris, couldn't resist! g). Congrats on your success, Mark. It's well deserved. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Boathouse III
-Original Message- From: P. J. Alling http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_boathouse3.html I like this one, the hard, dark asphalt foreground and the strong colour of the shed make a nice contrast to the soft fog. -- Peter Williams
FW: Tamron SP 70-150mm softfocus portrait lens?
Sorry to all if you receive this email twice, I did not see it on the list... greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:43 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Tamron SP 70-150mm softfocus portrait lens? I see a tempting offer for a manual Tamron adaptall2 Zoom SP 70-150mm 2.8 portrait lens with softfocus control. Anybody knows this lens here and how good this softcontrol thing is for portrait shots? I can't find information on the web and have to decide until tomorrow evening. Thanks for any comments and btw I'm very happy with my other manual SP Tamron 90mm fixed 2.5 macro. greetings Markus
FW: Digital printing kiosk quality
Sorry to all if you receive this email twice, I did not see it on the list... greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:14 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Digital printing kiosk quality Hi Brian thanks for your report and the useful information regarding histogram settings. Lately I printed an old portrait on the Epson 2100 photo printer and lost every shadow detail in the darker areas (middle of bottom) of the black clothes and the veil on the print - all was printed black. On screen it looks fine, I had to make the photo quite brighter to look so-so on the print. I used the quad tone rip for the Epson 2100. Have a look at the portrait if you like at: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3315957 I had to restore the photo from a compressed JPG file, because the original negative is lost forever and had to fix a lot of scratches. It's (c) by Mireille Weber, before you ask ;-) I wonder what would have happened to the details in the dark areas when ordering prints? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Brian Dunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:36 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Digital printing kiosk quality ( In response to all this talk about optical vs digital prints, film is dead, etc. ) Here's an area which you'd figure digital would have helped tremendously but which seems to still be a big problem... You'd think by now that anywhere which takes a digital image in sRGB and produces a digital print on the spot would more or less have its colors and contrast optimized such that 255 is white, 0 is black, and skin tones look human. Take an sRGB image, put it onto a CD, and go around to all the various printing kiosks and order some 4x6s. Amazing variance in results. Whites which go blue, blacks which go green, saturation and contrast cranked way up, colors which are more yellow, cyan, or red than the other machine at the next place, etc. I had the very same digital file printed in both 5x7 and 8x10. The 8x10s seemed ok, but the 5x7s produced on the very same Frontier machine at the very same time came out too green. The only difference seems to be the paper sheets themselves. Perhaps these age? The same images at one place with one brand of dye sub came out super saturated and another place with another brand of dye sub came out too yellow. Most everyone cranks out the contrast such that a wedding dress or a tuxedo lose a lot of detail. I made some test images with gray scales to determine where the black and white disappear into oblivion, and decided with this one Frontier machine that all images should have their histograms scaled to fit between 20 and 235. Anything below 20 is solid black, and above 235 is solid white, when printed. These are all digital output machines. You'd think at least the dye-sub places would be totally consistant with each other, since their chemicals are dry, but you get wildly different results depending on who made the kiosk printer. One bizzare thing is, many digicams have 'vivid' saturation modes on them, but then the images has its contrast cranked up even MORE when it is printed. Hyper color and blasted details. Brides don't understand why buying prints from the photographer might be a good idea, and even when I explain it to them they still choose my CD only pricing option to get more images than my CD and prints option to get actual 4x6 prints. I reduce the contrast on their files so that they at least have a chance of getting a decent print. I also give them a few samples so that they can see what a decent print should look like. I can also direct them to a few better machines to have the prints made. I tell them to make a few samples before placing a big order. I cannot control what their relatives do when they get copies of the CDs. Looking forward to the day when you could bring an image anywhere and get more or less the same results... Brian http://www.bdphotographic.com
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
IIRC, there are 5 FA zooms in the 645 lineup where 3 are f/4.5 and 2 are f/5.6 Of the primes, the following are f/2.8: 45mm, 55mm, 75mm, 150mm, and the 75mm and 150mm leaf-shutter lenses. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:28 AM Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long The 645D is 18 megapixel. AS medium format lenses go, the Pentax glass is adequately fast. I know there's a 165/2.8 and a 105/2.4 on the 6x7 side. I'm sure there are some equally fast lenses available in 645 mount.
Re: Exhibits
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] I love it! Light leaks and all! That's a great shot, Mark. When I hear people whining about their inferior equipment, and how it limits their vision, I'll think of that photograph. I think Holgas have a certain plasticity that other cameras don't have (sorry, Boris, couldn't resist! g). LOL - you're right about the Holga's - they are entirely plastic! :-) Except for the rubber bands I use to hold it together... Thanks for commenting - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
For pro studio work, fast lenses are not important. Your comparing MF to 35mm. All 35mm lenses are faster than all MF lenses in comparable focal lengths. It's the nature of the beast. On Apr 29, 2005, at 11:35 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Sorry, you're right 18mp, but the equivalent Canon glass in the equivalent focal lengths, (actually slightly wider as the canon is full frame), are f1.4. That's a two stop difference and there's the Canon 28-70mm and 80-200mm f2.8 lenses. Unless Pentax gets the 645D street price somewhere near the Kodak DCS 14c they won't be close to competitive, and that's what they're competing against. Paul Stenquist wrote: The 645D is 18 megapixel. AS medium format lenses go, the Pentax glass is adequately fast. I know there's a 165/2.8 and a 105/2.4 on the 6x7 side. I'm sure there are some equally fast lenses available in 645 mount. On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:53 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I'm not worried about Pentax releasing a new APS K mount DSLR, my referral to the MZ-D alludes to the fate of the 645D. No matter what Pål believes about the relative equality between Pentax 645 lenses, in cost and capabilities, and Canon L lenses. There is at least one important aspect where the 645 lenses fall short, speed. You don't see too many Pentax Medium format f2.8 zooms. or for that matter f2 or faster primes. That alone will put the the 11mp Pentax 645D at a competitive disadvantage with the Canon 16mp EOS based DSLR. Pentax will see the writing on the wall cut their losses and not ever release it. That's bad enough. Paul Stenquist wrote: Pentax will have at least an APS upgrade when the time is right. Don't forget, the big seller, the *istDS, has only been on the market for a short time. You don't release an upgrade until a substantial amount of your owner base is ready to move up. In the car biz, I think they shoot for 40%. I think we'll see an APS camera by this time next year. I'm also quite confident that it will be at least 10mp, because you have to motivate the upgrade. Paul On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:13 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Unfortunately, I think that the pessimists here are right, the most optimistic thing I see coming out of this is the next MZ-D... Rob Studdert wrote: On 29 Apr 2005 at 18:57, Mark Roberts wrote: Sorry, but you lost me here. How have we seen that Pentax has no plans for full-frame? Why would the release of lenses covering the small frame be an indication of this when Canon has several reduced frame lenses? Does anyone really believe Pentax wouldn't be willing to obsolete those lenses (and have us replace them, of course) in the future? Pentax probably won't have any choice especially as they career off in digital 645 land. I don't want to be pessimistic but it's looking worse for them on every release from Canon and Nikon, only a blinkered Pentax devotee could call it otherwise IMHO. Congrats Christian, it sounds like you are now much more content with your kit, now you can just go out and enjoy shooting with a future :-) 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
High Dynamic Range for Landscape Photography
The new release of Photoshop contains a feature called HDR (High Dynamic Range) which allows for the creation of photos of 10, 12, 14, or more stops of dynamic range. There's a brief explanation and tutorial of how this works here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml There are probably other tutorials and explanations of this feature, but this is the only one I've read thus far, and it seems to give enough information that if you are a landscape or still life photographer you'll know if you want to search further for more info. Shel
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact. Paul
Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
I know one of you guys must haveone, could you give me an opinion of the optical qualities please and what I'm likely to pay for one. John
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
Tom C Opined. But somehow I can't see it being anything other than middle of the road and 6 months to a 1 1/2 years behind competitors products. The DSLR industry is maturing pretty quickly. The state of the art at the moment is 16mp from a 35mm sized chip. I recall Rob saying that 18mp was pretty much the limit from this chip size, so the present is pretty much it. As the cost to produce the stuff goes down (the only real improvement left), Pentax will start to catch up pretty quickly. William Robb
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
Paul Stenquist wrote: On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact. Paul Please explain 13 X 19. I'm pretty sure Ramesh didn't actually mean feet as his message said... Anyhow, that's a new size/ratio to me, and I can't seem to retrieve it's meaning. Is that centimeters? Something equivalent to 5 X 7 print size? Thanks, keith whaley
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
On Apr 29, 2005, at 9:36 PM, Meredith Markham wrote: I use a PC, not a Mac, but I use Photoshop CS to edit my photos and ACDSee 7.0 to manage them. IMHO, ACDSee is the best photo/media organizer right now...you can even do basic manipulations in single or batch mode. However, I don't think it is available for the Mac, you would have to check www.acdsystems.com ACDSee for Mac OS X v1.6.9 is the current version. It's got some decent features but is not near as competent or capable as iView Media Pro 2 on the Mac OS X platform. It also doesn't know about .PEF files or other RAW formats, far as I can tell. iView Media Pro can display thumbnails and previews from nearly all current RAW formats, including .DNG. Forget managing photos with Photoshop (the browser is too slow and clumsy, although the new CS2 is supposed to be better. I am upgrading in a couple weeks and can report more about it then.) The File Browser portion of Photoshop is not meant to be an archive manager. It's a dynamic part of Photoshop workflow and integrates with Camera Raw, the script/automation/batch facilities as well as the primary Photoshop editing system. Godfrey
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
13 x19 is super B sized paper for ink jet printing. I actually print at about 12.5 x 18.2 and leave a border. That's approximately full frame on an *istD image. If you look at portfolio sizes available in your camera store, you'll probably see some 13x 19 books. It's becoming a standard for large digital prints. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Keith Whaley wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact. Paul Please explain 13 X 19. I'm pretty sure Ramesh didn't actually mean feet as his message said... Anyhow, that's a new size/ratio to me, and I can't seem to retrieve it's meaning. Is that centimeters? Something equivalent to 5 X 7 print size? Thanks, keith whaley
Re: Exhibits
That Holga photograph is lovely, Mark. Classic values, composition and well presented. Godfrey On 4/28/05, Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got back from the opening of the West Michigan Area Show at the Kalamazoo Institute of Arts. This is an all media show, with works from 17 counties in west Michigan. I didn't win any prizes, but two of my photos were accepted into the show this year. (I had one in last year.) For Pentax content, there is a 20 x 24 inch digital print of this 6x7 shot: http://www.markcassino.com/temp/peso/67_413.jpg And a smaller print of this Holga shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga02.htm That hunter perch shot has become my most exhibited piece, in terms of number of shows. It was in the 4th North American Landscape Exhibit in Annapolis, MD, last summer, another exhibit called The Rural Outdoors in upstate New Your last fall, and in a select works exhibit of the same show further upstate earlier this year. Aside from the show that opened tonight, it was recently accepted into a show called Man Nature that will open in Rolling Meadow, Illinois in June. The nicest thing about the Holga is not having to worry about exposure - shutter speed, aperture settings - it takes care of all that for you. :-) - MCC
Re: Boathouse III
Good composition of a soft appealing scene. IMO, all I would change would be to gently lighten the house wall. The small white 'thing' in the water and the 'muddy'(too bad) left foreground area are somewhat distracting. Darkening the distant tree line slightly might improve the overall balance. If you disagree, I stand corrected. Jack --- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet another in the boathouse series... Probably some distortion here, the horizon seems to be trailing down to the right and the building leans to the left. Oh well. I'm too lazy and tired to correct it tonight. http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_boathouse3.html As usual comments are appreciated but may be totally ignored. --- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. To reach 35mm pixel freedom..:-), I may have to do few upgrades. I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process. I have many inkjet generated prints made with both capture processes hanging side by side, and you simply cannot see a difference. Godfrey
Buenos Aires PDML
Yesterday I met Albano here in Buenos Aires. We hadn't met before, and knew each other only from this list. We had lunch, talked about other people on the list (mostly good stuff! :) , took some pictures, and then went to see a Cartier-Bresson exhibit. Here is Albano showing off his LX keyring: http://jbuhler.com/blog/index.php?p=214 Anyway--another great PDML meeting. I've met some of you guys in San Francisco, Italy, Great Britain--the Pentax list keeps being a great way to make good friends all over the world. Perdon Albano por el escrache, j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: It's Show Time
Congratulations, Frank! Sounds like it will be an excellent show. It's great that your work is getting out to a non-virtual audience! Congrats again - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:19 PM Subject: OT: It's Show Time Well, I was off-list last night, as I was preparing for my little show that's going up tomorrow. I'm also going to be away pretty much all of tonight and the weekend as well (may pop in once everything's finished and ready to put up). The place is a cafe in Kingston called The Sleepless Goat. Kingston, Ontario is where my kids live, and they like this place and we went in a couple of months ago, and saw a call for submissions. 30 photos go up for the month of may. Sadly, money being what it is (scarce g), I've not been able to do anything larger than 8x10, except I'm re-using an 11x14 of Asian Girl http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1639375 that I used in my last show (it's a personal favourite of mine, and Tom Reese as well, as he loves creative use of blur LOL). I'm mounting them with adhesive to foamcore, then using chrome bulldog clips to hang them. Not as nice a real framing, but surprisingly effective in a low-tech sort of way. I think it sort of matches the low-brow look to my work vbg. Most if not all of what's going up have been PAW's, so you've seen them before. Haven't had a show for about a year, so this will be fun! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
You're right fast lenses are not important for studio work, but you're missing the point. If the Canon will do the job and lets face it 16mp vs 18mp is less of a difference than 6mp vs 8mp, and all other things being equal, which they're not, the Canon wins on most of the buzz words. If you're on a budget and who isn't are you going to have two expensive incompatible digital systems to support or will you use the one that's more flexible. Paul Stenquist wrote: For pro studio work, fast lenses are not important. Your comparing MF to 35mm. All 35mm lenses are faster than all MF lenses in comparable focal lengths. It's the nature of the beast. On Apr 29, 2005, at 11:35 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Sorry, you're right 18mp, but the equivalent Canon glass in the equivalent focal lengths, (actually slightly wider as the canon is full frame), are f1.4. That's a two stop difference and there's the Canon 28-70mm and 80-200mm f2.8 lenses. Unless Pentax gets the 645D street price somewhere near the Kodak DCS 14c they won't be close to competitive, and that's what they're competing against. Paul Stenquist wrote: The 645D is 18 megapixel. AS medium format lenses go, the Pentax glass is adequately fast. I know there's a 165/2.8 and a 105/2.4 on the 6x7 side. I'm sure there are some equally fast lenses available in 645 mount. On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:53 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I'm not worried about Pentax releasing a new APS K mount DSLR, my referral to the MZ-D alludes to the fate of the 645D. No matter what Pål believes about the relative equality between Pentax 645 lenses, in cost and capabilities, and Canon L lenses. There is at least one important aspect where the 645 lenses fall short, speed. You don't see too many Pentax Medium format f2.8 zooms. or for that matter f2 or faster primes. That alone will put the the 11mp Pentax 645D at a competitive disadvantage with the Canon 16mp EOS based DSLR. Pentax will see the writing on the wall cut their losses and not ever release it. That's bad enough. Paul Stenquist wrote: Pentax will have at least an APS upgrade when the time is right. Don't forget, the big seller, the *istDS, has only been on the market for a short time. You don't release an upgrade until a substantial amount of your owner base is ready to move up. In the car biz, I think they shoot for 40%. I think we'll see an APS camera by this time next year. I'm also quite confident that it will be at least 10mp, because you have to motivate the upgrade. Paul On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:13 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Unfortunately, I think that the pessimists here are right, the most optimistic thing I see coming out of this is the next MZ-D... Rob Studdert wrote: On 29 Apr 2005 at 18:57, Mark Roberts wrote: Sorry, but you lost me here. How have we seen that Pentax has no plans for full-frame? Why would the release of lenses covering the small frame be an indication of this when Canon has several reduced frame lenses? Does anyone really believe Pentax wouldn't be willing to obsolete those lenses (and have us replace them, of course) in the future? Pentax probably won't have any choice especially as they career off in digital 645 land. I don't want to be pessimistic but it's looking worse for them on every release from Canon and Nikon, only a blinkered Pentax devotee could call it otherwise IMHO. Congrats Christian, it sounds like you are now much more content with your kit, now you can just go out and enjoy shooting with a future :-) 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: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and relatively rare. Based on that information I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a leg, possibly with an ear or two thrown in. John Whittingham wrote: I know one of you guys must haveone, could you give me an opinion of the optical qualities please and what I'm likely to pay for one. John
Re: PESO - wol updated
On 29/4/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I downloaded the pictures to analyze them. You didn't embed profiles. In the Windows and Mac OS comparison images, on my calibrated screens (both the PBG3 and the iMac G4 20) the Windows image has overly bright highlights and good shadows where the Mac OS version holds the highlights but goes a little too deep on the shadows. If I change my system default ColorSync RGB profile to sRGB, the Mac OS version looks slightly better but still goes a little too deep on the shadow areas; the Windows version looks a little more glary bright on the highs. Okay, have patience with me on this one Godders. I've pulled the two comparison pics and trashed them - I've started again from scratch - I went back to my original optimised PSD I made from the camera original jpeg. I reduced the dimensions to 700 pixels along the longest edge (as I always do), sharpened up a tad for web, converted the working profile of Adobe RGB to sRGB, and saved as another PSD. I then import that PSD into Freeway and it gets converted into a jpeg in there. can you have a quick look at the pic now, and tell me if you can see any embedded profile? If your screen was calibrated and you then output an file converted to sRGB with embedded sRGB profile, I would see virtually no shift in Safari as Safari always honors profiles. Without a profile, it's rendering your file relative to the screen calibration ... that's the best it can do. Understood...I think. When I set my system up a while ago now, I read from Evening's 'Adobe Photoshop for Photographers' and made my adjustments accordingly. The monitor is an old Apple 1705 Colorsync, and I have its profile selected in ColorSync. I calibrated it according to my eyes and ambient light (no spyders and wotnots), and its profile is registered in my System Prefs as 'Calibrated Display'. Trying to get my head around this, Thanks, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
I believe he's talking inches, and 13x19 is the ratio of 35mm or APS-C. Keith Whaley wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact. Paul Please explain 13 X 19. I'm pretty sure Ramesh didn't actually mean feet as his message said... Anyhow, that's a new size/ratio to me, and I can't seem to retrieve it's meaning. Is that centimeters? Something equivalent to 5 X 7 print size? Thanks, keith whaley
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
Excellently put, Godfrey, 100% agree with you Regards Albano --- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 29, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Christian wrote: First let me preface this with a few statements. Christian, What I'm wondering is why one would have to justify to the world a decision to work with a different camera system. All this stuff is just camera equipment, not a lifestyle choice or a matter of loyalty. Use whatever works well for you, use something else when that seems to work better. I still have my Canon 10D kit: it's an excellent camera and the lenses I've got for it do a great job. It's a little heavier and bigger than I like to carry all the time, that's why I bought the Pentax DS kit. If and when I find my photography limited by the Pentax gear, I'll think of whether I need something else. The photographs are the important part ... Godfrey Albano Garcia Photography Graphic Design http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar http://www.flaneur.com.ar __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Albano Garcia Photography Graphic Design http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar http://www.flaneur.com.ar __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Volume 05 : Issue 958
Hi Rob Studdert, I am a newbe to this discusion group so please exuse me if I am not responding to this email correctly. Unfortunately given your statement above it's difficult to tell just where you are coming from. Do you believe that you have mastered BW conversion from direct digital captures or scanned film, and from what aspect of the process does your dissatisfaction stem? Making a decent print is not such a difficult matter for a skilled BW printer who has good negatives to work with and the right equipment. I'm guessing that printing BW digital to paper will get better and easier as digital print systems evolve too. There are already various options that can provide exceptional results such as 1:1 contact printing from high resolution digitally generated film negatives and there are also products coming on line that are attempting to bridge the gap between digital image capture and conventional silver print such as the DeVere Digital Enlarger: OK, You got me here. I suspected that there would be a digital enlarger down the road. I also have a 67 system too. However, I do not have a bottomless budget and when it comes down to it the digital divide is $$. That enlarger (http://www.benboardman.com.au/bb/devere/dv504d.shtml) I am sure is no out-of-pocket expense. Top of the line cannon is still some serious . Most people (pro or not) are not going to justify that kind of layout of cash and why should they. As you stated; I'm guessing that printing BW digital to paper will get better and easier as digital print systems evolve too. Granted digital image capture is in its early stages Granted, most digital that I have seen has been on a computer. I am still not convenced (yet) that digital can do BW affectively. All digital is doing is taking a jpg or tiff and changing the colot to grey tones. I am not sure if that is really a desired affect? However, I am still a film snob at this point too :) I am sure you have seen this link. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml I have not seen tests on all their latest lenses but I have on their EF 50mm lenses an they are not Impressive. http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/ I am not sold on the anti vibrasion stuff as really worth a cannon system. Mike R. - you will only get my pentax from my cold dead fingers ;)
LONDON PDML update
Globe Theatre Cafe is booked for 6.30pm next Saturday, May 7th. YIKES. Time waits for no Pentaxian. Hopefully meeting next weekend by the Thames in London are: Stan Jostein Mike W Mark Roberts Gianfranco NORM! Adelheid John Forbes Steve Jolly Billy Abbbot Alistair the lurker and of course me. There's a few spouses and a couple of offspring peppered in there, so should be a busy meet ;-) It's not too late to hop on the caboose if you can make it. You will be most welcome. Details: http://www.cottysnaps.com/londonpdml2005.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: leaf film
Derby, haven't you heard? Leaf film is dead Norm Derby Chang wrote: This is pretty cool. http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm
OT - DNG question
Can anyone tell me if the Adobe DNG converter is a stand-alone application, or does it function only as a PSCS plug-in? An article I read, as well as Adobe's webpage for DNG http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html had me believing that it was a stand-alone app, but when I linked to the download page I found it categorised according to the PS version it is to be installed into. I'm not a PS user, and won't be unless I rejoin the professional fray. I just want to try raw processing of files from my new toy, a Fuji FinePix S7000. The Fuji raw converter supplied simply converts RAF files to TIF files but offers no functionality. I've installed a trial version of SharpRaw, which so far is the only non-PS raw converter I've found to support RAF. Does anyone here use SharpRaw? If so, what's your opinion? I've found it a bit slow, I suspect it uses the Windows page-file rather than creating its own swap-file like PS or The Gimp. But if Adobe DNG Converter is in fact a stand-alone app, then I could convert RAF to DNG, which I'd then process with RawShooter essentials, which is free. Alas, RaawShooter doesn't support RAF. Can you tell that I'm a cheap bastard? regards, Anthony Farr
RE: OT - DNG question
Thanks Shel, that's exactly what I wanted to hear :-) regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I use it as a stand alone program. It's not even on the same drive as Photoshop. Shel
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and relatively rare. Based on that information I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a leg, possibly with an ear or two thrown in. John Whittingham wrote: I know one of you guys must haveone, could you give me an opinion of the optical qualities please and what I'm likely to pay for one. John Better to look for the A 20mm f2.8 as the 18mm is in fact a 19mm. Andre
Re: Boathouse III
Exactly what one would expect shooting with a wide-angle lens. I would have moved closer to include less of the grey crushed stone foreground. Otherwise, very nice again. Rick --- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet another in the boathouse series... Probably some distortion here, the horizon seems to be trailing down to the right and the building leans to the left. Oh well. I'm too lazy and tired to correct it tonight. http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_boathouse3.html As usual comments are appreciated but may be totally ignored. --- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
PESOs
Bored at home, so I did some scanning. Here are some of the results for your delectation. Enjoy and comment if you see fit. I'm still having problems getting the pictures suitably sized for the fotocom site. http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042978 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3043008 mike
Re: Slow down, you're goin' too fast
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:22 AM, mike wilson wrote: ... When are you next in the UK? I'll be in the UK from May 25 to June 15. From June 2 to June 13 I'll be on the Isle of Man, but I could arrange to meet between my arrival and when I head for the Isle, long as I get to the ferry on time. I'm stuck up here for that time but if you want to visit one of the better looking parts of the known universe (ahem...) feel free. It's about a 3 1/2 hour train jounrney. mike
May PUG is open
Hi folks, The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server. http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/05may and http://pug.komkon.org Cheers Adelheid
Re: Path of Dreams - Neither PAW nor PESO
Hi! Most interested in comments on this one. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/path.jpg (500k) http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/path-s.jpg (150k) Shel, for starters, whatever I am going to say, it is *not* intended to attack or offend, ok? So, it is difficult for me, at my level, to decide whether this is done in PhotoShop or somehow by non-computerized means. Anyway, to me it appears somewhat overdone. Also that very bright patch from the towards the alley, it is very bright, burning, distracting... Merely by making it scroll and cropping most of this bright patch from above, I get totally different impression, much softer, much dreamlike, probably more to the point you were trying to convey. I realize that cropping is more or less out of the question as it seems to be a finished piece. Oh, by the way, the bigger image is more impressive than smaller one. A lesson for me and probably few others. To summarize, I think, humbly, that it could've been better. But if you have more such images, do show them, I would love to see them. Like I said upfront, I don't mean any offense. It is just my opinion. Boris
Re: PESO - Wol
Hi! Ignore the first three - no Pentax gear involved - last pic with A*85mm f/1.4 http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare6.html Oh, the plasticity (TM) is very high on all these images :). Seriously, Cotty, I could definitely learn a trick or two, or may be even three from you. Boris
Re: PESO-WOW--Appalachians
Hi! Or go to Canon for extra plasticity. ;) No offense Boris. None taken... You owe me a buck :). Boris
Re: PAW PESO - Another Durned Cat Mailbox
Hi! Another in the series of mailboxes. This is just a first rough copy ... a slightly different framing may appear in the final print. Both links lead to the same pic. Just trying to see if and where the longer link gets broken. http://tinyurl.com/cmw4a http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/mailboxes/colton3.html Tech details: KM, K85/1.8 handheld about 1/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fuji Superior 100 Resistance is futile, you will be assi-miaow-lated ;). Boris
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
I tried once 20% extrapolation. good conversion What you mean by this? I use ImageSize option in PS without any layers..is that not efficient? Thanks Ramesh From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:32:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) Received: from host24.websitesource.com ([209.239.33.40]) by mc7-f34.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:33:17 -0700 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by host24.websitesource.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id j3UDXBKo006425;Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:33:11 -0400 X-Message-Info: LGjzam7y+LuRiSsjnR3DrquwkVCaPMKeDCK0/sf8bw4= Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:32:17 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: host24.websitesource.com: dbrewer set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net X-Mailing-List: pentax-discuss@pdml.net archive/latest/163012 X-Loop: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2005 13:33:17.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[2ACB1DE0:01C54D89] On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact. Paul
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
I assume you also do resampling.. what method you use for resampling? Thanks Ramesh From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:51:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) Received: from host24.websitesource.com ([209.239.33.40]) by MC8-F19.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:52:17 -0700 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by host24.websitesource.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id j3UEqEKf032730;Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:52:14 -0400 X-Message-Info: tUj+E00hCsMbc5MYGnkglGCOT+zWoq8D4oICug091SQ= Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:51:23 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: host24.websitesource.com: dbrewer set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net X-Mailing-List: pentax-discuss@pdml.net archive/latest/163020 X-Loop: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2005 14:52:17.0394 (UTC) FILETIME=[3410C520:01C54D94] On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. To reach 35mm pixel freedom..:-), I may have to do few upgrades. I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process. I have many inkjet generated prints made with both capture processes hanging side by side, and you simply cannot see a difference. Godfrey
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
This is some excellent stuff yall! I'll check out the software references and JPG file questions and respond off-line to avoid dragging everyone else thru this. All this happend at a bad time that I'm going to be away from the computer for a few days.I will be responding with follow up questions directly. You guys are great! Thank you for keeping this list so useful and informative to the neophytes like myself who can only strain their brain just to keep up with all the information being shared here. :-) You guys ROCK!!! Thank j Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein On Apr 30, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Re: OT - DNG question
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 02:56:52AM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote: Can anyone tell me if the Adobe DNG converter is a stand-alone application, or does it function only as a PSCS plug-in? The DNG converter is a stand-alone application, but it always seems to come packaged with a version of the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop CS and Photoshop Elements 3 But if Adobe DNG Converter is in fact a stand-alone app, then I could convert RAF to DNG, which I'd then process with RawShooter essentials, which is free. Alas, RaawShooter doesn't support RAF. I've heard at least one person suggest that RawShooter only supports DNG files that identify themselves as coming from cameras for which the native raw format is already supported.
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Herb - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact.
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and relatively rare. I'm really curious now, I've not managed to find a single image produced by one, yet there's any number produced by the 15mm f/3.5 on the various internet sites. I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a leg, possibly with an ear or two thrown in. That rare, $200+? John
RE: OT - DNG question
I have the downloads already. I'll know in a day or so if a DNG made from a RAF raw file is supported. However the Pixmantec website says that DNG is supported without specifying any exceptions. If DNG is meant to be a universal format then this would be disappointing, as well as inconsistent with Adobes intentions :-( regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I've heard at least one person suggest that RawShooter only supports DNG files that identify themselves as coming from cameras for which the native raw format is already supported.
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
Better to look for the A 20mm f2.8 as the 18mm is in fact a 19mm. Thanks Andre, the A 20mm f/2.8 fetches good money, I've always missed the bargain ones, is the 20mm really 20mm :) John
RE: PESOs
Hi Mike I really like the first one with *that look*. The second one is an interesting view and the third does not a lot for me... thanks for showing it Markus -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:01 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESOs Bored at home, so I did some scanning. Here are some of the results for your delectation. Enjoy and comment if you see fit. I'm still having problems getting the pictures suitably sized for the fotocom site. http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042978 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3043008 mike
Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!
Jeff Geilenkirchen wrote: Does anyone here use iPhoto with the istD*? If so, how do you it? If not, can anyone recommend some Photo management software I can use? In the past I've been just dealing with managing it in the folders and directories manually. I would really like to take advantage of the additional features the software provides. I just got off the phone from Apple support and am still cooling my temper based on the way they approached this problem. Any words of wisdom here would be greatly appreciated. :-) Jeff Are you the Jeff who runs the Mail Archive?
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
You'll get superior results if you upsize your pic when you convert rather than in PhotoShop. I almost always convert my *istD images as 144 megabyte 16-bit files. That gives me a lot to work with, and they're the perfect size for making 360 dpi inkjets on 13 x 19 paper. Of course I change the mode to 8-bit before printing. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I tried once 20% extrapolation. good conversion What you mean by this? I use ImageSize option in PS without any layers..is that not efficient? Thanks Ramesh From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:32:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) Received: from host24.websitesource.com ([209.239.33.40]) by mc7-f34.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:33:17 -0700 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by host24.websitesource.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id j3UDXBKo006425;Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:33:11 -0400 X-Message-Info: LGjzam7y+LuRiSsjnR3DrquwkVCaPMKeDCK0/sf8bw4= Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:32:17 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: host24.websitesource.com: dbrewer set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net X-Mailing-List: pentax-discuss@pdml.net archive/latest/163012 X-Loop: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2005 13:33:17.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[2ACB1DE0:01C54D89] On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact. Paul
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
If you can find one for $200.00, don't hesitate a moment - buy it! Think in terms of $500+ I like mine quite a bit, generally preferring it over the 15mm only because of size. I think the 15mm may be a bit sharper at the edges, but I can't confirm that as I've not done a side-by-side, head-to-head comparison. I've only used a 15mm a couple of times. Bruce used my 18mm on his istD, and I may have a few shots handy made under similar circumstances. The real question is whether you want to use the lens on a digi camera or a FF 35mm film camera. Shel [Original Message] From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 4/30/2005 12:13:18 PM Subject: Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5 I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and relatively rare. I'm really curious now, I've not managed to find a single image produced by one, yet there's any number produced by the 15mm f/3.5 on the various internet sites. I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a leg, possibly with an ear or two thrown in. That rare, $200+?
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
I believe that. I've rarely shot Velvia, but I know it's reputation. However, that puts the *istD in pretty good company. On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Herb - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long Shoot RAW with your *istD and convert in PSCS at the highest interpolation setting. This will give you a 6144 by 4101 pixel count. If you do a good conversion of a good shot, it will print better on 13 x19 than anything you can get from film. I've done numerous comparisons. I know that to be a fact.
Re: PESOs
Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Mike I really like the first one with *that look*. The second one is an interesting view and the third does not a lot for me... thanks for showing it I agree about the first. It's a pity that I cannot get a good scan of the slide. The second did not work precisely as I wanted. The beams do not rock in synchronisation. I wanted one beam at the highest (and therefore one of the slowest) point and the other in mid stroke. One beam would be visible, the other blurred. Two variables: the speed of the beam and the speed of the shutter. I managed to capture beams at the high and low points but I did not get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze them, so they were still blurred. A digital camera would have been useful - for proofing 8-) The third is a bit of an in joke. Markus -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:01 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESOs Bored at home, so I did some scanning. Here are some of the results for your delectation. Enjoy and comment if you see fit. I'm still having problems getting the pictures suitably sized for the fotocom site. http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042978 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3043008 mike
Re: May PUG is open
Good work as always. Thanks. Adelheid v. K. wrote: Hi folks, The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server. http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/05may and http://pug.komkon.org Cheers Adelheid
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
I like mine quite a bit, generally preferring it over the 15mm only because of size. I think the 15mm may be a bit sharper at the edges, but I can't confirm that as I've not done a side-by-side, head-to-head comparison. I've only used a 15mm a couple of times. It sounds great, I expect it would be better then my Tokina 17mm 3.5 SL by a margine although the Tokina is not a bad lens. The real question is whether you want to use the lens on a digi camera or a FF 35mm film camera. Still using film for now and waiting a while longer! John
Missed PUG Submission -- PUG Tourist
I missed the PUG deadline, (I was rebuilding my entire computer network it seems), but I had this great concept, I even had a couple of shots, not good ones but shots none the less. So here for everyones edification or derision is my concept for the PUG theme this month. http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/tourist.html As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
One sold on e-bay recently, I think it went for $700+. I would have loved to bid but it was way beyond my reach when I found it. John Whittingham wrote: I don't have one, but from what I've gathered it's a fine lens, and relatively rare. I'm really curious now, I've not managed to find a single image produced by one, yet there's any number produced by the 15mm f/3.5 on the various internet sites. I'd say you're likely to pay an arm and a leg, possibly with an ear or two thrown in. That rare, $200+? John -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad
I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1 70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436 Pau
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, John Whittingham wrote: That rare, $200+? Seeing as know your history, you may be able to find one at that price :-) I think 3 times as much is more like it. Kostas
Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the scan come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters the equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a realistic comparison. How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and printed to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that has been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high quality optical print, or viewed as a slide. I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many people degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and the high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here and by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then compare the results to what is essentially original digital output. Shel On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Godfrey wrote: I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process.
Re: May PUG is open
Some very nice pics here. I love John Forbes' entry. Fun shot, nicely framed and well executed. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 3:40 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Good work as always. Thanks. Adelheid v. K. wrote: Hi folks, The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server. http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/05may and http://pug.komkon.org Cheers Adelheid
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
Hi Shel, It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most photographers working with a normal budget. I can get nice drum scans of film images at the local pro lab -- for $150 a pop. Optical prints, on the other hand, are almost extinct. It's hard to find a lab that doesn't work from a scan. Yes, you can probably find them in San Francisco or New York. But even here in Detroit, where a lot of working pros produce a lot of commercial photography, optical printing is pretty much a thing of the past. The results that the typical advanced amateur can achieve with digital are better than the results he or she can achieve with film. And we've only just begun. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the scan come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters the equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a realistic comparison. How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and printed to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that has been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high quality optical print, or viewed as a slide. I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many people degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and the high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here and by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then compare the results to what is essentially original digital output. Shel On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Godfrey wrote: I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process.
RE: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad
I love the head-to-head comparison and the somewhat similar expression on the two faces. The pic may be stronger by loosing about 1/4 or so of the image off the bottom, allowing the viewer to concentrate more on the faces and heads. I just moved the image up and down in the browser window to see how it would look in that way. To my eye cropping a little above the yellow tip of the child's color above his head and a little below the zipper on the dad's sweater yields the strongest image. It almost looks like a square crop, and you;ve got the added impact of the diagonal running from the child through the father. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1 70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436
Re: Path of Dreams - Neither PAW nor PESO
A softer image was not wanted. It was specifically intended to look, as you say, overdone. The bright area is intended to be just as it is. The crop and framing is exactly the way it was envisioned. Whether you care for it or not is, of course, a very personal thing. The image was made to create a certain feeling and to tell a certain tell a certain story. A few people got it, most didn't, which is what I expected. There's no need for you to be apologizing for your opinions and comments. Shel [Original Message] From: Boris Liberman http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/path.jpg (500k) http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/path-s.jpg (150k) Shel, for starters, whatever I am going to say, it is *not* intended to attack or offend, ok? So, it is difficult for me, at my level, to decide whether this is done in PhotoShop or somehow by non-computerized means. Anyway, to me it appears somewhat overdone. Also that very bright patch from the towards the alley, it is very bright, burning, distracting... Merely by making it scroll and cropping most of this bright patch from above, I get totally different impression, much softer, much dreamlike, probably more to the point you were trying to convey. I realize that cropping is more or less out of the question as it seems to be a finished piece. Oh, by the way, the bigger image is more impressive than smaller one. A lesson for me and probably few others. To summarize, I think, humbly, that it could've been better. But if you have more such images, do show them, I would love to see them. Like I said upfront, I don't mean any offense. It is just my opinion. Boris
Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. To reach 35mm pixel freedom..:-), I may have to do few upgrades. I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process. I have many inkjet generated prints made with both capture processes hanging side by side, and you simply cannot see a difference. I assume you also do resampling.. what method you use for resampling? So far, I haven't seen much need for resampling with full-frame captures. At 175ppi output density, a full-frame DS print is about a 11.5x17.25 inch image on 13x19 inch paper. For cropped images, I resample in a series of steps to achieve 160-175 ppi minimum print density. To my eye, that produces print quality on par with 250-300ppi from scanned 35mm negatives. The density I want depends to a great degree on what kind of paper I'm printing to. Epson's heavyweight matte surface is very smooth and sharp, I want more density on that. Somerset Velvet is a bit 'softer' finish, lower resolution works just fine. Godfrey
Photoshop Questions
Does anyone know if either CS or CS 2 will run okay on an AMD Athlon 1.33 Ghz processor? Adobe refuses to answer an e-mail question about this. Instead I am referred to the web site, where (for CS) only Intel processors are listed. This includes Pentium IV, which is equivalent to the above Athlon. I can find no information about CS. Preparation for my XP installation is coming along, slowly. What a *#^%@)!!! nuisance. Next I figure out what to do with 3,000 or so e-mails. Thanks, everyone. Joe
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
Better to look for the A 20mm f2.8 as the 18mm is in fact a 19mm. Thanks Andre, the A 20mm f/2.8 fetches good money, I've always missed the bargain ones, is the 20mm really 20mm :) John Yes. Andre
Re: leaf film
No it's not, the leaf has to be alive... Norman Baugher wrote: Derby, haven't you heard? Leaf film is dead Norm Derby Chang wrote: This is pretty cool. http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: PESOs
Hmmm... Think I've seen those kids before... The first one seems to have less of a blue cast than the previous of the same model, the red for danger shot. http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/pcat/101540/display/2593413 The fisheye shot makes me dizzy (ok, I'm well through my second pint of Spitfire). The third one amuse me...:-) Maybe because I can imagine the reaction from the model...:-) Jostein - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:00 PM Subject: PESOs Bored at home, so I did some scanning. Here are some of the results for your delectation. Enjoy and comment if you see fit. I'm still having problems getting the pictures suitably sized for the fotocom site. http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042978 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3043008 mike
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
Sure it is Paul. Just because most people do it these days doesn't mean the film image isn't being degraded substantially along the path of digital output. Let's just forget about using good scanners and good equipment for the time being, how difficult is it to get slide film properly processed and then viewed through a good projector onto a good screen, as transparencies were meant to be viewed? What we have is the dumbing down of quality, pure and simple. And because it's easier and cheaper to do things in such a way, it's become more acceptable. What you seem to be saying is that digital compares favorably with a degraded film image. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most photographers working with a normal budget. I can get nice drum scans of film images at the local pro lab -- for $150 a pop. Optical prints, on the other hand, are almost extinct. It's hard to find a lab that doesn't work from a scan. Yes, you can probably find them in San Francisco or New York. But even here in Detroit, where a lot of working pros produce a lot of commercial photography, optical printing is pretty much a thing of the past. The results that the typical advanced amateur can achieve with digital are better than the results he or she can achieve with film. And we've only just begun. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the scan come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters the equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a realistic comparison. How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and printed to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that has been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high quality optical print, or viewed as a slide. I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many people degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and the high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here and by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then compare the results to what is essentially original digital output. Shel On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Godfrey wrote: I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process.
Re: Photoshop Questions
I refuse to have an Intel box in my house, (lots of reasons lets not go into it). I'm running Photoshop 5.5 on windows 98 on one AMD 2.5Ghz box and Photoshop 7.0 on a Win2k AMD 3.5Ghz box. I've yet to run into any Photoshop problems with either. I can't say that you'll have no problems with PS CS but based on my experience I wouldn't expect any. On the other hand Adobe obviously doesn't want to make any promises and be held liable. Joseph Tainter wrote: Does anyone know if either CS or CS 2 will run okay on an AMD Athlon 1.33 Ghz processor? Adobe refuses to answer an e-mail question about this. Instead I am referred to the web site, where (for CS) only Intel processors are listed. This includes Pentium IV, which is equivalent to the above Athlon. I can find no information about CS. Preparation for my XP installation is coming along, slowly. What a *#^%@)!!! nuisance. Next I figure out what to do with 3,000 or so e-mails. Thanks, everyone. Joe -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: PESOs
Jostein wrote: Hmmm... Think I've seen those kids before... The first one seems to have less of a blue cast than the previous of the same model, the red for danger shot. http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/pcat/101540/display/2593413 Not sure if this is because it is a different film (rfd was Kodachrome, this is Ektachrome) or if my scanner is behaving better. The fisheye shot makes me dizzy (ok, I'm well through my second pint of Spitfire). You should be there. About 20 tons of metal thrashing away within touching distance The third one amuse me...:-) Maybe because I can imagine the reaction from the model...:-) Hasn't seen it yet. I'm getting ready to duck. Especially as this was her large phase. About 18kg lighter since you last saw her. Jostein - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:00 PM Subject: PESOs Bored at home, so I did some scanning. Here are some of the results for your delectation. Enjoy and comment if you see fit. I'm still having problems getting the pictures suitably sized for the fotocom site. http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042978 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997 http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3043008 mike
RE: Photoshop Questions
Joe, Some time ago I joined the Adobe User-to-User forum ( http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.ee6b366 ) where there are quite a number of experts hanging out and discussing the program. Every day some of the developers show up to join in the conversations. It's a good place to visit every now and then. That said, quite a few people there are using machines with the AMD chips, and have neither more nor less problems than those running Intel chips. IOW, don't worry about it. Shel [Original Message] From: Joseph Tainter Does anyone know if either CS or CS 2 will run okay on an AMD Athlon 1.33 Ghz processor? Adobe refuses to answer an e-mail question about this. Instead I am referred to the web site, where (for CS) only Intel processors are listed. This includes Pentium IV, which is equivalent to the above Athlon. I can find no information about CS. Preparation for my XP installation is coming along, slowly. What a *#^%@)!!! nuisance. Next I figure out what to do with 3,000 or so e-mails. Thanks, everyone. Joe
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
Shel Belinkoff wrote: snip What we have is the dumbing down of quality, pure and simple. And because it's easier and cheaper to do things in such a way, it's become more acceptable. snip I'm not sure it is even that. Easier? Well, if you were colour printing before, maybe. Cheaper? Not a chance. Gross capital investment is needed and then there is the possibility of further expenditure. It only adds up if you were using a lot of film previously. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most photographers working with a normal budget. I can get nice drum scans of film images at the local pro lab -- for $150 a pop. Optical prints, on the other hand, are almost extinct. It's hard to find a lab that doesn't work from a scan. Yes, you can probably find them in San Francisco or New York. But even here in Detroit, where a lot of working pros produce a lot of commercial photography, optical printing is pretty much a thing of the past. The results that the typical advanced amateur can achieve with digital are better than the results he or she can achieve with film. And we've only just begun. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the scan come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters the equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a realistic comparison. How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and printed to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that has been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high quality optical print, or viewed as a slide. I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many people degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and the high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here and by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then compare the results to what is essentially original digital output. Shel On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Godfrey wrote: I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process.
Re: Photoshop Questions
Hi Joe, Yes, I think it will run nicely on an Athlon. I've never heard of any processor compatibility issues with AMD and Photoshop. The processor frequency is certainly no problem. When travelling, I run CS off a Intel Centrino 1,1 GHz. Hope building your new machine goes smoothly. Jostein - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 10:37 PM Subject: Photoshop Questions Does anyone know if either CS or CS 2 will run okay on an AMD Athlon 1.33 Ghz processor? Adobe refuses to answer an e-mail question about this. Instead I am referred to the web site, where (for CS) only Intel processors are listed. This includes Pentium IV, which is equivalent to the above Athlon. I can find no information about CS. Preparation for my XP installation is coming along, slowly. What a *#^%@)!!! nuisance. Next I figure out what to do with 3,000 or so e-mails. Thanks, everyone. Joe
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
Sort of like, this original kodachrome is so much better than this print made from a snapshot on a color copier. Grin! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the scan come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters the equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a realistic comparison. How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and printed to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that has been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high quality optical print, or viewed as a slide. I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many people degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and the high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here and by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then compare the results to what is essentially original digital output. Shel On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Godfrey wrote: I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
Re: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad
Thanks Shel. Good suggestion. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I love the head-to-head comparison and the somewhat similar expression on the two faces. The pic may be stronger by loosing about 1/4 or so of the image off the bottom, allowing the viewer to concentrate more on the faces and heads. I just moved the image up and down in the browser window to see how it would look in that way. To my eye cropping a little above the yellow tip of the child's color above his head and a little below the zipper on the dad's sweater yields the strongest image. It almost looks like a square crop, and you;ve got the added impact of the diagonal running from the child through the father. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1 70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
You can put in a pretty nice color darkroom for the price of an ist-Ds, much less an Imacon. However, I seem to remember this started as a digital BW thread, and if you can not put in a small format BW darkroom today for $250 or so, your have not been watching ebay. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- mike wilson wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: snip What we have is the dumbing down of quality, pure and simple. And because it's easier and cheaper to do things in such a way, it's become more acceptable. snip I'm not sure it is even that. Easier? Well, if you were colour printing before, maybe. Cheaper? Not a chance. Gross capital investment is needed and then there is the possibility of further expenditure. It only adds up if you were using a lot of film previously. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most photographers working with a normal budget. I can get nice drum scans of film images at the local pro lab -- for $150 a pop. Optical prints, on the other hand, are almost extinct. It's hard to find a lab that doesn't work from a scan. Yes, you can probably find them in San Francisco or New York. But even here in Detroit, where a lot of working pros produce a lot of commercial photography, optical printing is pretty much a thing of the past. The results that the typical advanced amateur can achieve with digital are better than the results he or she can achieve with film. And we've only just begun. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the scan come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters the equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a realistic comparison. How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and printed to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that has been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high quality optical print, or viewed as a slide. I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many people degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and the high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here and by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then compare the results to what is essentially original digital output. Shel On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Godfrey wrote: I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
Re: Photoshop Questions
CS runs fine on my AMD Thunderbird 900MHZ graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Joseph Tainter wrote: Does anyone know if either CS or CS 2 will run okay on an AMD Athlon 1.33 Ghz processor? Adobe refuses to answer an e-mail question about this. Instead I am referred to the web site, where (for CS) only Intel processors are listed. This includes Pentium IV, which is equivalent to the above Athlon. I can find no information about CS. Preparation for my XP installation is coming along, slowly. What a *#^%@)!!! nuisance. Next I figure out what to do with 3,000 or so e-mails. Thanks, everyone. Joe -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, a 6.1 megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film image. That's true even with great scans and expert printing. As Herb notes, perhaps only Velvia can equal or better it. It quickly becomes obvious once you've worked with both for a considerable amount of time. However, my point was that most don't have access to scans and output systems that can even make it a close call. There's a reason why film is disappearing, and it's not just convenience. I saw some images yesterday from a Hassy with a digital back printed 20 x 30. They were shot by a highly regarded pro. I couldn't believe how crisp and finely detailed they were. I immediately asked if they were from large format. He smiled and said, You would think so, wouldn't you. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:41 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Sure it is Paul. Just because most people do it these days doesn't mean the film image isn't being degraded substantially along the path of digital output. Let's just forget about using good scanners and good equipment for the time being, how difficult is it to get slide film properly processed and then viewed through a good projector onto a good screen, as transparencies were meant to be viewed? What we have is the dumbing down of quality, pure and simple. And because it's easier and cheaper to do things in such a way, it's become more acceptable. What you seem to be saying is that digital compares favorably with a degraded film image. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most photographers working with a normal budget. I can get nice drum scans of film images at the local pro lab -- for $150 a pop. Optical prints, on the other hand, are almost extinct. It's hard to find a lab that doesn't work from a scan. Yes, you can probably find them in San Francisco or New York. But even here in Detroit, where a lot of working pros produce a lot of commercial photography, optical printing is pretty much a thing of the past. The results that the typical advanced amateur can achieve with digital are better than the results he or she can achieve with film. And we've only just begun. Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels react with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the scan come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters the equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a realistic comparison. How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and printed to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that has been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high quality optical print, or viewed as a slide. I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many people degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and the high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here and by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then compare the results to what is essentially original digital output. Shel On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less than the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the same lens. Godfrey wrote: I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19 print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog-digital defects induced by the scanning process.
PESO: Eyes Left
Another from today's walkaround. Again, this was shot wide open with the Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5. Who says you can't get a nice constant ap zoom for less than a hundred bucks? http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322567
RE: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad
Hi Paul a really fun photo and the Vivitar does indeed take sharp shots. Can you try shooting with a 2x extender wide open with that zoom to let see whether it is still usable and show me a photo? I will soon have some swan shots with the A70-210mm and Pentax A2s extender at 210mm F4 amd ISO 400 Fuji Superia for comparison. greetings and thanks Markus Subject: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1 70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436 Pau
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:47 PM, mike wilson wrote: Cheaper? Not a chance. Gross capital investment is needed and then there is the possibility of further expenditure. It only adds up if you were using a lot of film previously. I can't imagine not shooting a lot of film -- or a lot of digital. When I was still shooting film, I averaged at least a roll per day, probably more. On a shoot, I frequently burned 15 rolls. But even at only a roll per day, my first *istD paid for itself in less than six months. Digital isn't just better, it's less expensive as well. But this is a silly discussion. We've been through it all before. Most who don't shoot digital, don't like it. Most who do shoot digital would never go back. It's pointless to go over it again.
Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
i think that is mostly wishful thinking. when a scanner can pick up bubbles in the emulsion that an optical enlargement can't, it's clear that the scan is capturing more detail than any optical technique can deliver. as far as color rendition, the mere act of using wet printing paper with much higher contrast, and you have almost no control over this, is losing the highlights and shadows of a full range slide. as far as i am concerned, scanning can pick up much more than any wet printing paper can capture when working in color. when you work in the BW world, it's the other way around. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 4:09 PM Subject: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long) Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. Once the image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded.
Re: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad
I'll do that Markus. If I can get out tomorrow, I'll see what I can do with the Vivitar and the A2X-S. In fact I saw a swan on the lake the other day. I'll see if I can find him. If not, I may have to settle for one of Frank's geese :-). Paul Paul On Apr 30, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Paul a really fun photo and the Vivitar does indeed take sharp shots. Can you try shooting with a 2x extender wide open with that zoom to let see whether it is still usable and show me a photo? I will soon have some swan shots with the A70-210mm and Pentax A2s extender at 210mm F4 amd ISO 400 Fuji Superia for comparison. greetings and thanks Markus Subject: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1 70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436 Pau
PESO: Spore capsule
All comments appreciated. http://oksne.net/paw/IMGP6258-sporehus.html Thanks for looking, too. Jostein
Re: May PUG is open
On 30/4/05, Adelheid v. K., discombobulated, unleashed: Hi folks, The May PUG is available on my website AND on the komkon server. http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/05may and http://pug.komkon.org Cheers Adelheid Dag, that shot is fabulous. Butch Black's made me smile. Martin Albrecht's shot is mysteriously welcoming. Seen Dan's shot before but it's a classic. All the open gallery shots are fab as well. Gotta give it to Dag tho for this month - that's a beauty. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO - Wol
On 1/5/05, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: Seriously, Cotty, I could definitely learn a trick or two, or may be even three from you. Boris, that is the nicest thing anyone's ever said to date. I am in your debt. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad
On 30/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1 70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436 Pau Excellent! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Spore capsule
On 30/4/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed: All comments appreciated. http://oksne.net/paw/IMGP6258-sporehus.html Thanks for looking, too. Oh. That is class. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESOs
On 30/4/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997 Interesting ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: It's Great to Have a Dad
Thanks Cotty. On Apr 30, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Cotty wrote: On 30/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I spent an hour walking around downtown Birmingham, Michigan this afternoon with the *istD and the thirty-year-old Vivitar Series 1 70/210/3.5. This snap was shot at f3.5, 1/1500, ISO 400, 210mm. I'm growing quite fond of this ancient manual focus zoom. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3322436 Pau Excellent! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: leaf film
Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is pretty cool. http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm Saw an article in the past year about an artist who does this kind on chlorophyll photography on a large scale: He grows lawns, basically, and uses them as canvasses for photos. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Photoshop Questions
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I refuse to have an Intel box in my house, (lots of reasons lets not go into it). I'm running Photoshop 5.5 on windows 98 on one AMD 2.5Ghz box and Photoshop 7.0 on a Win2k AMD 3.5Ghz box. I've yet to run into any Photoshop problems with either. I can't say that you'll have no problems with PS CS but based on my experience I wouldn't expect any. On the other hand Adobe obviously doesn't want to make any promises and be held liable. Photoshop 7 runs fine on my Athlon machine here. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: leaf film
BW leaf film will be alive and well for a while yet. Film and developer will always be in plentiful supply. Just noticed, the camera is a K (shoe) mount. P. J. Alling wrote: No it's not, the leaf has to be alive... Norman Baugher wrote: Derby, haven't you heard? Leaf film is dead Norm Derby Chang wrote: This is pretty cool. http://www.grand-illusions.com/roman.htm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5
Fair enough, to be honest I rarely use anything wider than 24mm on a 35mm film camera, but it's always a benefit to have the option IMHO. My late father had a saying there are two things you can't have too much of - tools and books I'd have to add lenses to that (probably falls into the tools category) John
