date:20050501

This week's photo is now available for viewing and comment:
  http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/18.htm
All comment and critique appreciated.
best,
Godfrey

Re: Apples and Oranges

On May 1, 2005, at 2:24 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Vuescan is a piece of software similar to Photoshop and Autocad, in 
that it is an excellent piece of kit once you get past the downright 
unfriendly interface.  I was hoping that multipass would reduce the 
noise created by the scanner on slides with a lot of black in them.  I 
haven't been able to experiment enough with it to come to any sensible 
conclusion.
Try setting the blackpoint (Color tab) to remove the noise.
I've been using Vuescan exclusively to drive my scanners for about 5 
years. Have probably scanned several thousand negatives and slides. I 
know it pretty well...

Godfrey

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

2005-05-01 Thread John Francis

On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:49:22PM -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
> On 4/30/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most
> > photographers working with a normal budget. 
> I'm going to slightly agree with Paul here.

As am I.

What is bogus is to lay the blame for the lowering of photographic
standards at the feet of digital.  Even before digital cameras
showed up, it was getting increasingly difficult to find a lab
that was capable of doing decent quality work - more and more
were being put out of business by the minilabs.

Add to that the commonly voiced argument that because digital
is, perhaps, not quite capable of equalling the output of the
very best optical printers (conveniently neglecting the fact
that the cost of such services is orders of magnitude more than
most photographers are prepared to pay) it must be contributing
to a lowering of photographic quality.  I'd dispute that, too;
the average quality of photographic output (even based on some
presumably discerning group such as members of the PDML) has
probably increased since the *ist-D first showed up.

Re: My First Magazine Cover!

Hi!
Not one to blow my own trumpet, but I thought this was
worthy of a quick toot :-)
We have a saying in Russian which translates more or less like this: "If 
you won't praise yourself, noone else will" :).

The May/June issue of the Canadian publication
"DogSport" Magazine features a mixed breed dog called
Shenzi on the cover. It's my picture. (not my dog
tho')
http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/image/42617662
Wow!
To make up for the cover shot being taken using Canon
equipment, I also submitted a pic for inside the mag
which was taken with my MZ-S. The editor asked me to
supply a cute puppy shot for a different article. I
just happened to have a cute puppy (at the time. She's
all grown up now.)
This is her:
http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/image/42643581
Wow!
No, I aint' no barking :).
Way cool, way cool!
Boris

OT: Reporting in

2005-05-01 Thread jtainter

Do you remember the scene in the movie Jurassic Park where the Velociraptor is 
trying to push its way into a room full of people, and the hero and heroine are 
pushing against the door to shut it out, but they can't lock the door because 
the locks are controlled by a computer and the computer needs to be booted up 
from scratch?

Well, that's how I've felt today doing a cold installation of Windows XP. It 
did not go smoothly for several hours. The problem was my big D drive (300 GB). 
The manufacturer, Maxtor, told me to disconnect it during the installation. So 
did the local shop that built the machine and installed the drive. So I 
disconnected it. Result? Windows setup went into a loop where it kept 
formatting the C drive and installing the same files over and over. And over 
and over. Each iteration took 45 minutes to an hour. I was going to pack it in 
and just take the thing to the shop tomorrow. Then I tried one last thing -- 
the opposite of what I was told. I reconnected all drives. Result? Windows 
proceeded to install just fine.

At first it could not recognize all of that big D drive. But Maxtor had a 
little exe file to alter XP's registry to allow it to recognize the drive. I 
ran it and Voila! There it was, in all of its glorious 300 gigabytes, along 
with my 35.5 GB of photo files (the same files that I spent 12 hours backing up 
to a Flashtrax over USB 1.1.) Still, it was configured in FAT 32 rather than 
NTFS. So I transferred those 35.5 GB of photo files to C, then tried running a 
cryptic Windows command line script to convert D to NTFS. Again, asking for 
help gave me the wrong advice. Doing it the "wrong" way, the drive was 
converted to NTFS within a few seconds. And not a file was lost.

It looks like the only casualty of the day is that I may need a new modem. 
Well, they're only $25 or so. The old one is a V90. I went to the manufacturers 
web site to look for any software, but the web site said that XP needs a V92 
modem. At first XP couldn't recognize the modem. I removed it, booted up, shut 
down, reinstalled it, and booted up again. Windows didn't recognize it as a 
modem, but I did get a Windows 2000 driver installed for it and got it working 
-- as you can see from this message.

And while the case was open I put in a USB 2 card. Woohoo. What speed.

I have one printer installed, and need to do two more plus my card reader. Then 
it's software. But it's been a long day, so this may be it for now.

Thanks to Rob S, Tom C, Shel, and Wheatfield for advice and hand-holding. Now 
if CS 2 will just work okay.

The Velociraptors are pacing outside the door, safely locked out.

G'night all.

Joe

Re: OT: Journey of Man

Hi!
Yes, but you must figure there might only have been 20,000 people on 
earth, total, at that time!
That there were only 10,000 people left is not quite as much a disaster 
as you might imagine, from one standpoint.
I suspect you may have lost something like 50% of the population then.

Had there been 150,000 people on earth then, the loss would have been 
HUGE! An 87% population loss! A big hit to the gene pool!
The whole thing is amazing, truth be known... Very, very interesting 
indeed.
Keith, I did not think of this in terms of population percentage left 
after the disaster. I was thinking more in terms of how little people 
came to give life to all this multitude of races, skin colors, 
characters, appearances, and so on...

This is what amazes me - just 10,000 being the basis of all the folks 
that populate this globe today...

Boris

Re: Exhibits

Hi!
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
Mark, et al, tell me please how come Holga is Pentax content? Or I am 
misunderstanding something again...

Congratulations with being accepted to the show, Mark!
Boris

Re: OT: It's Show Time

Hi!
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 ), I've not been able to do anything larger than 8x10,
except I'm re-using an 11x14 of Asian Girl
Frank, so you're moving there at very steady pace... Very well, I have 
witnesses that I talked to you and you even responded. I feel 
enlightened in your reverend presence ...

Yes, I just finished reading "Angels and Demons"...
Seriously however, I wish I could come see the show myself. You're the 
man, Frank, you're the man.

Boris

Re: PESO and enablement

Try this
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/stuff/3326184.jpg
William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless" 
Subject: Re: PESO and enablement

Here's the new link:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326184  I deleted the
original before I pulled my head out of my..
H.
Thats not really an improvement, is it...
So much for my critique.

Re: PESO and enablement

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless" 
Subject: Re: PESO and enablement


Here's the new link:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326184  I deleted the
original before I pulled my head out of my..
H.
Thats not really an improvement, is it...
So much for my critique.
William Robb

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

On 5/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I remember when we argued about what size of negative was the one true way.
> I miss those days..
> 
The bigger, the better. 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

On 4/30/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most
> photographers working with a normal budget. 
I'm going to slightly agree with Paul here.  My reasons for choosing
to proof and print with a scanner and printer are simply convenience
and economics.  After selling our home in St. Louis (where I had
access to a decent B&W lab) and moving into a rental in Eastjeesis, PA
(where I don't have access to a nearby B&W lab or space for a
darkroom), I'm left with little choice.  I love film, and I've seen
really good results from scanned film.  But once we purchase another
home, I'm putting in a real darkroom and letting the "digital
darkroom" rot.


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

Here's the new link:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326184  I deleted the
original before I pulled my head out of my..

On 5/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott Loveless"
> Subject: PESO and enablement
> 
> Can you see any detail in the hair in the negative?  
No.  There is no detail that I can see on the negative.

> It looks like it is printed dark for the filter used, which should be used
> to lighten skin tones in this sort of thing.
> Other than that, I'd like either a bit of space behind her head, or else the
> crop tightened up on the left so no background shows between shoulder and
> hair.

Agreed.  The original was not cropped, so there is no space.  So I
cropped the left.  I also took a little off the top and bottom and
cleaned up a few more dust specks.
> For the most part, I don't really see the need for a subject to be looking
> at the camera with either mock joy or angst when sitting for a portrait.
> I like your choice of subject position.
Honestly, she was working on a photo album and raised her head to look
out the window.  I didn't ask her to pose for me.  I'm horrible at
directing people, so I just wait until I see something that looks good
to me.
> 
> William Robb
Thanks for the comments!
> 
> 
> >
> > I haven't processed film myself in over 12 years, so I'm really
> > starting with no experience.  The following photograph is from the
> > first roll I've developed.  It's a portrait of my wife taken a few
> > days ago.  K-1000, Super-Takumar 135/3.5 M42 mount, medium yellow
> > filter, Tri-X 400, D-76 1:1, scanned, unsharp mask, and removal of
> > most of the dust.  That's it.  Feel free to criticize, critique, or
> > laugh (at the photo, please, not my wife).
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065
> 
> 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon 
(for those who care) long)

No Paul, my message was not meant to provoke, but to open up discussion 
and
look at a side of the issue that certain people seem to ignore.  There are
a few people on this list that have been seemingly totally dismissive of
film, almost to the point, or perhaps reaching and crossing the point, of
being judgmental and condescending to those who either advocate the use of
film, prefer or enjoy darkroom work, or question the validity of digital 
as
"the one true way."  I'm sure that as many times as I've been critical of
broad, generalized statements about the superiority of digital, and the
negative comments about film and working in the darkroom, I've made
comments that support the digital workflow and have commented upon some of
the great digital work I've seen.

One may argue that the condescending and superior attitude presented by
some digital advocates on this list are meant to provoke rather than
stimulate open and frank discussion.
I remember when we argued about what size of negative was the one true way.
I miss those days..
William Robb

Re: PESO and enablement

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: PESO and enablement

Can you see any detail in the hair in the negative?
It looks like it is printed dark for the filter used, which should be used 
to lighten skin tones in this sort of thing.
Other than that, I'd like either a bit of space behind her head, or else the 
crop tightened up on the left so no background shows between shoulder and 
hair.
For the most part, I don't really see the need for a subject to be looking 
at the camera with either mock joy or angst when sitting for a portrait.
I like your choice of subject position.

William Robb

I haven't processed film myself in over 12 years, so I'm really
starting with no experience.  The following photograph is from the
first roll I've developed.  It's a portrait of my wife taken a few
days ago.  K-1000, Super-Takumar 135/3.5 M42 mount, medium yellow
filter, Tri-X 400, D-76 1:1, scanned, unsharp mask, and removal of
most of the dust.  That's it.  Feel free to criticize, critique, or
laugh (at the photo, please, not my wife).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065

PESO and enablement

Howdy, gang!  I finally aquired the necessary tools to process my own
film.  I also bought a Canon 8400F scanner - mostly, because it comes
with carriers for 35mm slide and print film, and for 120 film. 
Basically, I've the means to process, proof and print my own
photographs.  It is, obviously, a hybrid process, so I guess I'm
"tradigital".

I haven't processed film myself in over 12 years, so I'm really
starting with no experience.  The following photograph is from the
first roll I've developed.  It's a portrait of my wife taken a few
days ago.  K-1000, Super-Takumar 135/3.5 M42 mount, medium yellow
filter, Tri-X 400, D-76 1:1, scanned, unsharp mask, and removal of
most of the dust.  That's it.  Feel free to criticize, critique, or
laugh (at the photo, please, not my wife).

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065

Thanks!

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

RE: Vancouver China Town (pics)

Limited lenses will work on any K-mount body.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Mark Pickett 

> I love the limited lenses...they alone make me want to purchase a Pentax
> dSLR just to be able to use them!
>
> Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:19 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: Vancouver China Town (pics)
>
> Hi Alan ...
>
> What's done to calibrate a lens?  Where'd you send yours?
>
> Some of the pics are quite nice.  I like the color rendition as it appears
> on my screen.  Did you do much, if any, adjustments to the color in
> preparation for posting to the web?  How does the film do with skin
tones? 
> Any examples you could post?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Shel 
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Alan Chan 
>
> > Just got my K15/3.5 back from Japan for calibration and did some test on
> Agfa RSX II
> > 50 which has really great colour. No more nasty blue cast like
> Fujichrome. :-)
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/china_town_vancouver
>

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

No Paul, my message was not meant to provoke, but to open up discussion and
look at a side of the issue that certain people seem to ignore.  There are
a few people on this list that have been seemingly totally dismissive of
film, almost to the point, or perhaps reaching and crossing the point, of
being judgmental and condescending to those who either advocate the use of
film, prefer or enjoy darkroom work, or question the validity of digital as
"the one true way."  I'm sure that as many times as I've been critical of
broad, generalized statements about the superiority of digital, and the
negative comments about film and working in the darkroom, I've made
comments that support the digital workflow and have commented upon some of
the great digital work I've seen. 

One may argue that the condescending and superior attitude presented by
some digital advocates on this list are meant to provoke rather than
stimulate open and frank discussion.  

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist 

> The message you cited was in response to a message from 
> Shel that was obviously meant to provoke. In any case, I am over it as 
> well.

Re: Back from Nevada:Paw's

Hi Dave,
Good job on the horses considering the limitations. I like the shot 
with the Bally's sign in it as well. Nice composition.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 8:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hi gang.
We're we all good:-)
http://www.caughtinmotion.com/worldcup/ 
Had a great time in Vegas and actually returned with money($60.00 but 
it's still
money.lol)
I put up a few pictures on the above link for your enjoyment. Top half 
are standard
tourist
shots,bottom half is some action from the Thomas and Mack stadium.
Not very good,no flash, high up in the rafters and iso 1600,and a lot 
of panning at 125 f
5.6.

Had i known cameras WERE allowed in,i would have taken better gear. Oh 
well.

Please comment if you feel like it. I'd like to hear from ya.  
I have finally gone through my 3 month back log of Paw's and commented 
directly.

Dave

Back from Nevada:Paw's

2005-05-01 Thread brooksdj


Hi gang.
We're we all good:-)

http://www.caughtinmotion.com/worldcup/ 

Had a great time in Vegas and actually returned with money($60.00 but it's still
money.lol)
I put up a few pictures on the above link for your enjoyment. Top half are 
standard
tourist
shots,bottom half is some action from the Thomas and Mack stadium. 
Not very good,no flash, high up in the rafters and iso 1600,and a lot of 
panning at 125 f
5.6.

Had i known cameras WERE allowed in,i would have taken better gear. Oh well.

Please comment if you feel like it. I'd like to hear from ya.

I have finally gone through my 3 month back log of Paw's and commented directly.

Dave

Re: Photoshop Questions

2005-05-01 Thread Mark Cassino

I just looked into Bibble and you are correct - I will not run on my 
original Athlon, but it will not run on my Athlon XP system.
Oops - meant to say, regarding Bibble, that "IT will not run on my original 
Athlon, but WILL run on my Athlon XP system."

I, on the other hand, cannot run reliably on any computer platform... :-0
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5

2005-05-01 Thread John Whittingham

> 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.

I never could resist a bargain :)

John

Re: Opinion of K 18mm f/3.5

2005-05-01 Thread John Whittingham

> 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.

I think I may have found a bargain, but apparently the lettering on the front 
of the lens has been blacked out! I'm guessing to prevent reflections/flare?!

John

Re: WTB: Original boxes for Pentax-A 20mm. f.2,8 & Pentax-A 100mm. f.2,8 Macro (with inner foam)...

2005-05-01 Thread Jim Apilado

A few years ago,  a man offered to buy the box that my Nikon SP came in.  If
the box had not be torn,  I could have received $300 US for it.

Jim A.

> From: Ezio Capoccetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 22:47:24 +0200
> To: 
> Subject: WTB: Original boxes for Pentax-A 20mm. f.2,8  & Pentax-A 100mm. f.2,8
> Macro  (with inner foam)...
> Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Resent-Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 16:55:14 -0400
> 
> Hello again Pentax friends,
> 
> I continue to love my Pentax MF cameras; more, I'm a user and collector;
> again, I'm perhaps also a bit paranoid collector..
> 
> I'm looking for the original boxes (with inner foam material) for my:
> 
> 1 - Pentax-A 20mm. f.2,8 MF lens;
> 2 - Pentax-A 100mm.f.2,8 MACRO MF lens.
> 
> I can pay until $50 each box.
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the disturb.
> Ezio
> 
> 
>

Re: PESOs

Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!

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, I think the third one is the most interesting one, to me at least...
I wonder what was Her reaction when She saw the photograph though :).
I suspect I do know who She is :).
It is, of course, "she who must be obeyed".  Otherwise known as "her 
indoors".  Her real name is Catherine.

Re: Photoshop Questions

2005-05-01 Thread Mark Cassino

You raise some good questions and I, personally, would not upgrade until the 
question of Athlon support is clarified.

I just looked into Bibble and you are correct - I will not run on my 
original Athlon, but it will not run on my Athlon XP system.  Bibble says 
that the processor must be SSE compatible, which the original Athlon is not 
(at least according to SiSandra.)  the Bibble documentation is not 100% 
clear on this - the SSE compatibility is noted in one place, not in another. 
Perhaps the documentation was not consistently updated.

Similarly, my Athlon XP, while SSE compliant, does not support SSE2 or SSE3. 
Perhaps PS CS 2 needs that, or some other unsupported processor feature 
unique to Intel chips.  I don't know - but like you, I won't be upgrading my 
PC for a while so I'll live without PS CS 2 if needed.

Keep us posted re what you find
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message - 
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Photoshop Questions


Thanks to everyone who responded. I think I need to clarify the question a 
bit:

Background question: Adobe lists only Intel processors as the hardware 
that will run PS CS2, including the Pentium III and IV. I have an Athlon 
1.33 Ghz, which is equivalent to the Pentium IV.

So far everyone seems to think that CS2 will run on the Athlon. But has 
any of you actually run CS2 on an Athlon (as opposed to an Athlon XP)?

I have two concerns before I put my money down:
1. Bibble will not run on an Athlon. It is designed not to. It requires an 
Athlon XP. I am wondering if Adobe pulled any cute tricks like this.

2. An article in the June issue of Shutterbug says that CS2 requires an 
Athlon 64. This is a brand new processor that is not yet widely available. 
Reading that is what prompted my question in the first place. I am hoping 
that the author got it wrong.

I absolutely refuse to buy a new computer every two years. It seems that 
now even software producers want us to do that.

Alternatively, does anyone know how I can get Adobe to respond to this 
question? Their technical support refuses to respond by e-mail. At Shel's 
suggestion I have posted a query on Adobe's discussion forum. I have 
gotten helpful answers, like here, but so far none has fully hit the mark.

Thanks, everyone. Now I am going to try to install Windows XP, partly in 
the hope of being able to run CS2.

Joe

Re: Film is actually retired (was: Apples and Oranges)

2005-05-01 Thread Jim Apilado

With my Canon Pro 90 IS and my Optio 230,  I entered the world of digital.
Now,  I am back to shooting film.  I love slides.  I love being able to see
them without having to activate a computer all the time.
I love using my Stereo Realist camera.  After getting the E-6 film
processed,  I mount the chips in RBT mounts and enjoy the stereo effect.
I shoot weddings using film.  I did one wedding with a borrowed DSLR (Canon
D60).  I took lots of pictures and spent a lot of time doing post production
work on some of the files.  Not much fun IMHO.  With film,  I can let my
processor do all of the work.  If I need digital,  I'll get CDs with the
processing.
I resurrected my Polaroid Spectra to show some "magic" to a 2 year old boy.
He loved looking at a white card that came out of the camera and watching
the white disappear to show him.  He begged for more pictures. .
Digital has its place.  Film has its place.  Most of the folks on this list
started with film.  Many have abandoned it.  I will utilize my Spotmatics,
LX,  645, and PZ1-p with the film I can still get.

Jim A. 

> From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 18:32:19 +0200
> To: 
> Subject: Film is actually retired (was: Apples and Oranges)
> Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Resent-Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 12:32:33 -0400
> 
> I've been no longer shooting film for one year and a half now, and I truly
> don't miss it.
> However, I can well understand anyone who wants to keep shooting film and I
> wish him/her all my best wishes.
> As I wrote several times here and there, I don't think film is dead. I think
> film can no longer manage the big business (only the blind could not realize
> that), but it can well stay alive for many years to come: sort of an active
> retirement, if I'm allowed to do such comparison.
> 
> Couldn't this be an acceptable point of view, shared by all film and digital
> fans?
> 
> Long life to the film!
> 
> Dario
> 
> 
> Graywolf wrote:
> 
>> I, as I have said before, do not think one is better than the other from
>> the imaging point of view, but I do hate this film is dead type of stuff
>> because I want to use film for a long time yet.
>

Re: WTB: Original boxes for Pentax-A 20mm. f.2,8 & Pentax-A 100mm. f.2,8 Macro (with inner foam)...

2005-05-01 Thread Fred

> 1 - Pentax-A 20mm. f.2,8 MF lens;
> 2 - Pentax-A 100mm.f.2,8 MACRO MF lens.

Two truly excellent lenses, Ezio.  I hope you use them as well as just
"collect" them - .  (Your choice, of course...)

Fred

Re: Apples and Oranges

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On May 1, 2005, at 10:49 AM, mike wilson wrote:
I use slide film, mostly.  I expected to see more difference, 
especially on night shots where plenty of noise is generated.

Note that I said "thin" and "dense" rather than highlight and shadow ... 
that was intentional, to indicate behavior with either kind of film.

Slide film is more contrasty and has less exposure latitude before 
burning to clear emulsion and becoming too dense in the shadows. 
Multipass scanning can only do a little to help. The best exposures for 
scanning have a soft gamma curve without blocked up dense regions. Night 
shots are the inverse of that.
Agreed.  I think that my scanner has poor performance in the "inverse 
condition", for some reason creating a lot of noise in dark areas.  Most 
frustrating.  I had hoped that the multipass feature would produce some 
cancellation of spurious signals but that does not seem to be the case.

m

Re: Hello and Sensor cleaning

Chad wrote:
Hello,
It is obvious not to use the standard canned air blower. I have not 
read much on using CO2 air, such as Leland or American Recorder. I
have used these products and they work fine. The gas contains no
residue and is pure. I have used CO2 gas to blow off  a lens, as well
as a CCD. I can find very little on this subject here or elsewhere on
forums. I wonder why? Have I just been lucky all this time?
There has been one report on this list of someone damaging the film on 
the front of the sensor (whether that was an anti-alias filter or not I 
think was not entirely clear) by using canned gas to remove dust.

mike

Re: Apples and Oranges

Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Mike
 the same is true with the Canon 9900F here. Scangear has no option for
multipass.
I did some quick tests with Vuescan, but it did not recognize films strips
properly and
the scans are to bright in its default settings.
So, I really don't know what I miss from not being able to multipass ;-)
Vuescan is a piece of software similar to Photoshop and Autocad, in that 
it is an excellent piece of kit once you get past the downright 
unfriendly interface.  I was hoping that multipass would reduce the 
noise created by the scanner on slides with a lot of black in them.  I 
haven't been able to experiment enough with it to come to any sensible 
conclusion.

mike

Re: Hello and Sensor cleaning

2005-05-01 Thread Mark Cassino

Who was it who posted about a problem trying to clean his sensor with scuba 
gear (a flow of compressed air from his scuba tank.)

I missed the posts with the conclusion of that situation (if any ever 
appeared), but it sounded like he had a problem on his hands.

- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message - 
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Hello and Sensor cleaning


Hello,
It is obvious not to use the standard canned air blower. I have not
read much on using CO2 air, such as Leland or American Recorder. I
have used these products and they work fine. The gas contains no
residue and is pure. I have used CO2 gas to blow off  a lens, as well
as a CCD. I can find very little on this subject here or elsewhere on
forums. I wonder why? Have I just been lucky all this time?
Chad
>I'm also currently using an inexpensive anti-static sensor cleaning
>brush on my
>*ist D sensor. It works OK but I have had some stubborn specs on the 
>sensor
>that needed to be attached using Isopropyl alcohol on a Q-tip. I used to 
>use
>bottled compressed gas, it worked beautifully on the sensor and lenses 
>etc and
>is definitely my preferential cleaning tool however the rental on the 
>bottles
>became way too costly so I had to retire it.
>
>So now I'm considering purchasing a little compressor and dryer unit for 
>home
>as I miss being able to blast the dust of my cameras and lenses after a 
>photo
>expedition as I seem to end up with a lot of dust on and in my gear
>these days.
>
>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: Grasshopper

2005-05-01 Thread Derby Chang

Mark Cassino wrote:
Nice shots, Derby - I've near seen a matid so small, and your 
presentation of it is great. Very poetic.

- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com

Thanks Mark. Appreciate the comment, especially from a macro specialist :)
D
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)


Sunday, May 1, 2005, 9:16:32 PM, Paul wrote:
PS> I agree. And earlier today I pointed out how silly these discussions
PS> have become. The message you cited was in response to a message from
PS> Shel that was obviously meant to provoke. In any case, I am over it as
PS> well.
PS> Paul

:-) glad it turned out well.

Anyway, over the years I have gotten here great advice on both digital
and traditional printing, and it's still a very nice list :)

Going off again, see you in a week or two.

Frantisek

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

I would be delighted to have discussion of bettering techniques to 
digital and darkroom printing, but rational discussion of this sort 
seems impossible on PDML given the obstreperous nature of some 
subscribers here.

I welcome those interested to discuss photography without attitude and 
bigotry to join SeePhoto, the photo mailing list I admin. It's a list 
with modest activity ... pictures to look at and critique, discussion 
of interesting facets of all kinds of equipment with no brand-specific 
bias. One of the most important rules is courtesy to others, something 
that often seems absent on this list.

If you're interested, there's a subscription page at
  http://www.micapeak.com/lists/seephoto
There are several PDML subscribers already participating.
Godfrey
On May 1, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I agree. And earlier today I pointed out how silly these discussions 
have become. The message you cited was in response to a message from 
Shel that was obviously meant to provoke. In any case, I am over it as 
well.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Frantisek wrote:

I have "gotten over it", but I would rather like to discuss how to 
better
one's technique in either digital or darkroom printing, but these
discussions often turn into such as this one... It's indeed apples and
oranges, in my opinion both can look good but are different. That's 
why my gentle
reminder.

Still with all respect,
   Frantisek
Sunday, May 1, 2005, 8:41:34 PM, Paul wrote:
PS> It's obviously an opinion Frantisek. Get over it.
PS> On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Frantisek wrote:
PS> Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, 
a
6.1
PS> megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film 
image.

Paul, "in fact"? Who made you the judge of that? Please remember 
what
are the IMHO and YMMV abbrevs for.

With all other respect but sorry, this again ticks me off, Frantisek

Re: Digital enlarger

2005-05-01 Thread Bill Lawlor

Re: Devere digital enlarger.  There is a lab in New Mexico that has a Devere
digital. I sent a b&w PS file to them for printing. The hi-lights were blown
out which may have been my fault. However, I had the same file printed at
Pictopia.com on a lightjet and the print was excellent. I still think the
idea of a digital printer using traditional papers is a good one.
Bill Lawlor

Re: Apples and Oranges

2005-05-01 Thread Herb Chong

it can make a difference in 16-bit mode if your scanner's native bit-depth 
is more than 8-bits. if not, then it isn't likely to make any difference.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges

Vuescan allows me to scan mutliple passes on my Canoscan 2700F.  The Canon 
software does not.  Whether it makes any difference, I have not been able 
to say.

WTB: Original boxes for Pentax-A 20mm. f.2,8 & Pentax-A 100mm. f.2,8 Macro (with inner foam)...

2005-05-01 Thread Ezio Capoccetti

Hello again Pentax friends,

I continue to love my Pentax MF cameras; more, I'm a user and collector;
again, I'm perhaps also a bit paranoid collector..

I'm looking for the original boxes (with inner foam material) for my:

1 - Pentax-A 20mm. f.2,8 MF lens;
2 - Pentax-A 100mm.f.2,8 MACRO MF lens.

I can pay until $50 each box.

Thanks and sorry for the disturb.
Ezio

Re: PESO: Spore capsule

2005-05-01 Thread Jostein

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://oksne.net/paw/IMGP6258-sporehus.html
Are they in love? 8-)  Why compensation - really, was that exposure 
or flash?  It needs just another 1/2 mm DOF, IMHO.
LOL. All of a moss plant is haploid, except the spores, remember? :-)
The Pentax way of flash compensation is by dialling it in on the 
camera house. Set the shutter to flash sync, and the compensation goes 
into calculating the flash power.

I agree about the DOF, but couldn't get there at this magnification. 
The only solution would be less magnification and cropping.

Jostein

Re: May PUG is open

2005-05-01 Thread Gonz

Thank you for your efforts.
rg
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)

On 1/5/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

> I'm staying out 
>of this before I get in any more trouble .

Oh boy, you're way too late for that dude ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: OT: Developng questions

2005-05-01 Thread Mat Maessen

On 4/27/05, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've started developing film at home, using Sprint developer.
> Oddly, I've been getting better results with 120 than with 35mm,
> though I may have finally solved that (I just don't know why).
> Sprint says this developer is the same as D76 diluted 1:1, but
> the times on the bottle don't match those on Kodak's web site.
> This morning I used Kodak's times for the 35mm Tri-X and Sprint's
> times for 120 Tri-X, and oddly, both came out pretty.
> 
> So a tangential question is, "Why?" ...

Getting into this late, but, how much developer are you using? And how
large are the 35mm rolls?
I find that if I need to do two rolls of 36-shot 35mm in D-76 1:1, I
have to use more developer than is necessary to just cover the film. I
usually use one of the 3-roll tanks, and use a full 900ml of
developer. If I only use 600ml, enough to cover the film, it gets
exhausted before the film develops fully.
Dunno why the different between Sprint and Kodak for the times, but I
have noticed a bit more grain using the Sprint developer than I have
w/ real Kodak D-76. Though the fact that you can reuse the Sprint
developer works in its favor...

-Mat

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

I misspoke. Obviously Shel's original message was not meant to provoke. 
I may have been provoked, but his point was legitimate. I'm staying out 
of this before I get in any more trouble .
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

I agree. And earlier today I pointed out how silly these discussions 
have become. The message you cited was in response to a message from 
Shel that was obviously meant to provoke. In any case, I am over it as 
well.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Frantisek wrote:

I have "gotten over it", but I would rather like to discuss how to 
better
one's technique in either digital or darkroom printing, but these
discussions often turn into such as this one... It's indeed apples and
oranges, in my opinion both can look good but are different. That's 
why my gentle
reminder.

Still with all respect,
   Frantisek
Sunday, May 1, 2005, 8:41:34 PM, Paul wrote:
PS> It's obviously an opinion Frantisek. Get over it.
PS> On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Frantisek wrote:
PS> Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, 
a
6.1
PS> megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film 
image.

Paul, "in fact"? Who made you the judge of that? Please remember 
what
are the IMHO and YMMV abbrevs for.

With all other respect but sorry, this again ticks me off, Frantisek

Re: Apples and Oranges

On May 1, 2005, at 10:49 AM, mike wilson wrote:
I use slide film, mostly.  I expected to see more difference, 
especially on night shots where plenty of noise is generated.
Note that I said "thin" and "dense" rather than highlight and shadow 
... that was intentional, to indicate behavior with either kind of 
film.

Slide film is more contrasty and has less exposure latitude before 
burning to clear emulsion and becoming too dense in the shadows. 
Multipass scanning can only do a little to help. The best exposures for 
scanning have a soft gamma curve without blocked up dense regions. 
Night shots are the inverse of that.

Godfrey

Re: Hello and Sensor cleaning

2005-05-01 Thread Chad

Hello,

It is obvious not to use the standard canned air blower. I have not 
read much on using CO2 air, such as Leland or American Recorder. I
have used these products and they work fine. The gas contains no
residue and is pure. I have used CO2 gas to blow off  a lens, as well
as a CCD. I can find very little on this subject here or elsewhere on
forums. I wonder why? Have I just been lucky all this time?

Chad

> >I'm also currently using an inexpensive anti-static sensor cleaning
> >brush on my
> >*ist D sensor. It works OK but I have had some stubborn specs on the sensor
> >that needed to be attached using Isopropyl alcohol on a Q-tip. I used to use
> >bottled compressed gas, it worked beautifully on the sensor and lenses etc 
> >and
> >is definitely my preferential cleaning tool however the rental on the bottles
> >became way too costly so I had to retire it.
> >
> >So now I'm considering purchasing a little compressor and dryer unit for home
> >as I miss being able to blast the dust of my cameras and lenses after a photo
> >expedition as I seem to end up with a lot of dust on and in my gear
> >these days.
> >
> >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: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

I agree. And earlier today I pointed out how silly these discussions 
have become. The message you cited was in response to a message from 
Shel that was obviously meant to provoke. In any case, I am over it as 
well.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Frantisek wrote:

I have "gotten over it", but I would rather like to discuss how to 
better
one's technique in either digital or darkroom printing, but these
discussions often turn into such as this one... It's indeed apples and
oranges, in my opinion both can look good but are different. That's 
why my gentle
reminder.

Still with all respect,
   Frantisek
Sunday, May 1, 2005, 8:41:34 PM, Paul wrote:
PS> It's obviously an opinion Frantisek. Get over it.
PS> On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Frantisek wrote:
PS> Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, a
6.1
PS> megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film 
image.

Paul, "in fact"? Who made you the judge of that? Please remember what
are the IMHO and YMMV abbrevs for.
With all other respect but sorry, this again ticks me off, Frantisek

Re: Vancouver China Town (pics)

2005-05-01 Thread Alan Chan

--- Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope your (softness) issues were resolved with the lens?

The lens is now much sharper after calibration, except at near infinity where 
the
very right edge is slightly blurry. However, it doesn't show up at close 
distance. 

> I like 4,5,6 the best (really nice!), than the 14.

Thanks.  :-)

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan

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

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

I can understand your affinity for both film and the Speed Graphic. 
I've been meaning to get mine out as well. I set up my enlarger for 4x5 
and bought an expensive Schneider Compuron enlarging lens, but I still 
haven't used it. Gotta do that.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Graywolf wrote:

I do not shoot digital, 100% do to lack of funds. But I do like it for 
its purposes. I also like film for its purpose. Anyone who shoots lots 
of unprinted shots like you do, Paul, would be a fool not to use 
digital. OTOH when I shoot with the Graphic I print about 1 for 2. At 
that rate even 4x5 film is cheaper than digital.

As for which is better, that is a matter of taste. Simply put people 
to whom quality is the formost requirement were not shooting 35mm in 
the first place. They most likely are not shooting digital now either. 
That is not to say there are not many large format shooters who are 
now using digital. Although I will make the argument they were not 
shooting LF for the quality, but to impress the clients with their 
expensive equipment, and they can do the same with highend digital.

At GFM last year Cotty showed a series of photos asking which was film 
and which was digital. I for one got all but one of them, and was not 
sure of that one one way or the other. Film and Digital are not the 
same. Both have their place. I do prefer a properly optical printed 
film image over the digital look, but many others do not.
I, as I have said before, do not think one is better than the other 
from the imaging point of view, but I do hate this film is dead type 
of stuff because I want to use film for a long time yet. Yes, even if 
someone was to give me a DSLR I would still use film, the Graphic is 
too much fun to give up.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Paul Stenquist wrote:
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.

--
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: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!

I'm still waiting to hear which 'basic features' in Tiger require a 
purchase of additional upgrades. I worked with Tiger in pre-release for 
three months and never needed any additional upgrades for any of its 
basic features. I expect a copy Tiger to arrive later this week.

iPhoto ... well, the latest version of iLife is included with new Apple 
system sales, but it's not included as part of the OS release. That's 
like asking for Microsoft to include a new update of Office with every 
release of Windows XP. Vendors often include Office and other 
applications as a perk when buying a complete hardware system package, 
Apple does the same with its application software packages.

iPhoto is of limited use to me as an application ... v4.0.3 was 
available as a free download, but the v5.x generation is now only 
available as a part of iLife. I don't use much from the iLife suite 
other than iTunes, which is available for free download, so I doubt 
I'll invest in iLife at present.

Godfrey
On May 1, 2005, at 9:42 AM, Jeff Geilenkirchen wrote:
That's some good info Kevin.  Thank you for the heads up!!  I have 
Tiger arriving this week.

On May 1, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:


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.
I have installed OSX 10.4 and all I can say is that I am dissapointed 
in
so many ways. many of the basic features require you to purchase 
upgrades
which run into more than I wanted to spend after laying out $199.00 
for
the Tiger release.

oh, and iPhoto, forget it, applications on 10.4 require you to have
version 4.0 or later (now 5.02) to work, this is now part of iLife
and will set you back $119.00 dollars. This makes Microsoft look
much better value for money.
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: Photoshop Questions

2005-05-01 Thread Joseph Tainter

Thanks to everyone who responded. I think I need to clarify the question 
a bit:

Background question: Adobe lists only Intel processors as the hardware 
that will run PS CS2, including the Pentium III and IV. I have an Athlon 
1.33 Ghz, which is equivalent to the Pentium IV.

So far everyone seems to think that CS2 will run on the Athlon. But has 
any of you actually run CS2 on an Athlon (as opposed to an Athlon XP)?

I have two concerns before I put my money down:
1. Bibble will not run on an Athlon. It is designed not to. It requires 
an Athlon XP. I am wondering if Adobe pulled any cute tricks like this.

2. An article in the June issue of Shutterbug says that CS2 requires an 
Athlon 64. This is a brand new processor that is not yet widely 
available. Reading that is what prompted my question in the first place. 
I am hoping that the author got it wrong.

I absolutely refuse to buy a new computer every two years. It seems that 
now even software producers want us to do that.

Alternatively, does anyone know how I can get Adobe to respond to this 
question? Their technical support refuses to respond by e-mail. At 
Shel's suggestion I have posted a query on Adobe's discussion forum. I 
have gotten helpful answers, like here, but so far none has fully hit 
the mark.

Thanks, everyone. Now I am going to try to install Windows XP, partly in 
the hope of being able to run CS2.

Joe

Re: PESO: Eyes Left

Thanks Albano. The bokeh with this lens seems to be very predictable: 
broad and soft without much distortion of the actual shapes. At this 
distance the background doesn't go out of focus sufficiently to yield a 
really nice bokeh. However, I've seen some good results from this lens 
in that regard. More later.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Albano Garcia wrote:

Nice shot. The bokeh is not very beautifull in this
lens (in my opinion, just based in this single shot).
Regards
Albano
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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

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

Re: Apples and Oranges

On May 1, 2005, at 10:18 AM, mike wilson wrote:
what Scan software do you use with multipass capability? Vuescan or 
does
that work with the supplied Nikon Software?
Did you do some testing on the number of passes and did you get the 
best
results with 4 times multipass or do you make some compromises 
because of
the scan times?
Vuescan allows me to scan mutliple passes on my Canoscan 2700F.  The 
Canon software does not.  Whether it makes any difference, I have not 
been able to say.
I've done a number of experiments with Vuescan multipass scanning using 
the Minolta Scan Dual II. The improvements are often pretty subtle and 
I haven't seen that it is really warranted for most images, compared to 
simply setting the scan curve properly and taking the output as 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] RGB: probably only for fairly contrasty exposures at 
best. It can't retrieve detail from thin portions of a film original, 
but it can pull some additional data from overly dense sections.

Usually, 4-8 passes nets as much improvement with my negatives as I'm 
going to see.

Godfrey

Re: Slow down, you're goin' too fast

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:06 AM, mike wilson wrote:
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.

Where is "up here"? Midlands area? Cumberland? Scotland?
North eastern England, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Re: PESO turn left

Nice shot. The light coming from the window and the curving wall make 
it interesting.
On May 1, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Albano Garcia wrote:

This is my new version of flaneur, now in pure blog
format (you can leave comments)...
http://www.flaneur.albanogarcia.com.ar/index.php?paged=3
Regards,
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

FS: 8x10 outfit

2005-05-01 Thread Collin R Brendemuehl

While my flirtation with 8x10 has been fun,
It just takes too much of my time.
4x5 & 135 are enough.  Especially since digital is coming.
So here's what's for sale:
1.  Kodak 2D  $200
VGC
Great bellows.  A quality replacement.
Back is not awfully tight but works fine.
With focusing cloth
2.  Fujinon-W 210/5.6   $400
Covers 8x10 with modest movements.
3:  Ilex 12" $150
Covers 8x10 with modest movements.
4.  Schneider Symmar 355/620 $200
I just bought this, but probably shouldn't have.
Fogged cells.  Copal 3 shutter is worth this price.
5. Film holders. $25 each  (6)
6.  Film  $50
Some Ilford 125 and  Super XX.
7. Misc
Packard shutter, user cond.
other stuff I can't think of right now.
Or $1000 for the whole outfit, including shipping in the US.
PayPal preferred.
Collin

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

Rob Studdert wrote:

 the pro-sumer digital capture to print process even at this stage is 
equal to any average analogue process 
I don't think I've seen anyone here disagree with this.  What some 
people take issue with are blanket statements that "there is no 
difference" between analogue and digital or that digital is "better" 
than film.  Both of which have been said here and both of which are 
manifestly untrue.

mike

Re: LONDON PDML weather

On 1/5/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Ahhh - British weather forecasts.
>
>http://marguerite.ca/images/mastersingers.mp3

LOL!  (warning 2.8 Mb mp3)

Actually pretty decent today. 25 deg C and I'm just about to test the new
BBQ I built (the old one rusted to bits )




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: PESO: Spore capsule

Jostein wrote:
All comments appreciated.
http://oksne.net/paw/IMGP6258-sporehus.html
Thanks for looking, too.
Jostein

Are they in love? 8-)  Why compensation - really, was that exposure or 
flash?  It needs just another 1/2 mm DOF, IMHO.

mike

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

I have "gotten over it", but I would rather like to discuss how to better
one's technique in either digital or darkroom printing, but these
discussions often turn into such as this one... It's indeed apples and
oranges, in my opinion both can look good but are different. That's why my 
gentle
reminder.

Still with all respect,
   Frantisek

Sunday, May 1, 2005, 8:41:34 PM, Paul wrote:
PS> It's obviously an opinion Frantisek. Get over it.
PS> On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Frantisek wrote:

>> PS> Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, a
>> 6.1
>> PS> megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film image.
>>
>> Paul, "in fact"? Who made you the judge of that? Please remember what
>> are the IMHO and YMMV abbrevs for.
>>
>> With all other respect but sorry, this again ticks me off, Frantisek
>>

Re: PESO turn left

Thanks, Paul

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice shot. The light coming from the window and the
> curving wall make 
> it interesting.
> On May 1, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Albano Garcia wrote:
> 
> > This is my new version of flaneur, now in pure
> blog
> > format (you can leave comments)...
> >
> >
>
http://www.flaneur.albanogarcia.com.ar/index.php?paged=3
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 

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

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

It's obviously an opinion Frantisek. Get over it.
On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Frantisek wrote:
PS> Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, a 
6.1
PS> megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film image.

Paul, "in fact"? Who made you the judge of that? Please remember what
are the IMHO and YMMV abbrevs for.
With all other respect but sorry, this again ticks me off, Frantisek

RE: Apples and Oranges

2005-05-01 Thread Markus Maurer

Hi Mike
 the same is true with the Canon 9900F here. Scangear has no option for
multipass.
I did some quick tests with Vuescan, but it did not recognize films strips
properly and
the scans are to bright in its default settings.

So, I really don't know what I miss from not being able to multipass ;-)

greetings
Markus


>>-Original Message-
>>From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 7:18 PM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges
>>
>>
>>Markus Maurer wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Herb
>>> what Scan software do you use with multipass capability? Vuescan or does
>>> that work with the supplied Nikon Software?
>>> Did you do some testing on the number of passes and did you get the best
>>> results with 4 times multipass or do you make some compromises
>>because of
>>> the scan times?
>>>
>>> thanks in advance :-)
>>> Markus
>>
>>Vuescan allows me to scan mutliple passes on my Canoscan 2700F.  The
>>Canon software does not.  Whether it makes any difference, I have not
>>been able to say.
>>
>>mike
>>
>>

Re: OT: It's Show Time

Great! Congratulations. Tell us how it went afterwards.

Good light!
   fra

Re: OT: Developng questions

>> At what speed will you rate them?

DGAJ> I've got three rolls at 12500, five rolls at 6400, nine rolls at 3200,
DGAJ> and one roll at 1600.  (And two that don't have a speed written on them,
DGAJ> so I have to look them up in my database by roll-ID...)

Ok, so I got to a computer this evening for a bit before I leave
again...

At that speed, you would be IMO better with Emofin. 12500 and 6400 is
extreme pushing of the film, and good results depend a lot on the
original subject contrast and if you want any shadows or not. For such
speeds, testing in similar light is mandatory. I have used TMZ up to
3200 in mixed light conditions, and it came out of Emofin nicely,
without largely blocked highlights but still with enough shadows. At
higher pushed speed, I would be afraid of using it without testing
first.

Even so, Emofin actually has a real compensating effect, although with
pushing that high compromises are inevitable.

Good light!
   fra

Re: Vancouver China Town (pics)

I hope your (softness) issues were resolved with the lens?

I like 4,5,6 the best (really nice!), than the 14.

Good light!
   fra

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

PS> Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, a 6.1
PS> megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film image.

Paul, "in fact"? Who made you the judge of that? Please remember what
are the IMHO and YMMV abbrevs for.

With all other respect but sorry, this again ticks me off, Frantisek

RE: Apples and Oranges

2005-05-01 Thread Markus Maurer

Thanks Godfrey for your report.
I understand that I do not miss a lot then.
Appreciated.
greetings
Markus

>>
>>I've done a number of experiments with Vuescan multipass scanning using 
>>the Minolta Scan Dual II. The improvements are often pretty subtle and 
>
>>Godfrey
>>
>>

Re: Apples and Oranges

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On May 1, 2005, at 10:18 AM, mike wilson wrote:
what Scan software do you use with multipass capability? Vuescan or does
that work with the supplied Nikon Software?
Did you do some testing on the number of passes and did you get the best
results with 4 times multipass or do you make some compromises 
because of
the scan times?

Vuescan allows me to scan mutliple passes on my Canoscan 2700F.  The 
Canon software does not.  Whether it makes any difference, I have not 
been able to say.

I've done a number of experiments with Vuescan multipass scanning using 
the Minolta Scan Dual II. The improvements are often pretty subtle and I 
haven't seen that it is really warranted for most images, compared to 
simply setting the scan curve properly and taking the output as 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] RGB: probably only for fairly contrasty exposures at best. 
It can't retrieve detail from thin portions of a film original, but it 
can pull some additional data from overly dense sections.

Usually, 4-8 passes nets as much improvement with my negatives as I'm 
going to see.
I use slide film, mostly.  I expected to see more difference, especially 
on night shots where plenty of noise is generated.

mike

Re: Film is actually retired (was: Apples and Oranges)

This argument should be retired.
Daguerrotype photographs can still be made, and there are some 
practicioners of the art, but no one would say that daguerrotypes are a 
living art form.

Godfrey
On May 1, 2005, at 9:42 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://www.lookingglassphoto.com/
Shel

[Original Message]
From: Dario Bonazza

As I wrote several times here and there, I don't think film is dead. I
think
film can no longer manage the big business (only the blind could not
realize
that), but it can well stay alive for many years to come: sort of an
active
retirement, if I'm allowed to do such comparison.
Couldn't this be an acceptable point of view, shared by all film and
digital
fans?

Re: Apples and Oranges

Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Herb
what Scan software do you use with multipass capability? Vuescan or does
that work with the supplied Nikon Software?
Did you do some testing on the number of passes and did you get the best
results with 4 times multipass or do you make some compromises because of
the scan times?
thanks in advance :-)
Markus
Vuescan allows me to scan mutliple passes on my Canoscan 2700F.  The 
Canon software does not.  Whether it makes any difference, I have not 
been able to say.

mike

Re: PESOs

Cotty wrote:
On 30/4/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/50/extra/new/display/3042997

Interesting !
Built 1860something, decommissioned in 1972.  During that time, it was 
the sole provider of pumped water for the town of Sunderland.  One pump 
would run until it needed overhaul, whereupon the other would take over. 
 You can see some of the overhaul mechanisms in the bottom corners of 
the frame.  Luckily, a number of people foresaw the closure and prepared 
properly in order to preserve it.  The engines now run every Bank 
Holiday for the pleasure of sad old gits like myself.

mike

RE: Vancouver China Town (pics)

2005-05-01 Thread Mark Pickett

I love the limited lenses...they alone make me want to purchase a Pentax
dSLR just to be able to use them!

Mark

-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:19 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Vancouver China Town (pics)

Hi Alan ...

What's done to calibrate a lens?  Where'd you send yours?

Some of the pics are quite nice.  I like the color rendition as it appears
on my screen.  Did you do much, if any, adjustments to the color in
preparation for posting to the web?  How does the film do with skin tones? 
Any examples you could post?

Thanks!

Shel 

> [Original Message]
> From: Alan Chan 

> Just got my K15/3.5 back from Japan for calibration and did some test on
Agfa RSX II
> 50 which has really great colour. No more nasty blue cast like
Fujichrome. :-)
>
> http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/china_town_vancouver

Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!

2005-05-01 Thread Jeff Geilenkirchen

That's some good info Kevin.  Thank you for the heads up!!  I have 
Tiger arriving this week.

j
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
 - Albert Einstein
On May 1, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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.
I have installed OSX 10.4 and all I can say is that I am dissapointed 
in
so many ways. many of the basic features require you to purchase 
upgrades
which run into more than I wanted to spend after laying out $199.00 for
the Tiger release.

oh, and iPhoto, forget it, applications on 10.4 require you to have
version 4.0 or later (now 5.02) to work, this is now part of iLife
and will set you back $119.00 dollars. This makes Microsoft look
much better value for money.
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: Film is actually retired (was: Apples and Oranges)

http://www.lookingglassphoto.com/

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Dario Bonazza 

> As I wrote several times here and there, I don't think film is dead. I
think 
> film can no longer manage the big business (only the blind could not
realize 
> that), but it can well stay alive for many years to come: sort of an
active 
> retirement, if I'm allowed to do such comparison.
>
> Couldn't this be an acceptable point of view, shared by all film and
digital 
> fans?

Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!

2005-05-01 Thread Jeff Geilenkirchen

I don' t work with ANY mail archives in my daily activities.  Sorry, 
I'm not that Jeff.   :-)

j
On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:31 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Are you the Jeff who runs the Mail Archive?

Film is actually retired (was: Apples and Oranges)

2005-05-01 Thread Dario Bonazza

I've been no longer shooting film for one year and a half now, and I truly 
don't miss it.
However, I can well understand anyone who wants to keep shooting film and I 
wish him/her all my best wishes.
As I wrote several times here and there, I don't think film is dead. I think 
film can no longer manage the big business (only the blind could not realize 
that), but it can well stay alive for many years to come: sort of an active 
retirement, if I'm allowed to do such comparison.

Couldn't this be an acceptable point of view, shared by all film and digital 
fans?

Long life to the film!
Dario
Graywolf wrote:
I, as I have said before, do not think one is better than the other from 
the imaging point of view, but I do hate this film is dead type of stuff 
because I want to use film for a long time yet.

PESO turn left

This is my new version of flaneur, now in pure blog
format (you can leave comments)...

http://www.flaneur.albanogarcia.com.ar/index.php?paged=3

Regards,


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

Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)

2005-05-01 Thread Graywolf

I do not shoot digital, 100% do to lack of funds. But I do like it for its
purposes. I also like film for its purpose. Anyone who shoots lots of unprinted
shots like you do, Paul, would be a fool not to use digital. OTOH when I shoot
with the Graphic I print about 1 for 2. At that rate even 4x5 film is cheaper
than digital.
As for which is better, that is a matter of taste. Simply put people to whom
quality is the formost requirement were not shooting 35mm in the first place.
They most likely are not shooting digital now either. That is not to say there
are not many large format shooters who are now using digital. Although I will
make the argument they were not shooting LF for the quality, but to impress the
clients with their expensive equipment, and they can do the same with highend
digital.
At GFM last year Cotty showed a series of photos asking which was film and which was digital. I for one got all but one of them, and was not sure of that one one way or the other. Film and Digital are not the same. Both have their place. I do prefer a properly optical printed film image over the digital look, but many others do not.

I, as I have said before, do not think one is better than the other from the
imaging point of view, but I do hate this film is dead type of stuff because I
want to use film for a long time yet. Yes, even if someone was to give me a
DSLR I would still use film, the Graphic is too much fun to give up.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Paul Stenquist wrote:
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.

--
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: Eyes Left

Nice shot. The bokeh is not very beautifull in this
lens (in my opinion, just based in this single shot).
Regards

Albano

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

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

Re: Photoshop Questions

CS works fine in my Athlon XP 2500 (1.8 ghz) with
512mb  ram memory. Windows XP eats a lot of memory to
work, but works very well imho.
I don't know about CS 2 (programs tend to become
elephants. Illustrator CS is a huge monster, capable
to dumb my PC)
Regards

Albano

--- Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> 
> 

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

Re: Buenos Aires PDML

It was a pleasure to met Juan. We had a great time
together, walking around Bs As, talking about life and
photography. It was also impressive to see Juan taking
pictures of people, he has an awesome technique, and
he's able to shoot people almost in their faces
without any problem, it's hard to put in words, but
seeing him work let's you understand why his photos
are so good.
I was able to use a Pentax dslr for the first time
too. Really nice camera, I hope to get one in a
future.
PDML people rules

Albano

--- Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

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

Re: LONDON PDML weather

2005-05-01 Thread Powell Hargrave

Ahhh - British weather forecasts.

http://marguerite.ca/images/mastersingers.mp3



At 05:00 AM 01/05/2005 , you wrote:
>
>High pressure from the west building over Britain towards the end of the
>coming week - this is promising for those coming to London for the 7th.
>More in the middle of the week.
>
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>  Cotty
>
>
>___/\__
>||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
>_
>
>

Irony

Tax day has come and gone in Canada. Yesterday midnight was the last moment 
for penalty free tax fining.
I changed my calender this morning, the picture for May is the entrance to 
the "Our Lady of Perpetual Help Business School".

William Robb

Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: RE: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

What size files do you work with?  16bit, 35mm color scans are about 
130mb,
add some layers and, bada-bing, you're working on 200+mb files.
The maximum file size that the RAW converter will produce is 6144x4101 
pixels at 16 bit.
A single layer file is 144.2MB.

William Robb

Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

2005-05-01 Thread Herb Chong

8-bit TIFF files are larger than PSD files unless you have enabled lossy 
compression.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Ramesh Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

I store/archive RAW and  8bit TIFF files after editting.

Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

2005-05-01 Thread Ramesh Kumar

If needed, I used PS options. But, recently I read the fallowing which 
suggestes RAW upscaling is better.

"For the camera that capture square pixels, there is usually very little 
difference b/w resizing in Camera RAW and upsizing in PS using Bicubic

For cameras that capture non-square pixels, the native size is the one that 
most closely preserves the original pixel count, meaning that one dimention 
is upsampled while the other is downsampled. The next size up preseserves 
the pixel count along the highter resolution dimension, upsampling the lower 
resolution dimension to match and create square pixels in the converted 
image.This size preserves maximum amount of detail for non-square-pixel 
cameras, and it will typically produce better results than converting to the 
smaller size and then upsampling in PS.
"
From "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop CS" by Bruce on page number 
34.
bye
Ramesh
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:46:26 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from host24.websitesource.com ([209.239.33.40]) by 
mc5-f18.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 
19:14:49 -0700
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by host24.websitesource.com 
(8.12.10/8.12.10) id j412BTtG010435;Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:11:29 -0400
X-Message-Info: tUj+E00hCsMgZByDx1WkcBvYrLOxARlB3Ptc1nD8ey0=
Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:10:48 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: host24.websitesource.com: dbrewer set sender to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
X-Mailing-List:  archive/latest/163144
X-Loop: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2005 02:14:49.0785 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[8D97BA90:01C54DF3]

- Original Message - From: "Ramesh Kumar"
Subject: 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?
In the Photoshop RAW converter, you have the option of upsizing during the 
conversion process.

William Robb

RE: OT - DNG followup (was OT - DNG question)

2005-05-01 Thread Anthony Farr

The dialogue's meaning was that Rawshooter supported DNG files that are
converted from supported RAW camera formats.

regards,
Anthony Farr 

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, 1 May 2005 6:24 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: OT - DNG followup (was OT - DNG question)
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anthony Farr
> >
> > But as I was installing Rawshooter, the dialogue told that
> > it supported DNG from supported cameras.
> 
> I don't think any current cameras can output DNG files.
> 
> --
> Peter Williams

FA*85 and 77mm LTD autofocus

2005-05-01 Thread Derby Chang

Hi all,
Has anyone done a head to head comparision for autofocus with the FA*85 
and the 77mm LTD on an *istDS in low light?

Took the 85mm out tonight for some shots. Took shots at the same venue a 
month ago, using the 77mm. I used the manual AF point select both times. 
Most of my shots are in portrait mode, so I set the AF to the topmost 
point (i.e. the leftmost  "ear" if the camera was in landscape). 
Lighting was about the same both times, i.e. really dark (I'm shooting 
about 1/60 or 1/90 at ISO3200, wide open).

The 77mm had no problem snapping in focus. The FA*85 (which is a bit 
faster) seemed to hunt A LOT more, and often didn't find the focus at 
all, although it was fine when it did. But I missed a lot of shots 
because of it. Just realised I miss the switchable single/continuous AF 
of the PZ1. Hmm.

I'll post some pics later next week when I get a chance.
D
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

Re: iPhoto Users....PLEASE respond!!!

On May 1, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
I have installed OSX 10.4 and all I can say is that I am dissapointed 
in
so many ways. many of the basic features require you to purchase 
upgrades
which run into more than I wanted to spend after laying out $199.00 for
the Tiger release.
Which basic features are those?
Godfrey

Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

2005-05-01 Thread Ramesh Kumar

I store/archive RAW and  8bit TIFF files after editting.
bye
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 15:36:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
Received: from host24.websitesource.com ([209.239.33.40]) by 
mc7-f37.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 
12:40:27 -0700
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by host24.websitesource.com 
(8.12.10/8.12.10) id j3UJbDdJ003243;Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:37:13 -0400
X-Message-Info: LGjzam7y+LtdT0eyMlYQFReSSn1jfIs7INISgTfUgWA=
Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:36:29 -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:  archive/latest/163054
X-Loop: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2005 19:40:27.0734 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[75E94760:01C54DBC]

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:  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: GESO: Grasshopper

2005-05-01 Thread Derby Chang

LOL, thanks David.
I've renamed the pages.
D
David Nelson wrote:
G'day Derby,
Nice shots, these guys really do like modelling (-:
In case you were wondering, it's a nymph of the Snake Mantid, 
Kongobatha diademata. Sometimes used to see these guys flying down 
corridors and clinging to windows at school (-:

Cheers,
David
Derby Chang wrote:
It's a pretty day today, but I'm a bit hung over, so I think I'll 
have a quiet one. Took some pics of a flower picked from the garden. 
Found it had a surprise passenger.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/Grasshopper/01.htm
*istDS, SMC-M 200mm on an auto-bellows K.



--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

RE: Vancouver China Town (pics)

Hi Alan ...

What's done to calibrate a lens?  Where'd you send yours?

Some of the pics are quite nice.  I like the color rendition as it appears
on my screen.  Did you do much, if any, adjustments to the color in
preparation for posting to the web?  How does the film do with skin tones? 
Any examples you could post?

Thanks!

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Alan Chan 

> Just got my K15/3.5 back from Japan for calibration and did some test on
Agfa RSX II
> 50 which has really great colour. No more nasty blue cast like
Fujichrome. :-)
>
> http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/china_town_vancouver

LONDON PDML - final update

Sorry to keep bombarding the list with this.

Final update available here:



Attendees have been notified off list.

Best,




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

Yes, I understood that.  However, when I've finalized a WIP, I save it as a
layered PSD file as well as a flattened final print.  That way I can always
go back and make changes on an adjustment or duplicate layer should that be
necessary.  So, the folder for the image includes sub folders for Original,
WIP, and Finals.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist 

> My files are frequently over 200 megs while working. However, I only 
> save PSD files if it's a work in progress. I've worked with 800 meg 4x5 
> files. It's a bit slow going, but not a problem.
> Paul
>
> > What size files do you work with?  16bit, 35mm color scans are about 
> > 130mb,
> > add some layers and, bada-bing, you're working on 200+mb files.
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Peter Williams
> >
> >>> From: Paul Stenquist
> >>> I almost always convert my *istD images as
> >>> 144 megabyte 16-bit files.
> >>
> >> Cripes, do you own Seagate or something ;-)
> >
> >

Re: GESO: Grasshopper

2005-05-01 Thread David Nelson

G'day Derby,
Nice shots, these guys really do like modelling (-:
In case you were wondering, it's a nymph of the Snake Mantid, Kongobatha 
diademata. Sometimes used to see these guys flying down corridors and 
clinging to windows at school (-:

Cheers,
David
Derby Chang wrote:
It's a pretty day today, but I'm a bit hung over, so I think I'll have a 
quiet one. Took some pics of a flower picked from the garden. Found it 
had a surprise passenger.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/Grasshopper/01.htm
*istDS, SMC-M 200mm on an auto-bellows K.

LONDON PDML weather

High pressure from the west building over Britain towards the end of the
coming week - this is promising for those coming to London for the 7th.
More in the middle of the week.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long

My files are frequently over 200 megs while working. However, I only 
save PSD files if it's a work in progress. I've worked with 800 meg 4x5 
files. It's a bit slow going, but not a problem.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 12:27 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

What size files do you work with?  16bit, 35mm color scans are about 
130mb,
add some layers and, bada-bing, you're working on 200+mb files.

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Peter Williams

From: Paul Stenquist
I almost always convert my *istD images as
144 megabyte 16-bit files.
Cripes, do you own Seagate or something ;-)

Re: PAW: Some more Cliche

Very nice. Excellent color, beautifully rendered highlights, great 
bokeh, and plenty of DOF. Good work.
On May 2, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:

Seems first attempt failed...
http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=185512
I only want to point out that at 800 ISO *istD is still perfectly 
usable.

Pentax *istD at 800 ISO, Tamron 90/2.5. Processed in line with the 
latest advise I received from the list :) .

Boris

Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long