Re: OT film processing

[Frantisek]

I would except it to be foggy as well. Try adding some benzotriazole
into the developer (antifogging agent). It helps. But still, don't
expect stellar results. The TMZ is known (as all high speed films!) to
be better used and developed as soon as possible. It has to do with
too much sensitivity and cosmic rays and also loosing the latent image
faster.

Frantisek

Re: Going back to the nine seconds for advise

[Frantisek]

Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 7:43:44 PM, Godfrey wrote:
GD> Sigh. The way electrons and circuitry interact is *at least* as  
GD> stable and predictable as how chemical compounds and photons  
GD> interact. Indeed, the way that chemical compounds and photons  
GD> interact is *due* to how electrons interact.

Sigh.

You obviously haven't been around computers much. Murphys laws
apply here twice as much as in normal life, and little pixies &
electron fairies have their quirks ;-)

If you want a more "rational" explanation (as you seem to be that kind of
guy...), think of the computers as increasingly complex systems,
getting so complex that the issue of randomness has greater and
greater impact.

Of if you would be like me, you would think
of the little pixies inside your camera having a bad day...

Back to Dave's question:

Dave, how have you the camera set up? Might it have something with
autocontrast or autowhitebalance? I would suggest turning these off.
Most of the time they worked excellently but they can get confused
too. And even if by a small change of light distribution in the frame.
The camera would have to have our entire optical brain centers to
figure out white balance every time correctly...

If this doesn't help, send it to Nikon *again*. You are a NPS member, aren't
you, you should get better attitude & fast turnaround (although, I have horror 
stories
from both Nikon and Canon NPS/CPS members, I think company service are
always horrid...)

Frantisek



Frantisek

Re: Going back to the nine seconds for advise

[Frantisek]

Hi Dave,

one another thing, make sure it isn't caused by high powered HMI or
other non-continuous lighting. This can wreck your contrast and white
balance in almost random way if you shoot at higher shutter speed than
the frequency of the lighting.

Frantisek

Re: Name that lens!

[Rob Studdert]

On 28 Jul 2005 at 0:13, P. J. Alling wrote:

> Looks like it's for an AF280T flash unit.

That's what I reckon too.


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: MZ-S

[Cotty]

On 27/7/05, Gautam Sarup, discombobulated, unleashed:

>No but looking at the amount of traffic I wonder
>when you chaps manage to work.  Or is posting to
>PDML it? 

It's an addiction. Some have it under control, some don't. I get a fix
first thing in the morning and later on at night. I'll seldom overdose,
but when I do, it always ends up giving me the shakes.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

RE: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge

[Rob Studdert]

On 27 Jul 2005 at 20:41, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Interesting shot ... the washed out sky really captures one aspect of NYC. 
> Mmmm
> ... I'm hungry for a knish.  Did you explore below the bridge? There's some
> great stuff down there.

Too true, I found a very nice little chocolatier over the other side of the 
bridge when I visited in 2001 http://www.mrchocolate.com/


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: K15mm for House Interiors

[Chris Stoddart]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Mishka wrote:

> NO!
> NO!
> NO!
> 
> the filter is NOT "an integral part of optical formula" of MIR-47!
> just read the damn instructions!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I can't read Russian, but I gave the 
manual to a Russian colleague who told me he couldn't find a mention of 
the filter being needed in there. Plus there is NO PICTURE OF THE FILTER 
IN THE OPTICAL DIAGRAM! Yet when I dared suggest this on another photo 
list I was shouted down by about a trillion people who told me I was wrong 
(some claimed to have been told so by the factory). All I had on my side 
was the word of my colleague (who I know can be a bit dippy) and a picture 
in the manual, so it's nice to see someone else believes the same as I 
have always suspected. 

I think I am going to run a damn test this w/e with and without the 
filter. I should have done that in the first place, eh?

Chris

Re: Name that lens!

[Frantisek]

LOL :)

"God bless! It reads "Asahi Opt Co Bulter Creek Corp Jackson Hole,
Wyoming 4". Can adjust from 5' to 100'."

Excellent buy :) I like the Jackson Hole. Now we finally know where
the secret Ahasi headquarters are hidden...

The seller's other items are styrofoam packing peanuts (sic!). I
wonder if he packs them well...


Good light!
   fra

Re: Name that lens!

[keithw]

Don Sanderson wrote:


What they said was "SMC Pentax 1:2.51135 5046662".
I think they just mistook the middle / for a 1.
Should be: "SMC Pentax 1:2.5/135 5046662"
Looks just like mine too. ;-)

Don


Of course! Good detective work!

keith

Re: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge

[keithw]

Scott Loveless wrote:

Frank, you never cease to amaze me.  This is a wonderful photograph. 
Keep it up.


Hi Frank!

Great shot! A very worthy photograph, under any circumstances...

And while I find this portrayal of the bridge very interesting, visually 
and oherwise, I just noticed the empty trash container.

An EMPTY trash container, without contents spilling all around it? In N.Y.?
Amazing!  ;-)

keith


On 7/27/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Friday morning, I got up early.  Annsan was still asleep (Thursday
night's Scrabble night, so she gets home late).  I went for a ride,
not knowing where I was going, just to see some sights and soak in The
City.  Along the route, all of a sudden, there's the Brooklyn Bridge.
I had to ride across it, which I did.  I had to take a pic, which I
did.

Mr. Roebling's masterpiece is likely one of the most photographed
structures in the world, so getting a fresh, new look at it, saying
something different with it or about it isn't easy.  This is not such
a shot, just a snap , but I rather like it anyway.  Just in case
you're wondering, I had a haze filter on, but the sky was completely
washed out and grey:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3579336&size=lg

Comments are welcome!

thanks,
frank

RE: introduction

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Ivan
welcome here and thanks for the introduction.
I too have and still use the SFXn as my main body, often with a monopod.
I look forward to see some of your photos too ;-)

greetings from Switzerland
Markus



>>My name is Ivan and I am new to the list but not to Pentax. First started
>>using them in college in 73 (Spotmatic II) and then next spring bought the
>
>>Ivan Shukster
>>Medicine Hat
>>

RE: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Frank
I like your photo a lot but then I have not seen a lot of pictures from the
Brooklyn bridge ;-)
It is well composed and timeless as others have said. A good example where
b/w really shines.
Well done.

greetings
Markus

>>> City.  Along the route, all of a sudden, there's the Brooklyn Bridge.
>>> I had to ride across it, which I did.  I had to take a pic, which I
>>> did.
>>> thanks,
>>> frank

Re: introduction

[Cotty]

Hi Ivan. Pull up a stool.



Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: introduction

[Cotty]

On 27/7/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:

>WE NEED MORE CANADIANS ON THE LIST!

Oh for crying out loud.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

RE: MZ-S

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Gautam
I struggle reading all of the PDML and had to delete messages when away for
several days.
Welcome from my side of the world too.
Markus

>
>>No but looking at the amount of traffic I wonder
>>when you chaps manage to work.  Or is posting to
>>PDML it? 
>>
>>Gautam
>>

Re: Name that lens!

[Mishka]

you mean, you have never even tried to adjust yours?

best,
mishka

On 7/27/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> All this time I've had an adjustable Pentax lens, and didn't know it.  
> 
> Good one, JCO!
> 
> cheers,
> frank

Re: OT: Digital Camcorder Recommendation?

[Cotty]

On 27/7/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I need a camcorder. My old Sharp VHS camera doesn't work any more, and 
>I'm going to have to get some footage of grandchildren. I see there are 
>DVD cameras and mini DV cameras. Are these state of the art. Which is 
>better? What brand? Which model? Help!

I got one for my lad a while back. You get what you pay for - the cheaper
models are full of chintzy plastic. Personally I'd stick with tape as the
medium, mini DV or Digital 8. The tapes are cheap and you can burn to DVD
after editing on the iBook :-)



HTH



Cheers,
  Cotty


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

RE: PESO: Brand New Bike

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Powell
I do remember my first "real" bike and my first "ride" very well.
But then it had only two wheels and I was older ;-)
You photo is lovely and a keeper.
But it shows bit of a blue/magenta cast here which should be easily
correctable.


>>-Original Message-
>>From: Powell Hargrave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:29 AM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: PESO: Brand New Bike
>>
>>
>>How many of us can remember this day?
>>
>>http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image7.htm
>>
>>Powell
>>

Re: A Visit to Adobe

[keithw]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Hi Gang 

Maybe a few of you would like to see the Adobe offices and "meet" a few of
the engineers and designers.

http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/a-visit-to-adobe/


Shel 


Fascinating layout and tale of a visit.
Much, much bigger than I expected it to be.

Who is Jeff, taking all the pictures?

keith

Re: reflective flash metering with spot meter

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You can't meter flash exposures without a flash meter. Ambient light  
> meters are not designed for this use.

Oh, I have flash meters, that is not the problem. These did not
always exist though.
I was watching a documentary(sp) where all this chappy seemed to use was
a Pentax spot meter, similar to mine to take a reflective reading
from the background... the doco was not on photography, I was simply
pondering how an acurate reading could be taken with an analog
spot meter for a background exposure I must of missed something
in there. What came first, the flash meters or the spot meters?

Thanks all the same
-- 
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. 
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Re: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> It's often the case that a drive failure is a symptom of something  
> else being wrong rather than the problem itself. As I've been told it  
> by repair techs, the major reason for drive and controller failure is  
> poor power stability. Most of the less expensive computers on the  
> market have marginal quality voltage supplies and voltage regulation  
> which is somewhat suspect, thus many drive failures.

At the end of the day, if you have a drive failure, the data can be
recovered if you are willing to spend a few dollars, even if the 
drive has been formatted and a new file system put on it.
I am not espousing this as solution for a good achiving system
just a last resort.

Kind regards
Kevin

-- 
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. 
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Re: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

[Angel Ramos]

Angel Ramos  discombobulated, unleashed

He has become a Pentaxian saint now, after this major enablement. Wait 
and see until he get this Major Glass Beast.  Hmm, which makes me think 
that he will look for the FA * 600 ( if he does not have it yet!) for 
pairing it with two nice bodies, and repeat the torture he comitted by 
sending the "I suck" mail,  by taking a nice picture and show it to us 
to make us cry again just like his last Limited's picture.  Robb You 
Suck! ;-)


Angel Ramos
Arecibo, Puerto Rico

Re: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Paul Stenquist]

I looked into having the data retrieved from my failed Western Digital 
drive. $3500 was the best price I could find. Of course I didn't do it.

Paul
On Jul 27, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:


This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



It's often the case that a drive failure is a symptom of something
else being wrong rather than the problem itself. As I've been told it
by repair techs, the major reason for drive and controller failure is
poor power stability. Most of the less expensive computers on the
market have marginal quality voltage supplies and voltage regulation
which is somewhat suspect, thus many drive failures.


At the end of the day, if you have a drive failure, the data can be
recovered if you are willing to spend a few dollars, even if the
drive has been formatted and a new file system put on it.
I am not espousing this as solution for a good achiving system
just a last resort.

Kind regards
Kevin

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

RE: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge

[Kenneth Waller]

>Did you explore below the bridge? 
>There's some great stuff down there.

That's where the trolls live.

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Jul 27, 2005 11:41 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge

Interesting shot ... the washed out sky really captures one aspect of NYC. 
Mmmm ... I'm hungry for a knish.  Did you explore below the bridge? 
There's some great stuff down there.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: frank theriault 

>  I had a haze filter on, but the sky was completely
> washed out and grey:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3579336&size=lg





PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Angel Ramos]

Paul
If the disc is at least rotating, you can try to get the same model from 
ebay exchange the electronics and see if you can resurect it,  there is 
not much to loose, and this is only if you have a valuable data in it.  
If you think that the head's motor is bad ( repeated scratching noise 
from the disk guts) then that is a no way story.  I keep an external  
200GB disk for all my data and software backup, and it was quite 
inexpensive, I purchased an internal new 200GB HD and an external 
USB2/Firewire enclosure and put it together. I do not keep this drive 
connected all the time just when it is needed. And I also keep another 
data set on a second computer.  This is something  that the digital 
camera comunity has to take into account.  This generation will loose 
their family history if they have most of the pictures saved in their 
family PC's hard drives.   I can still make copies of the pictures my 
mother took of me when I was born, raised etc etc ( negative, positives 
film!).  Wait 5 or 10 years from now.  There are going to be a lot of 
people without those memorable moments because a "Hard Drive where dad 
had all the pictures is gone" or the CD where it was stored can not be 
read, etc etc. 
Hope you can get the data back.


Angel Ramos
Arecibo, Puerto Rico

Paul Stenquist wrote:

I looked into having the data retrieved from my failed Western Digital 
drive. $3500 was the best price I could find. Of course I didn't do it.

Paul
On Jul 27, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:


This one time, at band camp, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



It's often the case that a drive failure is a symptom of something
else being wrong rather than the problem itself. As I've been told it
by repair techs, the major reason for drive and controller failure is
poor power stability. Most of the less expensive computers on the
market have marginal quality voltage supplies and voltage regulation
which is somewhat suspect, thus many drive failures.



At the end of the day, if you have a drive failure, the data can be
recovered if you are willing to spend a few dollars, even if the
drive has been formatted and a new file system put on it.
I am not espousing this as solution for a good achiving system
just a last resort.

Kind regards
Kevin

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Re: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

[Kenneth Waller]

Yeah, but now he needs even more major enablement. ($$$)
Like a HD tripod ($$$) and suitable (I reccommend a gimballed head -Wimberly or 
Kirk) tripod head ($$$)
and lastly a sherpa to cary it all.
And, oh yeah, a suitable, don't steal me, carrying case.

Kenneth Waller
(Whose been there and done that)

-Original Message-
From: Angel Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

Angel Ramos  discombobulated, unleashed

He has become a Pentaxian saint now, after this major enablement. Wait 
and see until he get this Major Glass Beast.  Hmm, which makes me think 
that he will look for the FA * 600 ( if he does not have it yet!) for 
pairing it with two nice bodies, and repeat the torture he comitted by 
sending the "I suck" mail,  by taking a nice picture and show it to us 
to make us cry again just like his last Limited's picture.  Robb You 
Suck! ;-)

Angel Ramos
Arecibo, Puerto Rico

>




PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

RE: Name that lens!

[J. C. O'Connell]

I think your right, it is about the size of a large flash
unit.
jco

-Original Message-
From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:31 AM
To: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: Re: Name that lens!


> anybody have a clue what that case was really for?

It looks like it might be the case for the AF280T ???

Fred

Re: reflective flash metering with spot meter

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin Waterson" 
Subject: Re: reflective flash metering with spot meter





spot meter for a background exposure I must of missed something
in there. What came first, the flash meters or the spot meters?



Spot meters.

William Robb

Re: A Visit to Adobe

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"

Subject: A Visit to Adobe



Hi Gang 

Maybe a few of you would like to see the Adobe offices and "meet" a few of
the engineers and designers.

http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/a-visit-to-adobe/


You think if they worked in the basement of a dank, smelly warehouse they 
could charge less??
WW 

Re: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge

[Mark Roberts]

Great shot Frank!
It succeeds in being iconic without being cliched. Quite an
accomplishment.

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

RE: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Malcolm Smith]

Angel Ramos wrote:

> This is something  that the 
> digital camera comunity has to take into account.  This 
> generation will loose their family history if they have most 
> of the pictures saved in their 
> family PC's hard drives.   I can still make copies of the pictures my 
> mother took of me when I was born, raised etc etc ( negative, 
> positives film!).  Wait 5 or 10 years from now.  There are 
> going to be a lot of people without those memorable moments 
> because a "Hard Drive where dad had all the pictures is gone" 
> or the CD where it was stored can not be read, etc etc. 
> Hope you can get the data back.

Whenever I see a post like this, the digital storage technology gives me a
shudder. I'm fortunate that I don't take a vast amount of photos, and those
that I know before I go out I want to keep, go on slide or B&W film. It's an
easy choice for me, where I would have used colour print film, I use the
*ist D. Most of these pictures have a quick use by date, things you wish to
send via the net to family etc. It would be a huge pain to lose them, but it
wouldn't be the end of the world, as I always keep the important things on
film and for big family events take two cameras. I haven't had a problem yet
and I am convinced that these storage issues are holding me back from really
exploring digital photography. I've had digital images for ages, never been
a problem, always retrieved them easily and yet I can't bring myself to
trust them enough that I will still be able to view them ten years from now.
Yet I know my slides from the early 70s are OK. What I want is digital
flexibility and film storage certainties. All this proves is that a
photographer can have it all and, darn it, it's still not enough!! 

Malcolm

Re: PESO: Brand New Bike

[E.R.N. Reed]

Powell Hargrave wrote:


How many of us can remember this day?

http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image7.htm

Powell


 


Me! Me! Me! Me!

(that's one each for my bikes and one each for my children ... )

ERNR

Cleaning Pentax-F lenses?

[John EW]

Hi, I've just received a Pentax-F 35-135 smc  from Ebay that seems to have 
quite a bit of internal dust.


Is it difficult to dismantle these lenses for cleaning? - and, perhaps more 
to the point, is it difficult to get them back together properly?!


Any other less drastic suggestions for shifting dust on internal elements? - 
I've considered using compresed air - is this viable?


TIA 

RE: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Rick Womer]

The only certainty involved with film is that you will
be able to view the image, somehow.  What makes me
nervous about film is that I have about 10,000 slides
in a closet.  A burst pipe or a fire and they're gone,
with no backups.

Rick

--- Malcolm Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> What I want is digital
> flexibility and film storage certainties. All this
> proves is that a
> photographer can have it all and, darn it, it's
> still not enough!! 
> 
> Malcolm
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

[pnstenquist]

Bill is indeed a Pentaxian saint. He's singlehandedly upping the market value 
of Pentax glass. Does anyone know what this lens sold for new?


> Angel Ramos  discombobulated, unleashed
> 
> He has become a Pentaxian saint now, after this major enablement. Wait 
> and see until he get this Major Glass Beast.  Hmm, which makes me think 
> that he will look for the FA * 600 ( if he does not have it yet!) for 
> pairing it with two nice bodies, and repeat the torture he comitted by 
> sending the "I suck" mail,  by taking a nice picture and show it to us 
> to make us cry again just like his last Limited's picture.  Robb You 
> Suck! ;-)
> 
> Angel Ramos
> Arecibo, Puerto Rico
> 
> >
> 

Re: Going back to the nine seconds for advise

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:32 AM, Frantisek wrote:


You obviously haven't been around computers much. Murphys laws
apply here twice as much as in normal life, and little pixies &
electron fairies have their quirks ;-)


LOL ... Only 22 years of a professional career in the computer  
industry. ;-)


Godfrey

RE: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Malcolm Smith]

Rick Womer wrote:

> The only certainty involved with film is that you will be 
> able to view the image, somehow.  What makes me nervous about 
> film is that I have about 10,000 slides in a closet.  A burst 
> pipe or a fire and they're gone, with no backups.

If you look at auction houses - particularly those who liquidate businesses
gone bust - some suitable fire/etc proof cabinets do occasionally come up at
a small fraction of what they were new. Granted you have to have the floor
space and a solid floor to put one on. Obviously the more you have to store,
the larger the cabinet you'll need. It is something that you can have some
control over if you really want too, depending on how much it is a worry to
you.

Malcolm 

Re: contrast control flash question

[Juey Chong Ong]

I thought the main thing in contrast control flash is that the RTF is  
told to fire at reduced power.



On Jul 27, 2005, at 8:54 AM, Frank Wajer wrote:

simple question: how does the body (specifically MZ-5n) know that  
you want contrast control flash and therefore use a flash speed of  
1/60 instead of 1/100.

RE: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

[Don Sanderson]

Bill bought it for less than 1/2 of the current B&H price.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:56 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb
>
>
> Bill is indeed a Pentaxian saint. He's singlehandedly upping the
> market value of Pentax glass. Does anyone know what this lens
> sold for new?
>
>
> > Angel Ramos  discombobulated, unleashed
> >
> > He has become a Pentaxian saint now, after this major enablement. Wait
> > and see until he get this Major Glass Beast.  Hmm, which makes me think
> > that he will look for the FA * 600 ( if he does not have it yet!) for
> > pairing it with two nice bodies, and repeat the torture he comitted by
> > sending the "I suck" mail,  by taking a nice picture and show it to us
> > to make us cry again just like his last Limited's picture.  Robb You
> > Suck! ;-)
> >
> > Angel Ramos
> > Arecibo, Puerto Rico
> >
> > >
> >
>

RE: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Rick Womer]

Alas, a solid floor and space are two things we don't
have in our 120-year-old rowhouse.

--- Malcolm Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If you look at auction houses - particularly those
> who liquidate businesses
> gone bust - some suitable fire/etc proof cabinets do
> occasionally come up at
> a small fraction of what they were new. Granted you
> have to have the floor
> space and a solid floor to put one on. 

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

RE: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

[pnstenquist]

Well then I guess it's a good price, although it's quite a bit more than the 
previous owner paid. I didn't realize the A version was that expensive new. I 
wonder if it's really still available. Until just recently, B&H was advertising 
the A 400/5.6 for $1400, while it was selling regularly on ebay for less than 
$500.


> Bill bought it for less than 1/2 of the current B&H price.
> 
> Don
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:56 AM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: Re: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb
> >
> >
> > Bill is indeed a Pentaxian saint. He's singlehandedly upping the
> > market value of Pentax glass. Does anyone know what this lens
> > sold for new?
> >
> >
> > > Angel Ramos  discombobulated, unleashed
> > >
> > > He has become a Pentaxian saint now, after this major enablement. Wait
> > > and see until he get this Major Glass Beast.  Hmm, which makes me think
> > > that he will look for the FA * 600 ( if he does not have it yet!) for
> > > pairing it with two nice bodies, and repeat the torture he comitted by
> > > sending the "I suck" mail,  by taking a nice picture and show it to us
> > > to make us cry again just like his last Limited's picture.  Robb You
> > > Suck! ;-)
> > >
> > > Angel Ramos
> > > Arecibo, Puerto Rico
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge

[Christian]

Frank,

Great composition.  The only thing that bothers me (and it's not that big a
bother) is that the bridge tower is listing to port.

Christian

- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge


> Friday morning, I got up early.  Annsan was still asleep (Thursday
> night's Scrabble night, so she gets home late).  I went for a ride,
> not knowing where I was going, just to see some sights and soak in The
> City.  Along the route, all of a sudden, there's the Brooklyn Bridge.
> I had to ride across it, which I did.  I had to take a pic, which I
> did.
>
> Mr. Roebling's masterpiece is likely one of the most photographed
> structures in the world, so getting a fresh, new look at it, saying
> something different with it or about it isn't easy.  This is not such
> a shot, just a snap , but I rather like it anyway.  Just in case
> you're wondering, I had a haze filter on, but the sky was completely
> washed out and grey:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3579336&size=lg
>
> Comments are welcome!
>
> thanks,
> frank
>
>
> -- 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>

Re: Name that lens!

[Joaquim Carvalho]

It's a good lens. I payed 141 Euros + shipping for mine.

> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> 
> >Ended Auction:
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7530372848
> >
> >I got the above lens in the mail today. Certainly the 
> >best $24 lens in my entire life. The sucker is virtually
> >like new and working perfectly. Sometimes you gamble
> >and sometimes you win
> >
> >Sorry, but I just had to gloat a little on this one. I 
> >bid WAY more but no one challanged me. Cool!
> >
> >Delighted,
> >JCO
> >
> >
> >   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 

Re: A Visit to Adobe

[Tim Sherburne]

Some time ago, I visited these offices to discuss printing technologies.
Although I did not get a chance to meet the "celebs" of Adobe as this person
did, it was a neat opportunity to walk the halls of such a legendary place.

I've also had the opportunity to visit Apple's HQ several times, and what
strikes me about these monuments to modern enterprise is the attention to
detail and the depth of design. Even Adobe's elevators have a pleasant chime
that I've never heard anywhere else.

Like others have mentioned, one of my first thoughts was, "so this is where
my hard earned money goes..."

Tim

On 7/27/05 23:44, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Hi Gang 
> 
> Maybe a few of you would like to see the Adobe offices and "meet" a few of
> the engineers and designers.
> 
> http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/a-visit-to-adobe/
> 
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A Visit to Adobe

[Christian]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tim Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I've also had the opportunity to visit Apple's HQ several times, and what
> strikes me about these monuments to modern enterprise is the attention to
> detail and the depth of design. Even Adobe's elevators have a pleasant
chime
> that I've never heard anywhere else.
>
> Like others have mentioned, one of my first thoughts was, "so this is
where
> my hard earned money goes..."

I happen to work for the largest "Online" company in "America."  The
flagship office buildings in the main complex are nothing special WRT design
and ergonomics, but the massive datacenters are awe-inspiring.  The scale
and technology involved, especially, the cooling and power-backup systems,
is amazing.

Christian
who's lucky enough to work in a datacenter and have my own office.  If I was
at the HQ complex I'd be living in a cube-farm.

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Tim Øsleby]

Bill. 
Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are saying,
is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
photographer who shoots wildly, and has stopped reflecting". Am I right
about this? If not, please do ignore this friendly intended post.

Between the lines I also read that you blame your new digital tools. If my
interpretation of your statements are correct, then let me freely (not to
freely I hope) say that you have got it totally wrong. 

Photography is craftsmanship, and sometimes (a tiny bit of) art. And a
craftsman needs to keep his tools sharp.

As a photographer, digital or not, you have a set of tools. One of the tools
is the camera. The camera is (if it manual), a simple recorder. In other
words, it is memory, no more, no less. Whether it is digital or film does
not matter. It still is memory. If it's automatic, it is also a meter (like
a carpenters meter), and a calculator. Nothing more, nothing less. 

But the main tool is you, your emotions, and you reflections. And that’s the
most complicated tool. To me it looks like you have become obsessed with the
least important parts of your equipment, the stuff, "your enablement's",
your Limited, your LX, your D, your Lditt, your MZdatt. 
Here let me add one thing. I'm a bit obsessed with the stuff myself now and
then. My Ds, my FA*, my Element 3 and so on. But when I find my self
spending to much time on them, I don't blame them. I go out and shoot. And I
make myself shoot slow. Sometimes I do as Ivan Shukster, shoot with a
tripod, forcing myself to shoot slowly, reflecting. With my digital tools,
and using my main tool: 
Me, myself and I. Sharpening myself, hopefully turning me into a better
photographer.

Back to the carpenter: Imagine him saying 
"I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, I
think the Stanley Digital Laser-Meter has, if anything, made me a worse
carpenter". 
What would your reactions be? Do you really think his brand new beeping
meter was to blame?


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 27. juli 2005 16:40
To: Pentax Discuss
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, I
think digital has, if anything, made me a worse photographer, rather than a
better one.
I find myself making a dozen exposures when I only need to make one. I find
myself taking pictures of things that are inherently unphotogenic.
One of the skills I have spent years developing in myself is an efficiency
of process. One thing I really don't like to waste is my time (this mail
list is the exception).
Digital wastes my time.
Too many exposures made, too many exposures to look at to be meaningful
anymore.
The product of a mind becoming less disciplined, less thoughtful, more
willing to take a mad bomber approach to photography.
This is a complete change from my work in large format, where every exposure
made was at a cost, both in money and time, but also in ability to make
another exposure later that session.
When one is limited to making no more than a few dozen exposures before
taking a time out to reload film holders, which may not be conveniently
done, one looks hard before tripping the shutter.
When one is putting out a couple of dollars every time he trips the shutter,
he thinks a bit about doing it.
When every frame has to be put into a tank and processed, one thinks about
how much time will be spent doing the mundane task of film processing, and
thinks about how many tanks of film are ahead of him.

Digital is a tempting little whore, and it is easy to talk oneself into
thinking it makes us better by applying outdated criteria to what we are
doing, but I have my doubts, based on my own experience, as to whether there
is any truth or not to it making us better photographers.
It enforces nothing on us, it requires no discipline in approach, and no
skill in operation; the two main ingredients in becoming a better
photographer are missing.

William Robb

PESO - Pairs

[Bruce Dayton]

Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation.  Due to the
unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more greenery and
flowers than would be normal in the valley.

Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
Converted from Raw using Capture One LE

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm

Comments welcome

-- 
Bruce

Re: introduction

[Tom C]

Welcome to the list Ivan, even if you are Canadian.  :0   Actually I love 
Canada and like you all, except maybe Elvis Stoiko.  You'll have fun.


Tom C.

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Tim,

I've been considering why I'd want a DSLR, and it comes down to mostly one
reason: It's not for quality, it's not for how nice shooting RAW might be,
it's not for any of the camera's features ... nope, it's because there are
times - more and more often these days - when I'm just too lazy to process
film. I've never gotten much enjoyment from agitating a development tank.
So, it's laziness, pure and simple. Not laziness in shooting or composing a
photo, but just too damned lazy to process film or drive it to the lab.

A secondary reason is for snaps ... family, friends, maybe shots around the
neighborhood.


I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me
much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with
light.  That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when
going from digi to B&W film.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 7/28/2005 8:51:29 AM
> Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
>
> Bill. 
> Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are
saying,
> is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
> photographer who shoots wildly, and has stopped reflecting". Am I right
> about this? If not, please do ignore this friendly intended post.

RE: PESO - Pairs

[Shel Belinkoff]

I like that, Bruce.  Your "detail" shots are quite nice.  Thanks!

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
>
> Comments welcome
>
> -- 
> Bruce

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Jack Davis]

Bruce, 
I took the liberty of 'simplifying' this image. Juiced
the contrast a tiny bit, also.
What do you think?

Jack
http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=72

--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation. 
> Due to the
> unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more
> greenery and
> flowers than would be normal in the valley.
> 
> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
> 
>
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
> 
> Comments welcome
> 
> -- 
> Bruce
> 
> 


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

Re: Going back to the nine seconds for advise

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"

Subject: Re: Going back to the nine seconds for advise



On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:32 AM, Frantisek wrote:


You obviously haven't been around computers much. Murphys laws
apply here twice as much as in normal life, and little pixies &
electron fairies have their quirks ;-)


LOL ... Only 22 years of a professional career in the computer  industry. 
;-)


I think you hit the nail on the head regarding power supplies.
If you have spent most of your time with Macs or high end PC's reliability 
of power supply should be less of an issue, and reliability of hardware, 
drives included, should also be higher.

Cheap power supplies can cause all sorts of problems.
Upon reflection, I do wonder how many of the WD complaints that I have heard 
were caused by cheap power supplies screwing things up..


William Robb 

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Bruce Dayton]

Thanks for your comment Shel.

-- 
Bruce


Thursday, July 28, 2005, 10:28:01 AM, you wrote:

SB> I like that, Bruce.  Your "detail" shots are quite nice.  Thanks!

SB> Shel 


>> [Original Message]
>> From: Bruce Dayton 

>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
>>
>> Comments welcome
>>
>> -- 
>> Bruce

Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Shel,

Certainly for me, what constitutes desired exposure is not exactly the
same for digital as it was for film.  Not having been one to have my
own lab when shooting film, I really relied on the consistancy of the
lab to produce from my exposures.

With digital, I am now my own lab (develop and process - not print).
So I am taking a deeper interest into the exposure issue than I did
with film.  Probably because I can do something about it and see more
directly the results of my exposure and processing.

I do agree that you will need a different frame of mind when shooting
digital from film.  As you switch back and forth, you'll need to use the
knowledge you have gained for that particular medium.

-- 
Bruce


Thursday, July 28, 2005, 10:20:42 AM, you wrote:

SB> Hi Tim,

>snip<

SB> I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me
SB> much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with
SB> light.  That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when
SB> going from digi to B&W film.

SB> Shel 

RE: Paw. GFM Pic #10. IR #2

[brooksdj]

Thanks for the comment Tim. Glad you liked it.

IR is a fun medium but it plays tricks on you. But thats have the fun.LOL


Dave  

> Boris is a man of strange 
compliments. ;-)
> 
> This plain Norwegian is a bit less subtle. I love the picture. 
> IR photo is now on my "things I want to play with in next life list".
> 
> 
> Tim
> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)
> 
> Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
> (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Jack ... the removal of the "orphan" blossom does improve the pic a bit,
but it also changes its context.  I think both work, although I do go back
and forth between which is preferable.

The additional saturation and contrast doesn't work for me.  The photo
seems to want a softer, more delicate look.  Also, the more saturated look
that so many photogs are using these days has become tiresome.  Others will
most certainly disagree.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Jack Davis 

> I took the liberty of 'simplifying' this image. Juiced
> the contrast a tiny bit, also.
> What do you think?
>
> Jack
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=72

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[pnstenquist]

Convenience is certainly part of the appeal of digital. You may eventually find 
other aspects of it that will please you as well, but to be free -- even just 
some of the time -- from the burden of processing is very nice. 
In regard to working with light, I think you'll find that all the same 
relatinships apply. There is no reason why anyone shooting digital should be 
less cognizant of the light than someone shooting film. In fact, having 
rudimentary feedback on the preview screen will sometimes remind me that I 
haven't looked closely enough at the light and need to find a different camera 
position or return at a different time. 
   


> Hi Tim,
> 
> I've been considering why I'd want a DSLR, and it comes down to mostly one
> reason: It's not for quality, it's not for how nice shooting RAW might be,
> it's not for any of the camera's features ... nope, it's because there are
> times - more and more often these days - when I'm just too lazy to process
> film. I've never gotten much enjoyment from agitating a development tank.
> So, it's laziness, pure and simple. Not laziness in shooting or composing a
> photo, but just too damned lazy to process film or drive it to the lab.
> 
> A secondary reason is for snaps ... family, friends, maybe shots around the
> neighborhood.
> 
> 
> I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me
> much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with
> light.  That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when
> going from digi to B&W film.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Date: 7/28/2005 8:51:29 AM
> > Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
> >
> > Bill. 
> > Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are
> saying,
> > is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
> > photographer who shoots wildly, and has stopped reflecting". Am I right
> > about this? If not, please do ignore this friendly intended post.
> 
> 

Re: PESO - Pairs

[pnstenquist]

Very nice. But I find that one lonely bud on the left that's half out of frame 
to be quite disturbing. Half a minute with the clone tool could solve that 
problem. Thanks for all the Monument Valley pics I've enjoyed them. 
Paul 


> Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation.  Due to the
> unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more greenery and
> flowers than would be normal in the valley.
> 
> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
> 
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
> 
> Comments welcome
> 
> -- 
> Bruce
> 

Re: Cleaning Pentax-F lenses?

[Powell Hargrave]

This may help:
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/70-210.htm

Powell

>
>Hi, I've just received a Pentax-F 35-135 smc  from Ebay that seems to have 
>quite a bit of internal dust.
>
>Is it difficult to dismantle these lenses for cleaning? - and, perhaps more 
>to the point, is it difficult to get them back together properly?!
>
>Any other less drastic suggestions for shifting dust on internal elements? - 
>I've considered using compresed air - is this viable?
>
>TIA 
>

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Shel Belinkoff]

I said nothing about being less cognizant of the light ... working with
conventional B&W requires a different use of light than with color or
digital.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> In regard to working with light, I think you'll find that all the
same relatinships apply. There is no reason why anyone shooting digital
should be less cognizant of the light than someone shooting film. In fact,
having rudimentary feedback on the preview screen will sometimes remind me
that I haven't looked closely enough at the light and need to find a
different camera position or return at a different time. 

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Bruce Dayton]

Based upon Jack's cropping to remove the partial bloom and Paul's
comment, I have cloned it out and present it here.

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508a.htm

I prefer this to the crop that Jack did as it just felt a bit too
tight for me.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Thursday, July 28, 2005, 11:14:30 AM, you wrote:

pcn> Very nice. But I find that one lonely bud on the left
pcn> that's half out of frame to be quite disturbing. Half a minute
pcn> with the clone tool could solve that problem. Thanks for all the
pcn> Monument Valley pics I've enjoyed them. 
pcn> Paul 


>> Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation.  Due to the
>> unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more greenery and
>> flowers than would be normal in the valley.
>> 
>> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
>> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
>> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
>> 
>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
>> 
>> Comments welcome
>> 
>> -- 
>> Bruce
>> 

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Bob W]

Hi,

> I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my 
> reflexes, or teach me much about composition, although it 
> will affect the way I see and work with light.  

in what ways will it affect the way you see and work with light?

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

RE: PESO: Brand New Bike

[Powell Hargrave]

Colour is fairly accurate.  It was late afternoon shade with a very blue sky.
It could be warmed in PhotoShop but his is about how it looked.

Powell

At 03:26 AM 28/07/2005 , Markus Maurer wrote:
>
>Hi Powell
>I do remember my first "real" bike and my first "ride" very well.
>But then it had only two wheels and I was older ;-)
>You photo is lovely and a keeper.
>But it shows bit of a blue/magenta cast here which should be easily
>correctable.
>
>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Powell Hargrave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:29 AM
>>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>>Subject: PESO: Brand New Bike
>>>
>>>
>>>How many of us can remember this day?
>>>
>>>http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image7.htm
>>>
>>>Powell
>>>
>

Re: Cleaning Pentax-F lenses?

[keithw]

Powell Hargrave wrote:


This may help:
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/70-210.htm

Powell



Hi, I've just received a Pentax-F 35-135 smc  from Ebay that seems to have 
quite a bit of internal dust.


Is it difficult to dismantle these lenses for cleaning? - and, perhaps more 
to the point, is it difficult to get them back together properly?!


Any other less drastic suggestions for shifting dust on internal elements? - 
I've considered using compresed air - is this viable?


TIA 


Talk about an interesting set of photos!
Your middle name must be Job, what with your patience!  ;-)

Good job!

keith whaley

Re: PESO - Pairs

[pnstenquist]

Excellent. 
I haven't been to Monument Valley in quite a few years, but I don't recall 
seeing any wildflowers there. I would guess it was a wet spring, as it was in 
most of the southwest. 
Paul


> Based upon Jack's cropping to remove the partial bloom and Paul's
> comment, I have cloned it out and present it here.
> 
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508a.htm
> 
> I prefer this to the crop that Jack did as it just felt a bit too
> tight for me.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Thursday, July 28, 2005, 11:14:30 AM, you wrote:
> 
> pcn> Very nice. But I find that one lonely bud on the left
> pcn> that's half out of frame to be quite disturbing. Half a minute
> pcn> with the clone tool could solve that problem. Thanks for all the
> pcn> Monument Valley pics I've enjoyed them. 
> pcn> Paul 
> 
> 
> >> Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation.  Due to the
> >> unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more greenery and
> >> flowers than would be normal in the valley.
> >> 
> >> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
> >> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
> >> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
> >> 
> >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
> >> 
> >> Comments welcome
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Bruce
> >> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Bruce Dayton]

Must have been the wet spring, as this type of wildflower was all over
in Arches, Monument Valley and most everywhere else in that dry
climate.

-- 
Bruce


Thursday, July 28, 2005, 11:53:40 AM, you wrote:

pcn> Excellent. 
pcn> I haven't been to Monument Valley in quite a few years, but
pcn> I don't recall seeing any wildflowers there. I would guess it was
pcn> a wet spring, as it was in most of the southwest. 
pcn> Paul


>> Based upon Jack's cropping to remove the partial bloom and Paul's
>> comment, I have cloned it out and present it here.
>> 
>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508a.htm
>> 
>> I prefer this to the crop that Jack did as it just felt a bit too
>> tight for me.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> Thursday, July 28, 2005, 11:14:30 AM, you wrote:
>> 
>> pcn> Very nice. But I find that one lonely bud on the left
>> pcn> that's half out of frame to be quite disturbing. Half a minute
>> pcn> with the clone tool could solve that problem. Thanks for all the
>> pcn> Monument Valley pics I've enjoyed them. 
>> pcn> Paul 
>> 
>> 
>> >> Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation.  Due to the
>> >> unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more greenery and
>> >> flowers than would be normal in the valley.
>> >> 
>> >> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
>> >> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
>> >> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
>> >> 
>> >> Comments welcome
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Bruce
>> >> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Jim Hemenway]

Bruce:

Well worth the time it took to make the changes!

Jim




Based upon Jack's cropping to remove the partial bloom and Paul's
comment, I have cloned it out and present it here.

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508a.htm

I prefer this to the crop that Jack did as it just felt a bit too
tight for me.

--
Best regards,
Bruce

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Jack Davis]

Bruce,
I do like your more "open" cropping on the left (right
sides are 'prox the same). I cropped slightly more on
the left to off-set the (my) feeling of a tipping to
the left.
I don't care for the OOF lower base tangle and I
needed to take down the top so as to feel comfortable
with its balance.
I did an absolutely minimal bumping of contrast to
help separate the blossoms from the background. No
saturation increase.

Jack


--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Based upon Jack's cropping to remove the partial
> bloom and Paul's
> comment, I have cloned it out and present it here.
> 
>
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508a.htm
> 
> I prefer this to the crop that Jack did as it just
> felt a bit too
> tight for me.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Thursday, July 28, 2005, 11:14:30 AM, you wrote:
> 
> pcn> Very nice. But I find that one lonely bud on
> the left
> pcn> that's half out of frame to be quite
> disturbing. Half a minute
> pcn> with the clone tool could solve that problem.
> Thanks for all the
> pcn> Monument Valley pics I've enjoyed them. 
> pcn> Paul 
> 
> 
> >> Taken in Monument Valley of some of the
> vegetation.  Due to the
> >> unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were
> more greenery and
> >> flowers than would be normal in the valley.
> >> 
> >> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
> >> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
> >> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
> >> 
> >>
>
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
> >> 
> >> Comments welcome
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Bruce
> >> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

PESOs - Greece in Alaska

[Tom C]

From the recent Alaska trip.  This was on the road between Anchorage and 

Denali National Park.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581908

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581909

And to add a little context to the above shots:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581910

Tom C.

Re: PESOs - Greece in Alaska

[Jim Apilado]

Interesting image.  What was the structure?

Jim A.

> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:50:49 -0600
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: PESOs - Greece in Alaska
> Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:50:56 -0400
> 
> From the recent Alaska trip.  This was on the road between Anchorage and
> Denali National Park.
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581908
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581909
> 
> And to add a little context to the above shots:
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581910
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 

RE: contrast control flash question

[Jos from Holland]

The main thing is that the body must measure the light of the two flashes
independently.
Therefor one flash is fired and controled at the beginning of the time the
shutter is open (first curtain sync) and the second flash is fired and
controlled at the end of the open shutter time (second curtain sync) The
total shutter time must be long enough to allow the electronics to recover
from the first flash to control the second flash correctly.
Greetz, Jos

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Juey Chong Ong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:35 PM
> Aan: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Onderwerp: Re: contrast control flash question
>
>
> I thought the main thing in contrast control flash is that the RTF is
> told to fire at reduced power.
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2005, at 8:54 AM, Frank Wajer wrote:
>
> > simple question: how does the body (specifically MZ-5n) know that
> > you want contrast control flash and therefore use a flash speed of
> > 1/60 instead of 1/100.
>

Re: PESOs - Greece in Alaska

[Tom C]

To the best of my knowledge it was a closed down hotel or restaurant.  There 
is a defunct gas station to the left of the igloo.  It seems it could be a 
great money maker in the tourist season.  There's not any accomodations or a 
structure half that size in 50 miles either direction.


I imagine it being a restaurant, rustically decorated with skins and furs, 
with the upper floors being used for lodging.


Tom C.




From: Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: PESOs - Greece in Alaska
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:20:02 -0700

Interesting image.  What was the structure?

Jim A.

> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:50:49 -0600
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: PESOs - Greece in Alaska
> Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:50:56 -0400
>
> From the recent Alaska trip.  This was on the road between Anchorage and
> Denali National Park.
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581908
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581909
>
> And to add a little context to the above shots:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581910
>
> Tom C.
>
>

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Tim Øsleby]

Despite of what I've said earlier, about the camera being just a recorder,
not a very significant part of the photographic tools, I do believe the
answer to the title question is yes, a simple yes. Going digital has
improved my skill a lot. 

I am working hard on this, and for the hard working student I believe
digital photo is a better way of learning. On the other hand, I am not so
sure about P&S photographers. Going bazooka with the P&S without putting any
real effort into it prevents you from thinking, from analysing the process
and the result.

For me digital photo allows me to shoot a lot, without thinking of the
costs. But it doesn’t mean that I shoot faster, and stop analysing. 

What I've said before is nothing more than what others have stated before me
in this thread. Give me a moment or two, to substantiate my thesis from a
more professional (pedagogical) point of view. (I am a trained social
worker, with pedagogic processes as one of my specialities). My arguments
are based in behaviouristic psychological theory. 


One very important factor is the INSTANT FEEDBACK digital photo allows. 

(If you gets bored reading this, simply jump directly to the last paragraph,
or do something else)

Still reading? Ok. Let me give you an example illustrating the importance of
instant feedback: 
Some of you may have heard about "computer assisted learning". The most
known example of this concept is learning mathematics assisted by a computer
program. This is widely used in school, training slow learners. 
Basically they work like this: 
The computer presents a task for the student. The student suggests a
solution, and then the program responds. Right or wrong. Properly used those
programs are a great success. Why? 
If you look closely for an answer you will find two things most of these
programs have in common. 
1. They are pretty crappy ;-)
2. They give instant feedback to the user. 
There is little doubt about that the speed is the main success factor. The
best of these programs also have one other thing in common. The learning
curve is suitable for the student. At first it is easy, and gradually it
turns more and more difficult, but not too difficult. (If the student gets
to many "wrongs", he gets bored, feels like a looser, and his attention goes
elsewhere).

Guess you have already picked up my point here (if you haven’t, then I have
been a lousy teacher). Regarding the technical aspect the digital camera
gives me instant feedback. Every time I push the button, it gives me a
picture (as long as I have remembered to remove the lens cap). Most times
the picture looks ok at first glance. If I'm not so sure about the technical
quality, I simply push the info button. Viola, a histogram! I can push it
one more time to remind me how I got this picture on screen. 

When done I can push the info button one more time, evaluating the content
of the picture. I can see if the picture on screen is the same as the one I
had inside my head when pushing the release button. Some times they actually
do match. That makes me feel like a king. That makes me eager to go on. Most
times they don't match. I see something in the background that I didn’t see
in the first place. Or something else is wrong. Ok, then I tries one more
time. Perhaps I move one step to the right, or perhaps I open the aperture
to make the background out of focus. You have already got the idea. 
The first part of this process trains my technical skills. The last part
trains my eye and stimulates my mind (my most important photographic tools).


Gradually, as I get better, the success rate increases. And from my
experience it already has done that. A lot. 

The importance of rapid feedback when learning is well known among most
behaviourists. We learn by getting feedback on the things we do. And the
feedback has more impact when it comes directly/instantly. Let me try to
explain why. If your brain has been occupied with other things while waiting
for the feedback, then it is harder to connect your previous actions with
the feedback (the result of your action). 


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28. juli 2005 19:36
To: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

Hello Shel,

Certainly for me, what constitutes desired exposure is not exactly the
same for digital as it was for film.  Not having been one to have my
own lab when shooting film, I really relied on the consistancy of the
lab to produce from my exposures.

With digital, I am now my own lab (develop and process - not print).
So I am taking a deeper interest into the exposure issue than I did
with film.  Probably because I can do something about it and see more
directly the results of my exposure and processing.

I do agree that you will need a differe

Re: OT: Digital Camcorder Recommendation?

[Feroze]

If you have a lot of old Hi-8 cassettes lying around an option would be 
the Digital-8, cassettes aren't as expensive as the DV's
as you use Hi-8's except you get less time on it. Not a bad option for 
something that gives you up to 500 lines of horizontal resolution.

I've only used sony camcorders, but I recommend them without reservation.

Feroze


Paul Stenquist wrote:

I need a camcorder. My old Sharp VHS camera doesn't work any more, and 
I'm going to have to get some footage of grandchildren. I see there 
are DVD cameras and mini DV cameras. Are these state of the art. Which 
is better? What brand? Which model? Help!

Paul

Re: Cleaning Pentax-F lenses?

[cbwaters]

I'll send you my broken one for practice :)
CW
- Original Message - 
From: "John EW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Cleaning Pentax-F lenses?


Hi, I've just received a Pentax-F 35-135 smc  from Ebay that seems to have 
quite a bit of internal dust.


Is it difficult to dismantle these lenses for cleaning? - and, perhaps 
more to the point, is it difficult to get them back together properly?!


Any other less drastic suggestions for shifting dust on internal 
elements? - I've considered using compresed air - is this viable?


TIA





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 7/27/2005

on the road again aka "I'll be everywhere, man, I'll be everywhere"

[Ann Sanfedele]

I haven't even really been here - got a glimpse of
a couple of Peso's and
see that one W Robb won the 600 - I hope it gets
to him before I do (aug 10)
maybe he will let me take a few shots with it.

So here is the news of the day -
I head out on Sunday with a 2 month greyhound bus
pass to visit and impose upon friends and family
all across the USA and Canada - including an
overnight chez Paul Stenquist next week and 2
nights
chez Robb.  Hope to connect with Bay Area folk at
some point.

I will  have only 2 nights alone on the road where
i will have to shell out for a motel -
HOpe, BC and Weed, CA - Weed, Ca just being a kind
of pleasant mid-point between Portland and
Reno, where I need to be by the 19th of August for
the National Scrabble Championship - I'll be
staying there for about 8 to 10 days with friends
that live in Sparks.

I'll be off list for those two months but will
probably send a story or two in via list folk I'll
be
meeting up with along the way.

News of the day, though, is that in mid August the
letters of poet JAmes Wright will be published
by Farrar, straus & Giroux and 2 of those letters
are to me.  For those of you not inclined to
know American poets, Jim won the PUlitzer back in
72 and his son Franz won it last year.  Jim died
in 1980 - he was a good friend and his widow
remains so. I sold my entire correspondance with
him
(well, I kept 4 postcards and a few notes) to
finance this trip.

On the Scrabble scene, WORD WARS got nominated for
a EMMY!  This is under the documentary section, of
course.

And on the here I am in the theatre again, kind
of, on of the Scrabblers who is also a playright,
is having those of us with some background in
theatre do a reading of his play in Reno one night
so he can listen to it.  Because it is a reading I
get to play a 30 year old British sculptor and
my lover is being read by WORD WARS
director/producer ERic Chaikin - who is a little
more age appropriate for his role.  Should be fun!

ON the photo scene, a museum curator looked at my
book at the flea market a couple of weeks ago and
asked me to contact her in the fall more than
that I don't want to say - could be nothing could
be great.

I tried to see the LEE FRIEDLANDER show at the met
but couldnt hack the crowds so stood in the
bookstore and looked at all the stuff in the book
-- GREAT stuff - I love him... 

So now I'm off to Scrabble club - will stay on
list and hopefully actually get to read a bit of
it before I leave on Sunday afternoon and get off
list, but I'm still buried under last minute
chores.

Oh yeah, and in Sept I'll be in Chicago at my 50th
high school reunion
if any of you lot live in Chicago proper and could
put me up for 2 nights I would be very grateful...
my friend who I am staying with for all but those
2 nights lives near Waukegan.



annsan the travelin' fool

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Tom C]

Interesting analysis.  I agree mostly with the concepts but don't I believe 
there's enough cause/effect relationship to say that a digital camera makes 
one a better photographer.  I would say the answer to the question is still 
'No'. As you have alluded to, that's mostly up to the person behind the 
viewfinder.


I do believe that, even if one does not learn how to 'see' better, it allows 
the opportunity to correct a flaw noticed on the instant review and either 
make the correction or alter the perspective or composition.  Does that 
constitute being a 'better photographer'?


It may be true if applying a quantitative definition, but not necesarially a 
qualitative one.  Even a person that takes blase photographs, say a real 
estate agent, can use the camera in this manner to achieve a better success 
rate, but did it make them a better photographer?


Tom C.




From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:28:20 +0200

Despite of what I've said earlier, about the camera being just a recorder,
not a very significant part of the photographic tools, I do believe the
answer to the title question is yes, a simple yes. Going digital has
improved my skill a lot.





For me digital photo allows me to shoot a lot, without thinking of the
costs. But it doesn’t mean that I shoot faster, and stop analysing.

What I've said before is nothing more than what others have stated before 
me

in this thread. Give me a moment or two, to substantiate my thesis from a
more professional (pedagogical) point of view. (I am a trained social
worker, with pedagogic processes as one of my specialities). My arguments
are based in behaviouristic psychological theory.


One very important factor is the INSTANT FEEDBACK digital photo allows.





Guess you have already picked up my point here (if you haven’t, then I have
been a lousy teacher). Regarding the technical aspect the digital camera
gives me instant feedback. Every time I push the button, it gives me a
picture (as long as I have remembered to remove the lens cap). Most times
the picture looks ok at first glance. If I'm not so sure about the 
technical

quality, I simply push the info button. Viola, a histogram! I can push it
one more time to remind me how I got this picture on screen.

When done I can push the info button one more time, evaluating the content
of the picture. I can see if the picture on screen is the same as the one I
had inside my head when pushing the release button. Some times they 
actually
do match. That makes me feel like a king. That makes me eager to go on. 
Most

times they don't match. I see something in the background that I didn’t see
in the first place. Or something else is wrong. Ok, then I tries one more
time. Perhaps I move one step to the right, or perhaps I open the aperture
to make the background out of focus. You have already got the idea.
The first part of this process trains my technical skills. The last part
trains my eye and stimulates my mind (my most important photographic 
tools).



Gradually, as I get better, the success rate increases. And from my
experience it already has done that. A lot.

The importance of rapid feedback when learning is well known among most
behaviourists. We learn by getting feedback on the things we do. And the
feedback has more impact when it comes directly/instantly. Let me try to
explain why. If your brain has been occupied with other things while 
waiting

for the feedback, then it is harder to connect your previous actions with
the feedback (the result of your action).


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Re: PESOs - Greece in Alaska

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Tom,

I actually ike the context shot the best.  The scenery looks amazing
there.  Thanks for sharing this - an Alaska trip is on my to do list.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Thursday, July 28, 2005, 12:50:49 PM, you wrote:

TC> From the recent Alaska trip.  This was on the road between Anchorage and
TC> Denali National Park.

TC> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581908

TC> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581909

TC> And to add a little context to the above shots:

TC> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581910

TC> Tom C.

Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Cotty]

On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:

>(If you gets bored reading this, simply jump directly to the last paragraph,
>or do something else)

Mark!




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

PESO: emily and a new *istDS

[Derby Chang]

Haven't posted a PESO for a while, haven't had time to take many
pics. Snapshots can still be art(ful), I say.

Story: miss my last job because of the fun 'after-hours' social
sessions. Ex-workmate decided to part ways with that company recently.
The farewell was at a local Japanese restaurant, where much saki was
demolished. Like me, his present to himself on leaving was an *istDS.
Emily here is pictured playing with the new toy.

My old toy is wearing a K50/1.2, miraculously in focus after some number
of sakis. And since I was shooting wide open, bonus, had it on P and
didn't have to remember to press the AE button.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/PDML_misc/emily.htm

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

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Tim Øsleby]

> As you have alluded to, that's mostly up to the person behind the 
>viewfinder.
>
Yep


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28. juli 2005 22:54
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

Interesting analysis.  I agree mostly with the concepts but don't I believe 
there's enough cause/effect relationship to say that a digital camera makes 
one a better photographer.  I would say the answer to the question is still 
'No'. As you have alluded to, that's mostly up to the person behind the 
viewfinder.

I do believe that, even if one does not learn how to 'see' better, it allows

the opportunity to correct a flaw noticed on the instant review and either 
make the correction or alter the perspective or composition.  Does that 
constitute being a 'better photographer'?

It may be true if applying a quantitative definition, but not necesarially a

qualitative one.  Even a person that takes blase photographs, say a real 
estate agent, can use the camera in this manner to achieve a better success 
rate, but did it make them a better photographer?

Tom C.



>From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>To: 
>Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:28:20 +0200
>
>Despite of what I've said earlier, about the camera being just a recorder,
>not a very significant part of the photographic tools, I do believe the
>answer to the title question is yes, a simple yes. Going digital has
>improved my skill a lot.
>

>
>For me digital photo allows me to shoot a lot, without thinking of the
>costs. But it doesn’t mean that I shoot faster, and stop analysing.
>
>What I've said before is nothing more than what others have stated before 
>me
>in this thread. Give me a moment or two, to substantiate my thesis from a
>more professional (pedagogical) point of view. (I am a trained social
>worker, with pedagogic processes as one of my specialities). My arguments
>are based in behaviouristic psychological theory.
>
>
>One very important factor is the INSTANT FEEDBACK digital photo allows.
>

>
>Guess you have already picked up my point here (if you haven’t, then I have
>been a lousy teacher). Regarding the technical aspect the digital camera
>gives me instant feedback. Every time I push the button, it gives me a
>picture (as long as I have remembered to remove the lens cap). Most times
>the picture looks ok at first glance. If I'm not so sure about the 
>technical
>quality, I simply push the info button. Viola, a histogram! I can push it
>one more time to remind me how I got this picture on screen.
>
>When done I can push the info button one more time, evaluating the content
>of the picture. I can see if the picture on screen is the same as the one I
>had inside my head when pushing the release button. Some times they 
>actually
>do match. That makes me feel like a king. That makes me eager to go on. 
>Most
>times they don't match. I see something in the background that I didn’t see
>in the first place. Or something else is wrong. Ok, then I tries one more
>time. Perhaps I move one step to the right, or perhaps I open the aperture
>to make the background out of focus. You have already got the idea.
>The first part of this process trains my technical skills. The last part
>trains my eye and stimulates my mind (my most important photographic 
>tools).
>
>
>Gradually, as I get better, the success rate increases. And from my
>experience it already has done that. A lot.
>
>The importance of rapid feedback when learning is well known among most
>behaviourists. We learn by getting feedback on the things we do. And the
>feedback has more impact when it comes directly/instantly. Let me try to
>explain why. If your brain has been occupied with other things while 
>waiting
>for the feedback, then it is harder to connect your previous actions with
>the feedback (the result of your action).
>
>
>Tim
>Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)
>

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Tim Øsleby]

Cotty. 
Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-)
I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark
at this list), or what?
You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain
Norwegian).


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28. juli 2005 23:02
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:

>(If you gets bored reading this, simply jump directly to the last
paragraph,
>or do something else)

Mark!




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Cleaning Pentax-F lenses?

[John EW]

- Original Message - 
From: "Powell Hargrave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Cleaning Pentax-F lenses?



This may help:
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/70-210.htm

Powell



Aghh!! - many thanks for that link!, I think I'll give it a 
miss, though   (I especially liked the part about heating up the fixing 
screws to 450 degrees!)


*Please*  tell me that people have success with tins of compressed 
air! 

Re: PESOs - Greece in Alaska

[Tom C]

Hmmm... :0  It was an interesting place and it's very very hard, at least 
where we went, to not find photo worthy subjects.  Thanks.


Tom C.




From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Tom C 
Subject: Re: PESOs - Greece in Alaska
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:59:31 -0700

Hello Tom,

I actually ike the context shot the best.  The scenery looks amazing
there.  Thanks for sharing this - an Alaska trip is on my to do list.

--
Best regards,
Bruce


Thursday, July 28, 2005, 12:50:49 PM, you wrote:

TC> From the recent Alaska trip.  This was on the road between Anchorage 
and

TC> Denali National Park.

TC> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581908

TC> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581909

TC> And to add a little context to the above shots:

TC> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3581910

TC> Tom C.

RE: PESO Picnic

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Scott ...

Just what, exactly, don't you like about the photo?

How does the slide look projected or viewed on a light table?

Is this a scan directly from the slide?  If so, what scanner did you use? 
How much of what you dislike may have been a result of the lens, how much
the film (I've heard it said that Sensia tends towards a soft, less sharp
image - never tried it m'self), how much the processing, and how much the
post processing?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Scott Loveless 
>
> This photo was taken a little over a month ago at Cowan's Gap State
> Park near Ft. Loudon, PA.  This is from my first ever roll of chrome. 
> Sensia 400, *ist, and the infamous FA28-90/3.5-5.6.  I've heard others
> voice rather negative opinions about this lens before, but I never
> really noticed just how bad it is until I got my slides back from the
> processor.
>
> http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=132
>
> I have since started shooting Sensia 100 with prime lenses and am
> looking forward to getting those back to do a little comparison.

Re: K15mm for House Interiors

[Mishka]

i did that when i had one, and found no difference whatsoever. i wold be curious
to see your results.

best,
mishka

On 7/28/05, Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I think I am going to run a damn test this w/e with and without the
> filter. I should have done that in the first place, eh?
> 
> Chris
> 
>

Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tim Øsleby"

Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?



Bill.
Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are 
saying,

is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
photographer who shoots wildly, and has stopped reflecting". Am I right
about this? If not, please do ignore this friendly intended post.


Only with the digital, but yes. I don't really bother to differentiate much 
between worthwhile and otherwise with the digital. I figure I got it in my 
sights, I may as well shoot at it.

Well exposed, questionably composed dreck.
BTW, has anyone found that since they pretty much stopped shooting film, 
they have more funds available for gear?

Thats a benefit.
But I digress.



Between the lines I also read that you blame your new digital tools. If my
interpretation of your statements are correct, then let me freely (not to
freely I hope) say that you have got it totally wrong.


For the past two years, I have shot pretty much entirely digital. I shot a 
few rolls of 35mm chrome last September, a few rolls of print film because I 
needed some wide angle stuff, and one roll on the 6x7, of a large family 
group.

And some 9000 digital exposures.
With film, I don't think I have ever shot much more than a thousand 
exposures a year for myself, most of it large format B&W, or 6x7 B&W, and a 
smattering of other stuff, either slide or print in whatever 35mm camera was 
at hand.
Film demands a time investment from me. It's not something I drop off at the 
lab. For that reason, I watch what I shoot, when I shoot film.
With no time commitment after the fact, there is no constraint on not 
shooting the picture. I am there, it's in my sights, why not?

But it's not good photography, for sure.




Photography is craftsmanship, and sometimes (a tiny bit of) art. And a
craftsman needs to keep his tools sharp.

As a photographer, digital or not, you have a set of tools. One of the 
tools

is the camera. The camera is (if it manual), a simple recorder. In other
words, it is memory, no more, no less. Whether it is digital or film does
not matter. It still is memory. If it's automatic, it is also a meter 
(like

a carpenters meter), and a calculator. Nothing more, nothing less.


Theres where you and I don't agree. Film and memory is different. Film 
requires a bigger commitment of time for me, since I am my own lab.

This changes how I feel about the medium.
I can pull the trigger or not. There are no consequences, one way or the 
other. The shutter clicks, the image is captured, made into a prisoner, or 
worse, is "saved" as an ephemeral non thing, it's salvation often leading to 
it's own destruction, when it is summarily executed for being in some way 
corrupt, not worthy of being saved.




But the main tool is you,


Now you are calling me names (hi from WW).

To me it looks like you have become obsessed with the

least important parts of your equipment, the stuff, "your enablement's",
your Limited, your LX, your D, your Lditt, your MZdatt.



You're probably right, but it's something to do with my photo hobby budget 
while I'm not spending gobs of money on film and paper.




Back to the carpenter: Imagine him saying
"I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, 
I

think the Stanley Digital Laser-Meter has, if anything, made me a worse
carpenter".
What would your reactions be? Do you really think his brand new beeping
meter was to blame?


It might well be.
Sometimes these gizmos aren't all they are cranked up to be.


William Robb

Re: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Herb Chong]

i have three 100% identical copies of my digital images at almost all times 
and at physically disparate locations. i have one copy of my film images 
plus scans of the most important ones. those scans are triplicated since 
they are on the same media as the rest of my digital images. my slides from 
the '70's, although properly stored, are slowly gathering dust and other 
things. after 50 years, even in ideal conditions, the colors will be 
shifting because the dyes are fading. i see my entire collection of digital 
images having a much higher probability of being usable 100 years from now 
than any film image. if they are usable at all, they will be 100% as fresh 
as the day i took them. i don't need any special viewer for my slides, but i 
need one for my digital images.


Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)



Yet I know my slides from the early 70s are OK. What I want is digital
flexibility and film storage certainties. All this proves is that a
photographer can have it all and, darn it, it's still not enough!!

Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Cotty]

On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-)
>I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark
>at this list), or what?
>You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain
>Norwegian).

Mark Roberts collects quotes from the list each year and publishes them
as a Christmas treat. I'm merely one of his little elves helpfully
pointing out some candidates :-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)

[Herb Chong]

one of JFK's photographer's estate lost his entire archive because they were 
stored in a World Trade Center vault. the only thing left are the contact 
sheets because they were sent to a friend.


Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Womer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)



The only certainty involved with film is that you will
be able to view the image, somehow.  What makes me
nervous about film is that I have about 10,000 slides
in a closet.  A burst pipe or a fire and they're gone,
with no backups.

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Herb Chong]

you know, Bruce, you might not be able to make as much money as a landscape 
and nature photographer, but the hours are easier and there's a lot less 
stress.


Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: PESO - Pairs



Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation.  Due to the
unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more greenery and
flowers than would be normal in the valley.

Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
Converted from Raw using Capture One LE

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm

RE: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

[william sawyer]

Paul,

B&H has it on their site, or at least did, at about $5700. I think list is
$7700.  I paid $2400 for mine two years ago through KEH.

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:56 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: A* 600 f5.6 on Ebay - won by warobb

Bill is indeed a Pentaxian saint. He's singlehandedly upping the market
value of Pentax glass. Does anyone know what this lens sold for new?


> Angel Ramos  discombobulated, unleashed
> 
> He has become a Pentaxian saint now, after this major enablement. Wait 
> and see until he get this Major Glass Beast.  Hmm, which makes me think 
> that he will look for the FA * 600 ( if he does not have it yet!) for 
> pairing it with two nice bodies, and repeat the torture he comitted by 
> sending the "I suck" mail,  by taking a nice picture and show it to us 
> to make us cry again just like his last Limited's picture.  Robb You 
> Suck! ;-)
> 
> Angel Ramos
> Arecibo, Puerto Rico
> 
> >
> 

Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[P. J. Alling]

Little???

Cotty wrote:


On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:

 


Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-)
I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark
at this list), or what?
You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain
Norwegian).
   



Mark Roberts collects quotes from the list each year and publishes them
as a Christmas treat. I'm merely one of his little elves helpfully
pointing out some candidates :-)




Cheers,
 Cotty


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




 




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Tim Øsleby]

Bill. 
Now I think do understand better your feelings about digital. You used to
spend a lot of time in the lab. That’s a lot of work, under poor working
conditions. I have processed some films, so I know that. 

But mostly I shoot slides, and did not process them myself. I framed them
yes, but I used simple CS frames, and the bin took care of the bad shot,
directly. 

For me digital is different. At least now in the beginner face. I spend more
time looking at the bad shoots before binning them. I also spend a lot of
time converting, trying to tweak the most out of them. So for me, most of
the shots represent work after shooting. And that gives me a completely
different perspective.

For some reason this makes me think of fishing. Some fishers takes care of
the fish after fishing, others leaves that part to the wife. I would say
that only the first category is real fishers. 

Apparently this is totally OT. But if it’s true, then digital has turned me
into a real photographer ;-)


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 29. juli 2005 00:45
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?


- Original Message - 
From: "Tim Øsleby"
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?


> Bill.
> Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are 
> saying,
> is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
> photographer who shoots wildly, and has stopped reflecting". Am I right
> about this? If not, please do ignore this friendly intended post.

Only with the digital, but yes. I don't really bother to differentiate much 
between worthwhile and otherwise with the digital. I figure I got it in my 
sights, I may as well shoot at it.
Well exposed, questionably composed dreck.
BTW, has anyone found that since they pretty much stopped shooting film, 
they have more funds available for gear?
Thats a benefit.
But I digress.

>
> Between the lines I also read that you blame your new digital tools. If my
> interpretation of your statements are correct, then let me freely (not to
> freely I hope) say that you have got it totally wrong.

For the past two years, I have shot pretty much entirely digital. I shot a 
few rolls of 35mm chrome last September, a few rolls of print film because I

needed some wide angle stuff, and one roll on the 6x7, of a large family 
group.
And some 9000 digital exposures.
With film, I don't think I have ever shot much more than a thousand 
exposures a year for myself, most of it large format B&W, or 6x7 B&W, and a 
smattering of other stuff, either slide or print in whatever 35mm camera was

at hand.
Film demands a time investment from me. It's not something I drop off at the

lab. For that reason, I watch what I shoot, when I shoot film.
With no time commitment after the fact, there is no constraint on not 
shooting the picture. I am there, it's in my sights, why not?
But it's not good photography, for sure.


>
> Photography is craftsmanship, and sometimes (a tiny bit of) art. And a
> craftsman needs to keep his tools sharp.
>
> As a photographer, digital or not, you have a set of tools. One of the 
> tools
> is the camera. The camera is (if it manual), a simple recorder. In other
> words, it is memory, no more, no less. Whether it is digital or film does
> not matter. It still is memory. If it's automatic, it is also a meter 
> (like
> a carpenters meter), and a calculator. Nothing more, nothing less.

Theres where you and I don't agree. Film and memory is different. Film 
requires a bigger commitment of time for me, since I am my own lab.
This changes how I feel about the medium.
I can pull the trigger or not. There are no consequences, one way or the 
other. The shutter clicks, the image is captured, made into a prisoner, or 
worse, is "saved" as an ephemeral non thing, it's salvation often leading to

it's own destruction, when it is summarily executed for being in some way 
corrupt, not worthy of being saved.

>
> But the main tool is you,

Now you are calling me names (hi from WW).

 To me it looks like you have become obsessed with the
> least important parts of your equipment, the stuff, "your enablement's",
> your Limited, your LX, your D, your Lditt, your MZdatt.


You're probably right, but it's something to do with my photo hobby budget 
while I'm not spending gobs of money on film and paper.

>
> Back to the carpenter: Imagine him saying
> "I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, 
> I
> think the Stanley Digital Laser-Meter has, if anything, made me a worse
> carpenter".
> What would your reactions be? Do you really think his brand new beeping
> meter was to blame?

It might well be.
Sometimes these gizmos aren't all they are cranked u

Let's give Frank a nickname (was Re: PESO: NInja (Redux))

[Butch Black]

frank theriault wrote:


As far as nicknames, no I don't have one.


Rabbit.

Tom Reese

I think we should start a contest to give Frank a nickname. Keeping in mind 
the nicknames of his friends (Pirate Jenny, Ninja, Porno) my suggestion 
is.



.Walter Mitty



Butch
in GD&R mode 

Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Herb Chong]

you know, like Little John.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?



Little???

Re: Totally, completely OT but too good to pass up

[John Coyle]

Hilarious! having been in retail once, and also having taught computer 
subjects, it rang a lot of bells for me.

Apocryphal computer training story:
Trainer: "Now press any key."
Trainee, after five minutes of searching the keyboard: "I can't find the any 
key".


Arrgh!

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:55 PM
Subject: Totally, completely OT but too good to pass up



Acts of Gord
http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
Don't go there unless you have some time to spare...

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

RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

[Tim Øsleby]

I understand. 

Now I wonder, being a candidate for Marks Christmas treat, is that good or
is it bad??? ;-)


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 29. juli 2005 01:04
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-)
>I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some
Mark
>at this list), or what?
>You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain
>Norwegian).

Mark Roberts collects quotes from the list each year and publishes them
as a Christmas treat. I'm merely one of his little elves helpfully
pointing out some candidates :-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO - Pairs

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Herb,

I'm listening...Can you tell me some of the ways in which you can make
money?  Mostly stock, or are there other venues as well?

Certainly was enjoyable on this last trip - it was really geared for
photos rather than just site seeing with some grabs.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Thursday, July 28, 2005, 4:06:38 PM, you wrote:

HC> you know, Bruce, you might not be able to make as much money as a landscape
HC> and nature photographer, but the hours are easier and there's a lot less
HC> stress.

HC> Herb
HC> - Original Message - 
HC> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HC> To: 
HC> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:16 PM
HC> Subject: PESO - Pairs


>> Taken in Monument Valley of some of the vegetation.  Due to the
>> unusually wet spring, I suspect that there were more greenery and
>> flowers than would be normal in the valley.
>>
>> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
>> ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6
>> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
>>
>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0508.htm
>>

Re: PAW PESO - Shine Stand

[Albano Garcia]

Wow! I like it a lot, really nice tonality,
composition, facial expression. The only thing I find
is it looks a bit like a gentlemen cloths ad, a la
Yves  Saint Laurent. You know, it rocks, but doesn't
look "documentary". I hope you don't get me wrong.
Regards

Albano


--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is the second in a series of photos I will be
> putting up documenting a
> few minutes in the day of three gentlemen who ran a
> shoe shine stand in San
> Francisco.  The first went up some time ago.
> 
> I hope this looks OK as I'm limping along on an
> uncalibrated, older monitor.
> 
> Details:  Spottie, Super Tak 50/1.4, Tri-X, D-76
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/shine2.html
> 
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> 


Albano Garcia
Photography & Graphic Design
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
http://www.flaneur.albanogarcia.com.ar
 
 

 







Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs