RE: Name that lens!
Sounds like I did OK at $103.20 delivered, but yours in unbelievable. If the case has earflaps inside it's identical to my AF200t case, at least in design. Yours is probably 280t size. Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:36 PM To: 'J. C. O'Connell'; pentax discuss Subject: RE: Name that lens! one other thing that made this auction so unique and other worldly, the lens came in and is shown with a funky super thin vinyl square case! This one really takes the cake for oddball auction doesn't it? I love it in so many ways. It's really one for the archives, I'd say. anybody have a clue what that case was really for? JCO -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:10 PM To: 'J. C. O'Connell'; pentax discuss Subject: RE: Name that lens! I forgot to mention, the one guy who asked a question asked if it was a non-existant lens (135mm F2.8 SMC-M) and the sellers answer was just as clueless, especially the lens speed: F2.51135 (hehe) this was one hell of a funny auction for me! especially the part about it being made by Butler Creek Corp, Jackson Hole, Wyoming! (hehe) JCO -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:27 PM To: pentax discuss; JCO Subject: Name that lens! Ended Auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=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 -- --
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/ Shel
Re: OT film processing
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
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
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!
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
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? g 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
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
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!
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!
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
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 g, 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=3579336size=lg Comments are welcome! thanks, frank
RE: introduction
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
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
Hi Ivan. Pull up a stool. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: introduction
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
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? g Gautam
Re: Name that lens!
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. vbg Good one, JCO! cheers, frank
Re: OT: Digital Camcorder Recommendation?
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 :-) http://www.shortcourses.com/video/chapter02.htm HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: PESO: Brand New Bike
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
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
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)
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 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)
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
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=3579336size=lg PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)
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
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: PESO: Friday Morning on the Brooklyn Bridge
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)
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 BW 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
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?
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)
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
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
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)
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
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
Bill bought it for less than 1/2 of the current BH 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)
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
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, BH 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 BH 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
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 pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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 g, 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=3579336size=lg Comments are welcome! thanks, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Name that lens!
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?ViewItemitem=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
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
- 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?
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 thats 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
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
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?
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 BW film. Shel [Original Message] From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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
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
- 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
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?
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 BW film. SB Shel
RE: Paw. GFM Pic #10. IR #2
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
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?
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 BW film. Shel [Original Message] From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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?
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?
I said nothing about being less cognizant of the light ... working with conventional BW 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
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?
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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?
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 PS photographers. Going bazooka with the PS 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 doesnt 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 havent, 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 didnt 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 different
Re: OT: Digital Camcorder Recommendation?
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?
I'll send you my broken one for practice :) CW - Original Message - From: John EW [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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?
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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. snip For me digital photo allows me to shoot a lot, without thinking of the costs. But it doesnt 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. snip Guess you have already picked up my point here (if you havent, 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 didnt 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
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?
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
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?
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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. snip For me digital photo allows me to shoot a lot, without thinking of the costs. But it doesnt 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. snip Guess you have already picked up my point here (if you havent, 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 didnt 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?
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?
- Original Message - From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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 pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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
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?
- 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 BW, or 6x7 BW, 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)
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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?
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)
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
Paul, BH 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?
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?
Bill. Now I think do understand better your feelings about digital. You used to spend a lot of time in the lab. Thats 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 its 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 BW, or 6x7 BW, 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
Let's give Frank a nickname (was Re: PESO: NInja (Redux))
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 GDR mode
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
you know, like Little John. Herb - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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?
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
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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
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
Re: Storing digital images (Was: RAW file processing)
On Jul 28, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote: ... Yet I know my slides from the early 70s are OK. What I want is digital flexibility and film storage certainties. ... I've lost far more of film photographs then I have of digital photographs through deterioration/failure of the media. Matter of fact, I've retrieved more of my old film photographs through use of digital means than I ever could through reprinting the now long- departed or damaged negatives/slides. I think the certainties you speak of are far from reality. Godfrey
