Major UK Store Scraps Film Cameras

[Cotty]

Dixons, a major high street electronics and photo retailer in the UK has
pulled the plug on restocking 35mm film cameras from its branches once
current stocks have gone.






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: What inspired you?

[John Coyle]

See below:

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

To: 
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 3:49 AM
Subject: RE: What inspired you?


I am concerned that what they have taken will be lost. I already know 
people

that have put memory cards in the rubbish by mistake and formatted hard
drives with 18 months worth of family pictures. The old pack of prints and
negs that gets tucked away in a drawer and forgotten has a much better
survival prospect. A lot of social history for the future will be lost
because so many will not recognise the importance of backing images up 
until

it's too late; the culture of losing a print and still having the negative
is still set in stone. If you read camera magazines or you're part of a
mailing list this is old old news. If you take a few pictures a week with
your P&S, recording whatever hobby etc that does interest you, and months
pass and you have a computer crash or whatever, it's a tough way to learn.

Malcolm




Even those who know the risks can get caught out: I spoke to Ryan today, and 
he has lost all but 20 of the pictures he's taken since March due to two 
hard drive failures!

I'm even more glad I use both Cd's and HD's for storage...

Re: Bob Shell?

[Cotty]

On 7/8/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:

>http://www.bobshell.com/update.html

Also:






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: OT - Mac users help please

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed:

>The snap-back icon appears on the right-hand side of Safari's Google  
>search box, after you've followed a link from the results.  When you  
>click on it, Safari instantly goes back to the search results.

Thanks Dave - got it. That's useful.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: OT: Bob Shell?

[Cotty]

On 7/8/05, keithw, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I think we have more than a few people here that know "The Bob Shell Story."
>I've forgotten it!
>Anyhow, I went to join a list he used to head up, and wondered what ever 
>happened to him, and his association with Shutterbug.
>
>Can anyone help fill me in?

Try this:






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Countdown to the Dream Cruise

[Cotty]

On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Good eye, pal.

He in this thread?  ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Countdown to the Dream Cruise

[Cotty]

BTW, nice shot Paul. As a petrol-head, cars fascinate me.



Cheers,
  Cotty


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

RE: Major UK Store Scraps Film Cameras

[Malcolm Smith]

Cotty wrote:

> Dixons, a major high street electronics and photo retailer in 
> the UK has pulled the plug on restocking 35mm film cameras 
> from its branches once current stocks have gone.
> 
> 

Saw that on the news this morning, they were the first to pull out of video
recorders too.

Malcolm

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Cotty]

On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

>The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known 
>would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight 
>embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 
>50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame.
>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307&size=lg

Hi Paul,

This might make me a bit unpopular, but I certainly don't hate it. It
catches an interesting moment, and although there are some distracting
elements like the back end of the car and the plant behind a head, I
certainly don't find it offensive or insensitive. (BTW I wouldn't have
said that was a look of embarrassment on the woman on the left. I think
she's comfortable enough). Yeah, nice catch.

My approach to street photography does not involve long lenses. I prefer
to use a wider lens and get closer. This doesn't mean I wave a camera in
my subject's faces - sometimes I do, and they don't notice, or sometimes
I shoot from the hip, composing with a remote eye. I think longer lenses
have their place on the street, but I find that I am eyed with greater
suspicion when using a longer lens on the street. In fact, with a wide-
angle, subjects often don't realise they're in the frame when I'm
shooting - can be an advantage. Sorry, rambling.

Photography evokes emotion. Some pics make us feel uncomfortable, some
don't. My pornography might be your erotic image. My medical studies
might be your gruesome crash pics. People react in a multitude of ways to
the same image.

Look at comedians. There are some extremely popular comics about, but
when I have a look to see what all the fuss is about, I wonder how anyone
could find such banal chit-chat populated with vulgar profanity the
slightest bit amusing. Yet, my sense of humour includes subject matter
that I would suspect many people on this list would find revolting.

As my wife often reminds me, if we were all the same it would be a boring
place :-)






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: What inspired you?

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed:

> I spoke to Ryan today, and 
>he has lost all but 20 of the pictures he's taken since March due to two 
>hard drive failures!

Yo Ry, that big Canon slowing you down a bit?




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Paul Stenquist]

It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated, 
the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the 
fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not 
a particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in 
general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm 
concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face 
focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of 
the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list. 
People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy? 
The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I 
should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed, 
why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere 
near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous 
shot of the obese woman in the restaurant.

Paul
On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:


Hi!

The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known 
would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight 
embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 
50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307&size=lg


Paul, I realize I wasn't there at the time of you clicking the 
shutter... Still, I think the point of view you chose is wrong. If 
possible, such a view is probably better recorded somewhere from 
behind the person on the left... I think that in this case, the most 
priceless expression is that of a woman whose rear we're seeing... 
Coupled with the facial expression of expecting mother could've been 
quite amazing...


As it is, I should sigh silently and join Shel and others... This one 
I dislike and furthermore, seeing that it could've been easily (or not 
so easily) improved makes me sigh once more...


My pixels worth.

Boris

Costco now selling Canon 1-D Mark II

[Paul Stenquist]

Costco is now showing this camera on their e-mail bargain sheet for 
$3899. That's the best price I've seen on it. It's an unusual item for 
this big box store. But then again, they have surprised me before with 
big-ticket good stuff.

Paul

Re: Work Flow Question

[David Lacina]

Maybe this program could be useful?

http://www.proshooters.com/

David.

RE: Costco now selling Canon 1-D Mark II

[william sawyer]

They have some pretty good prices on Flash cards, too, Paaul.

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:01 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Costco now selling Canon 1-D Mark II

Costco is now showing this camera on their e-mail bargain sheet for 
$3899. That's the best price I've seen on it. It's an unusual item for 
this big box store. But then again, they have surprised me before with 
big-ticket good stuff.
Paul

Re: Costco now selling Canon 1-D Mark II

[Paul Stenquist]

Yes, I picked up an extra card when I was there a few weeks ago. How 
are you doing with digital, Bill? Are  you like it? Shooting a lot? 
Still shooting film as well? Inquiring minds want to know?

Paul
On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:06 AM, william sawyer wrote:


They have some pretty good prices on Flash cards, too, Paaul.

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:01 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Costco now selling Canon 1-D Mark II

Costco is now showing this camera on their e-mail bargain sheet for
$3899. That's the best price I've seen on it. It's an unusual item for
this big box store. But then again, they have surprised me before with
big-ticket good stuff.
Paul

RE: Malakoff Rockfestival

[Tim Øsleby]

Thank you for the kind words John. 
But I can't really take much credit for the colour balance. You can't
compare these shots with your own directly. This is at an outdoor stage,
with mixed light. All shots displayed here, except imgp2939.jpg, are before
sunset, with a tiny bit of daylight. 




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: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 7. august 2005 23:09
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Malakoff Rockfestival

I think you've done very well, and without using grainy b&w!.  My own  
attempts at shooting a rock musician friend weren't nearly as successful.   
I find it very hard to get good colour balance, but you have succeeded.

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:00:18 +0100, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Just a link to give you a hint of what I've done during my weekend.
>
> http://malakoff.no/index.php?sid=75&cmd=1&aid=35
>
> It is a two days event with 16 Norwegian bands. I joined at day two. We
> where a team of three photographers, shooting wild. We shot jpg, and  
> loaded
> them directly into a laptop. No time for tweaking. Even though I had  
> trouble
> with my back/leg (sciatica trouble, Codeine kept me going) it was great  
> fun.
>
>
> The selection is made by a web man. The pictures with file name imgp are
> mine. When writing this post mine is the 18 pictures at bottom of page.  
> Most
> of my pictures he has selected is pretty mediocre. I hope the web man  
> will
> select some other pictures, he has left out my best shots.
>
> Despite of this I do submit the link, as a comment to the threads on  
> stage
> shooting. All pictures are shot handheld, most of them using a monopod.  
> The
> monopod is half ejected, placed standing in lens holder placed in my  
> belt.
> This is pretty stable, but allows me to move fast in crowds. Most of the
> close-ups are shot with my "new" VS1 70-210, mostly manual focus, but my
> 1,7x AF converter also was handy. The rest is with the fast normal zooms
> from Sigma/Tamron, mostly using AF (rock musicians at large stages tend  
> to
> move fast and unpredictable).
>
> Comments?
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[John Forbes]

In my view the centre woman's rump detracts from an otherwise good picture  
of a nice moment.


Why?

It does have a slightly voyeuristic quality, and I suspect the subject  
might not have consented to the picture if she had known about it.  She  
might not be happy seeing it on the web.


I'm not sure that's a sufficent reason for not taking the picture, but, as  
I say, it is a negative factor.


I do think some of the adverse comments have been overly harsh.

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:56:54 +0100, Paul Stenquist  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated,  
the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the  
fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not a  
particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in  
general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm  
concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face  
focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of  
the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list.  
People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy?  
The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I  
should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed,  
why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere  
near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous  
shot of the obese woman in the restaurant.

Paul
On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:


Hi!

The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known  
would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight  
embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA  
50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307&size=lg


Paul, I realize I wasn't there at the time of you clicking the  
shutter... Still, I think the point of view you chose is wrong. If  
possible, such a view is probably better recorded somewhere from behind  
the person on the left... I think that in this case, the most priceless  
expression is that of a woman whose rear we're seeing... Coupled with  
the facial expression of expecting mother could've been quite amazing...


As it is, I should sigh silently and join Shel and others... This one I  
dislike and furthermore, seeing that it could've been easily (or not so  
easily) improved makes me sigh once more...


My pixels worth.

Boris










--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: PAW - Not a bike messenger

[Pancho Hasselbach]

Hi,

nice shot, Boris.
Quite different from Frank's latest cyclist shots ;-)

Of course, it's a matter of training shotting without viewfinder. I've 
been doing that for many years, starting with a Kodak Retina IIIc I got 
from my grandfather. With it's leaf shutter, it's areal stealth camera.


One of my later enablements is a waist level finder for my LX, it's not 
very good for precise focussing from the hip, but it works great for the 
rough framing. As a former woodworker, I've still got some practice in 
estimating lengths and distances  - very useful in photography, now.

One of the many reasons why I still don't see a real alternative to the LX.

Pancho


Boris Liberman schrieb:


Hi!


Nice scene, however, using the viewfinder would have allowed for a better
composition.  Glad you're having fun with your "belly cam."



Shel, one of the things I want to learn is to be able to aim my camera 
with a reasonable precision without looking in the viewfinder. I've done 
it few time with my daughter, but those photos will remain in our family 
album ;-)...


This focal length seems quite right and even with FOV(1.5) applied, it 
is less demanding than say, 50 mm.


I must admit, I so much like my 43 Lim, that I am thinking of selling 
both 50/1.4 and FA 50/1.7...


Boris

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Paul Stenquist]

To me, whether or not a subject might have consented to a photo becomes 
a mute issue once that moment has passed. My only reservation about the 
woman's backside is that it seems to be a distraction for some. I never 
gave it a second thought. What if she were facing the camera and we saw 
the shape of her breasts? Would that be equally objectionable? I'm not 
angered by the response that this has provoked, but I am curious. To 
me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. And 
if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more 
pleasant.

Paul
On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:58 AM, John Forbes wrote:

In my view the centre woman's rump detracts from an otherwise good 
picture of a nice moment.


Why?

It does have a slightly voyeuristic quality, and I suspect the subject 
might not have consented to the picture if she had known about it.  
She might not be happy seeing it on the web.


I'm not sure that's a sufficent reason for not taking the picture, 
but, as I say, it is a negative factor.


I do think some of the adverse comments have been overly harsh.

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:56:54 +0100, Paul Stenquist 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even 
hesitated, the moment would have been lost. However, as a 
composition, I like the fact that the woman in the center is framed 
by the other two. It's not a particularly artful composition, but 
it's certainly a pleasing one in general. Only the business of the 
background detracts as far as I'm concerned. I also like the fact 
that not seeing the center woman's face focuses us on the joy of the 
mother and the apparent embarrassment of the other woman. An emotion 
which is obviously mirrored on the list. People tap dance around what 
they find objectionable here? Pregnancy? The flip side of a human 
being? Shel noted that this is a moment I should have enjoyed without 
shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed, why is it objectionable to 
share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere near as invasive, or, in my 
opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous shot of the obese woman in 
the restaurant.

Paul
On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:


Hi!

The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself 
known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight 
embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 
50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307&size=lg


Paul, I realize I wasn't there at the time of you clicking the 
shutter... Still, I think the point of view you chose is wrong. If 
possible, such a view is probably better recorded somewhere from 
behind the person on the left... I think that in this case, the most 
priceless expression is that of a woman whose rear we're seeing... 
Coupled with the facial expression of expecting mother could've been 
quite amazing...


As it is, I should sigh silently and join Shel and others... This 
one I dislike and furthermore, seeing that it could've been easily 
(or not so easily) improved makes me sigh once more...


My pixels worth.

Boris










--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Derby Chang]

Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled. Lindy 
and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the 
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were 
playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff. Both 
bands did a VU cover each. Ah well, here's what I thought were ok from 
the night.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm

3200 grain rules.

D


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

Re: Depth of Field with Digital SLRs

[Mark Roberts]

Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Incidentally, am I the only one who misses the depth of field markings on 
>the newer lenses? ;)

No you're not.

It wouldn't be difficult for camera makers to build a DOF calculator
into a camera and have a digital display of the DOF 9for the current
focal length and aperture settings) on the rear-panel LCD. Minolta
actually did this for one of their film SLR's.


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

RE: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Don Sanderson]

Derby, there are some really great shots there!
The only problem I have is that the page won't scroll for me.
I can't see the full frame of most of them.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:16 AM
> To: Pentax Discuss
> Subject: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes
> 
> 
> 
> Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled. Lindy 
> and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the 
> Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were 
> playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff. Both 
> bands did a VU cover each. Ah well, here's what I thought were ok from 
> the night.
> 
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm
> 
> 3200 grain rules.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> -- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
> 
> 

Re: Bob Shell?

[keithw]

Powell Hargrave wrote:


http://www.bobshell.com/update.html




Thanks for that, Powell...

keith whaley

PESO:Malakoff Rockfestival

[Tim Øsleby]

http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188218

The story behind this picture is told in my post "Malakoff Rockfestival".
This is one of the pictures the festival web man did not submit. 
This one is far from perfect, but I personally find it much stronger than
most of those he has used. 

It is cropped a bit to make the diagonal line stronger. I've also tweaked a
bit with levels. 

Comments are appreciated.


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: PAW - Not a bike messenger

[keithw]

Pancho Hasselbach wrote:


Hi,

nice shot, Boris.
Quite different from Frank's latest cyclist shots ;-)

Of course, it's a matter of training shotting without viewfinder. I've 
been doing that for many years, starting with a Kodak Retina IIIc I got 
from my grandfather. With it's leaf shutter, it's areal stealth camera.


Hi Pancho...

I have at least 4 Retina IIIc's (!) and I totally agree that it's 
shutter is very quiet.
I"ve been deciding which is the first and second best of the batch, as 
I'll keep those (primary plus backup for parts...) and put the rest up 
for sale.


I also have a lovely IIa that's even smaller! With it's Retina-Xenon 
f/2.0 50mm lens, it's a great little camera! Compur-Rapid leaf shutter.


keith whaley

> One of my later enablements is a waist level finder for my LX, it's
> not very good for precise focussing from the hip, but it works great
> for the rough framing.
> As a former woodworker, I've still got some practice in
> estimating lengths and distances  - very useful in photography, now.
> One of the many reasons why I still don't see a real alternative to
> the LX.
>
> Pancho

Re: Bob Shell?

[keithw]

Cotty wrote:


On 7/8/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:



http://www.bobshell.com/update.html



Also:






Cheers,
  Cotty


Thanks, Cotty.

keith

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[E.R.N. Reed]

Jack Davis wrote:


This image is larger than a physical component of one
subject. 
Naive indignation has no place in interpreting this

tender interplay between an expectant mother and her
supporting friends.

IMO, a different angle was needed to capture the "tender interplay ... " 
as this composition just does not work to show that.


ERN

RE: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Shel Belinkoff]

Likewise ... 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Don Sanderson 

> ... the page won't scroll for me.
> I can't see the full frame of most of them.

>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm

RE: What inspired you?

[Malcolm Smith]

John Coyle wrote:

> Even those who know the risks can get caught out: I spoke to 
> Ryan today, and he has lost all but 20 of the pictures he's 
> taken since March due to two hard drive failures!
> I'm even more glad I use both Cd's and HD's for storage...

Yes, it must be a horror when it happens, particularly when you are clued up
on this need.

But adding to what Bruce said which was:

>About 1 month ago a friend of mine told me that his digital camera was
stolen.  He had 6 months worth of pictures on it 
>that he had never bothered to download or print yet.  It contained two
summer vacations, birthdays, his son's baseball   >season (including
pitching first year), etc.  He said that he just had not got around to doing
anything about>preservation and now it is all lost.

>Much like computers and backups, most of us don't back up like we should
until we get burned once or twice.  Yes, a  >significant portion of the
digital photos being taken now will probably be lost forever.

You just have to feel for this guy. Most folk buy such cameras for precisely
these reasons and to so many people the camera is just a tool and not a
hobby in it's own right. Other things take priority, and backing up becomes
a 'get round too' job. Until something like this happens, which means these
images are gone for good. Ugh!

I don't know if the importance of backing up is mentioned to customers of
P&S cameras at time of sale (and if it is, there will be some who nod when
they really don't understand a word), it could well be in the instructions
but we all know how well they are read! I have seen offers of free books or
a free users class with some cameras in the past, but I suspect that few of
them read the books or attended the classes, because they had many others
things to do. Which only leaves one way to learn. 

Malcolm 

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Jack Davis]

Shell,
There..there. 

Jack

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

> Sheesh!  Now an opinion gets criticized.  IMO the
> photo sucks on many
> levels.  Sorry my thoughts are so offensive to you. 
> Just add me to your
> kill file, Jack.  Good night ... I'm off to do
> something more productive
> than listen to this drivel.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jack Davis 
> 
> > This image is larger than a physical component of
> one
> > subject. 
> > Naive indignation has no place in interpreting
> this
> > tender interplay between an expectant mother and
> her
> > supporting friends.
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Shel Belinkoff]

There are several differences.  My main objection to your photo is the
composition, not so much that you've photographed her from behind, although
I don't care much for that aspect in this case, or in most cases.  That the
woman's butt is dead center and so prominent is, imo, just poor
composition.  It takes away from an "tender moment" that might exist by
calling way to much attention to itself. Not seeing the center woman's
face, as you say, doesn't  focus on the joy of the mother.  It focuses on
her butt. 

Bringing my photo into the equation is a red herring. A photo should stand
or fall on its own merits.  As a point of consideration, the woman in my
photo knew she was being photographed and gave tacit approval for same. 
Further, my photo was posted here more to discuss the appropriateness of
making such photos.

As for enjoying the scene and not taking - and displaying - the photo,
well, that's a personal choice, and every photographer has to make his or
her own decision to snap the shutter or let one go.  You can enjoy the
scene, but that personal enjoyment doesn't always equate to a good
photograph.  As a matter of personal philosophy, I like to pass on a photo
every now and then.  Don't ask why - it's just something I do which has a
basis in some comments I read by a few Magnum photogs, Frank Hurley, Ken
Kobre, and others.  Just because there's an opportunity to take a photo,
doesn't automatically mean a photo should be taken or displayed.

Shel 


> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated,  
 > the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the  
 > fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not a

 > particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in  
 > general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm  
 > concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face  
 > focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of  
 > the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list.  
 > People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy?  
 > The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I  
 > should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed,  
 > why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere  
 > near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous  
 > shot of the obese woman in the restaurant.

Re: Depth of Field with Digital SLRs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Glen wrote:

Incidentally, am I the only one who misses the depth of field  
markings on the newer lenses? ;)


I missed them for a while. Now I zone focus more simply: open =  
shallow, stopped down = deep. With a good viewfinder and manual  
focus, or AF, the need for it is lessened.

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Shel Belinkoff]

I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an "object of
prurient interest."  Perhaps I missed it.  Can you show me where that was
said.  You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by others.
Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even said
"It's not a particularly artful composition..."

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist 

>To  me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. 
> And  if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more 
> pleasant.

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The page does not display.

Godfrey

On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:15 AM, Derby Chang wrote:



Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled.  
Lindy and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the  
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were  
playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff.  
Both bands did a VU cover each. Ah well, here's what I thought were  
ok from the night.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm

3200 grain rules.

D


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

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

:-)
That's why I never worry about negative comments.

Godfrey


On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


If too many people like your work, you're not trying hard enough ;-))

Shel




[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist





Well that's two who apparently like it quite a lot and two who don't
like it at all. I'm pleased that it provokes some thought and
discussion.

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[David Savage]

Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.

Nice shots Derby, but personally I  think they need a bit more contrast.

Dave 

On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Likewise ...
> 
> Shel
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > Wrom: BRNVWWCUFPEGA
> 
> > ... the page won't scroll for me.
> > I can't see the full frame of most of them.
> 
> >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm
> 
> 
>

Re: PESO:Malakoff Rockfestival

[David Savage]

Tim mate, that is a super shot. I love the light, composition & the
relaxed energy of the guitarist.

My only other comment would be that it would have been nice it the
rest of the guitar had been in the frame. Though it looks like when
you made your crop you also removed something from the left side. But
its only a minor distraction.

Very well done.

Dave

On 8/8/05, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188218
> 
> The story behind this picture is told in my post "Malakoff Rockfestival".
> This is one of the pictures the festival web man did not submit.
> This one is far from perfect, but I personally find it much stronger than
> most of those he has used.
> 
> It is cropped a bit to make the diagonal line stronger. I've also tweaked a
> bit with levels.
> 
> Comments are appreciated.
> 
> 
> 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: Great Expectations

[pnstenquist]

The word "objectionable" was used in your original post, and I believe it was 
repeated by at least one other. A composition may be disliked, but only its 
content could be deemed "objectionable." I merely wanted to know what was 
objectionable, the woman's posterior or the pregnancy. Previous experiences 
here tell me that some people are very easily offended by any image that even 
vaguely references the human form or the birthing process. 


> I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an "object of
> prurient interest."  Perhaps I missed it.  Can you show me where that was
> said.  You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by others.
> Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even said
> "It's not a particularly artful composition..."
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Paul Stenquist 
> 
> >To  me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. 
> > And  if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more 
> > pleasant.
> 
> 

Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Toralf Lund]

I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to 
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of 
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting 
an LX and a proper waist-level finder?


I'm not necessarily looking for a finder that would allow me to focus 
accurately etc, just something that would give me *some* idea of what 
the lens is seeing. Maybe I might use some kind of home-made prism setup 
- has anyone experimented with this? Or how about attaching the 
viewfinder of an old Kodak folding camera or whatever ? And the 
refconverters? Will you actually be able to see anything through those 
without keeping you eye very close?


- Toralf

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm


I went back to the page four or five times and it finally displayed.

Overall, I like the set of photos. Seems they're most all taken from  
one viewpoint, but you caught good moments.


The rendering could be improved with just a little adjustment to the  
black clipping point and a touch to the contrast curve on most of  
them ... I like the grainy appearance modeling the highlights, but  
some of the background areas are just gray and grain where they  
should be inky black.


I even like the slide show presentation, but the script or player  
seems a bit flakey.


Godfrey

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Shel Belinkoff]

I didn't say that - didn't use the word "objectionable."  I said it was
"offensive from my POV of composition."  IOW, I found the composition to be
poor. That's pretty far from objecting to the prurient interest of the
photo or composition.  Anyway, even if someone found the photo
objectionable, that wouldn't mean that it was objectionable or offensive
~because of~  "prurient interest."  I agree that some people here are
easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the
birthing process.

Shel 


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

> The word "objectionable" was used in your original post, and I believe it
was repeated by at least one other. A composition may be disliked, but only
its content could be deemed "objectionable." I merely wanted to know what
was objectionable, the woman's posterior or the pregnancy. Previous
experiences here tell me that some people are very easily offended by any
image that even vaguely references the human form or the birthing process. 
>
>
> > I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an "object of
> > prurient interest."  Perhaps I missed it.  Can you show me where that
was
> > said.  You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by
others.
> > Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even
said
> > "It's not a particularly artful composition..."
> > 
> > Shel 
> > 
> > 
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Paul Stenquist 
> > 
> > >To  me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient
interest. 
> > > And  if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more 
> > > pleasant.
> > 
> > 

Re: PESO:Malakoff Rockfestival

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:55 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:


http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188218
...
It is cropped a bit to make the diagonal line stronger. I've also  
tweaked a

bit with levels.


I like it ... the composition has a lot of strength and the light is  
very nice.


Adjustments:
- A small increase in black clipping point and a slight upwards tweak  
with the Curves tool in Photoshop gives it a little more sparkle  
without losing the nice light.
- The slightly ragged left-edge is distracting. Cropping just a thin  
strip to even the edge cleans it up without losing anything significant.


Godfrey

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Steve Jolly]

Derby Chang wrote:
Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled. Lindy 
and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the 
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were 
playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff. Both 
bands did a VU cover each. Ah well, here's what I thought were ok from 
the night.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm

3200 grain rules.


I like the pictures, but the slideshow software is abysmal - it chops 
off the bottom of every photo on my 1024x768 display, and won't even let 
me scroll down...


S

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Michel Carrère-Gée]

Toralf Lund a écrit :

I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to 
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one 
of my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides 
getting an LX and a proper waist-level finder?


I'm not necessarily looking for a finder that would allow me to focus 
accurately etc, just something that would give me *some* idea of what 
the lens is seeing. Maybe I might use some kind of home-made prism 
setup - has anyone experimented with this? Or how about attaching the 
viewfinder of an old Kodak folding camera or whatever ? And the 
refconverters? Will you actually be able to see anything through those 
without keeping you eye very close?


There is only two Pentax wirh waist-level finder: the LX and .. the 
old Asahiflex !

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

... My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems  
to be a distraction for some. ...


I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the  
photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to  
capture.


The telephoto perspective doesn't help here at all. It flattens  
everything, diminishing the use of perspective to bring our eye to  
the subject of the photograph and confusing the relative importance  
of all elements. The TCB consumes the central and most important  
percentage of the flat composition. At first, I thought there must be  
something funny about it and that the photograph was taken for  
comedic value rather than for the notion of capturing a sensitive  
moment between women.


Godfrey

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[David Savage]

Boy hasn't this started something 

There are elements of this shot that I really like. The hand on the
pregnant woman's belly, the smile of the young lady in blue. The
effect is spoiled somewhat by the unfortunate pose of the blonde
woman.

It almost works, but not quite.

Dave

On 8/8/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known
> would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight
> embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA
> 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame.
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307&size=lg
> Paul
> 
>

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the  
>photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to  
>capture.

How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady
on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question
was purely incidental.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.

When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can see
my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different again on
Linux? Boy it must be nice to use Windows.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to 
>actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of 
>my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting 
>an LX and a proper waist-level finder?
>
>I'm not necessarily looking for a finder that would allow me to focus 
>accurately etc, just something that would give me *some* idea of what 
>the lens is seeing. Maybe I might use some kind of home-made prism setup 
>- has anyone experimented with this? Or how about attaching the 
>viewfinder of an old Kodak folding camera or whatever ? And the 
>refconverters? Will you actually be able to see anything through those 
>without keeping you eye very close?

Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to 
>actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of 
>my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting 
>an LX and a proper waist-level finder?

Sorry Torulf, i just re-read the above para. I mis-read it the first time
and thought you already had the LX.

I can see what you're trying to do, but it ain't gonna work old boy,
certainly not with a standard SLR that does not accept different finders.

Actually, shooting from the hip with cameras like the Pentax Optio 750Z
is very easy because of the flip out viewing screen. I use a Canon G2
with a similar screen and it works beautifully.



Otherwise, think of this as LX enablement :-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[David Savage]

Well I guess that tip wasn't as helpful as I had hoped . My
complete ignorance of all things Mac/Linux is exposed :-)

Winduz is OKwhen it's running right.

Dave


On 8/8/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
> 
> When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can see
> my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different again on
> Linux?Boy it must be nice to use Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
>

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Well I guess that tip wasn't as helpful as I had hoped . My
>complete ignorance of all things Mac/Linux is exposed :-)
>
>Winduz is OKwhen it's running right.

If you get into any problems, just re-boot ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Shel Belinkoff]

It's probably a lot better to use simple HTML code rather than all this
fancy stuff to present something as simple as a photo.  There are just too
many cross-platform incompatibilities.  Plus, with dial-up connections and
the way different browsers handle things, simpler seems like a better
alternative.  There are postings by some list members that I no longer
bother to look at because they take forever to load and, when they finally
do, there's a matter of seeing the entire image because of the need to
scroll or change browser settings.  I wish people would post their pics in
a more "universal" manner.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 

> >Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
>
> When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can see
> my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different again on
> Linux? Boy it must be nice to use Windows.

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

> I wish people would post their pics in
>a more "universal" manner.

yeah, like FlickR  




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Mark Roberts]

Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The page does not display.

I get "You must enable Javascript to view this content."
Which means "Go away" as far as I'm concerned.

>> Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled.  
>> Lindy and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the  
>> Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were  
>> playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff.  
>> Both bands did a VU cover each. Ah well, here's what I thought were  
>> ok from the night.
>>
>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm
>>
>> 3200 grain rules.
>>
>> D
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
>>
>>
>>
-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Mark Roberts]

Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
>
>When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can see
>my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different again on
>Linux? Boy it must be nice to use Windows.

It is! :)
-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Shel Belinkoff]

Do you consider FlickR to be a "more universal" option, or one that's a
problem.  FlickR is an issue for me and my system.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 

> On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> > I wish people would post their pics in
> >a more "universal" manner.
>
> yeah, like FlickR  
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>

RE: PESO: For Shel and Bruce

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Joe ...

I like the composition quite a bit, but the contrast seems way over done. 
It's hard to tell if it's just the red filter or some of the processing as
well.  Based on the color of the stones in the original photo, perhaps a
red filter was not the best choice.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Joseph Tainter 

> A ruin for Shel and the Southwest for Bruce:
>
> http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/2646/display/3677212
>
> Of course everyone else is welcome to look and comment.
>
> I am pretty pleased, especially considering that I shoot very little 
> B/W. The photo was taken about two weeks ago.
>
> I had shot this ruin before:
>
> http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/Tainter.html
>
> ...and knew that at sunset, with summer tunderstorms building, there 
> would be a chance for some good images. But the National Park Service 
> has moved the parking lot much further from this ruin, and clouds were 
> threatening to obscure the sun. I hoofed it as quickly as I could, got 
> off a few shots, then the sun was obscured by clouds. But I waited, and 
> about 20 minutes later the sun reappeared for a few.
>
> Joe

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Do you consider FlickR to be a "more universal" option, or one that's a
>problem.  FlickR is an issue for me and my system.

Sorry Shel I was being sarcastic. I'm on broadband and it takes ages to
load for me to. If it doesn't come up within a few seconds, I pass.
FlickR Hoovers!




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[pnstenquist]

Thanks for the lucid explanation.   What confused me were words like 
"offensive" and "objectionable."


> On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> > ... My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems  
> > to be a distraction for some. ...
> 
> I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the  
> photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to  
> capture.
> 
> The telephoto perspective doesn't help here at all. It flattens  
> everything, diminishing the use of perspective to bring our eye to  
> the subject of the photograph and confusing the relative importance  
> of all elements. The TCB consumes the central and most important  
> percentage of the flat composition. At first, I thought there must be  
> something funny about it and that the photograph was taken for  
> comedic value rather than for the notion of capturing a sensitive  
> moment between women.
> 
> Godfrey
> 

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[pnstenquist]

Thanks for the comment, Cotty. Your experience matches what I felt when I first 
reviewed the shots on the card. Apparently, we all have different ways of 
looking at things. Interesting.
Paul


> On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the  
> >photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to  
> >capture.
> 
> How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady
> on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question
> was purely incidental.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Glen]

At 10:40 AM 8/8/2005, Steve Jolly wrote:

I like the pictures, but the slideshow software is abysmal - it chops off 
the bottom of every photo on my 1024x768 display, and won't even let me 
scroll down...


I was using a resolution of 1280 x 1024, and I also had problems with part 
of the layout being chopped off. I had to temporarily switch to 1600 x 1200 
resolution to see the complete page. Not being able to scroll down is a big 
disadvantage for this page. Also, Mozilla always displayed a "read 
members.iinet.net.au" message -- as if the page never finishes loading.


As for the photos, they are okay, but it's hard to pay attention to them. 
The technical difficulties of displaying the web page are too distracting.



take care,
Glen

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Steve Jolly]

Cotty wrote:

Winduz is OKwhen it's running right.


If you get into any problems, just re-boot ;-)


Or reinstall...

S

PESO:Rock'n Roll is still ROLLING strong

[Tim Øsleby]

Here is another one from Malakoff Rockfestival:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188249

Here is another one. Very different - a portrait of the attitude in raw
Rock'n Roll. Had to shot from the hip, had no time to think. 

The light is not perfect, the guitar player is slightly out of focus, there
some rubbish in the right... (Could have cropped it away, but didn't.
Despite this, or perhaps because of this, I find energy in this image, very
hot. 

BTW: They both did rice after this pose, no harm happened ;-)


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: Pale Blue Eyes

[Shel Belinkoff]

Even with the F11 technique, the vertical shots lose the bottom edge to
some degree.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: David Savage 

> Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.

Re: PAW - Not a bike messenger

[Shel Belinkoff]

Boris ... which 50/1.4 do you have?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Boris Liberman 

> I must admit, I so much like my 43 Lim, that I am thinking of selling 
> both 50/1.4 and FA 50/1.7...
>
> Boris

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Mark Roberts]

Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
>
>

Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp


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

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[P. J. Alling]

A bit pricey...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp

Toralf Lund wrote:

I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to 
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one 
of my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides 
getting an LX and a proper waist-level finder?


I'm not necessarily looking for a finder that would allow me to focus 
accurately etc, just something that would give me *some* idea of what 
the lens is seeing. Maybe I might use some kind of home-made prism 
setup - has anyone experimented with this? Or how about attaching the 
viewfinder of an old Kodak folding camera or whatever ? And the 
refconverters? Will you actually be able to see anything through those 
without keeping you eye very close?


- Toralf





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

Re: Depth of Field with Digital SLRs

[Joseph Tainter]

Mark wrote:

It wouldn't be difficult for camera makers to build a DOF calculator
into a camera and have a digital display of the DOF 9for the current
focal length and aperture settings) on the rear-panel LCD.

--

Wow. Interesting idea. Now that cameras are computers, how about a 
function that automatically sets the lens to the hyperfocal point for a 
given focal length and aperture? Otherwise setting hyperfocal distance 
manually on newer lenses is very difficult, because a small turn of the 
focusing ring makes such a big difference in the focus, and the 
distances that are marked are so far apart. The last numerical distance 
on the DA 16-45 is 2m/7ft. After that the next marking is infinity. How 
do you set a hyperfocal distance of 3m on this lens?


I don't find DOF preview useful. It just makes the screen too dark.

Joe

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[P. J. Alling]

Although even on dialup this page was relatively fast.  Still it helps 
to have you display set to 1600x1200.


Shel Belinkoff wrote:


It's probably a lot better to use simple HTML code rather than all this
fancy stuff to present something as simple as a photo.  There are just too
many cross-platform incompatibilities.  Plus, with dial-up connections and
the way different browsers handle things, simpler seems like a better
alternative.  There are postings by some list members that I no longer
bother to look at because they take forever to load and, when they finally
do, there's a matter of seeing the entire image because of the need to
scroll or change browser settings.  I wish people would post their pics in
a more "universal" manner.

Shel 



 


[Original Message]
From: Cotty 
   



 


Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
 


When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can see
my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different again on
Linux? Boy it must be nice to use Windows.
   





 




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

RE: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Tim Øsleby]

I'm trying very hard to not make a comment on the slideshow software.
Haven't said anything, have I? ;-)

About the photos: There is something with the violin player, her
concentration, I like it. About the rest: I get too hung up on the tilted
horizons. To me, it doesn't look like you do it on purpose(?) Whatever the
reason is, it distracts me.


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: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 8. august 2005 13:16
To: Pentax Discuss
Subject: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes


Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled. Lindy 
and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the 
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were 
playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff. Both 
bands did a VU cover each. Ah well, here's what I thought were ok from 
the night.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm

3200 grain rules.

D


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

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy.  That what it's all about --
catching people unaware.  
Specifically, I find this an awkward shot -- not really saying anything
except that one should be aware of one's surroundings.
It used to be, not that long ago, that a lady would bend at the knees to
avoid sticking her back-side up in the air as we see.  And though times
have change, feminine sensibilities have not changes quick so much.  She
would still be embarrassed should she see the image online.

My 2c,

Collin


mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Glen]

At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
>
>

Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp


I had a friend who did better than that. He bought a broken digital camera 
on eBay, which matched the model of his functional digital camera. He 
removed the LCD from the broken camera, and connected it to his functional 
camera via a 1-meter extension cable he constructed himself. I don't 
remember the exact details of the implementation, but I do remember that 
the setup was great for holding the camera over your head (perhaps atop a 
monopod), to capture shots above a crowd.  :)


Some digital cameras have connections for video out, or computer hookups. 
It would be great if you could view a "live viewfinder image" over these 
connections, but I bet most of these are for playback of previously 
recorded shots only. The idea of a "remote viewfinder" is a nice one. If it 
could be made wireless, and if the camera had some wireless controls, that 
would be even better. :)



take care,
Glen

Re: going digital but not Pentax

[Cotty]

On 7/8/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:

>t's, along with Canon 1D, a big battery eater.

This is not my experience Fra. 




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Shel Belinkoff]

That's a gross oversimplification of what it means to go out "on the
street" and make photographs.

Shel 


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

> Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy.  That what it's all about
--
> catching people unaware. 

Re: Chateau du Bailleul

[Cotty]

On 7/8/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:

>It did occur to me that it would be a good setting for a Eurotrash PDML
>event. The chateau sleeps 22, so is quite cheap when shared out between
>people.

I looked at the web site - and had the same thought. Does it have a pool?? 




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: going digital but not Pentax

[Mark Roberts]

Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On 7/8/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>t's, along with Canon 1D, a big battery eater.
>
>This is not my experience Fra. 

Don't you have the Mk II version, Cotty?
The wedding pro I've worked with a couple of times this summer has the
Mk I version and his *do* seem to be big battery eaters.
 
 
-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: going digital but not Pentax

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Don't you have the Mk II version, Cotty?
>The wedding pro I've worked with a couple of times this summer has the
>Mk I version and his *do* seem to be big battery eaters.

oops. apologies.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Cotty]

>> [Original Message]
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>> Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy.  That what it's all about
>--
>> catching people unaware. 

Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't
get off to snapping people unaware.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO:Rock'n Roll is still ROLLING strong

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Here is another one from Malakoff Rockfestival:
>http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188249
>
>Here is another one. Very different - a portrait of the attitude in raw
>Rock'n Roll. Had to shot from the hip, had no time to think. 

Nice shot Tim!




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:

>A bit pricey...
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp

COOL. I'd forgotten about this. That would be ideal for you Torulf. Cor,
I fancy one of them myself




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[P. J. Alling]

Glen wrote:


At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
>
>

Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp




Interesting but useless on an slr.

I had a friend who did better than that. He bought a broken digital 
camera on eBay, which matched the model of his functional digital 
camera. He removed the LCD from the broken camera, and connected it to 
his functional camera via a 1-meter extension cable he constructed 
himself. I don't remember the exact details of the implementation, but 
I do remember that the setup was great for holding the camera over 
your head (perhaps atop a monopod), to capture shots above a crowd.  :)


Some digital cameras have connections for video out, or computer 
hookups. It would be great if you could view a "live viewfinder image" 
over these connections, but I bet most of these are for playback of 
previously recorded shots only. The idea of a "remote viewfinder" is a 
nice one. If it could be made wireless, and if the camera had some 
wireless controls, that would be even better. :)



take care,
Glen





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

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Vic Mortelmans]

I have been thinking about the same. Building a finder that mounts on 
the flash shoe and that you can look into from above from a distance of 
at least 30cm and see (more or less) what's in scope of the camera.


The conclusion was that optically at least a mirror and a lens are 
needed, but I wasn't able to work it out any further...


In the rangefinder world there are lots of flash shoe mountable 
viewfinders around, to accomodate lenses of focal lengths not supported 
by the internal view/rangefinder, so I would assume this also includes a 
waist-level type, but I didn't see it yet. Strange?


Anyway, I join your question!

Groeten,

Vic

Toralf Lund wrote:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to 
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of 
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting 
an LX and a proper waist-level finder?


I'm not necessarily looking for a finder that would allow me to focus 
accurately etc, just something that would give me *some* idea of what 
the lens is seeing. Maybe I might use some kind of home-made prism setup 
- has anyone experimented with this? Or how about attaching the 
viewfinder of an old Kodak folding camera or whatever ? And the 
refconverters? Will you actually be able to see anything through those 
without keeping you eye very close?


- Toralf

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[P. J. Alling]

P. J. Alling wrote:


Glen wrote:


At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
>
>

Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp





Interesting but useless on an slr.


I meant the description below, of course.  The item above is meant for 
use with a SLR.




I had a friend who did better than that. He bought a broken digital 
camera on eBay, which matched the model of his functional digital 
camera. He removed the LCD from the broken camera, and connected it 
to his functional camera via a 1-meter extension cable he constructed 
himself. I don't remember the exact details of the implementation, 
but I do remember that the setup was great for holding the camera 
over your head (perhaps atop a monopod), to capture shots above a 
crowd.  :)


Some digital cameras have connections for video out, or computer 
hookups. It would be great if you could view a "live viewfinder 
image" over these connections, but I bet most of these are for 
playback of previously recorded shots only. The idea of a "remote 
viewfinder" is a nice one. If it could be made wireless, and if the 
camera had some wireless controls, that would be even better. :)



take care,
Glen








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

Re: Bob Shell?

[Butch Black]

I checked his Blog about a week ago. There were no updates since fall of 
last year. Googling, I found nothing more current. I would have thought that 
If the case went to trial, or dismissed, some reference would have come up. 
I'm of the suspicion that someone is using the legal system to discredit and 
break him because he photographed erotica.


On 8/7/05, William Robb  wrote:



I wonder that as well, from time to time.
I either read, or was told a while back that he had annoyed someone he
shouldn't have annoyed, and found himself facing charges for a crime that
was very out of character for him.
I don't know how that worked out either.



He was charged with the death of a young teenage model in his studio,
wasn't he?  I don't recall if it was murder or manslaughter, but IIRC,
there was a charge of administering a noxious substance as well.

It was alleged (again, IIRC) that he drugged a model, and did all
sorts of kinky things with her, and that the drug caused her death.

A couple of years ago when I was briefly on Leica User's Group, on of
the list members there was a lawyer who ended up representing him.  I
don't know if that fellow's still his lawyer, or if his matter ever
came to trial or was otherwise resolved.

cheers,
frank

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Shel Belinkoff]

I've never seen a waist level finder for a rangefinder, and I've been
looking for a couple of years. 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Vic Mortelmans 

> In the rangefinder world there are lots of flash shoe mountable 
> viewfinders around, to accomodate lenses of focal lengths not supported 
> by the internal view/rangefinder, so I would assume this also includes a 
> waist-level type, but I didn't see it yet. Strange?

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[pnstenquist]

You're right. "Voyeurism" implies sexual deviancy and content. While some 
voyeuristic acts might involve street photography, all street photography is 
certainly not voyeurism. Of course, like many words, voyeur has come to mean 
more than what it once did. It's now frequenly used to describe anyone who 
enjoys watching the activity of others, even completely non-sexual situations. 
But that's a distortion of the word's original meaning, and it certainly 
retains negative connotations. Only a true voyeur, with a perverted sense of 
what is erotic, could possibly find any sexual content in this photograph. To 
the normal, it is merely a shot of three women.
Paul


> 
> 
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> >
> >> Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy.  That what it's all about
> >--
> >> catching people unaware. 
> 
> Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't
> get off to snapping people unaware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 

Re: Depth of Field with Digital SLRs

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 8, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:


It wouldn't be difficult for camera makers to build a DOF calculator
into a camera and have a digital display of the DOF 9for the current
focal length and aperture settings) on the rear-panel LCD.


It shouldn't be difficult: all you need is an approximation anyway.  
(That's all the older lens markings are as it is.)


Wow. Interesting idea. Now that cameras are computers, how about a  
function that automatically sets the lens to the hyperfocal point  
for a given focal length and aperture? Otherwise setting hyperfocal  
distance manually on newer lenses is very difficult, because a  
small turn of the focusing ring makes such a big difference in the  
focus, and the distances that are marked are so far apart.


This kind of function has been on various cameras already. Minolta  
had an automate hyperfocal program in plug-in cards for their Maxxum  
line.


Canon supports a different twist: the AE-Depth program setting in the  
10D (p 88 in the manual, if you happen to have the PDF file). Target  
all the subjects you want to have in focus across the AF sensor  
array, the camera will attempt to use focus and aperture settings to  
cover as many of them as it's possible to achieve given the specific  
focal length and proper exposure requirements. The focus points will  
flash on all the subject entities it was able to encompass, and warn  
you if the DoF you desired was too much to achieve.


The last numerical distance on the DA 16-45 is 2m/7ft. After that  
the next marking is infinity. How do you set a hyperfocal distance  
of 3m on this lens?


You fuss with it... ;-)


I don't find DOF preview useful. It just makes the screen too dark.


If I'm really really being persnickety and working from a tripod, DoF  
preview works well. I carry a darkcloth so I can see the focusing  
screen. Normally, though, I am looking for OOF rendering with DoF  
preview and working at fairly large apertures, to see the difference  
between f/2 and f/5.6 for instance. I'm not generally looking to  
estimate the focus zone this way.


Godfrey

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Nah. One of THESE:
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp

Here's a user review:






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Bob Shell?

[Cotty]

On 8/8/05, Butch Black, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I checked his Blog about a week ago. There were no updates since fall of 
>last year. Googling, I found nothing more current. I would have thought that 
>If the case went to trial, or dismissed, some reference would have come up. 
>I'm of the suspicion that someone is using the legal system to discredit and 
>break him because he photographed erotica.

Aug 2, 2005 news:





Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO:Rock'n Roll is still ROLLING strong

[pnstenquist]

Nice shot. Love the frame and the moment. Good work.
Paul


> On 8/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >Here is another one from Malakoff Rockfestival:
> >http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188249
> >
> >Here is another one. Very different - a portrait of the attitude in raw
> >Rock'n Roll. Had to shot from the hip, had no time to think. 
> 
> Nice shot Tim!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
> 

Re: Waist-level viewing on 35mm Pentaxes (besides the LX)?

[Shel Belinkoff]

I decided to check again, and discovered that Leica made three such waist
level finders..  I guess my searching technique has improved a bit, or
maybe some new pages have been posted to the web.  However, I've yet to
actually see such a finder.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Shel Belinkoff 

> I've never seen a waist level finder for a rangefinder, and I've been
> looking for a couple of years. 
>
> Shel 
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Vic Mortelmans 
>
> > In the rangefinder world there are lots of flash shoe mountable 
> > viewfinders around, to accomodate lenses of focal lengths not supported 
> > by the internal view/rangefinder, so I would assume this also includes
a 
> > waist-level type, but I didn't see it yet. Strange?
>

Re: web presentation of photographs (was: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The problem is that the FlashMedia presentation requires about 915  
pixels vertically to display fully, and doesn't allow scrolling.  
Presenting picture pages that you need to scroll to see is a bad user  
experience and something i usually don't spend time trying to work  
through.


I do like the automated slideshow presentation. That can be  
effective. I've seen several done nicely using simple DHTML (dynamic  
HTML) that work nicely.



... I wish people would post their pics in
a more "universal" manner. ...


There's a fine line between presenting photos that can be seen on  
almost any screen vs catering to folks who have large displays and  
can see higher resolution/larger renderings easily. I use simple HTML  
(written by hand) and define a box approximately 624 pixels wide by  
530 pixels tall that I size my photos to fit within. This allows a  
reasonable presentation on screens as small as 600x800 pixels in  
size, works "ok" for 768x1024 and isn't too small to appreciate on  
the 20" monitor I normally use, with 1050x1680 resolution setting.  
For some pictures, however, a larger display size is needed to fully  
appreciate them. For those, I sometimes create a "half-rez" rendering  
of the photo that just fits without scrolling into a browser window  
on my screen, with all other browser window controls turned off.


Whatever standard settings you use, it is a compromise between  
presenting something that looks good enough and satisfying the people  
you're most interested to share the work with. What I am curious  
about is whether any of the folks on this list have difficulties  
viewing the pages I present.


Godfrey


On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

It's probably a lot better to use simple HTML code rather than all  
this
fancy stuff to present something as simple as a photo.  There are  
just too
many cross-platform incompatibilities.  Plus, with dial-up  
connections and

the way different browsers handle things, simpler seems like a better
alternative.  There are postings by some list members that I no longer
bother to look at because they take forever to load and, when they  
finally

do, there's a matter of seeing the entire image because of the need to
scroll or change browser settings.  I wish people would post their  
pics in

a more "universal" manner.

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Cotty wrote:

Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see  
them.


When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can  
see
my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different  
again on

Linux? Boy it must be nice to use Windows.


LOL ... you crack me up, Cotty!

Godfrey

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Cotty wrote:


I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the
photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to
capture.


How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the  
lady
on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in  
question

was purely incidental.


I'm sure it was ...

To my eye, it has about the same effect as if you had stuck a big  
balloon or an inkspot in the center of the picture ... It takes my  
attention away from the other elements and I'm always trying to look  
around it, rather than seeing the point of the photograph.


Godfrey

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voyeur

I was thinking more along the line of the second definition,
though perhaps still in error in my use of the term.
The idea I had in mind was to catch actions taht were noteworthy.
Perhaps not sensational, but notable.
Correction accepted.

Collin



mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Re: Depth of Field with Digital SLRs

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Joseph Tainter"

Subject: Re: Depth of Field with Digital SLRs





Wow. Interesting idea. Now that cameras are computers, how about a 
function that automatically sets the lens to the hyperfocal point for a 
given focal length and aperture? 


Canon has had a DOF mode on the EOS system since the 630 came out.

William Robb

Re: PESO: Great Expectations

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"

Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations



I agree that some people here are
easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the
birthing process.


Soe people here are even more offended when you don't like one of their 
pictures.
WW 

Re: Bob Shell?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Black"

Subject: Re: Bob Shell?




I'm of the suspicion that someone is using the legal system to discredit 
and break him because he photographed erotica.


That was the opinion that I heard as well.

William Robb 

Re: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"

Subject: RE: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes



Likewise ...


He seems to be using some scripting in his website, not sure if it is Java 
or Flash.
All I know is that the pages load slowly, and the scripting makes the 
presentation crappy. I don't bother looking at his stuff very often.


William Robb