Re: Re: Film scanner question
One of the things I'm inspecting carefully is colour depth. I've got a slide of a red geranium (on Velvia) that I cannot get a decent scan of with the Craposcan. It looks indescribably dull and if I try to boost the saturation, the image just goes a sort of wierd fluorescent hue before it gets anywhere near the correct colour. This is going to be my test slide for whatever I get. mike I wouldn't test any scanner with a slide like that. Velvia is one of the most saturated films you can shoot, and any scanner is going to have a tough time with extremely-saturated colors like that. I'd recommend a more neutral film, like Provia or even Astia (since we're already talking Fuji here), and try shooting a range of subjects with a range of colors and saturations. Just my $0.02 John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
Re: Pancakes for Breakfast
Oh, I didn't know that. Don't recall ever hearing of such a thing. That might be kinda neat ... or not. Worth trying, anyway. Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > Subject: Re: Pancakes for Breakfast > > > > Hmmm that may make it unsatisfactory on the DS as well. > > These cameras are designed to have the aperture set from the body. > It did take some getting used to, but it is a technique not difficult to get > to know. > > William Robb >
Re: Re: Film scanner question
> > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 01:06:22 GMT > To: > Subject: Re: Re: Film scanner question > > the real test is scanning greens. the eye is most sensitive in that color > area. > > Herb... Care to elucidate? > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:08 AM > Subject: Re: Re: Film scanner question > > > > One of the things I'm inspecting carefully is colour depth. I've got a > > slide of a red geranium (on Velvia) that I cannot get a decent scan of > > with the Craposcan. It looks indescribably dull and if I try to boost the > > saturation, the image just goes a sort of wierd fluorescent hue before it > > gets anywhere near the correct colour. This is going to be my test slide > > for whatever I get. > > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Wideangle enablement :)
> > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 01:16:58 GMT > To: > Subject: Re: Re: Wideangle enablement :) > > however, the A* lenses with rear filter mounts don't require a filter in the > filter mount at all times. > > Herb... Even more interesting. > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:34 AM > Subject: Re: Re: Wideangle enablement :) > > > > Either way, the filter would be a _neccessity_ in the light path to form a > > sharp image. I have a 300/2.8 with rear filters. The manual says that a > > filter _must_ be in place at all times. > > > > This is all very interesting. > > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Film scanner question
> > From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 01:27:55 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Film scanner question > > I think you run a MAC. PS uses all the memory on MAC'., With PC's it will > only use up to 2 gigabytes. PS2 is nice. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- If you've been buying PS2, no wonder you can't afford a decent printer. 8-) > > > Herb Chong wrote: > > i don't have any problem with CS or CS2 and 5G of RAM. the OS uses only > > 4G, but that is a different issue. some plugins have lots of problem > > with too much RAM though. > > > > Herb > > - Original Message - From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:36 AM > > Subject: Re: Film scanner question > > > > > >> I upgraded from 1Gb to 3Gb. I've found that any more than about 2Gb > >> may be pointless anyway. Photoshop CS and CS2 don't behave well when > >> they're using more than about 1Gb... I tend to leave a lot of apps > >> open in the background which is unlikely to help. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005 > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot
> > From: Cesar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 02:21:46 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot > > mike wilson wrote: > > >>From: Cesar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>1) I was sitting in a UH-1 with the doors open as we did a 'map of the > >>earth' return to our base in southern Honduras. The others hesitated > >>when the pilot asked if we wanted to do it, so I chimed in and said > >>yes! Nothing spectacular in terms of photos but it was the situation. > >> > >> > > > >What's a "map of the earth" return? > > > >mike > > > > > Mike, > > Basically, it is following the terrain of the earth with a set > altitude. So that could be 400 feet above the ground and tree tops... > > What a blast, > > César > Panama City, Florida Sounds like a recipe for regurgitation. 8-) I sometimes watch the RAf practicing low flying in the countrysdide around here. 400' would be considered as getting some height for a look around 8-) Ever seen the film of the RNAS making a mock attack on a bunker in Arizona/Nevada? mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Pancakes for Breakfast
In M mode the ring controls shutter time, pressing the Av button tranfers control to the aperture. A little awkward, but you learn =) On the istD, the front ring controls the shutter time, the rear one controls the aperture value. I haven't handled a Ds, apparently it only has one control wheel, so I don't know how it seperates the control function. I have this tiny lens and love the handy combination it creates. It is a bit fiddly to handle when changing lenses and the focus ring can be hard to find. Nevertheless, I look forward to the other pancake lenses that Pentax is planning, these will perhaps cover the 28 and 50 mm form factors... Here's an example photo; late afternoon light, 1/250 f/6.7. http://web.telia.com/~u40938461/PinkyPentax/Various/PancakeWall.jpg Bertil
Re: Re: Wideangle enablement :)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:25:16PM +0100, Chris Stoddart wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, mike wilson wrote: > > Empiricism seems to be the only saviour here. Time to get 'em out! 8-) > Yay, that's what we need - some tests! If everyone who's willing and owns > a Mir-47K 20mm f/2.5 can take a picture with and without the clear filter > on the back, then scan the two pics so we can look at them under a bit of > magnification, we should be be able to find out once and for all. Like I said, I will develop that roll, just give me some more time :) There are pics with and without rear filter there... I'll look them at the light box, and then scan them, put full versions and 100% crops, of course. If someone else will be faster, then, well, I'll look at those other pics, too :) > And best of all, it's a test for film cameras, or at least FULL-FRAME > cameras :-> Yes, ofcourse, it must be full-frame with lens this wide. Without corners, pictures would tell us nothing :( -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], IRC:[EMAIL PROTECTED], /bin/zsh. C|N>K Linux moria 2.6.11 #1 Wed Mar 9 19:08:59 CET 2005 i686 10:17:53 up 19:16, 1 user, load average: 0.16, 0.15, 0.20 Ok Axy, imam ja iskustva sa parkovima (C)Duby'95
Re: Pancakes for Breakfast
Probably the same way my Z-20 (PZ-20) does. You'd press the Tv/Av button to change what the wheel controlled (ie. shutter speed or aperture). Dave On 8/26/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > Subject: Re: Pancakes for Breakfast > > > > Oh, I didn't know that. Don't recall ever hearing of such a thing. That > > might be kinda neat ... or not. Worth trying, anyway. > > I would still prefer using an aperture ring, but since they are taking that > option away from us, we do what we have to do. > > On the istD, the front ring controls the shutter time, the rear one controls > the aperture value. I haven't handled a Ds, apparently it only has one > control wheel, so I don't know how it seperates the control function. > > William Robb > > >
How to lower noise from a RAW file?
Taken at night.. forgot to switch off the noise reduction from my D :( I know utilities can do that but dunno which ones. -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Re: Film scanner question
> > From: "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 07:28:42 GMT > To: > Subject: Re: Re: Film scanner question > > > One of the things I'm inspecting carefully is colour depth. I've got a > > slide of a red geranium (on Velvia) that I cannot get a decent scan of > > with the Craposcan. It looks indescribably dull and if I try to boost the > > saturation, the image just goes a sort of wierd fluorescent hue before it > > gets anywhere near the correct colour. This is going to be my test slide > > for whatever I get. > > > > mike > > I wouldn't test any scanner with a slide like that. Velvia is one of the > most saturated films you can shoot, and any scanner is going to have a tough > time with extremely-saturated colors like that. I'd recommend a more > neutral film, like Provia or even Astia (since we're already talking Fuji > here), and try shooting a range of subjects with a range of colors and > saturations. > > Just my $0.02 > > John Celio It's just an extreme example of the problems I've been having. If the scanner can cope with this, it should manage everything else easily. That won't stop me testing other stuff... m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Pancakes for Breakfast
Yes, the DS works like a z-20 (and derivates) and the D works like a Z-1. Pretty much the same. If you own a Z1 and use both wheels, it is very straightforward. 2005/8/26, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Probably the same way my Z-20 (PZ-20) does. You'd press the Tv/Av > button to change what the wheel controlled (ie. shutter speed or > aperture). > > Dave > > > > On 8/26/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > > Subject: Re: Pancakes for Breakfast > > > > > > > Oh, I didn't know that. Don't recall ever hearing of such a thing. That > > > might be kinda neat ... or not. Worth trying, anyway. > > > > I would still prefer using an aperture ring, but since they are taking that > > option away from us, we do what we have to do. > > > > On the istD, the front ring controls the shutter time, the rear one controls > > the aperture value. I haven't handled a Ds, apparently it only has one > > control wheel, so I don't know how it seperates the control function. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: B&W On A DSLR
Superb example of BW conversion. (I like the shot very much as well.) But on my monitor, the highlights and shadows are detailed and right at the ends of the spectrum, the midtones are nicely separated and beautifully rendered. Excellent. Would love to see it printed on Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper in a 2200. Paul On Aug 26, 2005, at 12:26 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: ... The problem with using post processing techniques is that the results don't follow the way real B&W film behaves, so colors and tonality are conbverted arbitrarily, IOW, how you want them to look not necessarily the way B&W film would record them. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, depending on the result you want. However, it requires that you become familiar with a number of techniques so you can decide which will provide the results you desire. ... Finally, from what I've seen using three different digi cameras, even if you're shooting in B&W mode, the filters don't seem to work quite the same as when shooting film. I wouldn't say that "colors and tonality are converted arbitrarily" ... rather, I spent a great deal of time learning how to use Curves, HSV and Channel Mixer layers together, over the past several years, so that I can get the spectral response and gamma curve that precisely fits what I had in mind when I took the picture. The issue is that different B&W film and developer combinations have different spectral responses, gamma curves, etc. If what you are looking to do is emulate a particular B&W film and do it as automatically as possible, yes, plug-ins like the ones from TheImagingFactory.com and digitalsilver, as well as others, have mapped those spectral responses nicely in a black box implementation. However, all they're doing, really, is manipulating the balance of the channels, much like using the Channel Mixer or one of the several ways of using HSV adjustment layers, Calculation layers, etc. I tend to prefer to work the tonalities myself, rather than trust to a plug-in, because I want to be able to achieve a particular set of response curves and reproduce it with a wide variety of capture settings reliably, and because I want to understand precisely what the transformation performed was. I also don't like paying for additional software to do the work that I can figure out for myself in a short amount of experimentation time. BTW: Since we're talking B&W here, I posted a half-rez version of one of my recent People & Portrait series photos today for folks on my other list. It was taken with the FA35/2 AL lens, and gives a better feel for what a print from this image might look like compared to what the web gallery photo normally shows. If you want to take a look at it... Standard gallery photo: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/32.htm Half-rez version: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/32-half.jpg Camera: Pentax *ist DS + FA35/2 AL Exposure settings: ISO 200 @ f/2 @ 1/25 sec, Av mode Godfrey
PESO:Another Thinker
I'm reposting this one. For some reason I did get the subject line wrong the first time: I had a walk in the Vigeland Park when I was in Oslo. Those of you who has been in Norway know it, for the rest of you: It is a large sculpture park in Oslo, with 192 sculptures by Gustav Vigeland, a very fine artist. He designed the park himself. It is one of the main tourist attractions in Oslo, and we locals like to walk there too. It is huge. Some take their lunch there, like in any other popular park. In the outer areas people walk their dogs, run or just relax. Check out this link for more info: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/arch/769/Vigeland/ It might be better resources out there... Enough background, here is the link to the picture: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=191031 I was playing with body language. *istDS at RAW 400 ISO, and Tamron 28.75/2,8 at 55mm, f22 and 1/50. Might use this as a converting to b&w rehearsal later. Believe it has potential for it. -- Posted another yesterday, have been productive. Post titled PESO:Late summer Reflections. No comments so far. It deserves better IMHO. If you don't feel like finding the origenal post, but still wants to have a look: Look up my name at the page og the "thinker", a bit below the picture, thats a link to my other submitions at foto.no What a heck, here is the link http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=190862 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: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
This poetic post sets me in a very nostalgic mood. Those where the days, (I'm not at all ironic here). At the same time, I can't help wondering if my sons will be saying similar things about the media of today: Digital photo. ;-) Something like "A kid born in 2028 (when I turn 40) won't ever edit his own digies, wont experiment with WB, won't play with gamma and curves ..." Me don't know, but are still in state of nostalgica. 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: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 07:03 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws > > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > > > I was thinking the other day about things I remember from my childhood > (I was born in 1968): > > Visiting the "As-Is" section of a local thrift store. "You can buy one > thing up to $1.00". I found some relic of a malfunctioning bellows > camera. I wonder whatever happened to that. > > My first (functioning) camera: A 126 with flashcube. > > Sitting in the back seat of the stationwagon while my parents pass > through the "PhotoHut" drive-through to pick up their prints and slides. > > Family gatherings with the slide projector. Dad always messing around > with the focus until we were all dizzy. Slides always getting stuck in > the mechanism. Remember how they pop out of focus if they get too hot? > > Our Polaroid One-Step; a photographic disappointment. > > Junior High School Photography class: Developing B&W negatives and > processing my own prints. Building a pinhole camera. Opening a new > world of creativity. > > Dad got himself an Olympus OM-2n and began acquiring lenses. I can > still name most of them: 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2.8, 24mm > f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35-70 f/??, Vivitar teleconverter: 2x, and 1:1 macro. > I had a lot of fun with that camera too. > > Taking my own slides and prints on an extended trip to Portugal > (1987-1989), with a hand-me-down Canon A1 (or something like that; a > split-image focusing camera that looked a lot like an SLR but wasn't). > > My PZ-20: A chance to dig a little deeper into the hobby. > > My ZX-5n: I tried new film almost every month there for awhile: Royal > Gold, Gold, Max, Porta 400VC, 160NC, Supra 100, 400, 800, NHG 800, > Superia 400, Reala 100, Tri-X, and so on... pushing, pulling, filtering, > rewinding with the leader out so I can swap but still finish the roll > later, etc. > > A kid born in 2008 (when I turn 40) won't ever process his own prints, > won't experiment with film, won't pick up prints at PhotoHut, won't > watch family slide shows on a projector screen, and won't know that 24 > Exposure rolls really have 25 shots on them if you're lucky. ;) >
iPod photo storage
I've managed to acquire a 60GB iPod Photo, and am rediscovering my CD collection. Wonderous indeed. Now need to do some enablement. I know the pod won't display RAW files, but that's ok. I just want to dump RAWs. I'm looking at the Belkin media reader. Seems it will work nicely at firewire speeds. But it is quite pricey. And then there are camera USB adapters. The Apple camera adapter doesn't list the *istDS as compatible, but since it works as a mass storage device, I guess it probably will. And I'd have to carry around the camera USB cable. Does anyone have any advice, or first hand experience? tia D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Photoshop CS2 --was Film scanner question
No I've been trying CS2. There is no way in hell I could afford to by it. Funny thing is it runs nicely on my now ancient 900mhz/512mb AMD Homebrew computer. I keep seeing people say it is slow on their modern super computers. Maybe it is just that I normally only have one or two aps open at a time. I have been playing with a 112mb/20mp file and it has been fine. Oh another thing I do is once I have finish with a layer I tend to collapse it and so usually only have 2 or 3 layers going a once. I guess it is just a legacy of mine from older non-multitasking OS, and 48K ram. Although I have been using Linux since '92 and XP since last year. I do find Bridge slow to load, but worthwhile. It and the raw converter are what I think I like best about CS2. And before you ask the only way I got the Oly C-5050z was that there was a real deal on a used one on ebay last month, and do to the fixed budget account I did not have to pay an electric bill last month, so tha money went for the camera. Strange to think of the electric bill as a savings account . graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- mike wilson wrote: If you've been buying PS2, no wonder you can't afford a decent printer. 8-) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005
Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot - Thanks
Bob W wrote: I've had plenty of those situations when I did have a camera with me, but other things stopped me getting the shot. Driving is a big one -- of those things that stops one getting the shot.
RE: Patch adding hidden functios to PS EL
Thank you Boris. Thank you Godfrey :-) Anyone out there who knows a patch without these limitations? 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: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 08:30 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Patch adding hidden functios to PS EL > > Hi! > > > I stumbled across a patch that is supposed to add some of the hidden > > function in Elements. > > - Curves > > - Channel mixer > > - Layer mask > > - Selective Colour adjustments > > And its free! To good to be true? > > Does anybody know anything significant about this? > > http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html > > Yes, I've been using it for months now. It just works... > > There is one gotcha though. When you use those funcs, you actually add a > layer to your image. Curves layer, CM layer, etc... Once added the layer > is not editable like in full PS. Elements will say this belongs to by > bigger brother so to say. Otherwise, it just works as advertised. > > Boris >
Printers (was Why full frame?)
From what I read in reviews written by long term users the expensive Epsons clog up too, only difference it that it is cheaper to replace the print head than to trash it and buy something else. Also Epson inks never turn out to have the permanence the are claimed to but it takes two three years for that to become apparent. Then there are the infamous red lines that seem to be unique to Epsons (I think the head picks up dust that becomes soaked in ink and drags it across the paper, at least when I cleaned the underside of the nozzles by running them over damp lint free paper towels that cured mine for awhile). The bronzing of the ink. And now the problems with the new semi-pigmented ink (they do not call them that, but that is what they are, a mixure of pigment and dye inks). Yes, you hear about problems with Cannons and HPs but when you read the reviews you get the idea that they are caused by either defective units, or very unknowledgable users. But like I said in an earlier post I have found work arounds for most of the problems with my 820. I could not afford to chuck it and by something else, or I would probably done the same as you guys. I guess that means that for a knowledgable experienced user Epsons do continue to chug along, even the cheap ones. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Bruce Dayton wrote: I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds like Canon lenses . -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005
Re: B&W On A DSLR
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 09:56 PM, Herb Chong wrote: you have to manually set white balance to something fixed, like daylight or something. Have a look: www.warmcards.com I've used these for several years. Bob
Re: Why full frame?
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is >so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the >expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds >like Canon lenses . Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: PESO -- Cruising is Serious Business
A nice picture. Despite being a bit unsharp. But what grab my attention are the threes, I like them, but I don't tend to look at the main subject. Could be me and my biases, being a "Me don't love wheels" man. I try to ignore him, because he is disturbing my peace, roaring around ;-) 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: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 05:50 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: PESO -- Cruising is Serious Business > > http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_cisb.html > > Equipment > Pentax *ist-D > smc Pentax 28-200mm f3.8~5.6AL[IF] > > As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). >
RE: CR-V3 rechargeables
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 07:10 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: CR-V3 rechargeables > > In a message dated 8/25/2005 2:18:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On 25/8/05, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >My bad. > > That is not a proper sentence. Your bad what?? > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > == > Ah, kids and their slang. > > Marnie > Ah, teachers. Tim
Re: Mini London PDML
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 25, 2005, at 6:38 PM, keithw wrote: [...] I mean, really! 1956! Sports car nirvana age... My first sports car was a Triumph TR-3! Lots of memories from back then. I was totally immersed in SCCA activities, crewing and racing and driving my TR around the countryside! 1956 is a little before my time. But I had a '61 Alfa Romeo Guilietta 1300... My SECOND sports car was a '58 Alfa Guilietta! ;-) Cars were wonderful playthings back then. Now they're too much of a pain in the butt to deal with. I still love my FrankenSpider, however. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/vehicles/fs-3468.htm Godfrey Made non-Alfa by what means? keith
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 08:00 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation I've been reading this thread from the start and keep wondering where we're talking about throwing film. Pardon me for correcting the thread title. It's the editor in me. This news story is interesting in that it refers to Kodak's digital business as expanding. I'm not sure that's accurate. The only digital cameras that Kodak was actually building were their pro cameras, and they recently discontinued their whole pro line of cameras and digital camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are just rebadged products from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD imaging chips, but I don't know of any cameras using them, and they can't be selling them in any volume. Kodak has been floundering in its attempts to go digital. The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary color negative film in production is that in a number of states digital images are not allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that will change over time. And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on film there will be a demand for those types of film. But that market is also going digital. I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. The days when you can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up a few rolls of film are definitely numbered. As a specialty item for fine art photographers, black and white film should be around for some time, but will become increasingly expensive. Bob
Re: Why full frame?
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:21 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! Sez who? Bob
GESO - Barber shop (again)
Last Tuesday my brother got married (hooray !!) I've been visiting 2 barber shops that day and off course the camera was with me :) so here is a small gallery with the best shots of that film (Trix 400 pushed to 800) http://mishka.site.co.il/gallery/WeddingPreps PS: why did i push that 400ASA film with a great grain and contrast ? when i was at the first barber shop i was kinda in hurry to get the first photo (that came out great - it's the last in the gallery) and didn't notice that the ASA setting on the camera was on 800. So i loaded the film and start shooting... when it was frame N14 i took a sneak peek on the camera and only then i saw the 800.. then i said... why not ? lets finish it and develop :) my first pushing experience ever :) The photos are shot with the SMC 50mm and SMC 35mm, all are F/2.8 I want (yes, again) to thank Boris for selling me that AWESOME 35mm lens !!!
RE: Re: New Digital SLR Products From Pentax
Shel. I have Scottish blood in my veins, have you? ;-) Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of not throwing away functioning things. I just couldn't resist. 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: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 08:04 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Re: New Digital SLR Products From Pentax > > I'm really not one to tread the upgrade path frequently, or take that path > without careful thought. FWIW, I still use Win 95 and Lotus 123 v2.01 (a > program I purchased in 1988 or 1989) on my old computer - works just fine > for my needs ;-)) Thanks, John > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: John Coyle > > > Shel, be like me and forget never-ending upgrades! I've been more than > > happy with the *ist-D, having no lust for the L, S or S2 > >
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Throws??? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Mini London PDML
keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But, those were cars you drove, not aimed. >When you moved the steering wheel, you were hooked directly to the road, >and you knew it! Same with every other function. Direct hookup. Exciting >driving! >You didn't need speed to get a sensation of driving. I used to have an MG Midget. I remember the first time I took it out on the expressway and thought "man, I'm really going fast", only to look down at the speedometer and see an indicated 45 mph! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: How to lower noise from a RAW file?
Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Taken at night.. forgot to switch off the noise reduction from my D :( >I know utilities can do that but dunno which ones. RawShooter Essentials has some noise reduction capability. http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.html After converting to JPEG you can use something like Noiseware. http://www.imagenomic.com/ -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot
> Ella Fitzgerald in concert from behind! > I heard her at that tour (from front, in Oslo). She was a diamond, despite a "stiff upper lip audience". 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 Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 08:01 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot > > Marnie, that's a question deserving multiple answers! > My most unusual shot: would have to be a commission to photograph a dog's > grave for it's owner, who had had to leave it behind when she returned to > England. Pentax SV, 55/1.8, Kodachrome 25 - Fee GBP% (which was worth a > lot > in those days!) > Unique (you can't have 'most unique'!): Ella Fitzgerald in concert from > behind! I was in the choir stalls at the Festival Hall in London for what > was, I think, her last European tour. > Weirdest: two ladybirds mating... > The hardest to capture: my twin grand-daughters doing anything except > pulling faces! > > HTH > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:26 PM > Subject: spam: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot > > > > Okay, I am kind of tired of the large print discussion (and thank > goddess > > the > > political thread has died), so LET'S DO A SURVEY!!! > > > > > Q. What is the most unusual subject matter you have ever shot? The most > > unique? Or the weirdest? Or simply the subject matter that you have had > > the hardest > > time "capturing" (either because it was hard to get to, or timing, or > > movement, or whatever)? > > > > Please expound. > > > > A. > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA, Marnie aka Doe > > >
Re: Why full frame?
Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:21 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! >> >Sez who? Informed sources whose jobs would be in danger if they were named. But also anyone who's worked in a camera shop and had the opportunity to hold the Tamron and Canon version of the same lens at the same time will tell you it's obvious. (Most of Nikon's cheap "consumer grade" zooms are also Tamrons.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot - Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Its hard to tell if this thread has run down yet. Maybe not. If you still >want to, feel free to continue to add your reply/answer. > >However, I wanted to throw my thanks in now. Thanks for starting the thread Marnie! Because of it, I've been going through my old shots and I've found some forgotten stuff I really like. The "Blue Man in Bath" shot is just one of them. BTW: Here's the latest version of it: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7cf01017.jpg -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Why full frame?
Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! But who am I to say? I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe its a proper lens. 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: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 14:21 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Why full frame? > > Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is > >so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the > >expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds > >like Canon lenses . > > Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
> > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 12:16:15 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 08:00 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation > > I've been reading this thread from the start and keep wondering where > we're talking about throwing film. > > Pardon me for correcting the thread title. It's the editor in me. > > This news story is interesting in that it refers to Kodak's digital > business as expanding. I'm not sure that's accurate. The only digital > cameras that Kodak was actually building were their pro cameras, and > they recently discontinued their whole pro line of cameras and digital > camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are just rebadged products > from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD imaging chips, but I don't > know of any cameras using them, and they can't be selling them in any > volume. Kodak has been floundering in its attempts to go digital. Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer inkjets and paper. I would take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. > > The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary color negative film > in production is that in a number of states digital images are not > allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that will change over time. > And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on film there will be a > demand for those types of film. But that market is also going digital. > > I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. The days when you > can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up a few rolls of film > are definitely numbered. > > As a specialty item for fine art photographers, black and white film > should be around for some time, but will become increasingly expensive. > > Bob > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Yeah, as in "death throws". Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Throws??? > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Yeah, as in "death throws". Sorry, I was being pedantic. It's "death throes". >--- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Throws??? >> >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts >> Photography and writing >> www.robertstech.com >> >> > > > > > >Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
OT: Cheesy song remakes
Some cheesy song remakes: "Inna-Gouda-Vel-Veeta" "Let it Brie" "Ricotta Get Out of This Place" "Cheeses Christ Superstar" "Your Cheesing Heart" "Bleu (cheese) Suede Shoes" "Nacho Man" "Muenster Mash" -- Daniel J. Matyola Stanley, Powers & Matyola 78 Grove Street Somerville, NJ 08876 (908)725-3322 (tel) (908)707-0399 (fax)
Re: PESO:Another Thinker
> > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- > Posted another yesterday, have been productive. Post titled PESO:Late > summer > Reflections. No comments so far. It deserves better IMHO. > > If you don't feel like finding the origenal post, but still wants to have > a > look: Look up my name at the page og the "thinker", a bit below the > picture, > thats a link to my other submitions at foto.no > What a heck, here is the link > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=190862 > > > Tim This looks like it would be an excellent picture to view as a print. I suspect that it is one of those pictures that does not do well on a monitor. At first glance, it just looks rather grubby and dull. Only when I get close up to the monitor can I make out the fascinating light and interesting details. Too subtle for the digital age, Tim. Try a more colourful, graphic image next time. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Film scanner question
mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> the real test is scanning greens. the eye is most sensitive in that color >> area. >> >Care to elucidate? 1: The green channel of a digital image very closely corresponds to the overall luminance of the image. 2: The human eye is also most sensitive in its "green channel" so to speak. 3: Item #2 is probably an evolutionary response to #1 4: Digital camera sensors have twice as many green pixels as red or blue (deliberately so - obviously! - because of #1 and #2) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why full frame?
Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! > >But who am I to say? >I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe its a proper lens. Sorry, but Canon makes their own f/2.8 zooms! It's things like the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 and $80.00 28-80 zooms that they OEM from Tamron. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Canon/Nikon/Tamron
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:49 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Informed sources whose jobs would be in danger if they were named. But also anyone who's worked in a camera shop and had the opportunity to hold the Tamron and Canon version of the same lens at the same time will tell you it's obvious. (Most of Nikon's cheap "consumer grade" zooms are also Tamrons.) May be "obvious", but it's wrong. In both cases. Bob
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Er..that is, "throes". Thanks, Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Throws??? > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Canon/Nikon/Tamron
Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:49 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Informed sources whose jobs would be in danger if they were named. But >> also anyone who's worked in a camera shop and had the opportunity to >> hold the Tamron and Canon version of the same lens at the same time >> will >> tell you it's obvious. (Most of Nikon's cheap "consumer grade" zooms >> are also Tamrons.) > >May be "obvious", but it's wrong. In both cases. Have things changed lately? I've *disassembled* these things. Believe me, they're the same in many cases. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Cheesy song remakes
"Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Some cheesy song remakes: > >"Inna-Gouda-Vel-Veeta" > >"Let it Brie" Getting Feta All the Time? >"Ricotta Get Out of This Place" > >"Cheeses Christ Superstar" Drop Kick Me Cheeses Through the Goal Posts of Life? >"Your Cheesing Heart" > >"Bleu (cheese) Suede Shoes" > >"Nacho Man" > >"Muenster Mash" Provolone Again, Naturally? ...or any song by the String Cheese Incident (an actual, real band) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: PESO:Another Thinker
Subtle. I like that. I'll change my mail signature to "Tim. Mostly subtle", on second thoughts, I wont. There is a link at the page "gråskala", it makes a rather primitive B&W conversion. When clicking it the man almost becomes an integrated part of the statue. That I love! Thats the idea I had in mind while shooting. I got to learn how to do some serious B&W conversion. 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: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 14:52 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PESO:Another Thinker > > > > > > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- > > Posted another yesterday, have been productive. Post titled PESO:Late > > summer > > Reflections. No comments so far. It deserves better IMHO. > > > > If you don't feel like finding the origenal post, but still wants to > have > > a > > look: Look up my name at the page og the "thinker", a bit below the > > picture, > > thats a link to my other submitions at foto.no > > What a heck, here is the link > > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=190862 > > > > > > Tim > > This looks like it would be an excellent picture to view as a print. I > suspect that it is one of those pictures that does not do well on a > monitor. At first glance, it just looks rather grubby and dull. Only > when I get close up to the monitor can I make out the fascinating light > and interesting details. > > Too subtle for the digital age, Tim. Try a more colourful, graphic image > next time. > > mike > > > - > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information >
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Pretty much my feeling, also. Lack of commercial support facilities will likely hasten the end. Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Davis" Subject: The Nature of Film's > Final Throws > > > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand > 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > As a readily available consumer commodity, I expect > film will pretty much be > gone within 5 years. > > William Robb > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Pancakes for Breakfast
There's a function button. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Pancakes for Breakfast Oh, I didn't know that. Don't recall ever hearing of such a thing. That might be kinda neat ... or not. Worth trying, anyway. I would still prefer using an aperture ring, but since they are taking that option away from us, we do what we have to do. On the istD, the front ring controls the shutter time, the rear one controls the aperture value. I haven't handled a Ds, apparently it only has one control wheel, so I don't know how it seperates the control function. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
GESO - Barber shop (again)
Last Tuesday my brother got married (hooray !!) I've been visiting 2 barber shops that day and off course the camera was with me :) so here is a small gallery with the best shots of that film (Trix 400 pushed to 800) http://mishka.site.co.il/gallery/WeddingPreps PS: why did i push that 400ASA film with a great grain and contrast ? when i was at the first barber shop i was kinda in hurry to get the first photo (that came out great - it's the last in the gallery) and didn't notice that the ASA setting on the camera was on 800. So i loaded the film and start shooting... when it was frame N14 i took a sneak peek on the camera and only then i saw the 800.. then i said... why not ? lets finish it and develop :) my first pushing experience ever :) The photos are shot with the SMC 50mm and SMC 35mm, all are F/2.8 I want (yes, again) to thank Boris for selling me that AWESOME 35mm lens !!! AND thanks all for helping me with the links and answers about developing the pushed film Michael
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Thanks for spelling edit! Embarrassed, but grateful.:-) Do you have a more optimistic view about the life of positive color film? Jack --- Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 08:00 PM, Godfrey > DiGiorgi wrote: > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation > > I've been reading this thread from the start and > keep wondering where > we're talking about throwing film. > > Pardon me for correcting the thread title. It's the > editor in me. > > This news story is interesting in that it refers to > Kodak's digital > business as expanding. I'm not sure that's > accurate. The only digital > cameras that Kodak was actually building were their > pro cameras, and > they recently discontinued their whole pro line of > cameras and digital > camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are > just rebadged products > from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD imaging > chips, but I don't > know of any cameras using them, and they can't be > selling them in any > volume. Kodak has been floundering in its attempts > to go digital. > > The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary > color negative film > in production is that in a number of states digital > images are not > allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that will > change over time. > And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on > film there will be a > demand for those types of film. But that market is > also going digital. > > I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. > The days when you > can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up a > few rolls of film > are definitely numbered. > > As a specialty item for fine art photographers, > black and white film > should be around for some time, but will become > increasingly expensive. > > Bob > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> This news story is interesting in that it refers to Kodak's digital >> business as expanding. I'm not sure that's accurate. The only digital >> cameras that Kodak was actually building were their pro cameras, and >> they recently discontinued their whole pro line of cameras and digital >> camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are just rebadged products >> from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD imaging chips, but I don't >> know of any cameras using them, and they can't be selling them in any >> volume. Kodak has been floundering in its attempts to go digital. > >Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer inkjets and paper. I would >take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked in with my friends who work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division that makes imaging chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else was absolutely gloomy. I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and related stuff and he didn't seem optimistic about the way things were going at all. >> The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary color negative film >> in production is that in a number of states digital images are not >> allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that will change over time. I wonder what states don't allow it now? My SO is a pathologist who occasionally serves as an expert witness in court. In New York State they don't even ask how the image was made. Our forensic pathologist friend in North Carolina does his photography exclusively digitally now. >> And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on film there will be a >> demand for those types of film. But that market is also going digital. >> >> I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. The days when you >> can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up a few rolls of film >> are definitely numbered. >> >> As a specialty item for fine art photographers, black and white film >> should be around for some time, but will become increasingly expensive. >From the art shows at which I've sold prints I've noticed that, regardless of what the final print looks like (and I expect inkjets will catch up with wet prints before long), people like knowing (and being able to tell their friends) that the print hanging on their wall is a "silver gelatin" photographic print made in a real darkroom. This seems to apply only to black & white prints. Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not picky... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
David, Thanks for the retro trip. My memories (too far back to totally relate here) begin with sitting by my father in his basement "darkroom" , nostrils full of the smell of chemistry, and being amazed each time an image developed in the tray. First camera, Baby Brownie in about 1942. Took it to school to show off and (Mom was right) it got stolen. Crushing day. Still have the first picture taken. Jack --- David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand > 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > > > I was thinking the other day about things I remember > from my childhood > (I was born in 1968): > > Visiting the "As-Is" section of a local thrift > store. "You can buy one > thing up to $1.00". I found some relic of a > malfunctioning bellows > camera. I wonder whatever happened to that. > > My first (functioning) camera: A 126 with flashcube. > > Sitting in the back seat of the stationwagon while > my parents pass > through the "PhotoHut" drive-through to pick up > their prints and slides. > > Family gatherings with the slide projector. Dad > always messing around > with the focus until we were all dizzy. Slides > always getting stuck in > the mechanism. Remember how they pop out of focus > if they get too hot? > > Our Polaroid One-Step; a photographic > disappointment. > > Junior High School Photography class: Developing B&W > negatives and > processing my own prints. Building a pinhole > camera. Opening a new > world of creativity. > > Dad got himself an Olympus OM-2n and began acquiring > lenses. I can > still name most of them: 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, > 135mm f/2.8, 24mm > f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35-70 f/??, Vivitar > teleconverter: 2x, and 1:1 macro. > I had a lot of fun with that camera too. > > Taking my own slides and prints on an extended trip > to Portugal > (1987-1989), with a hand-me-down Canon A1 (or > something like that; a > split-image focusing camera that looked a lot like > an SLR but wasn't). > > My PZ-20: A chance to dig a little deeper into the > hobby. > > My ZX-5n: I tried new film almost every month there > for awhile: Royal > Gold, Gold, Max, Porta 400VC, 160NC, Supra 100, 400, > 800, NHG 800, > Superia 400, Reala 100, Tri-X, and so on... pushing, > pulling, filtering, > rewinding with the leader out so I can swap but > still finish the roll > later, etc. > > A kid born in 2008 (when I turn 40) won't ever > process his own prints, > won't experiment with film, won't pick up prints at > PhotoHut, won't > watch family slide shows on a projector screen, and > won't know that 24 > Exposure rolls really have 25 shots on them if > you're lucky. ;) > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Film scanner question
> > From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:11:21 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Film scanner question > > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> the real test is scanning greens. the eye is most sensitive in that color > >> area. > >> > >Care to elucidate? > > 1: The green channel of a digital image very closely corresponds to the > overall luminance of the image. > 2: The human eye is also most sensitive in its "green channel" so to > speak. > 3: Item #2 is probably an evolutionary response to #1 > 4: Digital camera sensors have twice as many green pixels as red or blue > (deliberately so - obviously! - because of #1 and #2) OK. But this was a discussion of colour depth - that is not the same as luminance, is it? m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Canon/Nikon/Tamron
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:49 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >>> Informed sources whose jobs would be in danger if they were named. But >>> also anyone who's worked in a camera shop and had the opportunity to >>> hold the Tamron and Canon version of the same lens at the same time >>> will >>> tell you it's obvious. (Most of Nikon's cheap "consumer grade" zooms >>> are also Tamrons.) >> >>May be "obvious", but it's wrong. In both cases. > >Have things changed lately? I've *disassembled* these things. Believe >me, they're the same in many cases. To clarify: The only ones I've actually had in pieces were a Nikon 70-300 (or 75-300) and the corresponding Tamron. Absolutely identical internally and externally. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Mark, any idea why the "inkjet" chemist person was, seemingly, pessimistic? Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> This news story is interesting in that it refers > to Kodak's digital > >> business as expanding. I'm not sure that's > accurate. The only digital > >> cameras that Kodak was actually building were > their pro cameras, and > >> they recently discontinued their whole pro line > of cameras and digital > >> camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are > just rebadged products > >> from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD > imaging chips, but I don't > >> know of any cameras using them, and they can't be > selling them in any > >> volume. Kodak has been floundering in its > attempts to go digital. > > > >Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer > inkjets and paper. I would > >take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. > > When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked in > with my friends who > work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division > that makes imaging > chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else was > absolutely gloomy. > > I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and > related stuff and he > didn't seem optimistic about the way things were > going at all. > > >> The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary > color negative film > >> in production is that in a number of states > digital images are not > >> allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that > will change over time. > > I wonder what states don't allow it now? My SO is a > pathologist who > occasionally serves as an expert witness in court. > In New York State > they don't even ask how the image was made. Our > forensic pathologist > friend in North Carolina does his photography > exclusively digitally now. > > >> And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on > film there will be a > >> demand for those types of film. But that market > is also going digital. > >> > >> I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. > The days when you > >> can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up > a few rolls of film > >> are definitely numbered. > >> > >> As a specialty item for fine art photographers, > black and white film > >> should be around for some time, but will become > increasingly expensive. > > From the art shows at which I've sold prints I've > noticed that, > regardless of what the final print looks like (and I > expect inkjets will > catch up with wet prints before long), people like > knowing (and being > able to tell their friends) that the print hanging > on their wall is a > "silver gelatin" photographic print made in a real > darkroom. This seems > to apply only to black & white prints. > > Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not picky... > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Hi How about the performance of M100/2.8? -- __ Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.asiamail.com Send and receive SMS through your mailbox. Powered by Outblaze
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think I need to clarify some of this.: >When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked in with my friends who >work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division that makes imaging >chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else was absolutely gloomy. First thing I did last Saturday was get up to go running with my old marathon training buddies. This is a large group that started (25 years ago) at Kodak and Kodak employees still make up a large percentage of the group. (Ex-Kodak employees are present in significant numbers, too.) A couple of my friends work in the imaging sensor division, the rest are scattered throughout the company. One just retired after spending his whole career in Kodak's HR department. He seemed very relieved to be out of Kodak. The CCD guys were very excited about the 18 megapixel chip that's going into the Pentax 645 Digital, but let's face it, this isn't going to sell in very big numbers no matter how nice it is. >I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and related stuff and he >didn't seem optimistic about the way things were going at all. I met my chemist friend later in the day. (He's working part-time at shop that sells running shoes & stuff - I don't think he's desperate for money, but he likes hanging out with and helping other runners.) He used to do research on color negative film, but that group was disbanded a few years ago. I get the impression there isn't much, if any, research being done on color neg film these days. I'm going back up to Rochester in October. I'm going to try to meet with some people at RIT. It'll be interesting to hear their point of view on things. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark, any idea why the "inkjet" chemist person was, >seemingly, pessimistic? Not specifically, but then it may not have been anything specific. This long, slow attrition at Kodak has really killed morale there, even, I suspect, amongst people whose jobs are relatively safe. Incidentally, I think "pessimistic" may have been the wrong word to use because this is a very optimistic person by nature. 'I think "resigned" might be a better word. I think he believes it's just a matter of time until his job goes. That may not be true, but almost everyone I spoke to seems to *feel* this way. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:57 AM, Jack Davis wrote: Thanks for spelling edit! Embarrassed, but grateful.:-) Do you have a more optimistic view about the life of positive color film? No. Consumers are using digital for what they used to use it for. Pros are all using digital. Transparency film was in serious decline even before digital took a bite. Color negative film may have a bit more life, but the most recent figures show a sharp decline in single-use cameras for the first time ever. They were being seen as the thing that would keep color neg alive. Bob
Re: Canon/Nikon/Tamron
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 09:23 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: To clarify: The only ones I've actually had in pieces were a Nikon 70-300 (or 75-300) and the corresponding Tamron. Absolutely identical internally and externally. It's possible that Nikon has changed to sourcing some lenses from Tamron recently since their former supplier, Kyocera, is going out of the camera and lens business. BTW, Tamron is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony. Bob
Re: RE: PESO:Another Thinker
> > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:11:41 GMT > To: > Subject: RE: PESO:Another Thinker > > Subtle. I like that. I'll change my mail signature to > "Tim. Mostly subtle", on second thoughts, I wont. > > There is a link at the page "gråskala", it makes a rather primitive B&W > conversion. When clicking it the man almost becomes an integrated part of > the statue. That I love! > Thats the idea I had in mind while shooting. I got to learn how to do some > serious B&W conversion. > > > 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) I was referring to "Sene sommer refleksjoner", which the link takes you to. mike > > > -Original Message- > > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 26. august 2005 14:52 > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: PESO:Another Thinker > > > > > > > > > > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > > > Posted another yesterday, have been productive. Post titled PESO:Late > > > summer > > > Reflections. No comments so far. It deserves better IMHO. > > > > > > If you don't feel like finding the origenal post, but still wants to > > have > > > a > > > look: Look up my name at the page og the "thinker", a bit below the > > > picture, > > > thats a link to my other submitions at foto.no > > > What a heck, here is the link > > > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=190862 > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > This looks like it would be an excellent picture to view as a print. I > > suspect that it is one of those pictures that does not do well on a > > monitor. At first glance, it just looks rather grubby and dull. Only > > when I get close up to the monitor can I make out the fascinating light > > and interesting details. > > > > Too subtle for the digital age, Tim. Try a more colourful, graphic image > > next time. > > > > mike > > > > > > - > > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > > > > > > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Kodak: Funny quote
>From last year on the PDML: "I think lens wipes is the one area Kodak will continue to dominate." - Tom Van Veen -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
> > From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:37:49 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> This news story is interesting in that it refers to Kodak's digital > >> business as expanding. I'm not sure that's accurate. The only digital > >> cameras that Kodak was actually building were their pro cameras, and > >> they recently discontinued their whole pro line of cameras and digital > >> camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are just rebadged products > >> from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD imaging chips, but I don't > >> know of any cameras using them, and they can't be selling them in any > >> volume. Kodak has been floundering in its attempts to go digital. > > > >Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer inkjets and paper. I would > >take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. > > When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked in with my friends who > work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division that makes imaging > chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else was absolutely gloomy. > > I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and related stuff and he > didn't seem optimistic about the way things were going at all. See below. > > >> The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary color negative film > >> in production is that in a number of states digital images are not > >> allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that will change over time. > > I wonder what states don't allow it now? My SO is a pathologist who > occasionally serves as an expert witness in court. In New York State > they don't even ask how the image was made. Our forensic pathologist > friend in North Carolina does his photography exclusively digitally now. > > >> And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on film there will be a > >> demand for those types of film. But that market is also going digital. > >> > >> I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. The days when you > >> can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up a few rolls of film > >> are definitely numbered. > >> > >> As a specialty item for fine art photographers, black and white film > >> should be around for some time, but will become increasingly expensive. > > From the art shows at which I've sold prints I've noticed that, > regardless of what the final print looks like (and I expect inkjets will > catch up with wet prints before long), people like knowing (and being > able to tell their friends) that the print hanging on their wall is a > "silver gelatin" photographic print made in a real darkroom. This seems > to apply only to black & white prints. > > Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not picky... I think this is an area where the photographic industry has dealt itself a severe, if not mortal, blow. If you give Mr & Mrs Sixpack (who _do not care_ about quality) a way to look at their pictures for free, how can you possibly expect them to buy prints? The repercussions of this are only just beginning to be felt. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Not specifically, but then it may not have been anything specific. This long, slow attrition at Kodak has really killed morale there, even, I suspect, amongst people whose jobs are relatively safe. Incidentally, I think "pessimistic" may have been the wrong word to use because this is a very optimistic person by nature. 'I think "resigned" might be a better word. I think he believes it's just a matter of time until his job goes. That may not be true, but almost everyone I spoke to seems to *feel* this way. Go into a mass marketer that sells inkjet printers and count how many Kodak printers you see for sale. In almost all cases it will be zero. Look at inkjet paper and you'll see some Kodak packages, but that is such a competitive market that I don't think anyone is making much money from it. There are just too many companies supplying inkjet paper. Bob
Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
> > From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:38:04 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > > Mark, any idea why the "inkjet" chemist person was, > seemingly, pessimistic? > > Jack For all the extra shooting most digitalista do, most of them print far less than they did when they used analogue. mike > > --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > > >> This news story is interesting in that it refers > > to Kodak's digital > > >> business as expanding. I'm not sure that's > > accurate. The only digital > > >> cameras that Kodak was actually building were > > their pro cameras, and > > >> they recently discontinued their whole pro line > > of cameras and digital > > >> camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are > > just rebadged products > > >> from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD > > imaging chips, but I don't > > >> know of any cameras using them, and they can't be > > selling them in any > > >> volume. Kodak has been floundering in its > > attempts to go digital. > > > > > >Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer > > inkjets and paper. I would > > >take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. > > > > When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked in > > with my friends who > > work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division > > that makes imaging > > chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else was > > absolutely gloomy. > > > > I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and > > related stuff and he > > didn't seem optimistic about the way things were > > going at all. > > > > >> The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary > > color negative film > > >> in production is that in a number of states > > digital images are not > > >> allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that > > will change over time. > > > > I wonder what states don't allow it now? My SO is a > > pathologist who > > occasionally serves as an expert witness in court. > > In New York State > > they don't even ask how the image was made. Our > > forensic pathologist > > friend in North Carolina does his photography > > exclusively digitally now. > > > > >> And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on > > film there will be a > > >> demand for those types of film. But that market > > is also going digital. > > >> > > >> I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. > > The days when you > > >> can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up > > a few rolls of film > > >> are definitely numbered. > > >> > > >> As a specialty item for fine art photographers, > > black and white film > > >> should be around for some time, but will become > > increasingly expensive. > > > > From the art shows at which I've sold prints I've > > noticed that, > > regardless of what the final print looks like (and I > > expect inkjets will > > catch up with wet prints before long), people like > > knowing (and being > > able to tell their friends) that the print hanging > > on their wall is a > > "silver gelatin" photographic print made in a real > > darkroom. This seems > > to apply only to black & white prints. > > > > Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not picky... > > > > > > -- > > Mark Roberts > > Photography and writing > > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not picky... > >I think this is an area where the photographic industry has dealt >itself a severe, if not mortal, blow. If you give Mr & Mrs Sixpack >(who _do not care_ about quality) a way to look at their pictures for >free, how can you possibly expect them to buy prints? Well, I was naturally thinking of them buying prints of *my* photos, to frame and hang on the wall. And they aren't getting *those* for free if I can help it But your point is well taken. The industry has been reassuring itself by saying, essentially, "it's all about the print". In other words, that they can always sell prints to consumers, even in the digital age. I can clearly remember when I got my first film scanner: My immediate reaction was "Yee ha! I don't have to bother getting prints to see my photos any more!" No more boxes of prints to store! I suspect a lot of regular consumers (not all of them) feel this way, too. Having boxes of prints to store is a hassle. Perhaps they'll regret it years down the road, after a major hard drive crash, but the number of people I've known with lost negatives and prints over the years makes me think it's a case of "plus ca change..." Digital doesn't make it *more* likely that people will lose their precious family photos, it just means it'll happen in a different way. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Mark, So will I. Please pass along RIT(?) gleanings as possible. Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I need to clarify some of this.: > > >When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked in > with my friends who > >work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division > that makes imaging > >chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else > was absolutely gloomy. > > First thing I did last Saturday was get up to go > running with my old > marathon training buddies. This is a large group > that started (25 years > ago) at Kodak and Kodak employees still make up a > large percentage of > the group. (Ex-Kodak employees are present in > significant numbers, too.) > A couple of my friends work in the imaging sensor > division, the rest are > scattered throughout the company. One just retired > after spending his > whole career in Kodak's HR department. He seemed > very relieved to be out > of Kodak. The CCD guys were very excited about the > 18 megapixel chip > that's going into the Pentax 645 Digital, but let's > face it, this isn't > going to sell in very big numbers no matter how nice > it is. > > >I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and > related stuff and he > >didn't seem optimistic about the way things were > going at all. > > I met my chemist friend later in the day. (He's > working part-time at > shop that sells running shoes & stuff - I don't > think he's desperate for > money, but he likes hanging out with and helping > other runners.) He used > to do research on color negative film, but that > group was disbanded a > few years ago. I get the impression there isn't > much, if any, research > being done on color neg film these days. > > I'm going back up to Rochester in October. I'm going > to try to meet with > some people at RIT. It'll be interesting to hear > their point of view on > things. > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Still seems to me to be a market that will enjoy robust growth for some time. Jack --- mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:38:04 GMT > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > > > > Mark, any idea why the "inkjet" chemist person > was, > > seemingly, pessimistic? > > > > Jack > > For all the extra shooting most digitalista do, most > of them print far less than they did when they used > analogue. > > mike > > > > > --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> > > > >> This news story is interesting in that it > refers > > > to Kodak's digital > > > >> business as expanding. I'm not sure that's > > > accurate. The only digital > > > >> cameras that Kodak was actually building were > > > their pro cameras, and > > > >> they recently discontinued their whole pro > line > > > of cameras and digital > > > >> camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras > are > > > just rebadged products > > > >> from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD > > > imaging chips, but I don't > > > >> know of any cameras using them, and they > can't be > > > selling them in any > > > >> volume. Kodak has been floundering in its > > > attempts to go digital. > > > > > > > >Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer > > > inkjets and paper. I would > > > >take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, > too. > > > > > > When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked > in > > > with my friends who > > > work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division > > > that makes imaging > > > chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else > was > > > absolutely gloomy. > > > > > > I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and > > > related stuff and he > > > didn't seem optimistic about the way things were > > > going at all. > > > > > > >> The only thing I know of that might keep > ordinary > > > color negative film > > > >> in production is that in a number of states > > > digital images are not > > > >> allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect > that > > > will change over time. > > > > > > I wonder what states don't allow it now? My SO > is a > > > pathologist who > > > occasionally serves as an expert witness in > court. > > > In New York State > > > they don't even ask how the image was made. Our > > > forensic pathologist > > > friend in North Carolina does his photography > > > exclusively digitally now. > > > > > > >> And, so long as motion picture companies > shoot on > > > film there will be a > > > >> demand for those types of film. But that > market > > > is also going digital. > > > >> > > > >> I don't see a future for film as a consumer > item. > > > The days when you > > > >> can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and > pick up > > > a few rolls of film > > > >> are definitely numbered. > > > >> > > > >> As a specialty item for fine art > photographers, > > > black and white film > > > >> should be around for some time, but will > become > > > increasingly expensive. > > > > > > From the art shows at which I've sold prints > I've > > > noticed that, > > > regardless of what the final print looks like > (and I > > > expect inkjets will > > > catch up with wet prints before long), people > like > > > knowing (and being > > > able to tell their friends) that the print > hanging > > > on their wall is a > > > "silver gelatin" photographic print made in a > real > > > darkroom. This seems > > > to apply only to black & white prints. > > > > > > Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not > picky... > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mark Roberts > > > Photography and writing > > > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > - > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Go into a mass marketer that sells inkjet printers and count how many >Kodak printers you see for sale. In almost all cases it will be zero. > >Look at inkjet paper and you'll see some Kodak packages, but that is >such a competitive market that I don't think anyone is making much >money from it. There are just too many companies supplying inkjet >paper. Yeah. Kodak's having a go at the market (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0412/04122301kodak_newplant.asp) I wish 'em luck but I'm not optimistic. My chemist friend was lamenting the days of high-profit-margin products (which means film). He said he thought it cost more to make the packaging (box and film canister) than the film itself. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
"Yee ha! I don't have to bother getting prints to see my photos any more!" No more boxes of prints to store! I suspect a lot of regular consumers (not all of them) feel this way, too. Having boxes of prints to store is a hassle. Perhaps they'll regret it years down the road, after a major hard drive crash, but the number of people I've known with lost negatives and prints over the years makes me think it's a case of "plus ca change..." Digital doesn't make it *more* likely that people will lose their precious family photos, it just means it'll happen in a different way. The average digital consumer probably isn't going to print all his shots anyway, just a few of the ones he needs or considers "keepers" So, there is the potential for less consumer paper use with digital even though there is the potential for taking more shots (cheaply) with digital. RCB
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
I have to pass along one more endearing film experience; My now 41 year old daughter who, when asked to suggest some High School graduation gifts, immediately named, "a good camera". She received a Pentax K1000 w/M-50mm f/1.7 (I believe)and has since added short and medium Pentax zooms. Must mention that her K1000, also, got stolen. I replaced it while remembering my experience. Some while back, while tinkering with our cameras, she mentioned that she had "always liked the smell of film". At that moment, we became even closer. Jack --- David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand > 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > > > I was thinking the other day about things I remember > from my childhood > (I was born in 1968): > > Visiting the "As-Is" section of a local thrift > store. "You can buy one > thing up to $1.00". I found some relic of a > malfunctioning bellows > camera. I wonder whatever happened to that. > > My first (functioning) camera: A 126 with flashcube. > > Sitting in the back seat of the stationwagon while > my parents pass > through the "PhotoHut" drive-through to pick up > their prints and slides. > > Family gatherings with the slide projector. Dad > always messing around > with the focus until we were all dizzy. Slides > always getting stuck in > the mechanism. Remember how they pop out of focus > if they get too hot? > > Our Polaroid One-Step; a photographic > disappointment. > > Junior High School Photography class: Developing B&W > negatives and > processing my own prints. Building a pinhole > camera. Opening a new > world of creativity. > > Dad got himself an Olympus OM-2n and began acquiring > lenses. I can > still name most of them: 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, > 135mm f/2.8, 24mm > f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35-70 f/??, Vivitar > teleconverter: 2x, and 1:1 macro. > I had a lot of fun with that camera too. > > Taking my own slides and prints on an extended trip > to Portugal > (1987-1989), with a hand-me-down Canon A1 (or > something like that; a > split-image focusing camera that looked a lot like > an SLR but wasn't). > > My PZ-20: A chance to dig a little deeper into the > hobby. > > My ZX-5n: I tried new film almost every month there > for awhile: Royal > Gold, Gold, Max, Porta 400VC, 160NC, Supra 100, 400, > 800, NHG 800, > Superia 400, Reala 100, Tri-X, and so on... pushing, > pulling, filtering, > rewinding with the leader out so I can swap but > still finish the roll > later, etc. > > A kid born in 2008 (when I turn 40) won't ever > process his own prints, > won't experiment with film, won't pick up prints at > PhotoHut, won't > watch family slide shows on a projector screen, and > won't know that 24 > Exposure rolls really have 25 shots on them if > you're lucky. ;) > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: OT: Cheesy song remakes
And you've the nerve to attach your name, address, and phone to this You've ruined my morning coffee! Shel > [Original Message] > From: Daniel J. Matyola > Some cheesy song remakes: > > "Inna-Gouda-Vel-Veeta" > > "Let it Brie" > > "Ricotta Get Out of This Place" > > "Cheeses Christ Superstar" > > "Your Cheesing Heart" > > "Bleu (cheese) Suede Shoes" > > "Nacho Man" > > "Muenster Mash" > > -- > Daniel J. Matyola > Stanley, Powers & Matyola > 78 Grove Street > Somerville, NJ 08876 > (908)725-3322 (tel) > (908)707-0399 (fax) > >
RE: Canon/Nikon/Tamron
A more correct word would be apparent, not obvious ... sheesh! Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob Shell > > On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:49 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > Informed sources whose jobs would be in > > danger if they were named. But > > also anyone who's worked in a camera > > shop and had the opportunity to > > hold the Tamron and Canon version of > > the same lens at the same time > > will tell you it's obvious. > May be "obvious", but it's wrong. In both cases.
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Bob Shell wrote: Look at inkjet paper and you'll see some Kodak packages, but that is such a competitive market that I don't think anyone is making much money from it. There are just too many companies supplying inkjet paper. Bob I don't know about that. Supposedly it's what kept Ilford afloat. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: B&W On A DSLR
Yeah, Tom Payne had some of these at GFM last weekend. They look interesting. Bob Shell wrote: Have a look: www.warmcards.com I've used these for several years. Bob
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
- Original Message - From: "R.C.Booth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The average digital consumer probably isn't going to print all his shots > anyway, just a few of the ones he needs or considers "keepers" So, there is > the potential for less consumer paper use with digital even though there is > the potential for taking more shots (cheaply) with digital. > Hmm, I disagree somewhat. My ex-wife and my sister are two "average" examples of new digicam users. The ex-wife has a Canon A70 and the sister has an Optio 555 (on topic!). Both shoot the normal snapshots of events and locations they did with film. Both take their full memory cards to the local photo finisher and get prints (sometimes doubles) of every shot on the card without even reviewing them on a PC. Both are very happy with this arrangement. They like the results on paper and they don't seem to notice if there is a cost difference. Both are getting far more-prints-per-visit to the photo lab but are going less often due to the fact that their cards take longer to fill up than when they shot 24 frames of film. Christian
Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot
oh, Lord, we're trying to =attract= people to the NPW. Let's not threaten them with having to listen to me. Mark Roberts wrote: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone who hasn't yet attended a Grandfather Mountain Nature Photography weekend take note: If you meet Doug in person you'll be able to visualize Doug speaking and hear his voice when you read one of his stories like this. It's worth the trip for that alone :)
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Which is why I expect that someone will manufacture B&W film in the future. I'm fairly certain that the supply curve for film is U shaped. It doesn't have to be produced it extra huge quantities to be economical. I also expect there will be color film stock made for quite some time as well. There are hundreds of thousands of movie theaters which still have 35mm projectors. Movies may be shot in digital, but distribution will probably be primarily on film, it would cost a stupendous amount of money to replace those projectors, and as in any business. there would have to be a compelling economic reason to change, which at this point just doesn't exist. Mark Roberts wrote: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Go into a mass marketer that sells inkjet printers and count how many Kodak printers you see for sale. In almost all cases it will be zero. Look at inkjet paper and you'll see some Kodak packages, but that is such a competitive market that I don't think anyone is making much money from it. There are just too many companies supplying inkjet paper. Yeah. Kodak's having a go at the market (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0412/04122301kodak_newplant.asp) I wish 'em luck but I'm not optimistic. My chemist friend was lamenting the days of high-profit-margin products (which means film). He said he thought it cost more to make the packaging (box and film canister) than the film itself. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Pancakes for Breakfast
Av button next to the Shutter. Hold it down and rotate the wheel. Pretty much standard on the various single-wheel cameras now (Nikon and Canon do the same thing on their current single-wheel cameras) -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: How would one set the aperture when using the lens manually, like in aperture priority, or when using full manual modes? Am I missing something? Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Huh? Full control of both body and lens will be possible, and you'll be able to use all the DS' capabilities. Why would that be unsatisfactory?? Godfrey On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hmmm that may make it unsatisfactory on the DS as well. ... however, it does not have an aperture ring so it would be unsatisfactory on, say, the MX body since it would only operate at f/22 or some such without body control of the aperture mechanism.
Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot
mike wilson wrote: From: Cesar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 02:21:46 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot mike wilson wrote: From: Cesar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1) I was sitting in a UH-1 with the doors open as we did a 'map of the earth' return to our base in southern Honduras. The others hesitated when the pilot asked if we wanted to do it, so I chimed in and said yes! Nothing spectacular in terms of photos but it was the situation. What's a "map of the earth" return? mike Mike, Basically, it is following the terrain of the earth with a set altitude. So that could be 400 feet above the ground and tree tops... What a blast, César Panama City, Florida Sounds like a recipe for regurgitation. 8-) I sometimes watch the RAf practicing low flying in the countrysdide around here. 400' would be considered as getting some height for a look around 8-) Ever seen the film of the RNAS making a mock attack on a bunker in Arizona/Nevada? mike Nap of the Earth (not Map btw) can be a lot of fun. Oneof my earliest memories is flying at treetop height down a river in northern BC, sitting in the front right-hand seat of my father's Bell 206 Jetranger. -Adam
Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot
I'm sure you have a melodious voice. Doug Brewer wrote: oh, Lord, we're trying to =attract= people to the NPW. Let's not threaten them with having to listen to me. Mark Roberts wrote: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone who hasn't yet attended a Grandfather Mountain Nature Photography weekend take note: If you meet Doug in person you'll be able to visualize Doug speaking and hear his voice when you read one of his stories like this. It's worth the trip for that alone :) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Fw: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Seems like the lack of printing is one of the major advantages. You don't have to mess with prints and mailing them to friends and relatives, you just e-mail them. I do agree with a prior poster though that the biggest loss will be preservation. Grandma's 20-year old stash of prints in the bottom dresser drawer just aren't going to be there. That disturbs the historical preservation bones in me. J.W.L. - Original Message - From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:06 AM Subject: Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:38:04 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes Mark, any idea why the "inkjet" chemist person was, seemingly, pessimistic? Jack For all the extra shooting most digitalista do, most of them print far less than they did when they used analogue. mike --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> <>>> > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Canon/Nikon/Tamron
Nikon (And Canon) both have used several outsourced manufacturers for their consumer lenses. Nikon's 70-300's are Tamrons, Cosina has also done some for them (The FM10 and it's kit are Cosina, as was the old EM and possibly the Series E lenses). -Adam Bob Shell wrote: On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 09:23 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: To clarify: The only ones I've actually had in pieces were a Nikon 70-300 (or 75-300) and the corresponding Tamron. Absolutely identical internally and externally. It's possible that Nikon has changed to sourcing some lenses from Tamron recently since their former supplier, Kyocera, is going out of the camera and lens business. BTW, Tamron is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony. Bob
Re: Printers (was Why full frame?)
The HP's are excellent printers, but don't sell the Epson's short, they've mostly solved the clogging issue, and there's a cheap fix for the more modern printers (Windex on a wipe under the heads). I'm printing 3K B&W on a HP 7660 and BO on a Epson C86 and quite happy with both. The HP does decent colour too (The C86 is only a 4-ink printer and thus unsuitable for good colour output) -Adam Graywolf wrote: From what I read in reviews written by long term users the expensive Epsons clog up too, only difference it that it is cheaper to replace the print head than to trash it and buy something else. Also Epson inks never turn out to have the permanence the are claimed to but it takes two three years for that to become apparent. Then there are the infamous red lines that seem to be unique to Epsons (I think the head picks up dust that becomes soaked in ink and drags it across the paper, at least when I cleaned the underside of the nozzles by running them over damp lint free paper towels that cured mine for awhile). The bronzing of the ink. And now the problems with the new semi-pigmented ink (they do not call them that, but that is what they are, a mixure of pigment and dye inks). Yes, you hear about problems with Cannons and HPs but when you read the reviews you get the idea that they are caused by either defective units, or very unknowledgable users. But like I said in an earlier post I have found work arounds for most of the problems with my 820. I could not afford to chuck it and by something else, or I would probably done the same as you guys. I guess that means that for a knowledgable experienced user Epsons do continue to chug along, even the cheap ones. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Bruce Dayton wrote: I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds like Canon lenses .
Re: Survey: Your Most Unusual Shot
In a message dated 8/25/2005 11:00:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marnie, that's a question deserving multiple answers! My most unusual shot: would have to be a commission to photograph a dog's grave for it's owner, who had had to leave it behind when she returned to England. Pentax SV, 55/1.8, Kodachrome 25 - Fee GBP% (which was worth a lot in those days!) Unique (you can't have 'most unique'!): Ella Fitzgerald in concert from behind! I was in the choir stalls at the Festival Hall in London for what was, I think, her last European tour. Weirdest: two ladybirds mating... The hardest to capture: my twin grand-daughters doing anything except pulling faces! HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia === Cool, John. Both Ella and grave. Now, really, I was wondering when someone would say the hardest thing to "capture" was their own children/grand children. I mean... aren't kids really hard to capture (in their "nature state", unless sleeping)!? And you're the only one to mention it to date. Way to go. Hehehehehe. Thanks, interesting replies. Marnie aka Doe
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
In a message dated 8/26/2005 6:47:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not specifically, but then it may not have been anything specific. This long, slow attrition at Kodak has really killed morale there, even, I suspect, amongst people whose jobs are relatively safe. Incidentally, I think "pessimistic" may have been the wrong word to use because this is a very optimistic person by nature. 'I think "resigned" might be a better word. I think he believes it's just a matter of time until his job goes. That may not be true, but almost everyone I spoke to seems to *feel* this way. -- Mark Roberts Isn't there a market for Kodak to produce disposable digital cameras? Probably not make up for film though. Marnie aka Doe
RE: RE: PESO:Another Thinker
You did? There where three links in the post. The main link was to Another Thinker, the first one was a site giving a bit background to the picture (about the spot and the maker of the sculptures), the last one was just a reminder. Thats the one you commented ;-) In my reply I assumed it was the main one. Anyway, thanks for the comment. It may have been silly of me to make a post with a "hidden" subject. I'll try not to do that again. 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: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 15:57 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: RE: PESO:Another Thinker > > > > > > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:11:41 GMT > > To: > > Subject: RE: PESO:Another Thinker > > > > Subtle. I like that. I'll change my mail signature to > > "Tim. Mostly subtle", on second thoughts, I wont. > > > > There is a link at the page "gråskala", it makes a rather primitive B&W > > conversion. When clicking it the man almost becomes an integrated part > of > > the statue. That I love! > > Thats the idea I had in mind while shooting. I got to learn how to do > some > > serious B&W conversion. > > > > > > 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) > > I was referring to "Sene sommer refleksjoner", which the link takes you > to. > > mike > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 26. august 2005 14:52 > > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > > Subject: Re: PESO:Another Thinker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > > > > > Posted another yesterday, have been productive. Post titled > PESO:Late > > > > summer > > > > Reflections. No comments so far. It deserves better IMHO. > > > > > > > > If you don't feel like finding the origenal post, but still wants to > > > have > > > > a > > > > look: Look up my name at the page og the "thinker", a bit below the > > > > picture, > > > > thats a link to my other submitions at foto.no > > > > What a heck, here is the link > > > > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=190862 > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > This looks like it would be an excellent picture to view as a print. > I > > > suspect that it is one of those pictures that does not do well on a > > > monitor. At first glance, it just looks rather grubby and dull. Only > > > when I get close up to the monitor can I make out the fascinating > light > > > and interesting details. > > > > > > Too subtle for the digital age, Tim. Try a more colourful, graphic > image > > > next time. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > - > > > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > > > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > > > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information >
Re: OT: Cheesy song remakes
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 09:07 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Some cheesy song remakes: And don't forget these enduring classics: "Bye Bye Swiss American (cheese) Pie"? "My Provalona"? (Sharonna) "Cheese, Cheese Me"? (Please Please me) "I wanna Ricotta Roll All Night (and Havarti ever-y day)" "She Loves Gruyere, Yeah, Yeah" "I've Got to Admit it's Getting Cheddar" (a little cheddar all the time...)
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
The local CVS carries "single use" digital cameras, horrible low resolution things, at about twice the price of a single use film camera without review, and twice that for a model that allows review of the last shot taken. Both allow you to delete images but without review how would you know that you wanted to... I've thought about buying one to try to crack the interface. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/26/2005 6:47:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not specifically, but then it may not have been anything specific. This long, slow attrition at Kodak has really killed morale there, even, I suspect, amongst people whose jobs are relatively safe. Incidentally, I think "pessimistic" may have been the wrong word to use because this is a very optimistic person by nature. 'I think "resigned" might be a better word. I think he believes it's just a matter of time until his job goes. That may not be true, but almost everyone I spoke to seems to *feel* this way. -- Mark Roberts Isn't there a market for Kodak to produce disposable digital cameras? Probably not make up for film though. Marnie aka Doe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: B&W On A DSLR
Joseph Tainter wrote: Let's say you shoot on a Pentax DSLR, with the intention at the start of converting the image to grayscale. You shoot with a red or yellow or green filter, with the final B&W image in mind. One shoots in Raw. After converting to TIFF, then converting to grayscale, will the effect of, say, a red filter still be present in the image? Or will the white balance just correct for it at the time the image is shot? If the answer is that the effect of the filter will be corrected by white balance, then much of my interest in ever doing digital B&W photography disappears. Joe It depends on the range of colors that you are starting out with. If the colors that you are trying to mute or enhance differ highly in luminance from the other colors, then its useful to use a filter. This allows the more muted colors to be captured with less noise, since you are not simply multiplying their luminance values in a digital sense but through actual exposure. So if you want to darken a sky, it would work better to use a filter than to try to do this in Photoshop. The tonality range for the filter based approach would be higher. rg
Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes I think this is an area where the photographic industry has dealt itself a severe, if not mortal, blow. If you give Mr & Mrs Sixpack (who _do not care_ about quality) a way to look at their pictures for free, how can you possibly expect them to buy prints? Fortunately, Joe and his wife are, for the most part, beer swilling semi-neanderthals who are not literate enough to figure out how to run a computer. Looking at my sales figures over the past couple of years, film processing is now at ~30% of where it peaked out 3 years ago, but prints are running closer to 75%. William Robb
Re: FA*24/2.0
Cotty wrote: Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? You lucky bad! Paul
Re:The Nature of Film's Final Throes
While I don't doubt that the film market is contracting significantly, I wonder if it will quickly go away. Here's some anecdotal evidence, for what it's worth. I shoot film, so I have spent time finding the best/cheapest places to get my film processed and printed: Sam's Club, several grocery chains, Wolf/Ritz Camera, and a couple of pro labs. In every case, the labs are busy busy busy. I know some chunk of their business is printing digital images, but the processing machines always seem to be going full blast, the racks of envelopes containing completed rolls are filled, and they don't seem to be lacking for business. There's always a line of people dropping off 35mm canisters. At one nearby supermarket that does a decent job, a customer can get double 4 X 6 glossy prints, with a CD of digitzed images, for 7.99. If they don't get it done in an hour, it's free. So, in practical terms for snappers who want family photos, film is still pretty cheap and easy, and the CD makes the images as easy to share as digital. At this same store, they regularly put film on sale, and I've been able to pick up multipacks of Fuji color print film 200 and 400 for as little as 75 cents a roll. I've noticed, too, that at family gatherings, there is more interest in passing around prints than there is in looking at images on a monitor. Film might disappear from these retail outlets in the blink of an eye. But maybe not. In the meantime, many people still find film very cheap and fun to use. *>UncaMikey
Re: iPod photo storage
On Aug 26, 2005, at 4:21 AM, Derby Chang wrote: I've managed to acquire a 60GB iPod Photo, and am rediscovering my CD collection. Wonderous indeed. Now need to do some enablement. I know the pod won't display RAW files, but that's ok. I just want to dump RAWs. I'm looking at the Belkin media reader. Seems it will work nicely at firewire speeds. But it is quite pricey. And then there are camera USB adapters. The Apple camera adapter doesn't list the *istDS as compatible, but since it works as a mass storage device, I guess it probably will. And I'd have to carry around the camera USB cable. Does anyone have any advice, or first hand experience? I'm not sure that the iPod Photos will transfer anything but JPEG files from the supported cameras. I'd look out for that. My impression was that they do not. Godfrey
RE: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Isn't there a market for Kodak to produce disposable digital cameras? > Probably not make up for film though. And there was me thinking with the recent threads on DSLRs that they all were... Malcolm
Re: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
No need to disparage the Neanderthal Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb > Fortunately, Joe and his wife are, for the most part, beer swilling > semi-neanderthals who are not literate enough to figure out how to run a > computer.
Re: PESO -- Cruising is Serious Business
On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: A nice picture. Despite being a bit unsharp. But what grab my attention are the threes, I like them, but I don't tend to look at the main subject. Could be me and my biases, being a "Me don't love wheels" man. I try to ignore him, because he is disturbing my peace, roaring around ;-) Hmm. In this picture, I don't see the motorcyclist as "roaring around". He looks like he's on a pleasant, burbling putt through some nice country. Godfrey
Re: PESO -- Cruising is Serious Business
I was talking about his expression, he looks extraordinarily serious for someone on a joy ride. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: A nice picture. Despite being a bit unsharp. But what grab my attention are the threes, I like them, but I don't tend to look at the main subject. Could be me and my biases, being a "Me don't love wheels" man. I try to ignore him, because he is disturbing my peace, roaring around ;-) Hmm. In this picture, I don't see the motorcyclist as "roaring around". He looks like he's on a pleasant, burbling putt through some nice country. Godfrey -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
