Re: why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/9/2005 6:36:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..but, as he pointed out, the two emails came from TWO SEPARATE EMAIL  
ADDRESSES.  There is a good chance that neither of them are actually  
the original seller, and they're just looking for someone to give  
them a lot of money for nothing.  :-(

  -Charles

How stupid do they think we are? :-)

Hmmm, maybe ebay's actually getting stricter with scammers and this is one 
new scam the scammers found. Since it doesn't actually go through ebay it might 
just work.

Marnie aka Doe :-)  (I don't always read carefully enough. I mean, let's face 
it PDML has a lot of posts. A LOT..)

Re: Fried Highlights

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/9/2005 9:44:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
i've been using CS2 for months now and not had a single problem w it. There 
are several extremely useful new bits that impact photographic work explicitly. 
 Camera Raw v3.1 is a major improvement. It's been well worth the upgrade 
cost.  

godfrey
=
Well, I got CS, cheap. We shall see if there is a problem with it or not. But 
the guy had good feedback so I don't think so.

It will entitle me, if there are no problems, to a cheap upgrade rather than 
buying the whole CS2. If I get so I really, really want CS2, that is. My photo 
editing is probably on a much lower scale than most of the rest of you. 
Simply because I take fewer photos. :-)

I like my software cheap, or as cheap as possible. Just the way I am. Since I 
used to write software for my computer clients. (This reply is not 
specifically directed at you, Godfrey, just talkin'.)

First I have to finish my Elements 3 class. 

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Fried Highlights

[Shel Belinkoff]

Can't speak for problems with the Mac, just the Windows version.

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


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


> i've been using CS2 for months now and not had a single problem w it. 

Re: OT: Back in the Pentaxian fold

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/9/2005 8:57:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GOOD GIRL, Marnie!
BTW, my son is now a Pentaxian also. I gave him an Optio 50 for his 
birthday. (Uses AA batteries, which is very convenient, and SD cards, 
which I have for my Optio 550, so that's also very convenient.)
===
Well, I am glad someone thinks I am now a sort of Pentaxian again. :-)

Trouble is IT HASN'T ARRIVED YET!!!

Marnie aka Doe aka the impatient when it comes to new toys

Re: Fried Highlights

[godders]

i've been using CS2 for months now and not had a single problem w it. There are 
several extremely useful new bits that impact photographic work explicitly.  
Camera Raw v3.1 is a major improvement. It's been well worth the upgrade cost.  

godfrey
-Original Message-

From:  Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj:  Re: Fried Highlights
Date:  Fri Sep 9, 2005 8:05 am
Size:  827 bytes
To:  pentax-discuss@pdml.net

I wouldn't consider CS2 at this point.  As a frequent visitor and
participant in Adobe's User-toUser forums I've gotten to see and learn
about the myriad of problems many people are having with the program.  I
don't want to underwrite the cost of experimenting with CS2 right now with
my time or dollars.  However, a free trial download, or from a disk, would
be worthwhile to see how CS2 works on your machine.

Strictly for photo editing, CS2 doesn't offer much over CS, IMO.  Go for CS
and upgrade later if you feel you need more "features."

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


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


> Hey, looking at Amazon, I was just noticing that CS (1) is now very 
> affordable!
>
> Unless there is some overwhelming compelling reason to get CS2 instead of
1, 
> CS now sounds good.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Herb Chong]

from a megapixels point of view, they have settled. higher frame rate has 
its cost. on the film side of things, the tradeoff never had to be made in 
the same way. a piece of film has the same resolution in every camera body, 
as JCO is fond of pointing out.


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

To: "pentax list" 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...



If a sports shooter had unlimited funds and had to choose between the two
Canon models above, which one do you think he would choose? And so you're
saying he's settling for second best?

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


Brutally honest, rather than brutal and honest, I think.

I like the composition and the great light, but would prefer more contrast.


John, if you don't mind, could you please download it and WOW it a bit?

I think adding contrast will make it more silhouette like and make the 
atmosphere just a bit all too gloomy.


Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Quite nice. I think it could have been better with a little less at the 
bottom and a little more at the top (the top right hand window). In fact, if you 
could crop it without losing much on either side, it would look a tinge better 
with a little less darkness below the podium. But I think you probably couldn't 
crop it like that without losing too much on the sides.


That's my brutal. :-)

Quite nice, actually.


Marnie, actually I tried what you suggested on location. That is placing 
the lectern (what I nice word) to the right bottom corner. The problem 
is that I had to move the lens slightly upwards. Then, I realized I 
would have to apply perspective correction and hence loose some of the 
pixels to PS.


I also wanted a bit of light in the right top corner...

I am not being defensive here, really. I am just trying to put in words 
what I thought while shooting and/or editing the shot.


Your brutal is perfectly fine. I'd rather you were at least that brutal 
most of the time ;-).


Thanks.

Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Boris, I really like this one.  I don't agree that the tonality is 
wrong, as you have, at least on my monitor, both extreme highlights and 
deep black shadows.  Others have talked about cropping it, but I think 
it would be hard to do without either placing the lectern too close to 
the frame or losing the subtle lighting in the top right corner.  
Compositionally, the placing of the lectern and the angles of the chairs 
is perfect: I might want a visual conclusion to that eye-line, as I then 
find nothing at the end of it except the pillars and windows (the 
crucifix on the altar is just a little off-line).

Overall, I'd be very happy to have taken this one!


Oh, so I misplaced the crucifix... I see your point. When I got to 
editing (which by the way happened yesterday) I realized I have a kind 
of dialog between lectern and crucifix which I found was very 
interesting...


I see what you're saying... In fact, as far as cropping goes, I realize 
this is rather tight shot as it is and 18 mm being my widest lens... 
(Pentax, if you hear me - produce the full frame camera, will you please?)


I hope one day to be able to try this shot again...

As a side note - just finished re-reading "Da Vinci Code"... Now that I 
can relate to some of the places mentioned in the book, such as 
Westminster, it is even more fun!


Thanks!

Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


It certainly has an atmosphere!  well done Boris.


Thanks. A-ha, now I got the atmosphere... Very well! I appreciate your 
comment Cotty, perhaps even more than you can possibly imagine ;-).


Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


Yes, the black background helps.


Told ya ;-).


A truly well executed scenario for... for what? I see two possibilities:

1. This picture wants to depict the inside of the church, as it could be
required for a tourist guide or the like. If so, it's OK.


:-/


2. This picture wants to be worth in itself, whichever the place is. If so,
it needs a subject to focus on at a certain time. A well visible person
(dressed in pure black) beside pillar No.3 from left (4 from right) would
complete the shot.


A question, honest and direct - isn't dialog between the lecturer stand 
and the cross not enough? Given the light?


Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Seems to me, and pardon my chutzpah, but...you already *have* contrast, 
between the almost blown out open window highlights, and the darkest 
shadows inside.

I think what is needed is more shadow detail!
Now, I don't know how you actually GET that, but that's how I call it...


Keith, your chutzpah is pardoned ;-). Nice choice of words though.

The window highlights are totally blown out - couldn't help it. I 
intentionally went for darker image. That's how I felt wondering inside 
depths of The Tower of London...


Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


Beautiful, Boris. Very strong, and great technique. However, I do miss a
little old lady on one of the back rows :-)


I see your point... Well at least in my mind's eye.

You know, that's always been a story with me - I'd prefer an empty scene 
shot to the one where there're people. That's because either I would 
have to ask those people to pose in a very specific way or I would have 
to wait ad infinitum until they'd assume the position I want on their own...


But you're right - adding a person to the scene could create many 
possibilities.


Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

I like it very much.  Nice and moody.  Love the lighting and the 
shadows.  How much unsharp mask have you applied?  Overall it looks a 
little soft, but maybe that's intentional.


Tom, it is not intentional. I did not apply *much* USM. In fact I use 
the high-pass filter layer technique instead and then by checking the 
opacity get to fine tune the outcome...


It was shot with Sigma 18/3.5 lens. It is manual focus and it was quite 
indoors ;-). I think I simply missed the focus some.


Boris

Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


HCB said, "Your first 10,000 photos are your worst."


Oh... Now it explains it. I am still somewhere in the middle my eighth 
thousand counting few shots I made on film before getting *istD...


;-).

Cheers.

Boris

Re: OT: Back in the Pentaxian fold

[E.R.N. Reed]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Well, not really, still have a Canon DSLR and expect it will stay that way.

But I am now the proud owner of a Pentax optio s4i (ebay). It is one of the 
slim ones, so it will fit in my purse. Hasn't arrived yet. If anyone is 
interested I will tell you what I think later. But probably not, as it is an older 
optio.


Maybe I can submit a picture to the PUG now and then, again.

And people can stop sneering at me for not having a Pentax. (Oh, it was very 
quiet sneering, but I knew it was there.)


It'll be fun to have a camera in my purse. Even if the image quality isn't 
great, or at least not up to a DSLR.


Marnie aka Doe the PENTAXIAN  ;-)


 


GOOD GIRL, Marnie!
BTW, my son is now a Pentaxian also. I gave him an Optio 50 for his 
birthday. (Uses AA batteries, which is very convenient, and SD cards, 
which I have for my Optio 550, so that's also very convenient.)

Re: Pentax 645D Competition

[Graywolf]

How about a 1.7gb (10K x 12K 48bit) digital back?

http://www.betterlight.com/

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


Cotty wrote:

Leaf/Mamiya 22MP DSLR:






Cheers,
  Cotty


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






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/94 - Release Date: 9/9/2005

Re: Fried Highlights, Decline in Photo Quality (was PESO - The Bridge)

[E.R.N. Reed]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



One of these days you are going to define it so I understand it? 
Exactly what is a blown highlight?


Marnie aka Doe :-)


and P. J. Alling wrote:  

   A white so bright it could star in a laundry detergent 
commercial...



Wow! Well put!

Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....

[Michel Carrère-Gée]

Fred a écrit :


I found by adding a small rubber bumper (slightly smaller in diameter
than the 4 way) to the 4 way control (as mentioned a while ago here), my
issues with the control are reduced. Try  it you might like it.
   



Might you have a picture of this improvement for us to see?  Thanks.

 


Fred, see my improved pad:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/temp/pad-istd.jpg

Michel

Re: GESO: The Dream Cruise

[Graywolf]

Changed your name again have you, Dorian?

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


william sawyer wrote:
Paul,  


I solved the age problem several years ago by having my portrait done, then
putting it in the attic - the idea is that it gets old and I don't. Clever,
huh!

Wait, I forgot - I don't have an attic!!

Uh, oh

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:49 PM

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: GESO: The Dream Cruise

HAR! You had me going there. Being old, forgetful, and simple minded, I 
didn't get it at first. I was trying to remember if I had bought 
something from you and neglected to pay. Wouldn't have been the first 
time that I zoned out:-).

Paul
On Sep 8, 2005, at 6:13 PM, william sawyer wrote:


'bout time, Paul.  And, as expected, outstanding work - no 
disappointments

here.  I especially like the panning technique - it's very effective.

Um, I hate to bring it up, but your check still isn't here.

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:15 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: GESO: The Dream Cruise

Due to popular demand, I've posted some Dream Cruise pics. Okay, it
wasn't exactly popular demand, but my buddy Bill did request these, so
here they are. Many are just snaps that I shot from my Chevy while
cruising, but most of them are at least a bit entertaining. Some are
from the night before the cruise. A few, which were seen before, are
from a few nights before the cruise. The shots from the morning of the
cruise are under clouds or in the rain. Enough disclaimers.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=526011












--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/94 - Release Date: 9/9/2005

Re: Fried Highlights

[George Sinos]

Shel -

I bought Elements 3 to get the updated version of Photoshop Album.  I
don't use the Elements part of it much these days.

Here's a link to a screen shot of the single PE3 raw converter screen
and five shots showing the CS2 raw converter with each of it's five
tabs selected.

  

(These screen captures aren't available from the menus on my website. 
So save this link if you want to come back to it later.  I believe I'm
working within the fair use provisions of copyright because we're
using these screens as an illustration for discussing the programs,
but there's no reason to link them to the menus of my web site.)

You can see that there are a lot of things in CS2 that don't show up
in PE3.  I believe the PE3 version has as much or maybe slightly more
functionality than was found in the older CS version.

>From what I've read, both use the same core conversion engine.  CS2
adds a more functionality and "fine tuning".  My guess is a darkroom
guy like yourself would prefer the CS2 version if only to get the
"curves" tab.

When you're adjusting the tonal range of an image, you do the coarse
adjustments with the sliders on the "adjust" tab, then do your fine
tuning with the "curves" tab.

The sliders and curves in the raw converter do their work on the
pre-conversion linear data.  The curves operation in Photoshop does
its work on the post conversion data.  I'm not sure if that's clear,
but that's why they asked Bruce Fraser to write the book on Camera Raw
instead of me.

At any rate, Elements 3 doesn't have a curves function in either the
raw converter or in Elements itself.  There are add ons that give you
the functionality of curves in Elements (Most notably those included
with Richard Lynch's book "The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements 3").
They have some drawbacks.

Slightly switching topics, I agree with Paul's statement that the istD
seems to do a good job of not blowing out the highlights.  Combine
that natural tendency with Camera Raw's highlight recovery algorithms
and I think you could say that you get a stop or two more headroom
than you might have expected.  Although, I'm not sure it's that much.

There's a short section in Fraser's Camera Raw book explaining how the
program attempts to recreate highlight detail in a blown channel from
any remaining data in other channels.

Just to add another log to the fire, I've recently started working my
way through the new book by Dan Margulis, "Photoshop LAB color".  This
book is introducing me to some really powerful stuff for adjusting
color that I didn't know I didn't know.  (If you know what I mean.) 
Once you start reading that book, you'd probably not be happy with
Elements.  There's no LAB color in there.  You need to get to a full
Photoshop version.

Well, I've rambled on enough for one message.

See you later, gs


On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George,
> 
> Thanks for posting that.  Once I start working more with RAW, it may be
> worthwhile to take CS2 for a rest ride.
> 
> I heard that the converter in Elements 3.0 is the same.  Do you know if
> that's correct?
> 
> Shel
> 
>

Re: Fried Highlights

[Shel Belinkoff]

Lots of problems with activation, crashing, slowness, seeming
incompatibility with a number of video drivers, tools not working ...of
course, the User-to-User forums are where people who have problems go, but
a few of the long time regulars there say that they hadn't seen as many
problems with CS or v 7.0.  A few people on the PS mail list have
experienced problems as well.

I suspect that most people are OK.  I just don't want to spend a lot of
time DL'ing the program with a slow dial-up connection only to have to be
one of the people with the problems.  I'll wait until the istDS is here and
try to find a free sample on a disk (some of the magazines from the UK have
such disks) and give it a test spin then.  There are enough new features to
certainly make me curious ;-))  What I was saying is that I'd not go out
and buy the program without testing it with a free 30 day trial first, even
if I can get it for the upgrade price, which is quite inexpensive,
relatively speaking.

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: David Savage 

> What sort of problems Shel?
>
> I bought the upgrade from CS some months ago and I haven't had any
> problems on my somewhat aging machine (Pentium 2.5GHz, 1G RAM, Winduz
> XP Pro). The improved batch processing of raw files, the ability to do
> raw processing without having to start Photoshop & the smart sharpen
> feature (which I prefer over USM now) are very handy. Is it worth the
> extra expense? I don't know. I do agree though that most of the
> improvements are aimed at graphic designers.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wouldn't consider CS2 at this point.  As a frequent visitor and
> > participant in Adobe's User-toUser forums I've gotten to see and learn
> > about the myriad of problems many people are having with the program.  I
> > don't want to underwrite the cost of experimenting with CS2 right now
with
> > my time or dollars.  However, a free trial download, or from a disk,
would
> > be worthwhile to see how CS2 works on your machine.
> > 
> > Strictly for photo editing, CS2 doesn't offer much over CS, IMO.  Go
for CS
> > and upgrade later if you feel you need more "features."
> > 
> > Shel
> > "Am I paranoid or perceptive?"
> > 
> > 
> > > [Original Message]
> > > Wrom: YLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGM
> > 
> > 
> > > Hey, looking at Amazon, I was just noticing that CS (1) is now very
> > > affordable!
> > >
> > > Unless there is some overwhelming compelling reason to get CS2
instead of
> > 1,
> > > CS now sounds good.
> > 
> > 
> >

Re: Fried Highlights

[David Savage]

What sort of problems Shel?

I bought the upgrade from CS some months ago and I haven't had any
problems on my somewhat aging machine (Pentium 2.5GHz, 1G RAM, Winduz
XP Pro). The improved batch processing of raw files, the ability to do
raw processing without having to start Photoshop & the smart sharpen
feature (which I prefer over USM now) are very handy. Is it worth the
extra expense? I don't know. I do agree though that most of the
improvements are aimed at graphic designers.

Dave



On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't consider CS2 at this point.  As a frequent visitor and
> participant in Adobe's User-toUser forums I've gotten to see and learn
> about the myriad of problems many people are having with the program.  I
> don't want to underwrite the cost of experimenting with CS2 right now with
> my time or dollars.  However, a free trial download, or from a disk, would
> be worthwhile to see how CS2 works on your machine.
> 
> Strictly for photo editing, CS2 doesn't offer much over CS, IMO.  Go for CS
> and upgrade later if you feel you need more "features."
> 
> Shel
> "Am I paranoid or perceptive?"
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > Wrom: YLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGM
> 
> 
> > Hey, looking at Amazon, I was just noticing that CS (1) is now very
> > affordable!
> >
> > Unless there is some overwhelming compelling reason to get CS2 instead of
> 1,
> > CS now sounds good.
> 
> 
>

Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....

[David Savage]

Fred, William,

I think Kenneth is refering to something like this stuck to the 4-way
controller:

http://tinyurl.com/9f3pz

Easy to find at hardware and electronics stores in a variety of sizes.

HTH

Dave

On 9/10/05, william sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure what you mean, Ken. Can you post a photo?
> 
> Bill Sawyer
> Livonia, MI
> -Original Message-
> Wrom: VFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCX
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:22 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz 
> 
> I found by adding a small rubber bumper (slightly smaller in diameter than
> the 4 way) to the 4 way control (as mentioned a while ago here), my issues
> with the control are reduced.
> 
> 
> Try  it you might like it.
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> 
> -Original Message-
> Wrom: LYRWTQTIPWIGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJY
> 
> Subject: Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz 
> 
> I have no problem with the four way switch on the D. I use it for
> selective autofocus control on a regular bases and frequently move the
> red dot back and forth across the frame.
> On Sep 3, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Powell Hargrave wrote:
> 
> > My Ds controls are perfect.
> >   (hope my camera didn't hear me typing that and decide it can get
> > lazy)
> >
> > Powell
> >
> >> I am curious - do any other DS users notice any "tackiness" in these
> >> controls?  And, how about the *ist D?
> >>
> >> Fred
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DS - The Saga Continues

[David Oswald]

I'm glad to hear it's going to work out. That's a good endorsement for 
BuyDig.com.  It will be worth the wait.  Click a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.7 
lens onto the camera and have some fun.


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

For those who have been following this soap opera, here's today's
installment and a little recap to bring things up to date:

The defective DS was shipped back to BuyDig on Tuesday, and they received
it yesterday.  However, during that time the BuyDig web site showed that
there were no more DS bodies in stock.  Oh, my, thought I  I'm SOL.

This morning I called BuyDig customer service and was told that I should
call back on Sunday for an update on the situation.  They were very willing
to refund my money, but I told 'em I wanted the camera.  I figured I was in
for a weekend of nail biting and digital angst, and began making plans to
look elsewhere for a replacement.

Just a few minutes ago I received an email from BuyDig.  The replacement
camera has been shipped!  So now all I have to do is contend with FedEx one
more time, and hope that the replacement camera works as it should.

So far, in all of this, dealing with BuyDig has been the only bright spot. 
They have consistently done what they said they'd do, and generally faster

than they said they'd do it.

I may be able to attend the Pentax Pixel Party yet   Is that black tie?

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 

Re: Fried Highlights

[Shel Belinkoff]

George,

Thanks for posting that.  Once I start working more with RAW, it may be
worthwhile to take CS2 for a rest ride.

I heard that the converter in Elements 3.0 is the same.  Do you know if
that's correct?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 9/9/2005 4:38:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Fried Highlights
>
> There are a lot of differences between CS and CS2.  Of these there are
> a few I use often:
>
> You can straighten and crop an image in Camera Raw, these changes are
> non-destructive and are stored in the DNG file.
>
> The major camera raw sliders all now have an "auto" setting.  For most
> of the stuff I shoot, they are usually in the ballpark and I only have
> to tweak things just a bit.  At a minimum, it's interesting to see
> what adjustments Adobe's engineers thought should be made before I
> depart on my own adjustment adventure.
>
> The batch processing is a big step forward.  Once you kick off a batch
> of raw conversions, you can switch over to photoshop and start working
> while the conversion completes in the background.  This is a big time
> saver.
>
> The image processor is great, you can select a bunch of raw files and
> tell it you want a set of TIFFs and a set of JPGs of different or the
> same resolution and it will go off and convert the whole bunch for
> you.  (This was previously a script called Dr. Brown's something or
> other.  Now it's built in.)
>
> Bridge replaces the old file browser and is a separate application. 
> It's a huge step forward and makes it much easier to review files with
> several customizable options.
>
> I've almost completely switched over to Smart Sharpen and seldom use
> Unsharp Mask.  Smart sharpen let's you set different amounts for
> highlights, midtones and shadows, includes a bit of noise reduction
> and has a few other options.  You can name and save combinations of
> settings and load them later to be used with other images.
>
> I've used the lens correction feature several times to correct barrel
> distortion.
>
> They've finally moved the spot healing brush and red eye removal tools
> into CS2.  Both were in previous versions of Photoshop Elements.
>
> Those are only the additions that I commonly use.  I wouldn't want to
> go back to CS.
>
> I'll also add my endorsement (whatever that's worth) of the Real World
> Adobe Camera Raw book.  Quite a bit was rewritten in the CS2 version
> to accommodate the new features.
>
> See you later, gs
> 
>
> On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know about "greatly superior," although I've heard it's better.
> > Unfortunately, I've not heard how it's better, and have not seen any
> > comparisons any where.
> > 
> > IAC, the free trial is the way to go first, IMO, and getting the
program as
> > an upgrade may be a better way still.
> > 
> > Shel
> > 
> > > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > > That may be true strictly for photo editing.  But from all I hear
> > > the raw converter in CS2 is greatly superior to that in CS
> > 
> > 
> >

Re: To match Gold LX

[Fred]

> A little gaffer's tape and these lenses will be all set to go ;-))

Har !!!

Fred

Re: DS - The Saga Continues

[Fred]

> So far, in all of this, dealing with BuyDig has been the only bright spot.
> They have consistently done what they said they'd do, and generally faster
> than they said they'd do it.

> I may be able to attend the Pentax Pixel Party yet   Is that black tie?

Hey, I've got my fingers crossed for you, Shel.

Fred

Re: DS - The Saga Continues

[Shel Belinkoff]

Another use for gaffer's tape ... !!!

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 
>
> On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, completely organized, iterated:
>
> >I may be able to attend the Pentax Pixel Party yet   Is that black
tie?
>
> And armband.

Suscipios ebay emails

[Charles Wilson]

I was outbid on a 15mm yesterday. Here's the auction:
http://tinyurl.com/83wno

Then I got two SEPARATE emails offering a second chance bid to buy,
supposedly because the winning seller couldn't pay. Both emails stressed
to reply to the email, rather than through eBay. That gets me
suspicious. I think I'll play it safe and ignore them.

Dear All,

I had the same thing happen to me, I contacted eBay who advised it was a 
scam. Offered to send me the lens but because he had so many transactions 
couldn't do it by paypal but I could do it by direct deposit.  Message is 
BEWARE



Charles Wilson
Sydney Australia 

Re: why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[David Savage]

I had a similar thing happen to me a couple of weeks ago.

I responded through eBay, ignoring there request not to , and asked
how they could be offering me a second chance to buy it when they
obviously weren't the original seller.

I got a response informing me that they weren't giving me a second
chance offer, they had no idea where the offer came from and that this
seller had had 10-15 of these emails that day. They reported it to
eBay.

You really have to be careful.

Dave

On 9/10/05, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I was outbid on a 15mm yesterday. Here's the auction:
> http://tinyurl.com/83wno
> 
> Then I got two SEPARATE emails offering a second chance bid to buy,
> supposedly because the winning seller couldn't pay. Both emails stressed
> to reply to the email, rather than through ebay. That gets me
> suspicious. I think I'll play it safe and ignore them.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> D
> 
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
> 
>

Re: why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[Charles Robinson]

On Sep 9, 2005, at 18:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, it should have some official ebay thing on it. Address or a  
page to go

to or something.

Sounds like the high bidder backed out and the seller is now trying  
to sell
it on the side without ebay getting their cut. They can say it  
didn't sell,

period, that way.

That's what I would guess if the emails come from the same address  
as the
seller has on ebay. Personally, I don't like it when sellers or  
buyers try to cut

private deals.



..but, as he pointed out, the two emails came from TWO SEPARATE EMAIL  
ADDRESSES.  There is a good chance that neither of them are actually  
the original seller, and they're just looking for someone to give  
them a lot of money for nothing.  :-(


 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[John Coyle]

Boris, I really like this one.  I don't agree that the tonality is wrong, as 
you have, at least on my monitor, both extreme highlights and deep black 
shadows.  Others have talked about cropping it, but I think it would be hard 
to do without either placing the lectern too close to the frame or losing 
the subtle lighting in the top right corner.  Compositionally, the placing 
of the lectern and the angles of the chairs is perfect: I might want a 
visual conclusion to that eye-line, as I then find nothing at the end of it 
except the pillars and windows (the crucifix on the altar is just a little 
off-line).

Overall, I'd be very happy to have taken this one!

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia

- Original Message - 
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:24 AM
Subject: PESO - In The Tower



Hi!

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716

Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black 
background - the way I intended it to be watched.


I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...

As usual - be brutal and honest.

Boris

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/9/2005 11:31:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716

Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black 
background - the way I intended it to be watched.

I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...

As usual - be brutal and honest.

Boris
=
Quite nice. I think it could have been better with a little less at the 
bottom and a little more at the top (the top right hand window). In fact, if 
you 
could crop it without losing much on either side, it would look a tinge better 
with a little less darkness below the podium. But I think you probably couldn't 
crop it like that without losing too much on the sides.

That's my brutal. :-)

Quite nice, actually.

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/9/2005 11:59:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What you're saying is, the rear element really doesn't collimate the 
light bundle, that about right?
Are you also saying it can't happen, according to the laws of optics as 
you understand them?
I thought that was the reason for the odd shapes some lenses are ground 
to, to set up the refraction so it DID control where the light went and 
how it looked after it exited the last surface...

I'm not dissing you here. I am not capable of anything but the most 
rudimentary ray tracing and today, so many years after I learned how, 
not even that!

keith whaley
==
I think I am getting a headache.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/9/2005 3:32:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was outbid on a 15mm yesterday. Here's the auction:
http://tinyurl.com/83wno

Then I got two SEPARATE emails offering a second chance bid to buy, 
supposedly because the winning seller couldn't pay. Both emails stressed 
to reply to the email, rather than through ebay. That gets me 
suspicious. I think I'll play it safe and ignore them.

Oh well.

D

Yeah, it should have some official ebay thing on it. Address or a page to go 
to or something.

Sounds like the high bidder backed out and the seller is now trying to sell 
it on the side without ebay getting their cut. They can say it didn't sell, 
period, that way.

That's what I would guess if the emails come from the same address as the 
seller has on ebay. Personally, I don't like it when sellers or buyers try to 
cut 
private deals. 

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Is this real???

[Cotty]

On 10/9/05, Feroze, discombobulated, unleashed:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26041
>
>I don't know this newspaper, for the UK members is it a real paper or 
>one of those "I saw Elvis rags"???
>My phone has a 1.3MP camera so I better get cracking at it...:)

Never heard of it.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: DS - The Saga Continues

[Cotty]

On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I may be able to attend the Pentax Pixel Party yet   Is that black tie?

And armband.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[Cotty]

On 10/9/05, Derby Chang, discombobulated, unleashed:

>
>I was outbid on a 15mm yesterday. Here's the auction:
>http://tinyurl.com/83wno
>
>Then I got two SEPARATE emails offering a second chance bid to buy, 
>supposedly because the winning seller couldn't pay. Both emails stressed 
>to reply to the email, rather than through ebay. That gets me 
>suspicious. I think I'll play it safe and ignore them.

Painful but very wise move!




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Fried Highlights

[George Sinos]

There are a lot of differences between CS and CS2.  Of these there are
a few I use often:

You can straighten and crop an image in Camera Raw, these changes are
non-destructive and are stored in the DNG file.

The major camera raw sliders all now have an "auto" setting.  For most
of the stuff I shoot, they are usually in the ballpark and I only have
to tweak things just a bit.  At a minimum, it's interesting to see
what adjustments Adobe's engineers thought should be made before I
depart on my own adjustment adventure.

The batch processing is a big step forward.  Once you kick off a batch
of raw conversions, you can switch over to photoshop and start working
while the conversion completes in the background.  This is a big time
saver.

The image processor is great, you can select a bunch of raw files and
tell it you want a set of TIFFs and a set of JPGs of different or the
same resolution and it will go off and convert the whole bunch for
you.  (This was previously a script called Dr. Brown's something or
other.  Now it's built in.)

Bridge replaces the old file browser and is a separate application. 
It's a huge step forward and makes it much easier to review files with
several customizable options.

I've almost completely switched over to Smart Sharpen and seldom use
Unsharp Mask.  Smart sharpen let's you set different amounts for
highlights, midtones and shadows, includes a bit of noise reduction
and has a few other options.  You can name and save combinations of
settings and load them later to be used with other images.

I've used the lens correction feature several times to correct barrel
distortion.

They've finally moved the spot healing brush and red eye removal tools
into CS2.  Both were in previous versions of Photoshop Elements.

Those are only the additions that I commonly use.  I wouldn't want to
go back to CS.

I'll also add my endorsement (whatever that's worth) of the Real World
Adobe Camera Raw book.  Quite a bit was rewritten in the CS2 version
to accommodate the new features.

See you later, gs


On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know about "greatly superior," although I've heard it's better.
> Unfortunately, I've not heard how it's better, and have not seen any
> comparisons any where.
> 
> IAC, the free trial is the way to go first, IMO, and getting the program as
> an upgrade may be a better way still.
> 
> Shel
> 
> > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > That may be true strictly for photo editing.  But from all I hear
> > the raw converter in CS2 is greatly superior to that in CS
> 
> 
>

Re: Is this real???

[Feroze]

does not bode well for a paid career as a PJ.pity

Bob W wrote:


It's not a UK newspaper as far as I know. However, the Scoopt agency is
real, and a lot of cameraphone pictures and videos were used after the
bombings on 7th July, by the BBC website, all TV news and most of the
newspapers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4746633.stm
http://www.scoopt.com/

In a place like London, where there are so many tourists, it's not a new
thing for the press to be scooped by amateurs. Camera phones perhaps make it
more likely to happen though. 


--
Cheers,
Bob 

 


-Original Message-
From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 09 September 2005 23:27

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Is this real???

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26041

I don't know this newspaper, for the UK members is it a real 
paper or one of those "I saw Elvis rags"???

My phone has a 1.3MP camera so I better get cracking at it...:)

Feroze




   





 

RE: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)

[Bob W]

> 
> BTW, I found a place that sells gaffer's tape in a variety of 
> colors, so for those of you who want to tape your cameras, 
> but were put off by the dullness and somber use of black 
> tape, here's a chance to inexpensively add a splash of color 
> to you prized cameras.  Good for holding your nerd glasses 
> together, too.
> 

Great - at last I can cover the red dot with red gaffer tape!

H C-Bob

RE: Is this real???

[Bob W]

It's not a UK newspaper as far as I know. However, the Scoopt agency is
real, and a lot of cameraphone pictures and videos were used after the
bombings on 7th July, by the BBC website, all TV news and most of the
newspapers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4746633.stm
http://www.scoopt.com/

In a place like London, where there are so many tourists, it's not a new
thing for the press to be scooped by amateurs. Camera phones perhaps make it
more likely to happen though. 

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 09 September 2005 23:27
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Is this real???
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26041
> 
> I don't know this newspaper, for the UK members is it a real 
> paper or one of those "I saw Elvis rags"???
> My phone has a 1.3MP camera so I better get cracking at it...:)
> 
> Feroze
> 
> 
> 
> 

DS - The Saga Continues

[Shel Belinkoff]

For those who have been following this soap opera, here's today's
installment and a little recap to bring things up to date:

The defective DS was shipped back to BuyDig on Tuesday, and they received
it yesterday.  However, during that time the BuyDig web site showed that
there were no more DS bodies in stock.  Oh, my, thought I  I'm SOL.

This morning I called BuyDig customer service and was told that I should
call back on Sunday for an update on the situation.  They were very willing
to refund my money, but I told 'em I wanted the camera.  I figured I was in
for a weekend of nail biting and digital angst, and began making plans to
look elsewhere for a replacement.

Just a few minutes ago I received an email from BuyDig.  The replacement
camera has been shipped!  So now all I have to do is contend with FedEx one
more time, and hope that the replacement camera works as it should.

So far, in all of this, dealing with BuyDig has been the only bright spot. 
They have consistently done what they said they'd do, and generally faster
than they said they'd do it.

I may be able to attend the Pentax Pixel Party yet   Is that black tie?

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 

Re: why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[Jim Hemenway]

At one time several years ago it wasn't all that risky. But now, and 
especially if the emails were from two different people, I'd play it 
safe too.


For some reason I can't get TinyUrls based on an ebay url to work.

What was the final price?

Jim

Derby Chang wrote:



I was outbid on a 15mm yesterday. Here's the auction:
http://tinyurl.com/83wno

Then I got two SEPARATE emails offering a second chance bid to buy, 
supposedly because the winning seller couldn't pay. Both emails stressed 
to reply to the email, rather than through ebay. That gets me 
suspicious. I think I'll play it safe and ignore them.


Oh well.

D

Re: why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[Jon M]

Definitely the wise thing to do.

--- Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> I was outbid on a 15mm yesterday. Here's the
> auction:
> http://tinyurl.com/83wno
> 
> Then I got two SEPARATE emails offering a second
> chance bid to buy, 
> supposedly because the winning seller couldn't pay.
> Both emails stressed 
> to reply to the email, rather than through ebay.
> That gets me 
> suspicious. I think I'll play it safe and ignore
> them.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> D
> 
> -- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
> 
> 





__
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

why do they taunt me. Suspicious ebay emails

[Derby Chang]

I was outbid on a 15mm yesterday. Here's the auction:
http://tinyurl.com/83wno

Then I got two SEPARATE emails offering a second chance bid to buy, 
supposedly because the winning seller couldn't pay. Both emails stressed 
to reply to the email, rather than through ebay. That gets me 
suspicious. I think I'll play it safe and ignore them.


Oh well.

D

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

Is this real???

[Feroze]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26041

I don't know this newspaper, for the UK members is it a real paper or 
one of those "I saw Elvis rags"???

My phone has a 1.3MP camera so I better get cracking at it...:)

Feroze

RE: Pentax 645D Competition

[Shel Belinkoff]

I'd be interested if it offered 3.6fps shooting speed and a minimum of a
45mp sensor and could interface with the IBM Blue Gene/L via satellite
Otherwise, really, what's the point?

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 

> Leaf/Mamiya 22MP DSLR:
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>

Pentax 645D Competition

[Cotty]

Leaf/Mamiya 22MP DSLR:






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?

[Cotty]

On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Y'know, Cotty, there's a basic truth somewhere in that comment.

I think we're both on the same wavelength there




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)

[Shel Belinkoff]

Let's just say many of us on the list express their preferences in ways
that are outside the norm (and I don't mean Baugher, who has his own
uniqueness!)

Cotty cuts up and adapts lenses;
Cesar likes snakeskin;
Juan likes gaffer's tape;
I use plastic can lids for lens hood caps;
Some use rubber bands to hold their cameras together;

This is a large and individualistic list.  There are even those who make
photographs on a regular basis.

Let's cut this gaffer's tape crap and accept that creative and artistic
people are going to do things a little differently than the average Joe or
Josephine.

BTW, I found a place that sells gaffer's tape in a variety of colors, so
for those of you who want to tape your cameras, but were put off by the
dullness and somber use of black tape, here's a chance to inexpensively add
a splash of color to you prized cameras.  Good for holding your nerd
glasses together, too.


Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 

> On 9/9/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I just find it totally stupid to try to rationalise _other_ people
> >decisions. It's theirs, so let them at it. Am I asking why Cesar
> >reskinned his cameras? No.
>
> I agree. Let's just call them nutters and be done with it.

RE: GESO: The Dream Cruise

[william sawyer]

Paul,  

I solved the age problem several years ago by having my portrait done, then
putting it in the attic - the idea is that it gets old and I don't. Clever,
huh!

Wait, I forgot - I don't have an attic!!

Uh, oh

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:49 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: GESO: The Dream Cruise

HAR! You had me going there. Being old, forgetful, and simple minded, I 
didn't get it at first. I was trying to remember if I had bought 
something from you and neglected to pay. Wouldn't have been the first 
time that I zoned out:-).
Paul
On Sep 8, 2005, at 6:13 PM, william sawyer wrote:

> 'bout time, Paul.  And, as expected, outstanding work - no 
> disappointments
> here.  I especially like the panning technique - it's very effective.
>
> Um, I hate to bring it up, but your check still isn't here.
>
> Bill Sawyer
> Livonia, MI
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:15 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: GESO: The Dream Cruise
>
> Due to popular demand, I've posted some Dream Cruise pics. Okay, it
> wasn't exactly popular demand, but my buddy Bill did request these, so
> here they are. Many are just snaps that I shot from my Chevy while
> cruising, but most of them are at least a bit entertaining. Some are
> from the night before the cruise. A few, which were seen before, are
> from a few nights before the cruise. The shots from the morning of the
> cruise are under clouds or in the rain. Enough disclaimers.
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=526011
>
>
>

Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Y'know, Cotty, there's a basic truth somewhere in that comment.

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 

> On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, totally coherent, wrote:
>
> >Yes, you are.  The comment was a bit of a sarcastic jab at those who have
> >made a point of telling the list how many thousands of exposures they've
> >made with their DSLR cameras.  In truth, I made nowhere near that number
of
> >exposures.
>
> Actually it was - -  1.
>
> But he tried 9786 times to get it *just right*.

Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?

[frank theriault]

On 9/9/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> But he tried 9786 times to get it *just right*.
> 

HCB said, "Your first 10,000 photos are your worst."

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

RE: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....

[william sawyer]

Not sure what you mean, Ken. Can you post a photo?

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI
-Original Message-
From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:22 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz 

I found by adding a small rubber bumper (slightly smaller in diameter than
the 4 way) to the 4 way control (as mentioned a while ago here), my issues
with the control are reduced.


Try  it you might like it.

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz 

I have no problem with the four way switch on the D. I use it for 
selective autofocus control on a regular bases and frequently move the 
red dot back and forth across the frame.
On Sep 3, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Powell Hargrave wrote:

> My Ds controls are perfect.
>   (hope my camera didn't hear me typing that and decide it can get 
> lazy)
>
> Powell
>
>> I am curious - do any other DS users notice any "tackiness" in these
>> controls?  And, how about the *ist D?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>




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

Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)

[Cotty]

On 9/9/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I just find it totally stupid to try to rationalise _other_ people
>decisions. It's theirs, so let them at it. Am I asking why Cesar
>reskinned his cameras? No.

I agree. Let's just call them nutters and be done with it.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Cotty]

On 9/9/05, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:

>http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716
>
>Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black 
>background - the way I intended it to be watched.
>
>I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...
>
>As usual - be brutal and honest.

It certainly has an atmosphere!  well done Boris.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?

[Cotty]

On 9/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Yes, you are.  The comment was a bit of a sarcastic jab at those who have
>made a point of telling the list how many thousands of exposures they've
>made with their DSLR cameras.  In truth, I made nowhere near that number of
>exposures.

Actually it was - -  1.

But he tried 9786 times to get it *just right*.


:-))




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Decisions, decisions...

[Cotty]

On 9/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed:

>D2X and 1Ds Mk2. price is enough.

Sorry Herb, I have to disagree. Why would Canon run the 1DsmkII and the
1DmkII in tandem? The answer is that they both fulfil different needs,
based on current technology.

If a sports shooter had unlimited funds and had to choose between the two
Canon models above, which one do you think he would choose? And so you're
saying he's settling for second best?




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[J. C. O'Connell]

OK,

I did a quick sketch to clarify what I said: 

http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/rearanglediagram.jpg

Later, 
jco

-Original Message-
From: Derek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 4:36 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


Can I please get a diagram of this?

Derek


> Its very simple. If the working diameter of the rear element and the 
> diagonal size (format) of the sensor remain constant, then the further 
> the rear element is from the sensor the NARROWER the corner to corner 
> angle cone angle becomes eminating from the rear element and the 
> deviation from pendicular in the corner of the sensor becomes
> smaller (better) as the lens is moved away. Do not confuse
> this angle with the angle of view, they don't have to match
> and will vary depending on optical design...
> JCO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: keith_w [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
> 
> 
> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> 
> > Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> > to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> > means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
> > at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
> > is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
> 
> I don't understand.
> The light cone exiting a lens assembly will have a certain value, in
> degrees, total or half-angle, as you say, from the perpendicular.
> 
> Move the lens along it's axis toward or further away from the sensor, 
> to
> exactly cover the corners, it always has the same angle. The only thing 
> that changes is area of coverage. Not the angle of the exiting light
bundle.
> If you insist what you say is true, I have misunderstood you. Please 
> elaborate.
> 
> keith whaley
> 
> >
> --
> --
> >J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com 
> > 
> > --
> > --
> 
> 

Re: PESO: Ghost of a rose

[Dario Bonazza]

Even if this crop is not the picture I saw then, I have to admit that it 
works. Often a picture contains several possible pictures, and you only have 
to unbury them.
OK, I think that my original picture had a problem which is opposite to 
Boris' tower. In my opinion, the tower is missing an identifiable subject, 
while mine had two subjects fighting one against the other, with the rose 
shadowing the shadow, if I can say that.

Boris, I've got a rose to get rid of. Do you want it for your tower? :-)

Dario

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

To: "frank theriault" 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: PESO: Ghost of arose



I agree with Frank.  This is a much better image to me.  Not only does
it match the title, but it really focuses me in on a subject - the
other shot looked like a quick snap until I looked close at it.

--
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, September 9, 2005, 5:46:55 AM, you wrote:

ft> On 9/9/05, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Two pictures are now available in that page, including a crop that 
better

matches the title.
How do you like it? Any different suggestions? If so, feel free to crop 
my

picture at your leisure.



ft> I really like the crop!!

ft> You're right, it reallly does match the title now.  Much less
ft> cluttered to my eye, as well.

ft> cheers,
ft> frank

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Dario Bonazza]

Yes, the black background helps.

A truly well executed scenario for... for what? I see two possibilities:

1. This picture wants to depict the inside of the church, as it could be
required for a tourist guide or the like. If so, it's OK.

2. This picture wants to be worth in itself, whichever the place is. If so,
it needs a subject to focus on at a certain time. A well visible person
(dressed in pure black) beside pillar No.3 from left (4 from right) would
complete the shot.

Dario

- Original Message - 
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 9:24 PM
Subject: PESO - In The Tower



Hi!

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716

Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black
background - the way I intended it to be watched.

I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...

As usual - be brutal and honest.

Boris

RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Derek]

Can I please get a diagram of this?

Derek


> Its very simple. If the working diameter of the rear element
> and the diagonal size (format) of the sensor remain constant, then
> the further the rear element is from the sensor the
> NARROWER the corner to corner angle cone angle becomes eminating
> from the rear element and the deviation
> from pendicular in the corner of the sensor becomes
> smaller (better) as the lens is moved away. Do not confuse
> this angle with the angle of view, they don't have to match
> and will vary depending on optical design...
> JCO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: keith_w [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
> 
> 
> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> 
> > Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> > to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> > means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
> > at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
> > is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
> 
> I don't understand.
> The light cone exiting a lens assembly will have a certain value, in 
> degrees, total or half-angle, as you say, from the perpendicular.
> 
> Move the lens along it's axis toward or further away from the sensor, to 
> exactly cover the corners, it always has the same angle. The only thing 
> that changes is area of coverage. Not the angle of the exiting light bundle.
> If you insist what you say is true, I have misunderstood you. Please 
> elaborate.
> 
> keith whaley
> 
> >
> 
> >J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com 
> > --
> > --
> 
> 

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[keith_w]

John Forbes wrote:


Brutally honest, rather than brutal and honest, I think.

I like the composition and the great light, but would prefer more contrast.

John


Seems to me, and pardon my chutzpah, but...you already *have* contrast, 
between the almost blown out open window highlights, and the darkest 
shadows inside.

I think what is needed is more shadow detail!
Now, I don't know how you actually GET that, but that's how I call it...

keith

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:24:36 +0100, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Hi!

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716

Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black  
background - the way I intended it to be watched.


I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...

As usual - be brutal and honest.

Boris

Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....

[Fred]

> I found by adding a small rubber bumper (slightly smaller in diameter
> than the 4 way) to the 4 way control (as mentioned a while ago here), my
> issues with the control are reduced. Try  it you might like it.

Might you have a picture of this improvement for us to see?  Thanks.

Fred

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[Jens Bladt]

Beautiful, Boris. Very strong, and great technique. However, I do miss a
little old lady on one of the back rows :-)

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 9. september 2005 21:24
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: PESO - In The Tower


Brutally honest, rather than brutal and honest, I think.

I like the composition and the great light, but would prefer more contrast.

John

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:24:36 +0100, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716
>
> Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black
> background - the way I intended it to be watched.
>
> I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...
>
> As usual - be brutal and honest.
>
> Boris
>
>
>
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 08/09/2005

Re: PESO - In The Tower

[John Forbes]

Brutally honest, rather than brutal and honest, I think.

I like the composition and the great light, but would prefer more contrast.

John

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:24:36 +0100, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Hi!

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716

Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black  
background - the way I intended it to be watched.


I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...

As usual - be brutal and honest.

Boris









--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 08/09/2005

Re: OT: A little help

[John Forbes]

This is an excellent idea.  It might persuade chippy owners to change  
their oil more often than once a decade.


John

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:33:53 +0100, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Biodiesel  has been very popular here with 4WD'ers for a long time. It
makes a lot of sense.

I heard some guy on the radio the other day who has been making it for
several years & he says it works out to about 14-16 AU cents per
litre.

Fish & chip shop owners are sitting on little gold mines 

Dave

On 9/9/05, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

For those of us with transort difficulties.

The biofuel page is specially interesting reading.

http://www.petroldirect.com/index.htm

mike


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information












--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 08/09/2005

Re: OT: Back in the Pentaxian fold

[keith_w]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:


I was working from the very large sized TIFF files the Sony generates, not
JPEG's.


How large ARE they, Shel?

keith

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 




[Original Message]
From: Graywolf 




Yeh, well you are better than me.





You should be able to do better than an 8x10.  My 4mp Sony will do
"stunning" 8x10's all day long, and the Oly has a few more pixels PLUS


can


soot RAW.  Still, it's amazing what these upper end or prosumer digis


can


do if the operator knows a little something about how to get the best


out


of them.

RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[J. C. O'Connell]

Its very simple. If the working diameter of the rear element
and the diagonal size (format) of the sensor remain constant, then
the further the rear element is from the sensor the
NARROWER the corner to corner angle cone angle becomes eminating
from the rear element and the deviation
from pendicular in the corner of the sensor becomes
smaller (better) as the lens is moved away. Do not confuse
this angle with the angle of view, they don't have to match
and will vary depending on optical design...
JCO

-Original Message-
From: keith_w [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
> at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
> is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?

I don't understand.
The light cone exiting a lens assembly will have a certain value, in 
degrees, total or half-angle, as you say, from the perpendicular.

Move the lens along it's axis toward or further away from the sensor, to 
exactly cover the corners, it always has the same angle. The only thing 
that changes is area of coverage. Not the angle of the exiting light bundle.
If you insist what you say is true, I have misunderstood you. Please 
elaborate.

keith whaley

>

>J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com 
> --
> --

RE: PESO - In The Tower

[Tom C]

I like it very much.  Nice and moody.  Love the lighting and the shadows.  
How much unsharp mask have you applied?  Overall it looks a little soft, but 
maybe that's intentional.


Nice shot!

Tom C.





From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: PESO - In The Tower
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:24:36 +0200

Hi!

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716

Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black 
background - the way I intended it to be watched.


I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...

As usual - be brutal and honest.

Boris

RE: PESO - In The Tower

[Tim Øsleby]

Superb Boris! 
All I need is a god chair to sit at ;-) 
I could spend hours there, watching the light and the delicate lines.


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: 9. september 2005 21:25
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: PESO - In The Tower
> 
> Hi!
> 
> http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716
> 
> Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black
> background - the way I intended it to be watched.
> 
> I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...
> 
> As usual - be brutal and honest.
> 
> Boris
> 

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[keith_w]

John Francis wrote:


On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:07:37PM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:

Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to 
the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an 
element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.




No.  To a first approximation light rays from every part of the rear
element contribute to every point of the image.  The larger the rear
element, the wider this cone of rays is, and so the more deviation
there is from the perpendicular (and the wider the range of angles,
which makes it hard to compensate by angling the sensor pits).


What you're saying is, the rear element really doesn't collimate the 
light bundle, that about right?
Are you also saying it can't happen, according to the laws of optics as 
you understand them?
I thought that was the reason for the odd shapes some lenses are ground 
to, to set up the refraction so it DID control where the light went and 
how it looked after it exited the last surface...


I'm not dissing you here. I am not capable of anything but the most 
rudimentary ray tracing and today, so many years after I learned how, 
not even that!


keith whaley

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[mike wilson]

Dario Bonazza wrote:

Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to 
the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an 
element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.


BTW, Sylwek, I cannot access fotopolis.pl. I tried several times every 
time you post such links, with no success.


Am I the only one?


Works for me.



Dario


- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction



I didn't say it didn't work, I don't understand
WHY closer is better because that increases
the incidence angle deviation from perpendicular,
which is bad, severely on the edges/corners
of the sensor.

I can understand why the lens itself is better,
it just seems that the lens/sensor interface
is much worse when the rear element is so severely
close to the sensor. Maybe this sensor is specially
designed for this lens and isnt "flat"?

jco

-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:31 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


J. C. O'Connell wrote on 09.09.05 17:06:


Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?


Actually samples on www.fotopolis.pl has shown, that R1 performs much 
better

than "digital optimised" E-300 ;-)

--
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Dario Bonazza]

John,

Usually, lenses optimized for digital claim to have a large rear element.
Olympus explains this way the reason for their large bayonet and many think
that Canon has an edge over Nikon for the wider EF mount over the narrower
F. In this case of 2mm between the rear element and the sensor, I'd suggest
you think of the rear element (or group) of the R-1 as a meniscus with a
curved surface toward the other elements, acting as a focus plane for the
rest of the lens + a flat surface toward the sensor, for conveying the image
perpendicular on the sensor. Just an idea.

Dario

- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction



On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:07:37PM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:

Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to
the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an
element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.


No.  To a first approximation light rays from every part of the rear
element contribute to every point of the image.  The larger the rear
element, the wider this cone of rays is, and so the more deviation
there is from the perpendicular (and the wider the range of angles,
which makes it hard to compensate by angling the sensor pits).

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Dario Bonazza]

JCO,

In this case of 2mm between the rear element and the sensor, I'd suggest
you think of the rear element (or group) of the R-1 as a meniscus with a
curved surface toward the other elements, acting as a focus plane for the
rest of the lens + a flat surface toward the sensor, for conveying the image
perpendicular on the sensor. Just my idea.

Dario

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 7:35 PM
Subject: RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction



wrong, the closer the rear element. the more that forces
greater NON perpendicular incidence angles
to the corners of the sensor. It order to
approximate true perpendicular incidence, the
rear element has to move away infinitly from
the sensor. Total opposite of what you just posted.
jco

-Original Message-
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:13 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


Putting the rear element closer to the sensor allows you to have a
perpendicular light path to the sensor without going to an extreme
retrofocus design for wide angles. This allows a simplified lens design
for equivalent length and zoom range. The Light path only needs to be
perpendicular from the last element to the sensor, which is
understandably difficult with an SLR and it's relatively long register
necessitated by the mirror box. That is one reason that C*n*n developed
their EF-S mount, which allows the lens to protrude further into the
mirror box, making the 10-22 easier to design.

-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:

Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?





   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com
--
--

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[keith_w]

J. C. O'Connell wrote:


Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?


I don't understand.
The light cone exiting a lens assembly will have a certain value, in 
degrees, total or half-angle, as you say, from the perpendicular.


Move the lens along it's axis toward or further away from the sensor, to 
exactly cover the corners, it always has the same angle. The only thing 
that changes is area of coverage. Not the angle of the exiting light bundle.
If you insist what you say is true, I have misunderstood you. Please 
elaborate.


keith whaley



   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com 

PESO - In The Tower

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=215716

Please try to click on the image so that it will open on total black 
background - the way I intended it to be watched.


I think I need a lens wider than 18 mm...

As usual - be brutal and honest.

Boris

Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....

[Kenneth Waller]

I found by adding a small rubber bumper (slightly smaller in diameter than the 
4 way) to the 4 way control (as mentioned a while ago here), my issues with the 
control are reduced.


Try  it you might like it.

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz 

I have no problem with the four way switch on the D. I use it for 
selective autofocus control on a regular bases and frequently move the 
red dot back and forth across the frame.
On Sep 3, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Powell Hargrave wrote:

> My Ds controls are perfect.
>   (hope my camera didn't hear me typing that and decide it can get 
> lazy)
>
> Powell
>
>> I am curious - do any other DS users notice any "tackiness" in these
>> controls?  And, how about the *ist D?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>




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

Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)

[Graywolf]

Yeh, real customizers use an airbrush...



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


Jens Bladt wrote:

Gaffering is not customizing -  no functionallity is added or removed. It's
simply disguising the camera.
Like a person wearing sunglasses at a party. I like my Pentax logo's. They
kinda completes the camera, since it was designed to wear one.

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. september 2005 05:00
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)


car owner make their cars as noticeable as possible when they customize.

Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)




Oh, c'mon Paul ... people customize their cars and I know you don't find
that pretentious or abhorrent.  In the fifties and sixties mild
customizing
was quite acceptable, and that hasn't changed to this day.  Rodders would
remove extraneous chrome trim, nose and deck their cars, maybe French the
headlights.  Not a whole lot different than a small square of black tape
over a bright red logo.  So what ...








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/94 - Release Date: 9/9/2005

Re: hot/dead pixels -Mark Roberts website program

[Powell Hargrave]

At 02:30 AM 06/09/2005 , you wrote:
>
>Hmm... actually it should be easy to write a program that both detect
>hot/dead pixels and removes them. Time to find a programmer and... oh,
>wait - I am a programmer! Then, time to find someone willing to pay
>for such a program  j/k

I made an PS action which removes a couple of hot pixels from my Nikon 990
images.  Must be run on uncropped horizontal image and it simply copies
surrounding pixels into the hot pixels.

My Ds has a few hot pixels but PS Raw converter magical removes them. :)

Powell

re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)

[Jens Bladt]

Gaffering is not customizing -  no functionallity is added or removed. It's
simply disguising the camera.
Like a person wearing sunglasses at a party. I like my Pentax logo's. They
kinda completes the camera, since it was designed to wear one.

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. september 2005 05:00
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)


car owner make their cars as noticeable as possible when they customize.

Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)


> Oh, c'mon Paul ... people customize their cars and I know you don't find
> that pretentious or abhorrent.  In the fifties and sixties mild
> customizing
> was quite acceptable, and that hasn't changed to this day.  Rodders would
> remove extraneous chrome trim, nose and deck their cars, maybe French the
> headlights.  Not a whole lot different than a small square of black tape
> over a bright red logo.  So what ...

RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[J. C. O'Connell]

wrong, the closer the rear element. the more that forces
greater NON perpendicular incidence angles
to the corners of the sensor. It order to
approximate true perpendicular incidence, the
rear element has to move away infinitly from
the sensor. Total opposite of what you just posted.
jco

-Original Message-
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:13 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


Putting the rear element closer to the sensor allows you to have a 
perpendicular light path to the sensor without going to an extreme 
retrofocus design for wide angles. This allows a simplified lens design 
for equivalent length and zoom range. The Light path only needs to be 
perpendicular from the last element to the sensor, which is 
understandably difficult with an SLR and it's relatively long register 
necessitated by the mirror box. That is one reason that C*n*n developed 
their EF-S mount, which allows the lens to protrude further into the 
mirror box, making the 10-22 easier to design.

-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
> at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
> is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
> 
>

>J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com 
> --
> --
> 

Re: Fried Highlights

[Shel Belinkoff]

I don't know about "greatly superior," although I've heard it's better. 
Unfortunately, I've not heard how it's better, and have not seen any
comparisons any where.

IAC, the free trial is the way to go first, IMO, and getting the program as
an upgrade may be a better way still.

Shel 

> From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> That may be true strictly for photo editing.  But from all I hear
> the raw converter in CS2 is greatly superior to that in CS

Re: Fried Highlights

[John Francis]

That may be true strictly for photo editing.  But from all I hear
the raw converter in CS2 is greatly superior to that in CS

(I didn't see any good prices on CS, apart from one dubious deal
that offered only the CD and a serial number)


On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:05:50AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I wouldn't consider CS2 at this point.  As a frequent visitor and
> participant in Adobe's User-toUser forums I've gotten to see and learn
> about the myriad of problems many people are having with the program.  I
> don't want to underwrite the cost of experimenting with CS2 right now with
> my time or dollars.  However, a free trial download, or from a disk, would
> be worthwhile to see how CS2 works on your machine.
> 
> Strictly for photo editing, CS2 doesn't offer much over CS, IMO.  Go for CS
> and upgrade later if you feel you need more "features."
> 
> Shel 
> "Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > Hey, looking at Amazon, I was just noticing that CS (1) is now very 
> > affordable!
> >
> > Unless there is some overwhelming compelling reason to get CS2 instead of
> 1, 
> > CS now sounds good.
> 

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Adam Maas]

Putting the rear element closer to the sensor allows you to have a 
perpendicular light path to the sensor without going to an extreme 
retrofocus design for wide angles. This allows a simplified lens design 
for equivalent length and zoom range. The Light path only needs to be 
perpendicular from the last element to the sensor, which is 
understandably difficult with an SLR and it's relatively long register 
necessitated by the mirror box. That is one reason that C*n*n developed 
their EF-S mount, which allows the lens to protrude further into the 
mirror box, making the 10-22 easier to design.


-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:

Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?


   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com 

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[John Francis]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:07:37PM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to 
> the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an 
> element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.

No.  To a first approximation light rays from every part of the rear
element contribute to every point of the image.  The larger the rear
element, the wider this cone of rays is, and so the more deviation
there is from the perpendicular (and the wider the range of angles,
which makes it hard to compensate by angling the sensor pits).

Re: 28-70/4 is Soft

[P. J. Alling]

You might want to look for the SMC Pentax F 35-70mm f3.5~4.5.  Good 
build and acceptable optics.  They can be found in good contrition for 
between $30-$50.  Not a perfect solution, but not a bad stopgap.


Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote:



This looks like veiling flare, a symptom of the Aspheric lens 
element in the lens separating.




It certainly is not blooming :-(  Sorry Patrice...




Thank you all for your opinion...

I'll probably consider a digital-optimized 18-80 or similar (don't 
know yet which brand and model), not necessarily compatible with my 
MZ5n (as I have the Tokina 19-35 and a PTX 80-320), and a used M-50 
1.4 that will fill the gap between 35 and 80mm and allow macro with 
extension tubes.


Thank you again.

Patrice





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

Re: PESO: Ghost of arose

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/9/2005 12:09:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug Franklin wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:55 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
>> I think I've never posted this one here:
>> http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
>
> I like it, Dario.  Have you tried a crop that includes just the shadow
> of the rose, and not the rose itself?

Hi Doug,

Done. Please look if you like it better (both pictures are available now in 
that page). I quite like it.
BTW, this crop better matches the title (re. a previous message by Bruce 
Dayton).

Thanks.

Dario 

I like the crop better as well. Less distracting background stuff, more 
impact.

Marnie aka Doe 

FS Friday: Super-Takumar 3.5 35mm

[Eactivist]

Super-Takumar 3.5 35mm.
 
Good mechanics, good optics. Only moderate signs of use.
 
I bought this about a year ago on this list, from Collin, I think. That is 
the way he described it.
 
I’ve never used it, although I’ve played* with it – I wanted at least on 
piece of Pentax equipment so I could legitimately be on this list -- but now I 
will have the Optio s4i.
 
Comes with rear and front lens caps (rear says Tokina, front says Pentax) and 
a Vivitar Skylight (1A) filter. 
 
The flat metal ring on the back (around the lens) is loose, but it doesn’t 
affect anything, picture-taking-wise. And it could be glued back on by someone 
knowing what they are doing.
 
To me the lens looks to be in good to very good shape.
 
I’ll offer it for $5 less than I paid for it. It usually goes on ebay for 
around $35-47.
 
$30 + Shipping
 
That’s practically giving it away. :-) If you are interested, contact me off 
list. 
 
Thanks, Marnie aka Doe 
 
* Played with means pushing the switch back and forth between M and A trying 
to figure out how to do stop down metering when putting it on a Canon with an 
adaptor. Never did understand it. But the switch works fine.

Re: 28-70/4 is Soft

[Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)]

This looks like veiling flare, a symptom of the Aspheric lens element 
in the lens separating.



It certainly is not blooming :-(  Sorry Patrice...



Thank you all for your opinion...

I'll probably consider a digital-optimized 18-80 or similar (don't know 
yet which brand and model), not necessarily compatible with my MZ5n (as 
I have the Tokina 19-35 and a PTX 80-320), and a used M-50 1.4 that will 
fill the gap between 35 and 80mm and allow macro with extension tubes.


Thank you again.

Patrice

Re: PESO: Ghost of arose

[Bruce Dayton]

I agree with Frank.  This is a much better image to me.  Not only does
it match the title, but it really focuses me in on a subject - the
other shot looked like a quick snap until I looked close at it.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, September 9, 2005, 5:46:55 AM, you wrote:

ft> On 9/9/05, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Bruce,
>> 
>> Two pictures are now available in that page, including a crop that better
>> matches the title.
>> How do you like it? Any different suggestions? If so, feel free to crop my
>> picture at your leisure.
>>

ft> I really like the crop!!

ft> You're right, it reallly does match the title now.  Much less
ft> cluttered to my eye, as well.

ft> cheers,
ft> frank

Re: [OT]First compact digicam with APS sized CMOS...

[Frantisek]

BD> EVF systems have had real problems with focusing manually.  Not at all
BD> like a good optical viewfinder.  It will be interesting to find out
BD> how good it does on that front.  I am a person who almost always
BD> focuses manually and I need to be able to focus with any part of the
BD> screen as I compose, then focus.

>From the press release by Sony, it seems it has the exact same EVF as
the older 828 - which was really ugly and unusable for anything
serious.

I don't see a point with having a camera with great lens, very good
sensor but no usable viewfinder to actually _photograph_ with...

Frantisek

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Gonz]

J. C. O'Connell wrote:


I can understand why the lens itself is better,
it just seems that the lens/sensor interface
is much worse when the rear element is so severely
close to the sensor. Maybe this sensor is specially
designed for this lens and isnt "flat"?

A silicon eye-ball!  Now THAT would be interesting.  Would solve all 
sorts of optical problems.  It would be a difficult engineering problem 
however, how do you cut the silicon precisely in a spherical fashion?



jco

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Dario Bonazza]

Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to the 
sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an element 
is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.


BTW, Sylwek, I cannot access fotopolis.pl. I tried several times every time 
you post such links, with no success.


Am I the only one?

Dario


- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction



I didn't say it didn't work, I don't understand
WHY closer is better because that increases
the incidence angle deviation from perpendicular,
which is bad, severely on the edges/corners
of the sensor.

I can understand why the lens itself is better,
it just seems that the lens/sensor interface
is much worse when the rear element is so severely
close to the sensor. Maybe this sensor is specially
designed for this lens and isnt "flat"?

jco

-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:31 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


J. C. O'Connell wrote on 09.09.05 17:06:


Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
Actually samples on www.fotopolis.pl has shown, that R1 performs much 
better

than "digital optimised" E-300 ;-)

--
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

RE: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)

[Jens Bladt]

That's your opinion. Mine is that thre's a great deal to be learned by
trying to understand why people do what they do.
I'm sure a lot of people, among them quit a few great scientist, agree with
me.

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Frantisek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 9. september 2005 14:36
Til: Jens Bladt
Emne: Re: The Gaffer Tape Chronicles (was Re: The DS - It's Here!)


JB> I never really understood this Gaffer thing either.

So what?

That's getting tiring...

JB> I guess there can be few valid reasons for people to Gaffer their
camera:

Yes, and there can be a myriad reasons for people to do perfectly
valid things. Why don't you stop sticking noses into them?

I just find it totally stupid to try to rationalise _other_ people
decisions. It's theirs, so let them at it. Am I asking why Cesar
reskinned his cameras? No.

Frantisek

RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[J. C. O'Connell]

I didn't say it didn't work, I don't understand
WHY closer is better because that increases
the incidence angle deviation from perpendicular,
which is bad, severely on the edges/corners
of the sensor.

I can understand why the lens itself is better,
it just seems that the lens/sensor interface
is much worse when the rear element is so severely
close to the sensor. Maybe this sensor is specially
designed for this lens and isnt "flat"?

jco

-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:31 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


J. C. O'Connell wrote on 09.09.05 17:06:

> Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
> at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
> is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
Actually samples on www.fotopolis.pl has shown, that R1 performs much better
than "digital optimised" E-300 ;-)

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

J. C. O'Connell wrote on 09.09.05 17:06:

> Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
> at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
> is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
Actually samples on www.fotopolis.pl has shown, that R1 performs much better
than "digital optimised" E-300 ;-)

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: Fried Highlights

[pnstenquist]

I frequently adjust exposure to place highlights at the edge of the histogram. 
However, for some images that don't have bright highlights that can be too much 
exposure. I've only resorted to turning the brightness all the way up and then 
pulling back exposure  on images that have highlights which are well off the 
edge of the histogram. Again, however, getting the highlights right at the edge 
-- as you've been doing -- is the goal.


> Yes, that book (Real World Camera RAW with Photoshop CS2) is on my wish list. 
> Now I will have to move it up a notch in. 
> 
> I have been using the exposure slider to bring the highlights up to the edge 
> just before cutoff. I figure that gives me the maximum information to play 
> around with in Photoshop. Probably there are better techniques. My copy of 
> "Adobe Photoshop CS2 for Photographers" does have a chapter on using the RAW 
> converter, but it is somewhat elementary. I shall have to try your technique, 
> Paul.
> 
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> ---
> 
> 
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> > The idea behind using the RAW converter's brightness slider to bring up  
> > the midrange is that it doesn't affect the highlights. On the other  
> > hand, the exposure slider will bring down the highlights."Brightness"  
> > and "contrast" in the RAW converter are not the same as the tools with  
> > the same name in PhotoShop. PSCS2 apparently offers even more control.  
> > I haven't made the switch yet. There's a book that's specific to RAW  
> > conversion in PSCS that is a tremendous aid. It explains the  
> > relationship between exposure, shadow, brightness, and contrast sliders  
> > quite lucidly, along with many other topics. It's called Real World  
> > Camera RAW with PhotoShop CS. I think there's a new version for CS2 as  
> > well. The CS version is still available at Amazon.:
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/032127878X/ 
> > qid=1101241239/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2405061-7286468?v=glance&s=books
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 8, 2005, at 11:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> >> In a message dated 9/8/2005 8:49:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> I'd just like to say how much I appreciate Paul's recounting of his
> >> techniques in Photoshop: the workflow below and his comment about  
> >> turning up
> >> the brightness and then adjusting the exposure in another email just  
> >> allowed
> >> me to rescue a shot I would otherwise have discarded.
> >>
> >> Paul, you da man!
> >>
> >> John Coyle
> >> Brisbane, Australia
> >> ==
> >> Ditto. Well, I haven't rescued a shot, but the idea of turning of the
> >> brightness never occurred to me. Duh. I will have to try it sometime  
> >> on a dark shot.
> >>
> >> Which leads me to a question, Paul, is there any particular book on
> >> photoshopping (as a verb) that you like/recommend?
> >>
> >> I am starting an Elements 3 class. Finally getting down to learning  
> >> more of
> >> this stuff. After that I will tackle Photoshop. But probably do that  
> >> on my own.
> >>
> >> Marnie the born again Pentaxian
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 9/8/2005
>