RE: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)

[Robert Whitehouse]

The rules used to be even simpler;

Two teams turn up for match, then Australia win.

We have just re-written the rule book !

> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 September 2005 00:11
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)
> 
> Saw some of the cricket match last week in the UK.
> I could not fathom the game, but everyone was excited,
> especially after N.Ireland spoiled the football.
> So who won?
> Regards,  Bob S.
> 
> On 9/12/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dahhh, you're all jealous cos the Ashes are as good as gone ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >  Cotty
> >
> >
> > ___/\__
> > ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> > _
> >
> >
> >

RE: PDML Long term Archive

[Robert Whitehouse]

Well - I can probably/possibly handle the conversion (I work for an ISP - I
will speak with the guys in the email dept.!)

If you could zip up your old folders I will try to FTP it over ?

Thanks

Rob W 


> -Original Message-
> From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 September 2005 22:50
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: PDML Long term Archive
> 
> Email might be a problem.  I think it would probably exceed my
> provider's limits.  But FTP would probably be an option.  I dont have
> any idea how big it would be zipped however.  Its in netscape mail
> format, so I don't know how easy it would be to convert it to other
> formats.  One other note is that its in pieces.  I keep the current
> stuff in one chunk that I use daily, then the older stuff is kept in
> another folder for searching/reference.
> 
> rg
> 
> 
> Robert Whitehouse wrote:
> > Any idea how big your archive might be if zipped? - might it be emailed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: 12 September 2005 20:35
> >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>Subject: Re: PDML Long term Archive
> >>
> >>I have my own personal archive in my mailer that goes back quite a ways,
> >>but I know there are some old timers here that go back to like 98 or
> >>maybe even earlier than that.
> >>
> >>rg
> >>
> >>
> >>Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> >>
> >>>I thought it went back quite a ways.  Someone here (Gonz?) recently
> >>
> >>pulled
> >>
> >>>up a post from 2001.
> >>>
> >>>Shel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> [Original Message]
> From: Robert Whitehouse
> >>>
> >>>
> Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on
> mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[David Mann]

On Sep 13, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:


The A-RGB profile does represent a substantially larger gamut.


I did the following plots a while ago for a friend of mine.  These  
were done using the "high quality" profiles available on Epson's  
website.


Adobe RGB plotted against the Epson 2200 (umm, premium glossy paper I  
think... or maybe semigloss):

http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/epson_adobe.jpg

And the same with sRGB instead:
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/epson_srgb.jpg

Those plots came from the ColorSync Utility that comes bundled with  
the Mac OS.  You can compare any two profiles and rotate them around  
in 3D.
Note that the colours shown are only an indication of which colour  
channel is in which direction.  They don't represent actual colours  
within the colour space.


In both cases the grey wire-frame is the Epson profile.  You can  
probably see the disadvantages of using an RGB colour space to edit  
and a CMYK device for printing :)  The limit of what's available from  
the output stage of the workflow (ie printing) is defined by the  
intersection of the two volumes.


Just for kicks, I did some large-gamut comparisons as well:
Ektaspace:
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/epson_ektaspace.jpg

Kodak Pro Photo RGB (I had to make the Pro Photo one grey here, as it  
envelops the Epson profile completely):

http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/prophoto_epson2.jpg

I won't go through the ins and outs of one working space vs the  
other, or even large vs small.  It'll take me too long and it depends  
a lot on your intentions for input, editing, archiving and printing  
and for most people it's all academic anyway.  If your screen is  
calibrated and your workflow is set up OK, then for most purposes it  
won't matter which colour space you choose.


The crux, though, is how well the profile conversion to the printer  
does the job. The latest print drivers seem to be working more  
smoothly.CS2's print system does seem to do a better job, with less  
adjustment necessary, than CS did. Perhaps Adobe's continued  
development has improved things as well.


I use PS for my whole colour workflow, but PS is the only colour- 
critical app I use.  I've yet to be disappointed with the colour  
rendering of a print from my printer, except once when some nozzles  
clogged and I lost all yellow :)


- Dave

Re: LED lighting

[David Mann]

On Sep 13, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Herb Chong wrote:

moreover, a good 5mm white LED is able to deliver over 2Cd. narrow  
angle ones in IC packages are capable of 12 Cd. no millis involved.  
arrays designed specifically for lighting purposes can be higher,  
and you can buy them preassembled. look for the Princeton Tec  
Impact XL for what the commercial state of the art LED flashlight  
can do. there are brighter ones.


Take a look at Luxeon (www.luxeon.com).

They claim up to 120 lumens from a 5W device, although the 3W  
versions are better value.  High-tech mountain biking headlamps  
typically use a couple of 3W LEDs and they throw out a serious amount  
of light.


Cheers,

- Dave

Re: OT: ebay bought Skype

[John Francis]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:54:21AM +0200, Jens Bladt wrote:
> I have been using Skype for a couple of years - free telephone calls over
> the internet.
> Now ebay.com bought Skype from Janus Friis - the 29 years old Danish guy,
> who invented and developed Skype.
> The price tag was 25 billion kroners (4.2 billion USD).
> 
> Man, I could buy a lot of nice Pentax lenses for that kind of money - in
> fact - all of them, I guess!
> 
> This makes Janus Friis the richest 29 year old kid in Denmark.
> 
> I guess I kinda picked the wrong trade. It would take me 8000 years of hard
> of work to earn this much money :-(


A city planner gets 3 million kroner a year?

RE: OT: ebay bought Skype

[Shel Belinkoff]

That's a lot of money! Are you sure it's BILLION?

I'm starting to think eBay's getting a little too big, and getting their
fingers into too many pies. 

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Jens Bladt 

> Now ebay.com bought Skype from Janus Friis - the 29 years old Danish guy,
> who invented and developed Skype.
> The price tag was 25 billion kroners (4.2 billion USD).

Re: What's the difference ...

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:44 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

.. between a macro photo and a close-up photo?  Is there some  
point, some

magnification, at which a close-up becomes a macro shot?


The Wikipedia entry is interesting:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
It asserts that macro photography (or 'photomacography' to be more  
correct ;-) is close up photography at 1:1 or higher magnification.


However, I consider anything in the range from 1:8 to 5:1  
magnifications to be in the macro realm, as that seems to be the  
range that the old Kodak manuals I learned photomacography from  
talked about.


Godfrey

Re: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)

[Cotty]

On 12/9/05, Bob Sullivan, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Saw some of the cricket match last week in the UK.
>I could not fathom the game, but everyone was excited,
>especially after N.Ireland spoiled the football.
>So who won?

England of course :-)

After a series of 5 games (tests) throughout the summer, Australia won 1,
England won 2, and 2 were drawn (like in chess).

As for being able to fathom the game - let's just say that most cricket
fans would probably eye American football with the same puzzlement

;-)


Cheers,
  Cotty


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

OT: ebay bought Skype

[Jens Bladt]

I have been using Skype for a couple of years - free telephone calls over
the internet.
Now ebay.com bought Skype from Janus Friis - the 29 years old Danish guy,
who invented and developed Skype.
The price tag was 25 billion kroners (4.2 billion USD).

Man, I could buy a lot of nice Pentax lenses for that kind of money - in
fact - all of them, I guess!

This makes Janus Friis the richest 29 year old kid in Denmark.

I guess I kinda picked the wrong trade. It would take me 8000 years of hard
of work to earn this much money :-(


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

What's the difference ...

[Shel Belinkoff]

.. between a macro photo and a close-up photo?  Is there some point, some
magnification, at which a close-up becomes a macro shot?


Shel 

Re: Note to self

[David Mann]

On Sep 13, 2005, at 7:24 AM, Tom Reese wrote:


note to self 2:

don't forget to reset the exposure compensation after use

You're really doing it the hard way.


The reason why I didn't set exposure compensation was because I knew  
I'd forget to change it back :(


I'd certainly rather screw up two frames than my entire next roll!

- Dave

RE: 360 degree software

[Jens Bladt]

A colleage of mine bought a wideangle lens to put on a Nikon coolpix. He
used just two 180 degree shots, noting more.
Some software put it together and there was a royalty for each click on the
net - for real estate use. I have inherited the hardware, but never really
learned to use it. The internet company went belly up.
Privately I use IseeMedia PhotoVista 3.5 for telephoto panaramas like this:
http://asp.fotobasen.dk/?page=16&category=7&id=23548&photopage=1
Shot handheld with a 50 USD Sigma 3.5-5.6/18-o50mm at 50mm F9 and 1/800sec x
4.

I posted this before, and as you may recall, I had do do a little
photoshopping to get rid of some "floating bodyparts" in the first attempts.
This one was done totally automatically in PhotoVista. Quite amazing, since
people are not standing still. In my work (city planner) I use this
technique all the time. It's not art, just very usefull photographs.

I have even used it for this:
http://www.koegekom.dk/data/1080488/2-43%20Web%20versionmindre.pdf
Look at paeg 20

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

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 13. september 2005 02:14
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: 360 degree software


I have been looking at iPix ( www.ipix.com ) but it is majorly geared up
for the canon G6. I there something more generic to make 360 degree
panoramas, then have them mashed into a little 360 degree image that
is able to be panned?

What are folks using for tripod mounts for 360 degree images.
What other equipment could be recommended?

Kind regards
Kevin

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

Re: 360 degree software

[Herb Chong]

i have owned 5 different panorama heads over the years for doing full 360 
panoramas. i've also tried probably 10 different programs to do the 
stitching or stretching. ipix is the most expensive way to go. there are 
plenty of other programs to choose from that are better and far cheaper. i 
favor iSeeMedia PhotoVista, but ArcSoft Panorama Maker does a good job at a 
similar price. Stitcher Express has a few more useful features but costs 
more. i find that the nodal point is negligibly important using these three 
programs if you don't have architectural features near to the camera. that 
is why i stopped using all of my special panorama heads and just use an 
L-bracket on a Really Right Stuff panorama clamp. i still have a Kaidan 
Kiwi-L head that is looking for a good home, and a have a Manfrotto 300N 
clickstop panorama base that i am not ready to part with yet.


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

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 8:14 PM
Subject: 360 degree software



I have been looking at iPix ( www.ipix.com ) but it is majorly geared up
for the canon G6. I there something more generic to make 360 degree
panoramas, then have them mashed into a little 360 degree image that
is able to be panned?

What are folks using for tripod mounts for 360 degree images.
What other equipment could be recommended?

Kind regards
Kevin

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

Re: GESO: Southwestern Alberta

[Herb Chong]

thanks for the comments. 13 is a golden mantled ground squirrel. #20 are 
white pelicans. i am told that the four birds in 21 are dowitchers, probably 
long-billed. i don't know most of my shore birds, so i have been asking 
experts about the location. i realized as i was looking at the gallery while 
at work that the images appear much more saturated than the working files 
do. i converted them from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB for the web and that may be 
part of the problem. the printouts are less saturated.


i have some photos of a Swainson's Hawk and a white pelican in flight, but 
keeping focus on a flying bird moving across my FOV on a 400/5.6 with the 
1.7X extender on the *istD was essentially impossible. i wasn't able to 
bring my 400/2.8 with me and so i was stuck doing manual focus. it's not 
good enough even when the bird's motion is fairly even. my manual focus was 
very good, but not good enough. with the 400/2.8, i might have had a chance, 
but the *istD does continuous AF only on the center sensor.


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

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: GESO: Southwestern Alberta



Herb,
Especially like
#13, the ground squirrel,
#16, the landscape with trees in the valley below the tall mountain -
composition!
#20, the 4 pelicans(?) - color and
#21, the 4 shore birds (hard to do 4 of anything, but these last 2 work)

Re: LED lighting

[Herb Chong]

moreover, a good 5mm white LED is able to deliver over 2Cd. narrow angle 
ones in IC packages are capable of 12 Cd. no millis involved. arrays 
designed specifically for lighting purposes can be higher, and you can buy 
them preassembled. look for the Princeton Tec Impact XL for what the 
commercial state of the art LED flashlight can do. there are brighter ones.


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

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: LED lighting


Your math seems a little off.  100 * 20mCd = 2000 mCd = 2 Cd., I'm 
assuming the "m" stands for "milli" or 1/1000th.

Re: PAW - "Tennis"

[David Mann]

On Sep 13, 2005, at 12:43 AM, frank theriault wrote:



I'm not usually a stickler for such things, but the ball seems a bit
blown out to me.


It was blown out even on the slide.  I hate Velvia :)

Thanks for commenting.

- Dave

PS - I just spent my morning redoing my PAW page design.  Yes,  
finally.  The outer border is gone and the inner border is much thinner.


Hopefully your browser won't be as stupid as mine and keep using its  
cached version of the CSS file... a quick way to check is that the  
title should be coloured.

Re: Being There

[Herb Chong]

OTOH, Kodachrome is certain to be one of the fastest ones to be 
discontinued. niche product in an already niche market. slide film accounted 
for about 2% of Fuji's film sales in 2003.


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

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Being There



I should imagine that Tri-X will be the last film that Kodak makes -
whenever that will be.  I think it will be with us for a while (as
long as there's film, I would think), although who knows what may
happen to the price/availability?

Re: 360 degree software

[Herb Chong]

Ipix has a patent, one that was a bad one to issue, since there was lots of 
prior art and also the mathematics is well understood for fisheye 
transformations. it basically covers using fisheye lenses to create shots 
for stitching panoramas. no competitor has enough time or money to challenge 
the patent.


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

To: "Kevin Waterson" 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: 360 degree software



I looked into this quite a bit for doing Virtual Tours for real
estate.  The basic issue is that Ipix bought the technology for
dealing with 360 panos and then started suing anyone who was doing
anything along the same lines.  So several other players got out of
the business.

The real problem with Ipix is that they charge a royalty for every
pano that you create/publish.

Re: PAW - "Tennis"

[David Mann]

On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:03 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

I like this a lot.  However I would have placed the ball slightly  
lower and to the left in the frame, but then it would probably have  
messed up the relationship with the lines on the court.  (Ok, I  
guess I would have gone out on the court and moved the ball).


I agree that it should be moved but I think I'd move it to the right  
a bit (actually a lot), and up a little so it remains halfway between  
the two shadow lines.


Being a nature photographer I have a habit of not fiddling with  
anything in the scene so it's all academic to me:)


Thanks for commenting.

- Dave

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[brooksdj]

> On 12/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, 
discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >The best things about Mac OS X in this area are that ColorSync is  
> >built-in, the Apple screens are top notch and well characterized by  
> >existing profiles, and nearly all of the printer/ink/paper systems  
> >have good profiles supplied. It's pretty easy to figure out, much  
> >easier to setup, very little fuss to maintain. Yet it doesn't put  
> >anything in the way of going much much further if you care to.
> 
> 
> Now that's what I came to hear!
> 
> 
> >
> >Keep going with the mantra!
> 
> Amen ;-)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 

Thanks for making my life so muche easier.LOL

Dave

BTW

Yes thanks to all who have responded. MUCH appreciated.

Dave
> 

Re: 360 degree software

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Kevin,

I looked into this quite a bit for doing Virtual Tours for real
estate.  The basic issue is that Ipix bought the technology for
dealing with 360 panos and then started suing anyone who was doing
anything along the same lines.  So several other players got out of
the business.

The real problem with Ipix is that they charge a royalty for every
pano that you create/publish.  There are one or two that have come up
with a license through Ipix that doesn't ding you too bad, but it
requires using a P&S camera with a fisheye lens - like the old coolpix
950/990.  The problem for DSLR's is the crop factor - this makes it so
you can't get a 180 in one shot.  So then you are faced with multiple
shots and stitching.  Once you have solved that problem, you need to
deal with a viewer of sorts for the web.  There are java, flash,
quicktime and possibly a few others.

After trying things like the Sigma fisheye and partial fisheyes and
trying to stitch them together and then show them through viewing
software (pretty much frustrating failures) I finally got a parabolic mirror 
for shooting the
entire 360 in one shot.
http://www.0-360.com/

While you don't get 360 vertically, for practical purposes, it covers
enough.

For showing I use some software that creates a whole virtual tour.
http://www.360dof.com/

If all you want to do is show your panos, you can get by with the
viewer from the 0-360 outfit.



-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Monday, September 12, 2005, 5:14:01 PM, you wrote:

KW> I have been looking at iPix ( www.ipix.com ) but it is majorly geared up
KW> for the canon G6. I there something more generic to make 360 degree
KW> panoramas, then have them mashed into a little 360 degree image that
KW> is able to be panned?

KW> What are folks using for tripod mounts for 360 degree images.
KW> What other equipment could be recommended?

KW> Kind regards
KW> Kevin

FS: Quantum Battery 2 to AF400T cable

[Collin Brendemuehl]

NOS
$15 shipped in US
PayPal.

Collin
KC8TKA 

Re: Uh what happened to the *ist DS

[Shel Belinkoff]

Did you read the reviews or just look at the numbers.  Be sure that you're
getting a US version of the camera, not grey market.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Barry Rice 

> I see the Pentax *ist-DS (body only) is available at dbuys.com, which has
a
> good (8.96) rating from resellerrartings.com
>
> Any comment on this venue? I'm scared.

Re: Norcal PDML Meet

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 9/12/2005 8:47:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

>Fast moving objects?

Marnie on speed ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty
=
More former drug of choice used to make me mellow, not hyper.

After all, like, I am a Californian, man.

Marnie aka Doe ;-)

Re: Uh what happened to the *ist DS

[Barry Rice]

Hey Folks, 

I see the Pentax *ist-DS (body only) is available at dbuys.com, which has a
good (8.96) rating from resellerrartings.com

Any comment on this venue? I'm scared.

Barry

Barry A. Rice, Ph.D.
Invasive Species Specialist
Invasive Species Initiative
The Nature Conservancy
V: 530-754-8891
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu 

Re: 360 degree software

[Marco Alpert]

Lot's of options here:

http://www.kaidan.com/

   - Marco

On Sep 12, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:

I have been looking at iPix ( www.ipix.com ) but it is majorly geared 
up

for the canon G6. I there something more generic to make 360 degree
panoramas, then have them mashed into a little 360 degree image that
is able to be panned?

What are folks using for tripod mounts for 360 degree images.
What other equipment could be recommended?

Kind regards
Kevin

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

360 degree software

[Kevin Waterson]

I have been looking at iPix ( www.ipix.com ) but it is majorly geared up
for the canon G6. I there something more generic to make 360 degree
panoramas, then have them mashed into a little 360 degree image that
is able to be panned?

What are folks using for tripod mounts for 360 degree images.
What other equipment could be recommended?

Kind regards
Kevin

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

Re: Monster on the porch!

[Paul Stenquist]

Good job of lighting the web. And you're right, that's one pretty 
spider. Quite the looker. Thanks for sharing.

Paul
On Sep 12, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:


Playing with the af360fgz in wireless mode and the Sigma
90/2.8 Macro (MF) I plan to sell, I caught this little fella
just before a gust of wind blew the poor guy away.

http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/Spidey.htm

*Warning*, icky bug pic! ;-)

Could have used a little more DOF but a rather pretty
specimen. (If you're into spiders.)

Don

Re: OT: Two Air Show Questions

[Adam Maas]

I shot the CNE airshow a week ago with my Nikon gear.  A 2x TC and a 
70-210 at 210mm worked out pretty well (420mm effective).


-Adam


Bob Sullivan wrote:


Fred,

I was happy with the FA70-210/3.5-4.5 zoom on the *ist DS last month.
Finding the planes can be a challenge at 200mm.  The A300/4 would be tougher.

Here's a shapshot I took on Chicago's lakefront at the air & water show.

http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/t-birds.jpg

USAF Thunderbirds, with FA70-210/3.5-4.5 zoom (the wobbly one)
Crop of original at 100% - camera shake added by photographer.
(The formation was a small part of a much bigger picture - 2000x3000)
This was taken at the Chicago Air & Water show last Saturday.
Look closely at the end of right wing of the last aircraft.
Shortly after this pass, the last half of the Thunderbird's show was canceled.
Reports were that a missle rail (hanger) had fallen off of one of the aircraft.
It's only a snapshot, but I was impressed...

Regards,  Bob S.

On 9/12/05, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


Hi.  I'll be attending my first ever air show in a couple of weeks (Sept.
24), and I've got a couple of questions for air show veterans:

1.  What's a good shutter speed for showing "blurred but visible prop
blades" in a "fly-by"?  I'd like the blades to show a little (not just be a
total blur), but not to "stand still" in the photos either (I've already
got some of those pictures from previous airplane attempts on film, and
1/250 sec just doesn't do it - .)  I'll be using my new DS, so I guess I
should be able to adjust the speed when I view the first shots in the DS's
display window, but "Murphy's Law" would probably have my first botched
attempts be of one of the two planes that I really want the photos of the
most - , so knowing a little ahead of time might be very helpful to me.

2.  What sort of focal length range would be most useful for a "fly-by"?  I
could use a 70-210 zoom, or a 100-300 zoom, as some examples.  I also could
use a 500mm mirror, say.  Using the DS, of course, means that these would
approximate 100-300, 150-450, and 750mm "effective focal lengths" (35mm
format).  (I could probably carry 3 or 4 lenses, I suppose.)

Thanks for any advice offered.

Fred



   

Re: PDML Long term Archive

[John Francis]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:49:37PM -0500, Gonz wrote:
> Email might be a problem.  I think it would probably exceed my 
> provider's limits.  But FTP would probably be an option.  I dont have 
> any idea how big it would be zipped however.  Its in netscape mail 
> format, so I don't know how easy it would be to convert it to other 
> formats.

Should be a piece of cake - Netscape uses standard Unix mbox format.
Unzip it on a Linux box and you've got all sorts of utilities available.

Re: OT: Two Air Show Questions

[Bob Sullivan]

Fred,

I was happy with the FA70-210/3.5-4.5 zoom on the *ist DS last month.
Finding the planes can be a challenge at 200mm.  The A300/4 would be tougher.

Here's a shapshot I took on Chicago's lakefront at the air & water show.

http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/t-birds.jpg

USAF Thunderbirds, with FA70-210/3.5-4.5 zoom (the wobbly one)
Crop of original at 100% - camera shake added by photographer.
(The formation was a small part of a much bigger picture - 2000x3000)
This was taken at the Chicago Air & Water show last Saturday.
Look closely at the end of right wing of the last aircraft.
Shortly after this pass, the last half of the Thunderbird's show was canceled.
Reports were that a missle rail (hanger) had fallen off of one of the aircraft.
It's only a snapshot, but I was impressed...

Regards,  Bob S.

On 9/12/05, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.  I'll be attending my first ever air show in a couple of weeks (Sept.
> 24), and I've got a couple of questions for air show veterans:
> 
> 1.  What's a good shutter speed for showing "blurred but visible prop
> blades" in a "fly-by"?  I'd like the blades to show a little (not just be a
> total blur), but not to "stand still" in the photos either (I've already
> got some of those pictures from previous airplane attempts on film, and
> 1/250 sec just doesn't do it - .)  I'll be using my new DS, so I guess I
> should be able to adjust the speed when I view the first shots in the DS's
> display window, but "Murphy's Law" would probably have my first botched
> attempts be of one of the two planes that I really want the photos of the
> most - , so knowing a little ahead of time might be very helpful to me.
> 
> 2.  What sort of focal length range would be most useful for a "fly-by"?  I
> could use a 70-210 zoom, or a 100-300 zoom, as some examples.  I also could
> use a 500mm mirror, say.  Using the DS, of course, means that these would
> approximate 100-300, 150-450, and 750mm "effective focal lengths" (35mm
> format).  (I could probably carry 3 or 4 lenses, I suppose.)
> 
> Thanks for any advice offered.
> 
> Fred
> 
> 
>

RE: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)

[Bob W]

England.

The game's easy really. Both sides go out, then the batsman who's in plays
till he's out then goes back in. When they've all finished their innings
they go back in and swap sides before they come out again, and when they're
all out they play another innings and go back in for tea. Then the
commentators eat a cake and Geoff Boycott tells us all how bad they all
were.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 13 September 2005 00:11
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)
> 
> Saw some of the cricket match last week in the UK.
> I could not fathom the game, but everyone was excited, 
> especially after N.Ireland spoiled the football.
> So who won?
> Regards,  Bob S.
> 

RE: Uh what happened to the *ist DS

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Barry ... 

The istDS, as you may have found out by now if others have responded, has
been discontinued and replaced by the istDS2.  Don't be afraid to check
other on line and e-tail establishments.  You can check reviews of many,
many shops @  http://www.resellerratings.com/

I was very cautious about buying from http://www.buydig.com/.  I
specifically asked the list about them and it turned out a number of people
had done business with them and were quite satisfied.  I bought my DS from
them, and the camera was defective.  Buydig was quick and accommodating in
sending a replacement.  Another store that's well rated is Beach Camera -
you'll have to look up their URL.

Waiting for the DS2, while tempting just to get a newer model, really
didn't make much sense as prices were just about at their lowest ebb with
the DS, and the changes between the DS and the DS2 seemed too small to make
a whole lot of difference.

While the DS is no longer shown as in stock at buydig, they sure had one to
send off to me as a replacement for the defective camera even though the
web site showed it as out of stock.  They do have the DS kit with the 18~55
lens.  If you don't want the lens you might call Buydig and see if they've
got a naked DS that they can send you.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Barry Rice 

> Today I got ready to order, and discovered that
> suddenly neither B and H or Adorama carry the *ist-DS anymore! Does anyone
> know why this is the case? And now I see there's a DS2 on the Pentax site,
> although I don't see this for sale yet! Is this scheduled to be a pricey
> model?
>
> I'm afraid of other companies.I've...I've been hurt before. :)

RE: Lots of good photography here

[Bob W]

Hi,

no, I've never heard of him before. His pictures are very nice, although
typical of a certain salon style of the time. You might be able to find more
about him from the RPS.

I like his photo of the waterway, but wish they said where it was.

I was interested to see his photo of Chipping Campden:
http://www.vintageworks.net/search/full_image.php/0/870/7711/1/7711HarbidgeC
ampden.jpg

The buildings took me back 30 years to my old school:
http://www.wishful-thinking.org.uk/genuki/DBY/Ashbourne/QueenElizabeth.html

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 12 September 2005 23:02
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Lots of good photography here
> 
> From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:17 AM
> Subject: RE: Lots of good photography here
> 
> 
> > Thanks - that's fascinating
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> Btw - do you, or anyone else, happen to know anything more 
> about British photographer Frank Harbridge, active during the 
> thirties. There are some pictures by him on this page:
> 
> http://www.vintageworks.net/search/result_list.php/0/870
> 
> I can't recall ever hearing about him and I think his 
> pictures are simply excellent in his style.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lasse
> 
> > Cheers,
> > Bob
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> And many other 19th and 20th Century Photography Masters"
> >>
> >> http://www.vintageworks.net/index.php
> >>
> >> Lasse
> 
> 
> 
> 

Monster on the porch!

[Don Sanderson]

Playing with the af360fgz in wireless mode and the Sigma
90/2.8 Macro (MF) I plan to sell, I caught this little fella
just before a gust of wind blew the poor guy away.

http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/Spidey.htm

*Warning*, icky bug pic! ;-)

Could have used a little more DOF but a rather pretty
specimen. (If you're into spiders.) 

Don

Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)

[Bob Sullivan]

Saw some of the cricket match last week in the UK.
I could not fathom the game, but everyone was excited,
especially after N.Ireland spoiled the football.
So who won?
Regards,  Bob S.

On 9/12/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dahhh, you're all jealous cos the Ashes are as good as gone ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>  Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
>

Re: Uh what happened to the *ist DS

[P. J. Alling]

Possibly because they wanted to clear inventory before they got the 
*ist-DS2.


Barry Rice wrote:

Hey Folks, 


A while ago I asked about the differences between the *ist-DS and the
*ist-DL, and got a set of great answers. I decided the *ist-DS was more
attractive to me because of the pentaprism (instead of the pentamirror).
Viewfinder brightness is a matter of importance for me in my macro work.
Price is also a concern. Today I got ready to order, and discovered that
suddenly neither B and H or Adorama carry the *ist-DS anymore! Does anyone
know why this is the case? And now I see there's a DS2 on the Pentax site,
although I don't see this for sale yet! Is this scheduled to be a pricey
model?

I'm afraid of other companies.I've...I've been hurt before. :)

Barry

Barry A. Rice, Ph.D.
Invasive Species Specialist
Invasive Species Initiative
The Nature Conservancy
V: 530-754-8891
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu 



 




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

Re: PESO - Aurora with Zenitar 12mm f2.8 Fisheye

[frank theriault]

On 9/12/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not quite as entertaining as the earlier shots, but it says a little bit
> about the Zenitar Fisheye wide open.  Not bad for a $160 lens (IIRC).
> Fisheye effect is lost a bit on the *ist D, but still my widest lens.
> 
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3720670
> 
> Tom C.

I had fun with my Zenitar fisheye on Cesar's D back at GFM.  It was a
nice combo, as most of the distortion at the edge of frame is gone. 
IMHO, it would make a good street-photo combination.

I like your aurora shot.  Cool.

cheers,
frank


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

Re: *ist D or DS & AF500FTZ for Weddings?

[Igor Roshchin]

> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:10:48 -0400
> From: "Frank Knapik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: *ist D or DS & AF500FTZ for Weddings?
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hello. I recently got into digital photography. I bought an Olympus C-8080. 
> Great camera, but the EVF would not work for me to shoot people events such 
> as weddings. Until I purchased this camera I have always used Pentax 
> equipment. PZ-1p, LX, MX,AF500FTZ,AF280,AF 50/1.4,Af28-105(pz),A24/2.8 and 
> more. I have to turn down "digital" wedding requests  because I do not have a 
> digital camera that I could comfortably use for weddings. So the question I 
> have is, does anyone have any wedding experience using an *istD or DS with 
> the above flashes and lenses. I do realize I will need a wider lens. Any 
> digital specific zoom recommendations? Thanks.
>
> Francis 
>

Francis,

I guess you will receive response from several people who are
experts in wedding photography with the digital SLR.

I was faced with the necessity to shoot a wedding of my relative 
just 2 months ago. I was using *ist DS that was purchased shortly
before that with AF500FTZ and all the lenses that I had and used 
before with ZX5n.

So, here are my impressions, regrets, etc.
1. I was struggling with burned areas coming from bride's white dress
and white shirts of the groom and other men. 

As they wanted to have some photos taken at the sea shore and it was
a bright day, some burned areas came from the sky. This was for the
shots where people were under a shed.
I admit, I haven't had too much experience with this type of shots
(although I had some). However, there was something in the combination
of DS and AF500FTZ that was not behaving the way I wanted it to behave.
I am not sure if it was entirely my fault or indeed, a) this flash
does not work as well with the DS as it does with ZX5n as a fill-in flash;
b) the sensitivity dynamic range of the digital sensor is
not as wide that of the film.
Again, it might have been my inexperience with the DS.
I should note, that a digital Elph used at the same time by my wife
did a much better job with respect to the exposure, while being
set to a forced (fill-in) flash.

2. With respect to lenses - because of the 1.5 crop factor,
you have adjust your practice and habbits. Bill Robb warned me about
this, specifically for the wide end, but I had to adjust much more 
in the focal range of 70-120, as I had 28-70 and 70-300
zooms, and the boundary between the two effectively shifted from
where I used to find it.
Luckily, I had a second body, - so that I could avoid
too much of lens switching.

3. RAW was my savior!
Raw pluging for Photoshop CS2 is also very handy for streamlining
the conversion and adjustments. Even despite the slowness (on startup)
of the Adobe Bridge.

I hope this would be somewhat helpful.

Igor

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[Cotty]

On 12/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

>The best things about Mac OS X in this area are that ColorSync is  
>built-in, the Apple screens are top notch and well characterized by  
>existing profiles, and nearly all of the printer/ink/paper systems  
>have good profiles supplied. It's pretty easy to figure out, much  
>easier to setup, very little fuss to maintain. Yet it doesn't put  
>anything in the way of going much much further if you care to.


Now that's what I came to hear!


>
>Keep going with the mantra!

Amen ;-)


Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: GESO: Southwestern Alberta

[Bob Sullivan]

Herb,
Especially like 
#13, the ground squirrel,
#16, the landscape with trees in the valley below the tall mountain -
composition!
#20, the 4 pelicans(?) - color and
#21, the 4 shore birds (hard to do 4 of anything, but these last 2 work)
Regards,  Bob S.
On 9/11/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> back from vacation and a random grab-bag of photos in chronological order.
> all taken within a couple of hours' drive of Calgary.
> 
> http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Seasonal/
> 
> Herb
> 
>

Re: Uh what happened to the *ist DS

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Barry Rice wrote:


A while ago I asked about the differences between the *ist-DS and the
*ist-DL, and got a set of great answers. I decided the *ist-DS was  
more
attractive to me because of the pentaprism (instead of the  
pentamirror).
Viewfinder brightness is a matter of importance for me in my macro  
work.
Price is also a concern. Today I got ready to order, and discovered  
that
suddenly neither B and H or Adorama carry the *ist-DS anymore! Does  
anyone
know why this is the case? And now I see there's a DS2 on the  
Pentax site,
although I don't see this for sale yet! Is this scheduled to be a  
pricey

model?


The DS2 is an incremental update to the DS. It should be available by  
sometime next month. The DS model is getting scarce as stocks sell  
out, it's price has been bottomed for a bit now into the high $500/ 
low $600 range. Not much different, really, although some of the  
incremental improvements are nice stuff. As a new model it will carry  
a higher price tag for a while, of course.


Some stores still have a few DS units in stock. BuyDig.com has been a  
very good vendor, I'd recommend them highly. I bought my second DS  
body from them shortly before the DS2 announcement, they provided  
excellent service.


Godfrey

Re: PESO - Dimples X 2

[Bruce Dayton]

Thanks Rob.  Capture One does have Noise Reduction that probably
helped some.  Also it was not underexposed.  I remember having a
discussion about that recently, where you want to expose closer to the
bright side if you can, to reduce noise in the shadows.  I find that
when metering with the FA 50/1.4, the images come out with more
exposure than some of my other lenses.  Haven't quite figured that one
out yet.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Monday, September 12, 2005, 2:22:10 PM, you wrote:

RW> Lovely shots Bruce.

RW> I see that you did this at ISO 800 - but not a hint of noise - do you find
RW> that using Capture One LE helps with this? I've done some window lit
RW> portraits at ISO 800 but shadows look noisy. Perhaps I am underexposing?

RW> Rob W 

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 11 September 2005 20:16
>> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>> Subject: PESO - Dimples X 2
>> 
>> This morning my daughter was watching the muppets on TV.  I was
>> sitting there and looked over at her and noticed how nice the side
>> light from the far window was on her.  I told her not to move and went
>> and got my camera.  Of course, as I walked back into the room, she had
>> jumped down and got the dog.  So I had to put her back in position.
>> 
>> These two shots were of her own posing, more or less.  Although taken
>> very close together, they each have a very different feel to them.
>> 
>> Pentax *istD, FA 50/1.4, handheld
>> ISO 800, 1/45 sec @ f/2.0
>> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
>> 
>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2229.htm
>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2230.htm
>> 
>> Comments welcome
>> 
>> --
>> Bruce

Re: Uh what happened to the *ist DS

[Adam Maas]

The DS has been discontinued in favour of the DS2. Pricing should be 
identical. There's very little difference between the DS and DS2, only 
the larger LCD and Auto ISO.


Buydig.com reportedly has DS's, and is a reputable dealer. Shel bought 
his there (And seems to be having good luck with their service, his was 
DOA).


-Adam






Barry Rice wrote:
Hey Folks, 


A while ago I asked about the differences between the *ist-DS and the
*ist-DL, and got a set of great answers. I decided the *ist-DS was more
attractive to me because of the pentaprism (instead of the pentamirror).
Viewfinder brightness is a matter of importance for me in my macro work.
Price is also a concern. Today I got ready to order, and discovered that
suddenly neither B and H or Adorama carry the *ist-DS anymore! Does anyone
know why this is the case? And now I see there's a DS2 on the Pentax site,
although I don't see this for sale yet! Is this scheduled to be a pricey
model?

I'm afraid of other companies.I've...I've been hurt before. :)

Barry

Barry A. Rice, Ph.D.
Invasive Species Specialist
Invasive Species Initiative
The Nature Conservancy
V: 530-754-8891
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu 

Re: Starting to play with RAW

[Dave Kennedy]

Thanks Godfey, I'll take a look for the book. 

dk

On 9/12/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote:
> 
> > So, maybe I should try RAW.  But if I do, what do I need?
> 
> You need your choice of RAW converter and image editing software.
> Depending upon your system, possibly enough disk space and RAM to do
> the job with reasonable efficiency. I'm not a Windows user so I can't
> give much advice there. With Mac OS X, you want v10.3.x or v10.4.x,
> 512-768M RAM and a hard drive with enough free disk space, the more
> and the faster the better, as a starting point.
> 
> You also want a book ... see below.
> 
> > Currently I'm running PSE 3.0, right off the disk, no plug-ins or
> > anything.  The Organizer tool does not seem to recognize the RAW
> > files, is there any plugin which would help it support the RAW files?
> 
> Sounds like you're on Windows ... someone else will have to help you
> regards configuration of the Organizer, etc.
> 
> If you already use PSE 3.0, just go to the Adobe.com website and
> download the Camera Raw and DNG Converter v3.1 packages, install them
> as instructed. Presuming you're working with a Windows computer, the
> URL is
>   http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?
> product=40&platform=Windows
> and for Mac OS X it's:
>   http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?
> product=40&platform=Macintosh
> 
> > If I start this, anticipate workflow questions.
> 
> I strongly recommend Bruce Fraser's book, "Real World Camera Raw with
> Adobe Photoshop CS(2)". The Camera Raw plug in will only operate in
> Basic mode in Photoshop Elements 3, but most of what you will need is
> all included in Basic mode. I think I've used the Advanced mode once
> or twice.
> 
> Bruce outlines the basic workflow for RAW conversion:
> 
> once:
> - set up Camera Raw preferences
> - set up output desired (16 or 8 bit, color space, sizing)
> 
> per image:
> - open image
> - set exposure (white point)
> - set color balance
> - set brightness and contrast (gamma curve)
> - set shadows (black point)
> - convert to .PSD output
> 
>  From there it's image processing as usual in PS or PSE.
> 
> BTW: The order of the adjustments is not set in stone. Someone
> mentioned that they got good results from running brightness/contrast
> up and then toning down exposure. Doesn't really make much
> difference, as the operations are going to do the same
> transformations no matter which order you tweak the adjustment
> controls in; only difference is how you see the image changing. Learn
> how to see and use the histogram, what the specific controls do, and
> you'll come to a workflow that you understand, that is predictable
> and produces the output you want.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
>

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Cotty wrote:


... My worry is that all the greasy
mechanics of testing this and printing that will scare away Dave,  
bless
him. He just wants a simple solution that effectively looks after  
itself

and (as we say in the UK) 'does what it says on the tin'.


I love to test stuff and see what's 'really real', that's all. ;-)

Brooksy - as with most things, it can be as easy or as difficult as  
one

can make it, and colour with computer printing is no exception. I have
found that with the Mac's Colorsync system, it can be *particularly*
easy, if needed. Repeat after me: 'the Mac was made for me'.


The best things about Mac OS X in this area are that ColorSync is  
built-in, the Apple screens are top notch and well characterized by  
existing profiles, and nearly all of the printer/ink/paper systems  
have good profiles supplied. It's pretty easy to figure out, much  
easier to setup, very little fuss to maintain. Yet it doesn't put  
anything in the way of going much much further if you care to.


Keep going with the mantra!

Godfrey

Re: Lots of good photography here

[Lasse Karlsson]

From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: Lots of good photography here



Thanks - that's fascinating


Yes, it is.

Btw - do you, or anyone else, happen to know anything more about British 
photographer Frank Harbridge, active during the thirties. There are some 
pictures by him on this page:


http://www.vintageworks.net/search/result_list.php/0/870

I can't recall ever hearing about him and I think his pictures are simply 
excellent in his style.


Thanks,
Lasse


Cheers,
Bob


-Original Message-
From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



And many other 19th and 20th Century Photography Masters"

http://www.vintageworks.net/index.php

Lasse 

Uh what happened to the *ist DS

[Barry Rice]

Hey Folks, 

A while ago I asked about the differences between the *ist-DS and the
*ist-DL, and got a set of great answers. I decided the *ist-DS was more
attractive to me because of the pentaprism (instead of the pentamirror).
Viewfinder brightness is a matter of importance for me in my macro work.
Price is also a concern. Today I got ready to order, and discovered that
suddenly neither B and H or Adorama carry the *ist-DS anymore! Does anyone
know why this is the case? And now I see there's a DS2 on the Pentax site,
although I don't see this for sale yet! Is this scheduled to be a pricey
model?

I'm afraid of other companies.I've...I've been hurt before. :)

Barry

Barry A. Rice, Ph.D.
Invasive Species Specialist
Invasive Species Initiative
The Nature Conservancy
V: 530-754-8891
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu 

Re: Print directly from ist-D ??

[Thibouille]

That's what I thought.
Well that is the kind of upgrade Pentax should have done in their
firmware IMO...

Not that bad, oh welll...

--
Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...

Re: PDML Long term Archive

[Gonz]

Email might be a problem.  I think it would probably exceed my 
provider's limits.  But FTP would probably be an option.  I dont have 
any idea how big it would be zipped however.  Its in netscape mail 
format, so I don't know how easy it would be to convert it to other 
formats.  One other note is that its in pieces.  I keep the current 
stuff in one chunk that I use daily, then the older stuff is kept in 
another folder for searching/reference.


rg


Robert Whitehouse wrote:

Any idea how big your archive might be if zipped? - might it be emailed?







-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 September 2005 20:35
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PDML Long term Archive

I have my own personal archive in my mailer that goes back quite a ways,
but I know there are some old timers here that go back to like 98 or
maybe even earlier than that.

rg


Shel Belinkoff wrote:


I thought it went back quite a ways.  Someone here (Gonz?) recently


pulled


up a post from 2001.

Shel




[Original Message]
From: Robert Whitehouse




Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on
mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks.

Re: OT: Two Air Show Questions

[Cotty]

BTWm seems a good time to drag this one out again:




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: OT: Two Air Show Questions

[Cotty]

On 12/9/05, Fred, discombobulated, unleashed:

>2.  What sort of focal length range would be most useful for a "fly-by"? 

That's easy. Whatever focal length you are using, it will not be enough :-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Back from France

[frank theriault]

On 9/12/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still catching up on all the things I should have been doing while I was
> away.
> Besides not having as many photographic opportunities as I would have
> liked because of the "vacation" aspect of the trip  the weather
> didn't cooperate: It was either ultra-high-contrast-sunny of dreary and
> gray. I had to get creative and do things like shoot reflections of
> chateaux in water. Very disappointed in my photographic output overall,
> but it was a wonderful trip.
> Here are a couple of quickies.
> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7d504808.jpg
> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7d504823.jpg
> 
> Full report later :)

Both wonderful photos - I like the reflection, as it's a bit more
unusual and interesting to me.

I can't wait to hear how your cycling went.  Did you do any Tour de
France mountains?  Finish at Alpe d'Huez or Ventoux?

I await your full report.  And, welcome back.

cheers,
frank

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

Re: PAW: G and A

[frank theriault]

On 9/11/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Never posted a PAW before. This is actually two, but very similar
> pictures. I would normally dislike the first one, as I have chopped
> the son's head on the left:
> 
> http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/%7ekavousan/GandA.jpg (<100KB)
> 
> However this one I like less, but do you agree/understand why?
> 
> http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/%7ekavousan/GandA2.jpg (<100KB)
> 
> Both are with the MZ-50, one of my 50s, Tri-X [EMAIL PROTECTED], scanned from
> (traditional machine process, not digital scan, and B&W paper) print
> using a bottom-line Canon scanner.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any comments.

The second one's wonderful;  the first one is amazing!  The open
mouths (of course) seal the deal.  A terrific photo in its own right,
it will be a treasured family keepsake for you and yours.

Tremendous!

cheers,
frank


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

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[Cotty]

On 12/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Having the OS fully color  
>managed, as Mac OS X is, also presents an advantage in that more  
>applications will take advantage of embedded ICC profiles and render  
>photos with better accuracy.

Godders,

There is one thing that Colorsync helps me with, and that is: anything I
can do to get away from all that technical stuff. I have no time nor
inclination to get intimate with the itty-bitty things that you
(mercifully) take in your stride. My worry is that all the greasy
mechanics of testing this and printing that will scare away Dave, bless
him. He just wants a simple solution that effectively looks after itself
and (as we say in the UK) 'does what it says on the tin'. 

I'm a petrol-head and can fully understand the desire to rip an engine to
shreds and rebuild it with loving and caring hands - to the point of
chamfering interior oilways to help lubrication (and *that* really is sad
attention to detail) - but I also realise a lot of people just buy a car
and use it to move between two points. Horses for courses (!).

Brooksy - as with most things, it can be as easy or as difficult as one
can make it, and colour with computer printing is no exception. I have
found that with the Mac's Colorsync system, it can be *particularly*
easy, if needed. Repeat after me: 'the Mac was made for me'.

:-)






Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: DS - The Saga Continues

[frank theriault]

On 9/10/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dave ... I'd need a long tie 
> 
> Thanks for you good wishes.  It's hard to imagine getting two duds in a
> row, but considering everything, I ain't counting the chickens ...
> 
> I'd decided that if the DS couldn't be replaced I'd get one of the istD's
> that are on the KEH site.  A bit more spendy, but still within budget
> (barely) for what I want, which is essentially to learn the digital
> workflow and see if it's something I want to continue with without spending
> too many $$ to get started.  I'm "cautiously embracing" the idea, although
> I have to admit to being excited as well.

Good luck, Shel,

I'm hoping you're right - you can't get two duds in a row, can you? 
(unless you're like me... )

Keep us up to date with the latest (I know you will).

cheers,
frank


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

Re: Star Gazing

[frank theriault]

On 9/10/05, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A night in the life of a celeb chaser. The slide show is amusing.
> Imagine, snaparazzi with a conscience. Sort of.
> 
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2125481/nav/tap1/
> 

I dispatched one of our bike messengers to pick up a pair of shoes for
delivery to Paris Hilton, who was in Toronto last week (or was it the
week before?).  She was staying at (wait for it...)  The Hilton.  Go
figure, eh?  

He wanted to deliver the package to her personally, but they made him
leave it with the concierge.

The photo of Paris in the article reminded me of that.  I thought
someone might be interested.  I wasn't...

cheers,
frank

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

Re: Paw: As free as a child wants to be

[frank theriault]

On 9/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> HI all.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the dull colour or the background, but everyone i have shown 
> this to
> thinks its a
> very nice photo.
> Thus proving, i'mm to hard on my self.LOL
> 
> 
>  
> http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=view¤t=freedom3787.jpg
> 
> Taken during week one of the two week Collingwood horse show.
> 
> My daughter,who is just adorded by Hailey, is playing chase the rainbow with 
> her.
> 
> I just think that the scene and the laughter on Hailey's face rally make this.
> 
> For your dining and dancing pleasure.Shpuld you comment, i'd appreciate it.
> 
> istD with SMC A 70-210 F4 hand held/panned.
> 

That's a sweet shot, Dave.  Don't be so hard on yourself .

cheers,
frank


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

RE: PESO - Dimples X 2

[Robert Whitehouse]

Lovely shots Bruce.

I see that you did this at ISO 800 - but not a hint of noise - do you find
that using Capture One LE helps with this? I've done some window lit
portraits at ISO 800 but shadows look noisy. Perhaps I am underexposing?

Rob W 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 September 2005 20:16
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: PESO - Dimples X 2
> 
> This morning my daughter was watching the muppets on TV.  I was
> sitting there and looked over at her and noticed how nice the side
> light from the far window was on her.  I told her not to move and went
> and got my camera.  Of course, as I walked back into the room, she had
> jumped down and got the dog.  So I had to put her back in position.
> 
> These two shots were of her own posing, more or less.  Although taken
> very close together, they each have a very different feel to them.
> 
> Pentax *istD, FA 50/1.4, handheld
> ISO 800, 1/45 sec @ f/2.0
> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
> 
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2229.htm
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2230.htm
> 
> Comments welcome
> 
> --
> Bruce

RE: PESO - Dimples X 2

[Manuel Magalhães]

You are a lucky guy!
You have a beautiful daughter and a *istD. :)
The light is almost always the secret.
Thanks for sharing,

Manuel 

-Mensagem original-
De: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Enviada: domingo, 11 de Setembro de 2005 20:16
Para: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Assunto: PESO - Dimples X 2

This morning my daughter was watching the muppets on TV.  I was sitting
there and looked over at her and noticed how nice the side light from the
far window was on her.  I told her not to move and went and got my camera.
Of course, as I walked back into the room, she had jumped down and got the
dog.  So I had to put her back in position.

These two shots were of her own posing, more or less.  Although taken very
close together, they each have a very different feel to them.

Pentax *istD, FA 50/1.4, handheld
ISO 800, 1/45 sec @ f/2.0
Converted from Raw using Capture One LE

http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2229.htm
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2230.htm

Comments welcome

--
Bruce

Re: LED lighting

[Gonz]

Bertil Holmberg wrote:

Does anyone have experience of LED lighting panels in photography?

Although there are commercial products available, it should not be  that 
difficult for the electronics buff to make a couple of panels  quite 
cheap. White high intensity LEDs are avaialble for about $50  per 100 
and that should be enough for small object photography, I  think. With 
25-50 light sources mounted close together, a diffusor  seems unnecessary.


What kind of light intensity would be required at a distance of 50 cm  
(20 inches)? I'm afraid that I know little about the physics involved  
apart from that some of it is measured in Candela. Ah, the Wiki says  
that a 100W bulb emits about 120 Cd. A 5mm LED can give 20.000 mCd so  
100 of the blighters should give 2000 Cd. That sounds pretty intense,  
does't it?




Your math seems a little off.  100 * 20mCd = 2000 mCd = 2 Cd., I'm 
assuming the "m" stands for "milli" or 1/1000th.


rg


Any help is appreciated :-)

Bertil

RE: PDML Long term Archive

[Robert Whitehouse]

Any idea how big your archive might be if zipped? - might it be emailed?





> -Original Message-
> From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 September 2005 20:35
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: PDML Long term Archive
> 
> I have my own personal archive in my mailer that goes back quite a ways,
> but I know there are some old timers here that go back to like 98 or
> maybe even earlier than that.
> 
> rg
> 
> 
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> > I thought it went back quite a ways.  Someone here (Gonz?) recently
> pulled
> > up a post from 2001.
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> >>[Original Message]
> >>From: Robert Whitehouse
> >
> >
> >>Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on
> >>mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks.
> >
> >
> >

Re: Starting to play with RAW

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote:


So, maybe I should try RAW.  But if I do, what do I need?


You need your choice of RAW converter and image editing software.  
Depending upon your system, possibly enough disk space and RAM to do  
the job with reasonable efficiency. I'm not a Windows user so I can't  
give much advice there. With Mac OS X, you want v10.3.x or v10.4.x,   
512-768M RAM and a hard drive with enough free disk space, the more  
and the faster the better, as a starting point.


You also want a book ... see below.


Currently I'm running PSE 3.0, right off the disk, no plug-ins or
anything.  The Organizer tool does not seem to recognize the RAW
files, is there any plugin which would help it support the RAW files?


Sounds like you're on Windows ... someone else will have to help you  
regards configuration of the Organizer, etc.


If you already use PSE 3.0, just go to the Adobe.com website and  
download the Camera Raw and DNG Converter v3.1 packages, install them  
as instructed. Presuming you're working with a Windows computer, the  
URL is
  http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp? 
product=40&platform=Windows

and for Mac OS X it's:
  http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp? 
product=40&platform=Macintosh



If I start this, anticipate workflow questions.


I strongly recommend Bruce Fraser's book, "Real World Camera Raw with  
Adobe Photoshop CS(2)". The Camera Raw plug in will only operate in  
Basic mode in Photoshop Elements 3, but most of what you will need is  
all included in Basic mode. I think I've used the Advanced mode once  
or twice.


Bruce outlines the basic workflow for RAW conversion:

once:
- set up Camera Raw preferences
- set up output desired (16 or 8 bit, color space, sizing)

per image:
- open image
- set exposure (white point)
- set color balance
- set brightness and contrast (gamma curve)
- set shadows (black point)
- convert to .PSD output

From there it's image processing as usual in PS or PSE.

BTW: The order of the adjustments is not set in stone. Someone  
mentioned that they got good results from running brightness/contrast  
up and then toning down exposure. Doesn't really make much  
difference, as the operations are going to do the same  
transformations no matter which order you tweak the adjustment  
controls in; only difference is how you see the image changing. Learn  
how to see and use the histogram, what the specific controls do, and  
you'll come to a workflow that you understand, that is predictable  
and produces the output you want.


Godfrey

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 12:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Godfrey. I was wondering why you didn't respond immediately.  
You've been busy . What you posted before sounded complicated  
because it was detailed. I tend to oversimplify. I appreciate the  
clarification and your evaluative tests. I've always wondered if I  
was losing a lot with my color space. Apparently, if there's any  
loss, it's minor. I have tried Colorsync color settings with Adobe  
98 color space, and the results were not pleasing. I will try the  
North America Prepress settings one of these days, but I'm always a  
little leer of change when things are going well.


You're welcome. I tend to err on the side of detail and precision...  
it's the Mathematician/Engineer breaking out. ;-)


The only way to really know what works best is to test and experiment  
with the printing system you're going to be using, and with photos  
typical of what you're going to print. That is really the bottom line.


Regards the differences between A-RGB and sRGB colorspaces:

The test photo was an average snapshot/group photo taken in my  
partner's house in Tijuana ... available light, a lot of light color  
walls, four people's skin tones, camera triggered remotely. Not  
stressing the color envelope very much. I happened to be looking at  
it and wanted a few prints anyway...


The R-G toes on that set of comparison histograms demonstrate some  
clipping in those channels on the conversion to sRGB, but the effect  
on the photo is relatively small because the photo doesn't stress  
reds and greens very strongly. Only the skin tones move a little bit.


I'll probably repeat the test with some roses and leaves and a  
Macbeth color checker chart (I do this once in a bit to see if the  
inks/paper calibrations are working...) once I can find my chart  
again. It seems to have gone walkies since my move in April. Anyway,  
I suspect that the chart will show more significant deviations in the  
print output between the sRGB and Adobe RGB profiles. The A-RGB  
profile does represent a substantially larger gamut.


The crux, though, is how well the profile conversion to the printer  
does the job. The latest print drivers seem to be working more  
smoothly.CS2's print system does seem to do a better job, with less  
adjustment necessary, than CS did. Perhaps Adobe's continued  
development has improved things as well.


Godfrey

Starting to play with RAW

[Dave Kennedy]

Ok, I'm back from holidays now, and I've got more memory cards than I
can use for JPEG now that I have daily access to my computer again.
(having bought 2x1G cards while on holidays)

So, maybe I should try RAW.  But if I do, what do I need?  

Currently I'm running PSE 3.0, right off the disk, no plug-ins or
anything.  The Organizer tool does not seem to recognize the RAW
files, is there any plugin which would help it support the RAW files?

What do you recommend for system configurations for someone relatively
new to digital, and definitely new to RAW? (plus, buying CS or CS2 is
miles outside the family budget). I know some people use other
conversion tools, is that the way to go? (keep in mind budgetary
constraints).

If I start this, anticipate workflow questions.

thanx
dk

Re: *ist D or DS & AF500FTZ for Weddings?

[pnstenquist]

Good advice, Mark. I shot an engagement party a few weeks ago and after 
considering the options and experimenting a bit, I worked almost exactly as you 
suggest. I did use autofocus part of the time, but after missing a few shots in 
the dark, I went full manual. The lighting was a mix of indoor tungsten, 
outdoor daylight, and outdoor halogen. RAW and AWB served me very well. I used 
the Sigma flash on p-ttl, direct outdoors, bounced off the ceiling indoors. I 
was a guest as well as the photographer, so I stuck to just one lens. The DA 
16-45 proved quite satisfactory for the entire event.
Paul


> On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Frank Knapik wrote:
> 
> > ... PZ-1p, LX, MX,AF500FTZ,AF280,AF 50/1.4,Af28-105(pz),A24/2.8 and  
> > more. ... does anyone have any wedding experience using an *istD or  
> > DS with the above flashes and lenses. I do realize I will need a  
> > wider lens. Any digital specific zoom recommendations? ...
> 
> I did some wedding work this past summer with the ist-D.
> 
> Any of those flashes will work OK, but you really want to use one that
> supports P-TTL for best results. The Pentax AF360-FGZ, or the new Pentax
> AF540-FGZ or the Sigma EF500 DG Super.
> 
> The pro I was working with did 99% of his shots with a 17-35 and an
> 80-200/2.8 but I also found a 28-70/2.8 very useful. (BTW: The pro I
> worked with had a Canon 1D and he found even its autofocus useless under
> wedding conditions.)
> 
> Your lighting will be hugely variable, both in level and color balance.
> Mixed daylight, incandescent and fluorescent in a variety of blends. :)
> This means you need to shoot RAW on automatic white balance and set the
> proper color temperature during RAW conversion. Don't try to use custom
> white balances for the different lighting conditions - you'll miss shots
> while changing settings.
> 
> Here's the formula:
> Shoot RAW
> Automatic white balance
> Manual focus
> Camera on manual exposure
> Flash on P-TTL auto
> 
> 17-35 zoom for group shots and "scene setting" wide shots
> 28-70 zoom for portraits and small groups (sitting at tables at
> reception)
> 80-200 zoom for close-up portraits and shots of ceremony itself (use
> tripod, slow shutter speed, fill flash)
> 
> A 14-15mm is useful for party shots at reception. Put camera on monopod,
> hold over crowd and trigger shutter with remote.
>  
>  
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
> 

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[pnstenquist]

Thanks Godfrey. I was wondering why you didn't respond immediately. You've been 
busy . What you posted before sounded complicated because it was detailed. I 
tend to oversimplify. I appreciate the clarification and your evaluative tests. 
I've always wondered if I was losing a lot with my color space. Apparently, if 
there's any loss, it's minor. I have tried Colorsync color settings with Adobe 
98 color space, and the results were not pleasing. I will try the North America 
Prepress settings one of these days, but I'm always a little leer of change 
when things are going well. 
Paul


> Paul,
> 
> You set up all the specifics with the workflow I presented exactly  
> the same way you do with the ColorSync workflow. Steps 0, 1 and 2 are  
> identical except for using the NAPP/A-RGB setting vs the ColorSync/ 
> Generic-RGB settings. You can set up the same bundle of settings at  
> the printer as a one-step pick as well.
> 
> Regards the question, "..is there any real advantage..?":
> 
> In seeking enlightenment with a ColorSync workflow, I did the  
> experiment: took a test photo and printed six times as follows ...
> ---
> Did a calibration check on the monitor with the Gretag-Macbeth Eye  
> One Display colorimeter, generated new profile (profile analysis  
> demonstrate it to be identical to 1 month old one for all practical  
> purposes) and set the screen to use it.
> -
> Image file converted from RAW and output with 16bit per channel RGB,  
> Adobe RGB color profile.
> -
> ** I don't have an Epson 2200 to work with at present, only an HP  
> 7960 for color output. The 7960 probably has a slightly larger gamut  
> (dye inks vs pigment inks) but I suspect that Epson's profiles for  
> the 2200 are a bit better since I know who produced them... ;-) **
> 
> Photoshop CS2 ColorSync color settings
> Document profile converted to ColorSync Generic sRGB
> print 1 - Photoshop controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
> driver ColorSync setting
> print 2 - Printer controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
> driver ColorSync setting
> 
> Photoshop CS2 North America Prepress settings
> Document profile retained as Adobe RGB (1998)
> print 3 - Photoshop controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
> driver ColorSync setting
> print 4 - printer controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
> driver ColorSync setting
> print 5 - Photoshop controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
> driver ColorSmart III setting
> print 6 - printer controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
> driver ColorSmart III setting
> -
> Results:
> Print 5 is the clear odd man out. Glarey, higher gamma, yellowish  
> cast in shadows, more exaggerated whites.
> 
> Prints 1,2,3,4, & 6 are very close under standard tungsten room light.
> .. Under kitchen flourescent lighting, 1 & 3 have brighter, cleaner  
> tones ...
> shadow values go a little muddy; #3 is a bit warmer in faces and  
> shadow values.
> .. Under balanced 5000 deg K viewing box, #3 and #1 present closest  
> by-eye match to screen.
> .. Under shaded sunlight, 1,3,6 are again very close, with #3 being a  
> slightly closer eye-match.
> 
> My conclusion is that there is a small benefit from using A-RGB and  
> North America Pre-Press color settings. It's probably a greater  
> difference if you're working from a JPEG image. Here's the difference  
> in histogram profiles from Adobe RGB (16bit), and Generic sRGB  
> (16bit) - Generic sRGB (8bit) conversions:
> 
>http://homepage.mac.com/godders/profile-comparison.jpg
> 
> Note the relationship of the Red and Green left-side tails in the A- 
> RGB vs sRGB histograms ... sRGB is likely clipping a bit, it might  
> explain some of the subtle color shifting happening in the shadow  
> values.
> 
> The good news, of course, is that printing with *any* color  
> management scheme that uses at least decent profiles is going to  
> produce superior results to printing source files without color  
> management. I converted the file to 8bit, converted profile to sRGB  
> and output it as an untagged JPEG file. I then reopened it and told  
> Photoshop not to color manage it, produced two more prints... Not  
> even worth analyzing, the color balances are strikingly different  
> from the above 1,2,3,4,6 prints and don't match the screen display  
> very well at all.
> 
> In short, profiling the screen and using color management workflow  
> are the two fundamental keys to getting consistent, repeatable  
> output. As long as you're working with a decent color management  
> workflow and tools, you'll get results that shift only by subtleties.  
> The differences will become more significant depending upon specific  
> printer/ink/paper printing systems. Having the OS fully color  
> managed, as Mac OS X is, also presents an advantage in that more  
> applications will take advantage of embedded ICC profiles and render  
> photos with better accuracy.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> On Sep 12, 2005, at

Re: *ist D or DS & AF500FTZ for Weddings?

[Mark Roberts]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Frank Knapik wrote:

> ... PZ-1p, LX, MX,AF500FTZ,AF280,AF 50/1.4,Af28-105(pz),A24/2.8 and  
> more. ... does anyone have any wedding experience using an *istD or  
> DS with the above flashes and lenses. I do realize I will need a  
> wider lens. Any digital specific zoom recommendations? ...

I did some wedding work this past summer with the ist-D.

Any of those flashes will work OK, but you really want to use one that
supports P-TTL for best results. The Pentax AF360-FGZ, or the new Pentax
AF540-FGZ or the Sigma EF500 DG Super.

The pro I was working with did 99% of his shots with a 17-35 and an
80-200/2.8 but I also found a 28-70/2.8 very useful. (BTW: The pro I
worked with had a Canon 1D and he found even its autofocus useless under
wedding conditions.)

Your lighting will be hugely variable, both in level and color balance.
Mixed daylight, incandescent and fluorescent in a variety of blends. :)
This means you need to shoot RAW on automatic white balance and set the
proper color temperature during RAW conversion. Don't try to use custom
white balances for the different lighting conditions - you'll miss shots
while changing settings.

Here's the formula:
Shoot RAW
Automatic white balance
Manual focus
Camera on manual exposure
Flash on P-TTL auto

17-35 zoom for group shots and "scene setting" wide shots
28-70 zoom for portraits and small groups (sitting at tables at
reception)
80-200 zoom for close-up portraits and shots of ceremony itself (use
tripod, slow shutter speed, fill flash)

A 14-15mm is useful for party shots at reception. Put camera on monopod,
hold over crowd and trigger shutter with remote.
 
 
-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: PDML Long term Archive

[Gonz]

I have my own personal archive in my mailer that goes back quite a ways, 
but I know there are some old timers here that go back to like 98 or 
maybe even earlier than that.


rg


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

I thought it went back quite a ways.  Someone here (Gonz?) recently pulled
up a post from 2001.

Shel 




[Original Message]
From: Robert Whitehouse 




Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on
mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks.

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Paul,

You set up all the specifics with the workflow I presented exactly  
the same way you do with the ColorSync workflow. Steps 0, 1 and 2 are  
identical except for using the NAPP/A-RGB setting vs the ColorSync/ 
Generic-RGB settings. You can set up the same bundle of settings at  
the printer as a one-step pick as well.


Regards the question, "..is there any real advantage..?":

In seeking enlightenment with a ColorSync workflow, I did the  
experiment: took a test photo and printed six times as follows ...

---
Did a calibration check on the monitor with the Gretag-Macbeth Eye  
One Display colorimeter, generated new profile (profile analysis  
demonstrate it to be identical to 1 month old one for all practical  
purposes) and set the screen to use it.

-
Image file converted from RAW and output with 16bit per channel RGB,  
Adobe RGB color profile.

-
** I don't have an Epson 2200 to work with at present, only an HP  
7960 for color output. The 7960 probably has a slightly larger gamut  
(dye inks vs pigment inks) but I suspect that Epson's profiles for  
the 2200 are a bit better since I know who produced them... ;-) **


Photoshop CS2 ColorSync color settings
Document profile converted to ColorSync Generic sRGB
print 1 - Photoshop controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
driver ColorSync setting
print 2 - Printer controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
driver ColorSync setting


Photoshop CS2 North America Prepress settings
Document profile retained as Adobe RGB (1998)
print 3 - Photoshop controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
driver ColorSync setting
print 4 - printer controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
driver ColorSync setting
print 5 - Photoshop controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
driver ColorSmart III setting
print 6 - printer controls color, HP Premium Plus Glossy paper, HP  
driver ColorSmart III setting

-
Results:
Print 5 is the clear odd man out. Glarey, higher gamma, yellowish  
cast in shadows, more exaggerated whites.


Prints 1,2,3,4, & 6 are very close under standard tungsten room light.
.. Under kitchen flourescent lighting, 1 & 3 have brighter, cleaner  
tones ...
   shadow values go a little muddy; #3 is a bit warmer in faces and  
shadow values.
.. Under balanced 5000 deg K viewing box, #3 and #1 present closest  
by-eye match to screen.
.. Under shaded sunlight, 1,3,6 are again very close, with #3 being a  
slightly closer eye-match.


My conclusion is that there is a small benefit from using A-RGB and  
North America Pre-Press color settings. It's probably a greater  
difference if you're working from a JPEG image. Here's the difference  
in histogram profiles from Adobe RGB (16bit), and Generic sRGB  
(16bit) - Generic sRGB (8bit) conversions:


  http://homepage.mac.com/godders/profile-comparison.jpg

Note the relationship of the Red and Green left-side tails in the A- 
RGB vs sRGB histograms ... sRGB is likely clipping a bit, it might  
explain some of the subtle color shifting happening in the shadow  
values.


The good news, of course, is that printing with *any* color  
management scheme that uses at least decent profiles is going to  
produce superior results to printing source files without color  
management. I converted the file to 8bit, converted profile to sRGB  
and output it as an untagged JPEG file. I then reopened it and told  
Photoshop not to color manage it, produced two more prints... Not  
even worth analyzing, the color balances are strikingly different  
from the above 1,2,3,4,6 prints and don't match the screen display  
very well at all.


In short, profiling the screen and using color management workflow  
are the two fundamental keys to getting consistent, repeatable  
output. As long as you're working with a decent color management  
workflow and tools, you'll get results that shift only by subtleties.  
The differences will become more significant depending upon specific  
printer/ink/paper printing systems. Having the OS fully color  
managed, as Mac OS X is, also presents an advantage in that more  
applications will take advantage of embedded ICC profiles and render  
photos with better accuracy.


Godfrey

On Sep 12, 2005, at 8:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Wow! That's far more complex than using colorsynch workflow. I  
merely go to page setup to select paper size and positiong, then  
choose my paper in the print dialogue box and dial in the desired  
resolution and color management. Having done that once, however, I  
can save the paper with the resolution and color managment choices.  
After that, it's a one step process. Is there any real advantage to  
going through all that you've outlined below? I will have to give  
it a try, but I can't really see anything in my prints that I would  
want to change. I get exactly the results I want with no muss or fuss.

Paul

Godfrey wrote:

t's pretty much the same when working with Photoshop for both Mac OS
and Windows. Mac OS X's 

Re: Note to self

[Tom Reese]

> When using extension tubes with an external meter, don't forget the  
> exposure compensation.  Especially if you remembered it for the first  
> photo in the sequence.
> 
> - Dave "2 stops under"

lol

note to self 2:

don't forget to reset the exposure compensation after use

You're really doing it the hard way.

Tom Reese 

Re: GESO - September 11 Aurora

[frank theriault]

On 9/11/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's aurora season again.  Last night was great and the outlook for tonight
> is good as well.  There's currently a G3 storm in progress. G1 lowest/G5
> highest.
> 
> These photos were taken last night with the *ist D, FA 31mm f/1.8 LTD.
> Exposure time around 30 seconds at f/2.8 at ISO 400.  Raw captures, no
> adjustments.  Resized and sharpened.
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=299012

Oooohh!

Aaahhh!

Pretty..

-frank


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

Re: OT: Two Air Show Questions

[Jim Apilado]

I was at an airshow yesterday.  Shutter speed for props - 125 sec.  I used
an SMC 300mm Takumar on my ES II Pentax.  Also used a 35-80 Tamron lens
using an Adaptall for ES Pentaxes.
Look for the Heritage Flights where a modern fighter plane flys along side a
plane from WWII.  They don't fly by too fast.  Have fun.

Jim A.

> From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:09:44 -0400
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: OT: Two Air Show Questions
> Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:09:50 -0400
> 
> Hi.  I'll be attending my first ever air show in a couple of weeks (Sept.
> 24), and I've got a couple of questions for air show veterans:
> 
> 1.  What's a good shutter speed for showing "blurred but visible prop
> blades" in a "fly-by"?  I'd like the blades to show a little (not just be a
> total blur), but not to "stand still" in the photos either (I've already
> got some of those pictures from previous airplane attempts on film, and
> 1/250 sec just doesn't do it - .)  I'll be using my new DS, so I guess I
> should be able to adjust the speed when I view the first shots in the DS's
> display window, but "Murphy's Law" would probably have my first botched
> attempts be of one of the two planes that I really want the photos of the
> most - , so knowing a little ahead of time might be very helpful to me.
> 
> 2.  What sort of focal length range would be most useful for a "fly-by"?  I
> could use a 70-210 zoom, or a 100-300 zoom, as some examples.  I also could
> use a 500mm mirror, say.  Using the DS, of course, means that these would
> approximate 100-300, 150-450, and 750mm "effective focal lengths" (35mm
> format).  (I could probably carry 3 or 4 lenses, I suppose.)
> 
> Thanks for any advice offered.
> 
> Fred
> 
> 

Re: *ist D or DS & AF500FTZ for Weddings?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Frank Knapik wrote:

... PZ-1p, LX, MX,AF500FTZ,AF280,AF 50/1.4,Af28-105(pz),A24/2.8 and  
more. ... does anyone have any wedding experience using an *istD or  
DS with the above flashes and lenses. I do realize I will need a  
wider lens. Any digital specific zoom recommendations? ...


- Either of the D or DS will work fine with those flash units, you'll  
get TTL flash rather than P-TTL.
- 50mm  is a fine portrait tele, 24mm is a good "wide" lens (roughly  
the same field of view as 35mm lens with your LX or other film SLR  
cameras).


I don't do weddings, but there's no reason not to use the D or DS  
with those flashes and lenses for wedding events. You'll have to  
experiment a bit to learn the proper settings that work for you  
regards flash exposure, but that's easy. I personally never liked  
doing wedding/group photos with anything wider than a 35mm lens on a  
35mm SLR, but if you need the wider field of view you'll want the  
DA16-45 lens most likely... that nets you the same field of view as  
you're used to with the 24mm on film.


For wedding work, you'll likely want to use RAW format exclusively to  
get the most in tonal and dynamic range.


Godfrey

*ist D or DS & AF500FTZ for Weddings?

[Frank Knapik]

Hello. I recently got into digital photography. I bought an Olympus C-8080. 
Great camera, but the EVF would not work for me to shoot people events such as 
weddings. Until I purchased this camera I have always used Pentax equipment. 
PZ-1p, LX, MX,AF500FTZ,AF280,AF 50/1.4,Af28-105(pz),A24/2.8 and more. I have to 
turn down "digital" wedding requests  because I do not have a digital camera 
that I could comfortably use for weddings. So the question I have is, does 
anyone have any wedding experience using an *istD or DS with the above flashes 
and lenses. I do realize I will need a wider lens. Any digital specific zoom 
recommendations? Thanks.

Francis 

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

[mike wilson]

keith_w wrote:


John Francis wrote:


On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:16:42AM -0700, keith_w wrote:


[...]


No-one on earth can measure the difference in angles involved . .




Oh yes they can.  In fact it's quite easy to do, even with the naked eye
(as long as you use a piece of smoked glass or some other sun filter).
There's around half a degree of difference in the angle of light from
one side of the sun to the other - that's why the sun appears as a
disc instead of a point light source.



I don't know where this is going, but...your 1/2 degree equates to 
0.00873 inches of horizontal displacement, per inch of distance from the 
emitter, which I am assuming is the rear face of the rear element.


Ain't much...

keith


But it's a gargantuan amount when you are talking about lens 
construction.  See my previous post on this matter.


m

Re: OT: Two Air Show Questions

[mike wilson]

Fred wrote:


Hi.  I'll be attending my first ever air show in a couple of weeks (Sept.
24), and I've got a couple of questions for air show veterans:

1.  What's a good shutter speed for showing "blurred but visible prop
blades" in a "fly-by"?  I'd like the blades to show a little (not just be a
total blur), but not to "stand still" in the photos either (I've already
got some of those pictures from previous airplane attempts on film, and
1/250 sec just doesn't do it - .)  I'll be using my new DS, so I guess I
should be able to adjust the speed when I view the first shots in the DS's
display window, but "Murphy's Law" would probably have my first botched
attempts be of one of the two planes that I really want the photos of the
most - , so knowing a little ahead of time might be very helpful to me.


1/125 -ish.

This is the effect at 1/125

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/529253/display/2593328

You will get more blade "show" in the air.



2.  What sort of focal length range would be most useful for a "fly-by"?  I
could use a 70-210 zoom, or a 100-300 zoom, as some examples.  I also could
use a 500mm mirror, say.  Using the DS, of course, means that these would
approximate 100-300, 150-450, and 750mm "effective focal lengths" (35mm
format).  (I could probably carry 3 or 4 lenses, I suppose.)


Depends how close you will get.  Find out, then try some practice on 
similar sized objects to the planes you will be seeing to see what the 
framing will be.  You can also use a shorter lens to get a shot of 
planes against picturesque clouds.  Add up to two stops overexposure, 
depending on the type of sky.  You will be able to evaluate this in real 
time, you lucky person, you.




Thanks for any advice offered.

Fred

Re: PESO - Aurora with Zenitar 12mm f2.8 Fisheye

[Tom C]

Right you are Boris.  I must have Willrobbitis or something. I don't know 
why I was thinking 12.  It says MC ZENITAR - K2, 8/16.  Thanks.


Tom C.


From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO - Aurora with Zenitar 12mm f2.8 Fisheye
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:04:53 +0200

Hi!

Not quite as entertaining as the earlier shots, but it says a little bit 
about the Zenitar Fisheye wide open.  Not bad for a $160 lens (IIRC).   
Fisheye effect is lost a bit on the *ist D, but still my widest lens.



http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3720670


Tom, it is 16 mm fish eye... There is also 8 mm fish eye lens, but no 12 mm 
that I am aware of.


Regardless, this is very cool shot... I have much to learn, and in this 
instance, from you too...


Boris

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

[mike wilson]

keith_w wrote:

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:


On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:42 AM, mike wilson wrote:


A "large parallel cylinder of light" is the same thing as light
coming from an infinitely distant point source. Consider light from
the sun: all rays are parallel at 92 million miles distance, unless
scattered by atmosphere. In the vacuum of space, they are absolutely
parallel. So even though the sun is several hundred times the
diameter of the Earth and is a light source, it is a point light  
source.




Point of information: 8-)

The sun's light rays are not parallel.  If they were, then it would  
appear the same size at whatever distance you saw it. Think of a  
laser spot from a pointer.  Apart from atmospheric diffusion and  the 
flaws of production, the spot should be the same at one foot,  one 
hundred yards or one mile.  _Because the sun is so far away_,  the 
light rays are very close to parallel.  But they are not.




True, point taken. But they are very close to parallel, the deviation  
being extremely small across so short a distance as the diameter of  
the earth. I should have written "... all rays are 'effectively'  
parallel at 92 Milliion miles distance ... ".


Godfrey



He may indeed have scored a point, but the net result is, it doesn't 
really matter one tiny bit. It's calculable, but not observable...


No point scoring involved; just making a small clearup of detail.  SMC 
coatings are about 1/4 of a wavelength of light in thickness - you can't 
see the difference _they_ make?




No-one on earth can measure the difference in angles involved, and for 
certain, no-one would actually SEE any difference in his photography, 
so...it's argument for the sake of argument ~ period.


I would have to disagree with you there...



keith whaley  ;-)


Indeed.

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

[keith_w]

John Francis wrote:


On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:16:42AM -0700, keith_w wrote:


[...]


No-one on earth can measure the difference in angles involved . .



Oh yes they can.  In fact it's quite easy to do, even with the naked eye
(as long as you use a piece of smoked glass or some other sun filter).
There's around half a degree of difference in the angle of light from
one side of the sun to the other - that's why the sun appears as a
disc instead of a point light source.


I don't know where this is going, but...your 1/2 degree equates to 
0.00873 inches of horizontal displacement, per inch of distance from the 
emitter, which I am assuming is the rear face of the rear element.


Ain't much...

keith

Re: OT: Two Air Show Questions

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Fred wrote:

Hi.  I'll be attending my first ever air show in a couple of weeks  
(Sept.

24), and I've got a couple of questions for air show veterans:

1.  What's a good shutter speed for showing "blurred but visible prop
blades" in a "fly-by"?  I'd like the blades to show a little (not  
just be a
total blur), but not to "stand still" in the photos either (I've  
already
got some of those pictures from previous airplane attempts on film,  
and
1/250 sec just doesn't do it - .)  I'll be using my new DS, so I  
guess I
should be able to adjust the speed when I view the first shots in  
the DS's
display window, but "Murphy's Law" would probably have my first  
botched
attempts be of one of the two planes that I really want the photos  
of the
most - , so knowing a little ahead of time might be very helpful  
to me.


I haven't done prop planes recently, but helicopters generally need  
something in the 1/60 second range to get a decent feel for the main  
prop in motion.


2.  What sort of focal length range would be most useful for a "fly- 
by"?  I
could use a 70-210 zoom, or a 100-300 zoom, as some examples.  I  
also could
use a 500mm mirror, say.  Using the DS, of course, means that these  
would
approximate 100-300, 150-450, and 750mm "effective focal  
lengths" (35mm

format).  (I could probably carry 3 or 4 lenses, I suppose.)


Unfortunately, the needs for getting good motion blur on the prop  
fights with focal length selection and hand holding/panning. How long  
a lens you need depends upon how far away the planes are relative to  
your viewpoint. I'd certainly bring the 100-300 as that is about the  
longest lens I can hand hold or pan with, with enough range to get  
decent results if the planes are closer to you. A monopod and one of  
the Manfrotto FlexHeads we were talking about recently helps a lot.


Godfrey

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

[John Francis]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:16:42AM -0700, keith_w wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> 
> >On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:42 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> >
> >>>A "large parallel cylinder of light" is the same thing as light
> >>>coming from an infinitely distant point source. Consider light from
> >>>the sun: all rays are parallel at 92 million miles distance, unless
> >>>scattered by atmosphere. In the vacuum of space, they are absolutely
> >>>parallel. So even though the sun is several hundred times the
> >>>diameter of the Earth and is a light source, it is a point light  
> >>>source.
> >>
> >>
> >>Point of information: 8-)
> >>
> >>The sun's light rays are not parallel.  If they were, then it would  
> >>appear the same size at whatever distance you saw it. Think of a  
> >>laser spot from a pointer.  Apart from atmospheric diffusion and  the 
> >>flaws of production, the spot should be the same at one foot,  one 
> >>hundred yards or one mile.  _Because the sun is so far away_,  the 
> >>light rays are very close to parallel.  But they are not.
> >
> >
> >True, point taken. But they are very close to parallel, the deviation  
> >being extremely small across so short a distance as the diameter of  the 
> >earth. I should have written "... all rays are 'effectively'  parallel 
> >at 92 Milliion miles distance ... ".
> >
> >Godfrey
> 
> He may indeed have scored a point, but the net result is, it doesn't 
> really matter one tiny bit. It's calculable, but not observable...
> 
> No-one on earth can measure the difference in angles involved . .

Oh yes they can.  In fact it's quite easy to do, even with the naked eye
(as long as you use a piece of smoked glass or some other sun filter).
There's around half a degree of difference in the angle of light from
one side of the sun to the other - that's why the sun appears as a
disc instead of a point light source.

Re: PESO - Aurora with Zenitar 12mm f2.8 Fisheye

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Not quite as entertaining as the earlier shots, but it says a little bit 
about the Zenitar Fisheye wide open.  Not bad for a $160 lens (IIRC).   
Fisheye effect is lost a bit on the *ist D, but still my widest lens.



http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3720670


Tom, it is 16 mm fish eye... There is also 8 mm fish eye lens, but no 12 
mm that I am aware of.


Regardless, this is very cool shot... I have much to learn, and in this 
instance, from you too...


Boris

OT: Two Air Show Questions

[Fred]

Hi.  I'll be attending my first ever air show in a couple of weeks (Sept.
24), and I've got a couple of questions for air show veterans:

1.  What's a good shutter speed for showing "blurred but visible prop
blades" in a "fly-by"?  I'd like the blades to show a little (not just be a
total blur), but not to "stand still" in the photos either (I've already
got some of those pictures from previous airplane attempts on film, and
1/250 sec just doesn't do it - .)  I'll be using my new DS, so I guess I
should be able to adjust the speed when I view the first shots in the DS's
display window, but "Murphy's Law" would probably have my first botched
attempts be of one of the two planes that I really want the photos of the
most - , so knowing a little ahead of time might be very helpful to me.

2.  What sort of focal length range would be most useful for a "fly-by"?  I
could use a 70-210 zoom, or a 100-300 zoom, as some examples.  I also could
use a 500mm mirror, say.  Using the DS, of course, means that these would
approximate 100-300, 150-450, and 750mm "effective focal lengths" (35mm
format).  (I could probably carry 3 or 4 lenses, I suppose.)

Thanks for any advice offered.

Fred

FS - Worlds Best Used LX

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Gang ... an emergency has forced me to sell some camera gear.  The first
item up for sale is an LX.  I purchased it new from Japan a few years ago,
just before the camera was finally discontinued.  That means it has all the
latest upgrades - no problems with sticky mirrors, no problems with bad
resistors, or whatever other problems the LX was noted for.  All the
improvements have been incorporated into the latest iteration.  This body
has hardly been used, as I have so many other cameras.  If 50 rolls of film
went through it, that would be a lot.

The camera comes with the original box, unused velvet pouch, brand new and
still wrapped strap and strap attachments, tripod mounting disk, diopter
correction adjusting tool, all the paperwork, international warranty card,
original manual in Japanese, and a copy of a manual in English.  

Please contact me off list for details and pricing.  I'd really prefer to
sell the camera to a list member rather than putting it up for sale on eBay
or through some other venue.

Shel 

Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....

[Kenneth Waller]

Fred, that's it exactly...

Kenneth Waller 

-Original Message-
From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz 

> I think Kenneth is refering to something like this stuck to the 4-way
> controller: http://tinyurl.com/9f3pz

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

Thanks, guys - now I see what you mean - I'm gonna see if I can find one of
those critters...

Fred




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

PESO - Aurora with Zenitar 12mm f2.8 Fisheye

[Tom C]

Not quite as entertaining as the earlier shots, but it says a little bit 
about the Zenitar Fisheye wide open.  Not bad for a $160 lens (IIRC).   
Fisheye effect is lost a bit on the *ist D, but still my widest lens.



http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3720670

Tom C.

Re: GESO - September 11 Aurora

[Tom C]

Thanks Jostein, Paul, Boris.

Enjoyed the Oslo shot.  It always amazes me how the aurora appears totally 
mixed up as in your shot, with circles intersected by vertical shafts.


This week holds promise of more to come, though last night was a dud.

Tom C.





From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: GESO - September 11 Aurora
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:16:21 +0200

Nice pics, Tom.

Here's one I took last night. We were having a bonfire on the beach, so it 
was only luck that we discovered the lights in the sky.

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3471/display/3916511

Cheers,
Jostein

- Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:16 PM
Subject: GESO - September 11 Aurora


It's aurora season again.  Last night was great and the outlook for 
tonight is good as well.  There's currently a G3 storm in progress. G1 
lowest/G5 highest.


These photos were taken last night with the *ist D, FA 31mm f/1.8 LTD.  
Exposure time around 30 seconds at f/2.8 at ISO 400.  Raw captures, no 
adjustments.  Resized and sharpened.


http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=299012

Tom C.

Re: Perth PDML Meet (was Rob Studdert)

[Shel Belinkoff]

Thanks for those neat pics 

Re: GESO - September 11 Aurora

[Tom C]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks.  We're around 43 degrees. Roughly same latitude as Milwaukee.  
Really not that far north when it comes to aurora seeing.  We just have very 
dark skies, so when there is something going on with the sun, we have a 
decent chance of seeing it.


Tom C.





From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Tom C 
Subject: Re: GESO - September 11 Aurora
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:22:40 -0700

I like the second one the best. How far north are you?  I've never
seen this phenomenon in person.  The pictures are always so amazing to
look at.

--
Best regards,
Bruce


Sunday, September 11, 2005, 7:16:06 AM, you wrote:

TC> It's aurora season again.  Last night was great and the outlook for 
tonight
TC> is good as well.  There's currently a G3 storm in progress. G1 
lowest/G5

TC> highest.

TC> These photos were taken last night with the *ist D, FA 31mm f/1.8 LTD.
TC> Exposure time around 30 seconds at f/2.8 at ISO 400.  Raw captures, no
TC> adjustments.  Resized and sharpened.

TC> http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=299012

TC> Tom C.

Re: Back from France

[brooksdj]

Welcome back

Dave 

> Still catching up on all the things I should 
have 
been doing while I was
> away.
> Besides not having as many photographic opportunities as I would have
> liked because of the "vacation" aspect of the trip  the weather
> didn't cooperate: It was either ultra-high-contrast-sunny of dreary and
> gray. I had to get creative and do things like shoot reflections of
> chateaux in water. Very disappointed in my photographic output overall,
> but it was a wonderful trip.
> Here are a couple of quickies.
> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7d504808.jpg
> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7d504823.jpg
> 
> Full report later :)
>  
>  
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
> 

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

[keith_w]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:


On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:42 AM, mike wilson wrote:


A "large parallel cylinder of light" is the same thing as light
coming from an infinitely distant point source. Consider light from
the sun: all rays are parallel at 92 million miles distance, unless
scattered by atmosphere. In the vacuum of space, they are absolutely
parallel. So even though the sun is several hundred times the
diameter of the Earth and is a light source, it is a point light  
source.



Point of information: 8-)

The sun's light rays are not parallel.  If they were, then it would  
appear the same size at whatever distance you saw it. Think of a  
laser spot from a pointer.  Apart from atmospheric diffusion and  the 
flaws of production, the spot should be the same at one foot,  one 
hundred yards or one mile.  _Because the sun is so far away_,  the 
light rays are very close to parallel.  But they are not.



True, point taken. But they are very close to parallel, the deviation  
being extremely small across so short a distance as the diameter of  the 
earth. I should have written "... all rays are 'effectively'  parallel 
at 92 Milliion miles distance ... ".


Godfrey


He may indeed have scored a point, but the net result is, it doesn't 
really matter one tiny bit. It's calculable, but not observable...


No-one on earth can measure the difference in angles involved, and for 
certain, no-one would actually SEE any difference in his photography, 
so...it's argument for the sake of argument ~ period.


keith whaley  ;-)

Re: PESO: Grace discovers birthday cake

[frank theriault]

On 9/10/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We celebrated my grand daughter's first birthday today. My wife was
> going to feed her a piece of cake with a spoon, but Grace beat her to
> it. She picked it up and got right to it. That's my girl.
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3717131&size=lg
> 
> DA 16-45/4 with the Sigma 500Super and the Omnibounce 80/20 reflector.
> f8 @ 1/30, iso 400
> 

Precious!!

-frank

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

Re: PESO PAW - 9/11

[frank theriault]

On 9/11/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an oldie, from a few years ago.  Today being an anniversary, and my
> mood being such as it is, I decided to post this again.  Large file.
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/seibel.html

I like the strong geometry - a powerful image...

cheers,
frank


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

Re: Rob Studdert

[Cotty]

Dahhh, you're all jealous cos the Ashes are as good as gone ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[pnstenquist]

Wow! That's far more complex than using colorsynch workflow. I merely go to 
page setup to select paper size and positiong, then choose my paper in the 
print dialogue box and dial in the desired resolution and color management. 
Having done that once, however, I can save the paper with the resolution and 
color managment choices. After that, it's a one step process. Is there any real 
advantage to going through all that you've outlined below? I will have to give 
it a try, but I can't really see anything in my prints that I would want to 
change. I get exactly the results I want with no muss or fuss.
Paul

Godfrey wrote:
t's pretty much the same when working with Photoshop for both Mac OS  
and Windows. Mac OS X's built in color management makes life easier,  
but the workflow is the same.

0) calibrate monitor, whether you use a software utility or a  
hardware colorimeter.
1) set up Photoshop's color preferences for a color managed workflow
(I use the "North American Pre-press defaults" as a basis and  
customize that a little bit.)
2) When converting RAW format files, set the output colorspace to  
match the working
colorspace you use in Photoshop.
3) When it comes time to print, use the "Print with Preview" command.  
In that dialog, use
the Page Setup dialog to set printer parameters, the sizing and  
other tools to center and
align the output, and use the color management options to pick  
color management settings.
- set the popup to let Photoshop manage colors
- set the intent to "relative colormetric"
- pick the output profile per your printer/paper
That's all Photoshop controls.
- then press the Print button. Now you're in the print driver's  
control space
In the print dialog, turn off all color management at the printer.

Re: Perth PDML Meet (was Rob Studdert)

[Cotty]

On 12/9/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>G'day folks,
>
>I've finally got around to putting ups some of my pics from Saturdays
>PPDML meet with Rob Studdert. Nothing too flash mostly night city
>scape's:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/8np59
>
>Those on dial-up connections please be patient. I've tried to keep the
>pages small without sacrificing too much.
>
>Comment if you so desire.

Nice one Dave. Some really nice night shots there, and the panos are
great. Well done. Rob, time to break out the Grecian 2000 mate ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PAW: People & Portraits 2005 #36 - GDG

[Cotty]

On 11/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Now available for viewing and commentary:
>
>   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/36.htm
>
>Many thanks in advance!


Lovely pic Godders, nice framing.



Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Norcal PDML Meet

[Cotty]

On 11/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

>Fast moving objects?

Marnie on speed ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: Colour profiles-PS-and home prining

[Cotty]

While we're on the subject of computers, my ageing-but-venerable Blue and
White G3 Powermac will shortly be retiring, after some 3 years of
service. I bought it used, so it's now 5 years old. All I did to it was
flip a dip switch on the CPU to bump it up from 400 to 450 Mhz and cram
in an extra hard drive (complete with bodged, er I mean custom built
double-decker drive sled) and bump up the RAM to 1 GB. It has served me
well, but it is too slow in Photoshlop now, so time to go.



*sniff*

Instead.ta-daa:



G4 dual 1 Ghz with 4 hard drives, 1 Gb RAM, 2 DVD writers and plenty of
speed for me. Buying used, so will part out some of the drives on eBay to
recoup some cost, leaving me with a formidable machine. (Anoraks FYI: yes
it has a later Pabst fan aboard :-)

Will bump up the RAM some more and let's rock and roll.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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