date:20051031

I think they are supposed to make non-photographers think they are 
getting a lot of camera for their money. I wouldn't mind so much if they 
made a model for photographers too.


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



Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Aren't all the functions and modes and features supposed to make cameras
easier to use?  Perhaps i don't understand the purpose of all these FFM's.

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 



 


[Original Message]
From: George Sinos 
   



 


I've been helping people use their cameras since the late sixties and
it's never been more difficult.

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

Well, first that should have been "needed", I was in business in the 
1980's. Decent 8x10 standard crop machine prints is what I was talking 
about. I always figured that for that kind of work in camea cropping 
(proper framing) is the photographers responsibility. All I wanted was 
proper density and color correction and was quite willing to provide a 
gray card exposure on the first frame to facilitate that. Senior labs 
provided that kind of printing but the turn around time was about a week.


Anyway that is all moot these days digital does provide a way to do the 
job. Just the other day I gave a friend and 8x10 about two hours after I 
took the shot. "Wow, that was quick", was her response. I could have 
made a lot of money if I could have done that back in the 80's.


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



William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side





What I actually need and could not consistantly get were decent 
over-night develop-and-print 8x10's from 120 for about $2 each. I 
kind of think that is what most photographers who worked for retail 
customers needed.



Giving fast, decent quality and inexpensive turnaround 120 
enlargements was a non starter for the industry.
When I was working for a pro lab, we had a crop card system that 
allowed us to give machine print turnaround and pricing with enough 
cropping choice to be acceptable to most of the photographers we used.

This was in the early 90s.
Before crop cards became available, I think 120 was either full frame 
machine or custom enlarged, and not fast turnaround unless you were in 
a fairly major business center.
I think the 2 dollar price point would not entice many lab operators 
to jump on the wagon.


William Robb

RE: PESO - Sharing a moment

it's a nice little snap - a tighter crop might improve it somewhat.

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist 

> Yesterday afternoon at a farm in Metamora, Michigan:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3841051

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side


You make my point well.

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



George Sinos wrote:


On 10/31/05, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on the complexity
of digital point and shoots cameras and the less than useful,
extremely large manuals.

Graywolf

I've mentioned before that I teach a "how to use your new digital
camera" class at the local community college.

The requirements are to show up, bring your camera and bring the manual.

I see a great cross section of the brands.

I find it frustrating that out of a dozen brands of cameras, there are
at least six ways to set the image size and compression.  The
terminology used by each manufacturer is completely different.

A relatively recent model had over 24 "special scene" modes.  I'm not
sure how that could really be helpful, but I'm sure it looked great in
an advertisement.

I've been helping people use their cameras since the late sixties and
it's never been more difficult.

See you later, gs

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

Aren't all the functions and modes and features supposed to make cameras
easier to use?  Perhaps i don't understand the purpose of all these FFM's.

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: George Sinos 

> I've been helping people use their cameras since the late sixties and
> it's never been more difficult.

OAMPS extended warranty and Phototechnical repairs in Brisbane

2005-10-31 Thread Leon Altoff


Hello everyone,

I am currently upset with the service I have received the OAMPS extended 
warranty people and their repairer of choice Phototechnical in Brisbane 
(Australia).


I have just sent off the email below to the companies concerned but 
would appreciate comments about either of these companies or with 
extended warranties in general.  At present I am not likely to ever 
purchase an extended warranty again.


--
 Leon

http://www.bluering.org.au
http://www.bluering.org.au/leon






Hello,

I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the service I have 
received from Phototechnical and OAMPS.  The OAMPS extended warranty was 
originally purchased through Michael's in Melbourne (invoice x) who 
were unaware that the repairs were carried out by a Brisbane company.


I recently sent my Pentax *istD to Phototechnical for repair via an 
OAMPS extended warranty.  It arrived at the Phototechnical workshop on 
12/9/2005 and took 7 weeks to be returned to me (The Phototechnical 
website mentions a 10 day repair turnaround - I have to assume this is 
only for your own extended warranty customers as is your freepost 
service which I am not allowed to use).  When I rang to check on it's 
progress I discovered Phototechnical had been waiting 2 and a half weeks 
for reply to a quote which OAMPS had never received and which I fear if 
I had not chased up both companies you would still be waiting on.


I originally sent the camera with 9 weeks until I needed to have it 
again.  There are now 8 days until I need to have the functioning camera 
back in my hands and the camera works worse than when it was originally 
sent.


The camera had been sent securely packaged, double boxed, and was 
returned very loosely packaged - I dread what happens to more fragile 
equipment that Phototechnical return to its owner.  The box used to 
return it was in poor condition and had been recycled from a previous 
delivery and had not been marked as fragile.  If you are going to use 
this practice I would have preferred that you reuse the box I originally 
used (which was new) and had appropriate packaging for the camera.


The camera had been sent because of a problem with the hotshoe.  When a 
flash was connected the digital communication was intermittent, 
requiring pressure to be placed gently on the left of the flash (looking 
at the rear) in order to get connection.  Now that it has been returned 
to me there is no communication between camera and flash except when the 
camera is fired.  I tested the original and new faults using 3 different 
Pentax AF360FGZ flashes and another *istD body with exactly the same 
configuration to clearly identify the cause of the problem.


The original minor fault made using the camera slightly annoying but not 
impossible.  As I now can not use it with an external flash it is not 
functional for my use.


When I rang through to the Phototechnical office today I found no one in 
authority to be able to talk to me about the problem and a company 
procedure of not letting the customer (me) talk to the technician.  When 
I asked for a message to be relayed to the technician the answer did not 
inspire confidence.


I asked which lens and flash were used to check the camera 
functionality.  The answer was that they did not know.  Before I trust 
my camera back to the care of Phototechnical, I need to know that their 
technicians have the skill to diagnose faults and test functionality 
after the repair.  I was not asked to supply extra equipment to help the 
Phototechnical technicians, nor should I have to if you are as claimed 
by OAMPS authorised Pentax repairers.


If a flash unit had been placed on the camera during final testing, it 
would have been evident that there was a problem.  I can only assume 
that this did not happen, either through poor quality control in the 
workshop or through laziness of the technicians - neither inspire 
confidence in the ability of Phototechnical to repair my camera on a 
second attempt.


I await a phone call from Phototechnical to confirm that they have the 
equipment required to test my camera's functionality fully after the 
repair.  Having observed their shipping department's packaging ability I 
am not inclined to send along a flash and lens for testing as I do not 
believe they would be returned to me undamaged.


If Phototechnical are unable to satisfy me that their technicians have 
the ability to do this repair correctly and return it to me by Friday 
November 11, I shall have it repaired by CR Kennedy and send the bill to 
Phototechnical.  Failing this I will be seeking a full refund of the 
original purchase price of the extended warranty from Michael's (who I 
assume will recover it from OAMPS).

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

2005-10-31 Thread Boris Liberman


Hi!

I'm running a colour calibrated screen that has a 20" diagonal viewing area and 
my desk-top is set to display 1600 x 1200 pixels or 102 lines per inch.


So what about everyone else?


17" (CRT), 1152x864.

Boris

Re: With a fluttering heart...

2005-10-31 Thread John Francis

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:11:07PM -0700, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> I say we start a Club600.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> --
> 
> Of course!
> 
> Joe

I'm in ...

Re: PESO - Sharing a moment

2005-10-31 Thread Bruce Dayton

Very nice, Paul!  A nice touch of softness on grandmother and such a
sweet moment.

-- 
Bruce


Monday, October 31, 2005, 6:57:26 PM, you wrote:

PS> Yesterday afternoon at a farm in Metamora, Michigan:
PS> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3841051

Re: PAW: Stilted Building

2005-10-31 Thread Bruce Dayton

I rather like this one as an abstract.  Many lines and patterns to
catch one's eye.  Pretty cool!

-- 
Bruce


Monday, October 31, 2005, 6:19:22 PM, you wrote:

ft> the addition to the ontario college of arts and design, perched atop
ft> "stilts" over the old brutalist 1950's structure is one of toronto's
ft> most interesting and controversial buildings:

ft> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3842931

ft> comments always appreciated.

ft> thanks,
ft> frank
ft> --
ft> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

Nevertheless, I found her opinion of some of these elaborate "recipes" 
interesting. I don't necessarily agree in full, but I'm amused. I do 
find it fascinating to watch her work. She uses keystroke commands 
almost exclusively and works so fast you'd swear she's typing a letter. 
But on the screen, you can watch the image rapidly change. I had hoped 
to learn something just by watching her work, but she moved far too 
fast for me to even begin to comprehend what she was doing.

Paul
On Oct 31, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Adam Maas wrote:


Paul,

There's a notable difference between citing her workflow and quoting 
her opinion that the other options as "That's all a lot of bullshit 
for people with too much time on their
hands.". Her workflow may work for her, but her descriptions of the 
other options is flagrantly wrong, and your description of her methods 
indicate she simply moves the requisite adjustments to a different 
portion of her workflow.


That said, you simply cannot adjust colour response after the 
conversion. She's obviously doing it prior to the conversion or not at 
all. Once the colour channels are gone, your colour response is fixed. 
You can tweak levels and curves all you want, but you will not be able 
to differentiate between a formerly red pixel that gives a certain 
greyscale level and a green one that gives the same level in the fixed 
conversion.


-Adam

Paul Stenquist wrote:

I'm not tryng to score debating points Adam. Merely citing an example 
of how one very good retoucher works. She can alter the color 
response very effectively by changing the color before conversion. 
She can also do it by masking individual areas -- a sky for example 
-- and altering the tonality after conversion. Her method isn't 
necessarily simple. It can be quite complex. I only mentioned it as 
an aside. What I did say was that you can achieve a very nice 
conversion by using the photoshop grayscale conversion and then 
applying tonality adjustments with curves after conversion. It will 
give you results that are indistinguishable from what can be achieved 
with the channel mixer in most cases.

Paul
On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote:


Paul,

That's an argument to authority. And incorrect. I'm sure she's quite 
competent, but in this case, she's also wrong. This is the sort of 
argument that I see very often among computer consultants.


Simply put, her method simply can't deal with an image that would 
require filtration with B&W film. Even my basic channel mixer method 
(which takes maybe 10 seconds longer than her method for most 
images) allows me to balance the three channels to taste. Her method 
allows tonality adjustments to the final mix, but absolutely no 
adjustment of colour response which, as most serious B&W Film 
shooters will attest, can be extraordinarily important to a final 
image. considering that many people used to choose film just for 
it's colour response (See the difference between SFX200, Tri-X 400 
and an Orthochromatic emulsion for starters)


-Adam

Paul Stenquist wrote:

No, you're incorrect. My retoucher friend knows exactly what she's 
talking about. She does fantastic work and is in great demand among 
pro shooters at about $200 an hour. Sometimes she will go back and 
alter the color image to change the conversion , but she's more 
likely to tinker with it after the fact. She frequently uses curves 
and masks after the fact if more control is needed. But she points 
out that the PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate 
translation of a given color scene. It's quite close to what the 
values would have been if shot without filtration. She did the 
conversion and some after the fact tuneup on my shot of the shoe 
shine man. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3451662


On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was 
done the

fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by
adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple 
procedure
allows complete control of tonal range and that any more 
elaborate method
takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the 
need for
elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate 
procedures to a
professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply 
said,
"That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on 
their
hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer 
because it's

fun. But I don't think it's necessary.




That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it.




But it ain't true. This "professional photo retoucher" doesn't 
know what
she's talking about. There are some tonal changes that can *only* 
be

accomplished before the image is converted to grayscale. That's why
those of us who use B&W film often use color filters when shooting.

A trivi

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

- Original Message - 
From: "George Sinos"

Subject: Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

A relatively recent model had over 24 "special scene" modes.  I'm not
sure how that could really be helpful, but I'm sure it looked great in
an advertisement.

In the late 80s, one of the Canon EOS film cameras had a kinda cool custom 
function method.
The camera came with a book of "special scene" example pictures, each 
picture had a bar code beneath it.
The photographer used a scanner pen to read the bar code, the information 
derived was then fed to the camera via an infrared transmission from the 
pen, and the camera was thusly programmed to respond appropriately to the 
scene in question.
I thught it was technology for the sake of technology, but I often think 
this about Canon.
You could buy, as an accessory, another book or two of custom scenes, as 
well.

William Robb

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf"

Subject: Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

What I actually need and could not consistantly get were decent over-night 
develop-and-print 8x10's from 120 for about $2 each. I kind of think that 
is what most photographers who worked for retail customers needed.

Giving fast, decent quality and inexpensive turnaround 120 enlargements was 
a non starter for the industry.
When I was working for a pro lab, we had a crop card system that allowed us 
to give machine print turnaround and pricing with enough cropping choice to 
be acceptable to most of the photographers we used.

This was in the early 90s.
Before crop cards became available, I think 120 was either full frame 
machine or custom enlarged, and not fast turnaround unless you were in a 
fairly major business center.
I think the 2 dollar price point would not entice many lab operators to jump 
on the wagon.

William Robb

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

On 10/31/05, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oi, right... I forgot English is not your native language.

that's right.  cotty spent his formative years in california...



-frank

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

Re: OT: William Notman Documentary on TVO

On 10/31/05, Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those of you in Canada and the US who can receive TVO broadcasts
> you might want to catch "Notman's Canada", an interesting documentary
> on the work of nineteenth century Canadian photographer William
> Notman. It was on this evening and is to be repeated
> on Saturday, November 5th at 5PM.
>
> I was not familiar with his work prior to this documentary, but he
> was responsible for a huge photographic collection showing the people,
> culture and landscapes of Canada from that time. Very interesting.

missed it this evening, fred, but i hope to catch it on saturday
night.  thanks for the heads up.

-frank


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

Re: With a fluttering heart...

- Original Message - 
From: "David S."

Subject: Re: With a fluttering heart...

I got the Wimberly head as soon as I got the 600.  Unfortunately you can 
not go to your local camera store and compare different models of this 
type of head, but information that I could find on the web indicates that 
the Wimberly is the best gimball type head to get.  I used the Wimberly on 
a Manfrotto 075 tripod that I already owned for about 2 years before 
getting a Gitzo 1548 (in late 2003).  The stability difference between the 
Manfrotto 075 (which is a fairly heavy tripod) and the Gitzo 1548 is 
incredible.  Don't compromise on the head/tripod combination, get the best 
you can.

I am so lucky with my Zone VI tripod. It is pretty much the ideal set of 
legs for a big lens.

It is quite heavy though.
The lens that Joe bought looks like it's balance point is pretty well where 
it should be.
I had a hell of a time with my A600 to get it to balance, and finally ended 
up modifying the quick release plate to get something that worked.

As far as I can tell, both the Wimberley gimbal and the King Cobra are 
really nice heads. I would probably have gone for a King Cobra, as I had 
recommendations for it from both Ken and another erudite list member whom I 
have come to know and like.
Sadly, I was looking at a bit of a wait for the King Cobra, and the 
Wimberley was delivered the next day. It's hard to look at a nice lens and 
not be able to use it, so the Wimberley won out.

Ken let me hold his tripod while he was mounting his 600 at the cathouse at 
GFM.
The King Cobra requires that the lens be mounted sideways to the head, while 
the Wimberley allows the lens to be dropped into place from above.
I suspect I am better off with the Wimberley, as I am enough of a klutz that 
I would probably drop my lens off the King Cobra.

OTOH, the King Cobra is the smoother head, if my recollection is correct.

Joe, if you go for a Wimberley, go for an entire head, and not the 
attachment thing.

William Robb

Re: PESO - Sharing a moment

On 10/31/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yesterday afternoon at a farm in Metamora, Michigan:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3841051
>

a beautiful family moment, paul, sure to be treasured through the years.

-frank


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

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

2005-10-31 Thread George Sinos

On 10/31/05, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on the complexity
of digital point and shoots cameras and the less than useful,
extremely large manuals.

Graywolf

I've mentioned before that I teach a "how to use your new digital
camera" class at the local community college.

The requirements are to show up, bring your camera and bring the manual.

I see a great cross section of the brands.

I find it frustrating that out of a dozen brands of cameras, there are
at least six ways to set the image size and compression.  The
terminology used by each manufacturer is completely different.

A relatively recent model had over 24 "special scene" modes.  I'm not
sure how that could really be helpful, but I'm sure it looked great in
an advertisement.

I've been helping people use their cameras since the late sixties and
it's never been more difficult.

See you later, gs

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side


Oi, right... I forgot English is not your native language.



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



Cotty wrote:


On 31/10/05, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:

 

I would like to point out that it is the Pentax Discussion Mailing List. 
Not the Discuss Pentax Mailing List.
   



C'mon Tom, I've had  long day. Enlighten me please mate.




Cheers,
 Cotty


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

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

Well, back in the early 80's I was paying $25 (that particular printer 
was worth it) for 8x10's for my portfolio. You can hardly say I wasn't 
willing to pay for what I needed. Of course you would have a hell of a 
hard time getting customers to pay that for the prints they ordered, so 
I could not use him for routine work. But I submit that if the pro labs  
($8.75 for a custom 8x10 color print) back then were doing their job, I 
would not have had to pay that much for what I thought was outstanding 
prints.


What I actually need and could not consistantly get were decent 
over-night develop-and-print 8x10's from 120 for about $2 each. I kind 
of think that is what most photographers who worked for retail customers 
needed.


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



William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side





But you know all this, I believe you were one of those lab owners 
they put out of business.



I was the owner operator of a custom lab for a number of years, but 
eventually, I got tired of the 18 hour days, so I gave it up.
Companies like Wal-Mart didn't put stand alone photo labs out of 
business, people refusing to pay for quality photofinishing put them 
out of business.
The irony is that those same people now complain about the poor 
quality they are getting.


William Robb

Re: With a fluttering heart...

2005-10-31 Thread Joseph Tainter


I say we start a Club600.

William Robb

--

Of course!

Joe

Re: With a fluttering heart...



- Original Message - 
From: "Joseph Tainter" 
Subject: Re: With a fluttering heart...






I suppose owning this lens may be my greatest claim to fame. Of course, 
Cotty. We'll do it when you buy me that pint of bitter and plate of 
bangers and mash.


I say we start a Club600.

William Robb

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

2005-10-31 Thread Adam Maas


Paul,

There's a notable difference between citing her workflow and quoting her 
opinion that the other options as "That's all a lot of bullshit for 
people with too much time on their
hands.". Her workflow may work for her, but her descriptions of the 
other options is flagrantly wrong, and your description of her methods 
indicate she simply moves the requisite adjustments to a different 
portion of her workflow.


That said, you simply cannot adjust colour response after the 
conversion. She's obviously doing it prior to the conversion or not at 
all. Once the colour channels are gone, your colour response is fixed. 
You can tweak levels and curves all you want, but you will not be able 
to differentiate between a formerly red pixel that gives a certain 
greyscale level and a green one that gives the same level in the fixed 
conversion.


-Adam

Paul Stenquist wrote:

I'm not tryng to score debating points Adam. Merely citing an example 
of how one very good retoucher works. She can alter the color response 
very effectively by changing the color before conversion. She can also 
do it by masking individual areas -- a sky for example -- and altering 
the tonality after conversion. Her method isn't necessarily simple. It 
can be quite complex. I only mentioned it as an aside. What I did say 
was that you can achieve a very nice conversion by using the photoshop 
grayscale conversion and then applying tonality adjustments with 
curves after conversion. It will give you results that are 
indistinguishable from what can be achieved with the channel mixer in 
most cases.

Paul
On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote:


Paul,

That's an argument to authority. And incorrect. I'm sure she's quite 
competent, but in this case, she's also wrong. This is the sort of 
argument that I see very often among computer consultants.


Simply put, her method simply can't deal with an image that would 
require filtration with B&W film. Even my basic channel mixer method 
(which takes maybe 10 seconds longer than her method for most images) 
allows me to balance the three channels to taste. Her method allows 
tonality adjustments to the final mix, but absolutely no adjustment 
of colour response which, as most serious B&W Film shooters will 
attest, can be extraordinarily important to a final image. 
considering that many people used to choose film just for it's colour 
response (See the difference between SFX200, Tri-X 400 and an 
Orthochromatic emulsion for starters)


-Adam

Paul Stenquist wrote:

No, you're incorrect. My retoucher friend knows exactly what she's 
talking about. She does fantastic work and is in great demand among 
pro shooters at about $200 an hour. Sometimes she will go back and 
alter the color image to change the conversion , but she's more 
likely to tinker with it after the fact. She frequently uses curves 
and masks after the fact if more control is needed. But she points 
out that the PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate 
translation of a given color scene. It's quite close to what the 
values would have been if shot without filtration. She did the 
conversion and some after the fact tuneup on my shot of the shoe 
shine man. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3451662


On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was 
done the

fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by
adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple 
procedure
allows complete control of tonal range and that any more 
elaborate method
takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the 
need for
elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate 
procedures to a

professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply said,
"That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on their
hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer 
because it's

fun. But I don't think it's necessary.




That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it.




But it ain't true. This "professional photo retoucher" doesn't know 
what

she's talking about. There are some tonal changes that can *only* be
accomplished before the image is converted to grayscale. That's why
those of us who use B&W film often use color filters when shooting.

A trivially simple example: You can paint an object in 3 shades of 
gray,
red and green each of which will translate to exactly the same 
shade of
gray with a particular B&W film or greyscale conversion. Once the 
image
is in greyscale, you can play with the levels and curves controls 
until
the heat death of the universe without them ever changing in 
relation to

each other, but using a color filter when shooting B&W film, *or*
adjusting color balance in Photoshop before converting a color 
image to
greyscale, will give you control of thei

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

Well, I guess I am pretty close, considering I have not calibrated this 
thing in a couple of months. Some very faint color in the dark set. So I 
am close to but not exactly at 2.2.


BTW, Martin Fielding, the author of Adobe Photoshop PS2 for 
Photographers, says that the only reason Apple uses 1.8 is because the 
b&w monitor in the original Mac was only barely able to get that high. 
He says he uses 2.2 with his Mac's and recommends it. Says that 1.8 is 
obsolete. Of course that goes directly against what the guy says on the 
site you gave a link to. Just goes to show that opinions abound, I 
guess; just like people who think their own opinion is "TRUTH" incarnate 
.


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



Rob Studdert wrote:


On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:28, Mat Maessen wrote:

 


Just about the same as yours. Nominally 21" CRT, running at 1600x1200.
I think I've got the gamma just about right on it, though the colors
are probably off quite a bit.
   



The best visual gamma test I've seen provides gamma test patches at three grey 
points, if these look good on screen then your screen cal is right in the ball-
park. My system is calibrated for G2.2, when I open up the 2.2 patch set they 
all look gray, I'm happy. I also use the mid gray patch as my desk-top 
background (tiled) then I can see at a glance when my monitor has properly 
warmed up.


http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

PESO - Sharing a moment


Yesterday afternoon at a farm in Metamora, Michigan:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3841051

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

I'm not tryng to score debating points Adam. Merely citing an example 
of how one very good retoucher works. She can alter the color response 
very effectively by changing the color before conversion. She can also 
do it by masking individual areas -- a sky for example -- and altering 
the tonality after conversion. Her method isn't necessarily simple. It 
can be quite complex. I only mentioned it as an aside. What I did say 
was that you can achieve a very nice conversion by using the photoshop 
grayscale conversion and then applying tonality adjustments with curves 
after conversion. It will give you results that are indistinguishable 
from what can be achieved with the channel mixer in most cases.

Paul
On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote:


Paul,

That's an argument to authority. And incorrect. I'm sure she's quite 
competent, but in this case, she's also wrong. This is the sort of 
argument that I see very often among computer consultants.


Simply put, her method simply can't deal with an image that would 
require filtration with B&W film. Even my basic channel mixer method 
(which takes maybe 10 seconds longer than her method for most images) 
allows me to balance the three channels to taste. Her method allows 
tonality adjustments to the final mix, but absolutely no adjustment of 
colour response which, as most serious B&W Film shooters will attest, 
can be extraordinarily important to a final image. considering that 
many people used to choose film just for it's colour response (See the 
difference between SFX200, Tri-X 400 and an Orthochromatic emulsion 
for starters)


-Adam

Paul Stenquist wrote:

No, you're incorrect. My retoucher friend knows exactly what she's 
talking about. She does fantastic work and is in great demand among 
pro shooters at about $200 an hour. Sometimes she will go back and 
alter the color image to change the conversion , but she's more 
likely to tinker with it after the fact. She frequently uses curves 
and masks after the fact if more control is needed. But she points 
out that the PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate 
translation of a given color scene. It's quite close to what the 
values would have been if shot without filtration. She did the 
conversion and some after the fact tuneup on my shot of the shoe 
shine man. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3451662


On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was 
done the

fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by
adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple 
procedure
allows complete control of tonal range and that any more elaborate 
method
takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the need 
for
elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate 
procedures to a
professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply 
said,
"That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on 
their
hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer because 
it's

fun. But I don't think it's necessary.



That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it.



But it ain't true. This "professional photo retoucher" doesn't know 
what

she's talking about. There are some tonal changes that can *only* be
accomplished before the image is converted to grayscale. That's why
those of us who use B&W film often use color filters when shooting.

A trivially simple example: You can paint an object in 3 shades of 
gray,
red and green each of which will translate to exactly the same shade 
of
gray with a particular B&W film or greyscale conversion. Once the 
image
is in greyscale, you can play with the levels and curves controls 
until
the heat death of the universe without them ever changing in 
relation to

each other, but using a color filter when shooting B&W film, *or*
adjusting color balance in Photoshop before converting a color image 
to
greyscale, will give you control of their relative density. This 
applies
to all colors to some extent, and control over these characteristics 
are

what the channel mixer procedures and other recipes accomplish.

What you're dealing with isn't "bullshit for people with too much 
time
on their hands" but rather "bullshit from a photo retoucher 
attempting

to conceal a lack of understanding of some very basic photographic
concepts".

BTW: You can't use digital color balance changes to *exactly* 
duplicate
the effects of a physical color filter applied during shooting, but 
you

can get pretty close (and that's an entirely different discussion.)


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

Re: With a fluttering heart...

2005-10-31 Thread Joseph Tainter


Cotty wrote:

Joe, I've been waiting a *long* time to say this.

Can I get *your* autograph?

Cheers,
  Cotty

--

I suppose owning this lens may be my greatest claim to fame. Of course, 
Cotty. We'll do it when you buy me that pint of bitter and plate of 
bangers and mash.


--

Frank wrote:

what a beauty.

congrats!

-frank

--

Thanks, Frank. One of the things I'll do with it is photograph Canada 
Geese. I'll be sure to send you a pic.


How's the shoulder?

Joe

Re: With a fluttering heart...

2005-10-31 Thread David S.

Joseph Tainter wrote:

I placed my bid and just won an F* 600 F4:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBSAA:US:11&Item=7556939330

I never thought I'd own one. Wow. But my heart really is doing a
pitter-patter at spending so much. Right now, fortuitously, I have the
money, but still feel nervous spending so much.

Okay, now I need recommendations for a tripod and head for Big Bertha.
Bill, what did you wind up getting? Please recommend some affordable
ones as well as the best ones. Right now I am feeling in economizing
mode. I think the lens is about 15 pounds.

Thanks,

Joe

Congratulations on an excellent purchase and an incredible price.

I have been mostly lurking and monitoring posts for the last couple of
years but wanted to reply to this post.

I have the FA* 600 F4, same weight but different finish. I also have
the F* 300 F4.5 and think the F* lenses have a more durable finish then
the FA* lenses.

I got the Wimberly head as soon as I got the 600. Unfortunately you can
not go to your local camera store and compare different models of this
type of head, but information that I could find on the web indicates
that the Wimberly is the best gimball type head to get. I used the
Wimberly on a Manfrotto 075 tripod that I already owned for about 2
years before getting a Gitzo 1548 (in late 2003). The stability
difference between the Manfrotto 075 (which is a fairly heavy tripod)
and the Gitzo 1548 is incredible. Don't compromise on the head/tripod
combination, get the best you can.

--
David S.
Nature and wildlife photography http://www.sheppardphotos.com

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size


More than I needed to know .

For you survey:
19 inch (18 viewable) Hitachi 751 CRT (maybe 5 years old, bought used)
SIS 305 16mb Video Card
1280x1024 at 85hz (normally because some of my software has trouble with 
higer resolutions)

1600x1200 at 75hz (when I want more detail)

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



Rob Studdert wrote:


On 31 Oct 2005 at 10:25, graywolf wrote:

 

Interesting. My 19 inch CRT runs 112 pixels per inch (measured with a 
ruler) at 1600x1200. Are you using a CRT or LED monitor?
   



22" CRT, it will actually display an incoming signal of up to 2048 x 1536 @ 86 
Hz. However (and here's the tricky bit) since the dot pitch is 0.24mm and the 
maximum active display width is 406mm it can't actually resolve the signal. The 
gamma goes to hell and any details end up softening so I run it at 1600x1200 
(recommended). It's a sold as flat screen however in the interest of trivia 
it's actually an area of a sphere with the radius of 50m :-)


Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: With a fluttering heart...

2005-10-31 Thread Joseph Tainter


Ken Waller wrote:

Enjoy!

Kenneth Waller

--

Ken, I have sent you some questions about the lens, but your spam-killer 
put my message into a Twilight Zone file. Can you fish it out?


Thanks,

Joe

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

On 31 Oct 2005 at 21:18, Dave Kennedy wrote:

> Cheap 17inch 1078x768. Uncalibrated.
> 
> so... is someone tallying these up?

Yep, I'll give it a few days, compile the info then post a table.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

2005-10-31 Thread Herb Chong

same monitor as Rob running at 2048x1536.

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

To: 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:47 AM
Subject: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

I'm running a colour calibrated screen that has a 20" diagonal viewing 
area and

my desk-top is set to display 1600 x 1200 pixels or 102 lines per inch.

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

2005-10-31 Thread Peter McIntosh


--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> The best visual gamma test I've seen provides gamma test patches at three
> grey points, if these look good on screen then your screen cal is right in
the
> ballpark. My system is calibrated for G2.2, when I open up the 2.2 patch set 
> they all look gray, I'm happy. I also use the mid gray patch as my desk-top 
> background (tiled) then I can see at a glance when my monitor has properly 
> warmed up.
> 
> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
> 


Hi Rob,

Many thanks for that link - most educative!

Ciao,

Peter in Sydney

PAW: Stilted Building

the addition to the ontario college of arts and design, perched atop
"stilts" over the old brutalist 1950's structure is one of toronto's
most interesting and controversial buildings:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3842931

comments always appreciated.

thanks,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

2005-10-31 Thread Dave Kennedy

Cheap 17inch 1078x768. Uncalibrated.

so... is someone tallying these up?

dk

On 10/31/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess it's about time for another PDML survey, it's been about three months
> since the last one.
>
> So given the prevalence of panos in PAW/PESO of late and the comments relating
> to images not fitting on screens I thought that it may be a good idea to see
> what everyone is using screen size and resolution wise. Then we can determine
> how to best size images that are destined to be displayed to the group.
>
> I'm running a colour calibrated screen that has a 20" diagonal viewing area 
> and
> my desk-top is set to display 1600 x 1200 pixels or 102 lines per inch.
>
> So what about everyone else?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>
>

Re: With a fluttering heart...

2005-10-31 Thread Dave Kennedy

droool.

Congrats! I'm sure you will enjoy it.

dk

On 10/30/05, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I placed my bid and just won an F* 600 F4:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBSAA:US:11&Item=7556939330
>
> I never thought I'd own one. Wow. But my heart really is doing a
> pitter-patter at spending so much. Right now, fortuitously, I have the
> money, but still feel nervous spending so much.
>
> Okay, now I need recommendations for a tripod and head for Big Bertha.
> Bill, what did you wind up getting? Please recommend some affordable
> ones as well as the best ones. Right now I am feeling in economizing
> mode. I think the lens is about 15 pounds.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
>
>

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

2005-10-31 Thread Adam Maas


Paul,

That's an argument to authority. And incorrect. I'm sure she's quite 
competent, but in this case, she's also wrong. This is the sort of 
argument that I see very often among computer consultants.


Simply put, her method simply can't deal with an image that would 
require filtration with B&W film. Even my basic channel mixer method 
(which takes maybe 10 seconds longer than her method for most images) 
allows me to balance the three channels to taste. Her method allows 
tonality adjustments to the final mix, but absolutely no adjustment of 
colour response which, as most serious B&W Film shooters will attest, 
can be extraordinarily important to a final image. considering that many 
people used to choose film just for it's colour response (See the 
difference between SFX200, Tri-X 400 and an Orthochromatic emulsion for 
starters)


-Adam

Paul Stenquist wrote:

No, you're incorrect. My retoucher friend knows exactly what she's 
talking about. She does fantastic work and is in great demand among 
pro shooters at about $200 an hour. Sometimes she will go back and 
alter the color image to change the conversion , but she's more likely 
to tinker with it after the fact. She frequently uses curves and masks 
after the fact if more control is needed. But she points out that the 
PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate translation of a 
given color scene. It's quite close to what the values would have been 
if shot without filtration. She did the conversion and some after the 
fact tuneup on my shot of the shoe shine man. 
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3451662


On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was 
done the

fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by
adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple procedure
allows complete control of tonal range and that any more elaborate 
method

takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the need for
elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate procedures 
to a

professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply said,
"That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on their
hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer because 
it's

fun. But I don't think it's necessary.



That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it.



But it ain't true. This "professional photo retoucher" doesn't know what
she's talking about. There are some tonal changes that can *only* be
accomplished before the image is converted to grayscale. That's why
those of us who use B&W film often use color filters when shooting.

A trivially simple example: You can paint an object in 3 shades of gray,
red and green each of which will translate to exactly the same shade of
gray with a particular B&W film or greyscale conversion. Once the image
is in greyscale, you can play with the levels and curves controls until
the heat death of the universe without them ever changing in relation to
each other, but using a color filter when shooting B&W film, *or*
adjusting color balance in Photoshop before converting a color image to
greyscale, will give you control of their relative density. This applies
to all colors to some extent, and control over these characteristics are
what the channel mixer procedures and other recipes accomplish.

What you're dealing with isn't "bullshit for people with too much time
on their hands" but rather "bullshit from a photo retoucher attempting
to conceal a lack of understanding of some very basic photographic
concepts".

BTW: You can't use digital color balance changes to *exactly* duplicate
the effects of a physical color filter applied during shooting, but you
can get pretty close (and that's an entirely different discussion.)


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

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

Once the conversion is made, the grayscale tones can be varied quite 
easily with curves. Before the conversion is made, changing the color 
version alters the grayscale results. In truth, she does most of the 
work after conversion and makes extensive use of masks and adjustment 
layers. She frequently repaints some details as well. If she 
shortchanged anyone, she wouldn't be getting the huge volume of very 
expensive work that comes her way. She contends that working before and 
after the conversion is where the real difference can be achieved. To 
her mind, the recipes are a waste of time and a bit silly. But her 
manipulation skills far exceed those of most practitioners. So the way 
she works may not be for everyone.

Paul
On Oct 31, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Photoshop greyscale conversion provides an arbitrary translation of a 
color
scene.  It uses the same percentages (approx 30% red, 59% green, 11% 
blue -

I've seen somewhat different figures, but they're all about the same)
regardless of the image and the colors it contains.  A big drawback to
using the conversion is that it just smashes all three color channels
together, and should there be a problem with any given channel - if a
channel is damaged or excessively noisy - those artifacts and problems 
go
into the greyscale conversion as well. There's no preview and you have 
no

control over the percentages and the final outcome.

I believe that your professional retoucher is shortchanging her 
clients.
There is no one true way to make conversions, no best way.  A truly 
skilled
retoucher might be familiar with several techniques, and will choose 
the

one best suited to the image and desired outcome.  While it's true that
some techniques may be complicated and time consuming (such as 
selecting

and splitting channels), and offer minimal advantages over a simpler
technique for some images, there will be times when knowing how and 
when to

use such a technique is appropriate.

What is a "theoretically perfect B&W film?"


Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"



[Original Message]
From: Rob Studdert



On 31 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Paul Stenquist wrote:


PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate translation of a
given color scene. It's quite close to what the values would have 
been

if shot without filtration.


IOW as if shot was made on a theoretically perfect B&W film?

Re: PESO Incidental panos #3

2005-10-31 Thread Bob Sullivan

Yes,
I've seen it before in the printing industry.
Catalogue pictures of apparel with fine regular patterns are trouble.
By the time it gets to a lithography plate, the moire patterns can be
big trouble.
The contrast of the pano at full size and reduced to screen size is a
great illustration of the problem.
Regards,  Bob S.

On 10/31/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2005 at 17:53, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Rob,
> > Did somebody already comment on the lines on the buildings?
> > Modern skyscrapers are often a problem to photograph for digital or the web
> > because of the repeated lines of window mullions.  They make moire patterns 
> > on
> > the screen that were never there.  You've done a nice job of avoiding these 
> > in
> > the final pano. Regards,  Bob S.
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Your comment is pertinent to the discussion on image
> sizing, at 800 pixels wide the image takes on a whole different dimension, 
> it's
> poor to say the least. The regular structures in the buildings do tend to
> create moiré effects, about the very lowest acceptable size would be 1200
> pixels across, limited to smaller that I'd not have bothered posting this
> image.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>
>
>

OT: William Notman Documentary on TVO

2005-10-31 Thread Fred Widall

For those of you in Canada and the US who can receive TVO broadcasts
you might want to catch "Notman's Canada", an interesting documentary
on the work of nineteenth century Canadian photographer William
Notman. It was on this evening and is to be repeated
on Saturday, November 5th at 5PM.

I was not familiar with his work prior to this documentary, but he
was responsible for a huge photographic collection showing the people,
culture and landscapes of Canada from that time. Very interesting.


--
 Fred Widall,
 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall
--

Re: PESO Incidental panos #3

On 31 Oct 2005 at 17:53, Bob Sullivan wrote:

> Rob,
> Did somebody already comment on the lines on the buildings?
> Modern skyscrapers are often a problem to photograph for digital or the web
> because of the repeated lines of window mullions.  They make moire patterns on
> the screen that were never there.  You've done a nice job of avoiding these in
> the final pano. Regards,  Bob S.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the feedback. Your comment is pertinent to the discussion on image 
sizing, at 800 pixels wide the image takes on a whole different dimension, it's 
poor to say the least. The regular structures in the buildings do tend to 
create moiré effects, about the very lowest acceptable size would be 1200 
pixels across, limited to smaller that I'd not have bothered posting this 
image.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Help choosing a file needed.


Thanks to all who commented, it looks like #9677 is the chosen one.

William Robb

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf"

Subject: Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side

But you know all this, I believe you were one of those lab owners they put 
out of business.

I was the owner operator of a custom lab for a number of years, but 
eventually, I got tired of the 18 hour days, so I gave it up.
Companies like Wal-Mart didn't put stand alone photo labs out of business, 
people refusing to pay for quality photofinishing put them out of business.
The irony is that those same people now complain about the poor quality they 
are getting.

William Robb

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:28, Mat Maessen wrote:

> Just about the same as yours. Nominally 21" CRT, running at 1600x1200.
> I think I've got the gamma just about right on it, though the colors
> are probably off quite a bit.

The best visual gamma test I've seen provides gamma test patches at three grey 
points, if these look good on screen then your screen cal is right in the ball-
park. My system is calibrated for G2.2, when I open up the 2.2 patch set they 
all look gray, I'm happy. I also use the mid gray patch as my desk-top 
background (tiled) then I can see at a glance when my monitor has properly 
warmed up.

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

Photoshop greyscale conversion provides an arbitrary translation of a color
scene.  It uses the same percentages (approx 30% red, 59% green, 11% blue -
I've seen somewhat different figures, but they're all about the same)
regardless of the image and the colors it contains.  A big drawback to
using the conversion is that it just smashes all three color channels
together, and should there be a problem with any given channel - if a
channel is damaged or excessively noisy - those artifacts and problems go
into the greyscale conversion as well. There's no preview and you have no
control over the percentages and the final outcome.

I believe that your professional retoucher is shortchanging her clients. 
There is no one true way to make conversions, no best way.  A truly skilled
retoucher might be familiar with several techniques, and will choose the
one best suited to the image and desired outcome.  While it's true that
some techniques may be complicated and time consuming (such as selecting
and splitting channels), and offer minimal advantages over a simpler
technique for some images, there will be times when knowing how and when to
use such a technique is appropriate.

What is a "theoretically perfect B&W film?"

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 

> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert 

> On 31 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> > PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate translation of a 
> > given color scene. It's quite close to what the values would have been 
> > if shot without filtration.
>
> IOW as if shot was made on a theoretically perfect B&W film?

Re: PESO - The Getaway

  My first thought when viewing the pic was of Groucho ...

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: David Savage

> I've got no Idea why, but I keep hearing Groucho Marx when I view this
picture.
>
> Nicely captured.

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

On 31 Oct 2005 at 10:25, graywolf wrote:

> Interesting. My 19 inch CRT runs 112 pixels per inch (measured with a 
> ruler) at 1600x1200. Are you using a CRT or LED monitor?

22" CRT, it will actually display an incoming signal of up to 2048 x 1536 @ 86 
Hz. However (and here's the tricky bit) since the dot pitch is 0.24mm and the 
maximum active display width is 406mm it can't actually resolve the signal. The 
gamma goes to hell and any details end up softening so I run it at 1600x1200 
(recommended). It's a sold as flat screen however in the interest of trivia 
it's actually an area of a sphere with the radius of 50m :-)

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO Incidental panos #3

2005-10-31 Thread Bob Sullivan

Rob,
Did somebody already comment on the lines on the buildings?
Modern skyscrapers are often a problem to photograph for digital or the web
because of the repeated lines of window mullions.  They make moire patterns
on the screen that were never there.  You've done a nice job of avoiding these
in the final pano.
Regards,  Bob S.

On 10/31/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice ... you should do publicity shots for the cruise line ... that's a
> pretty big boat 
>
> Shel
> "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Rob Studdert
>
> > Another quick and dirty pano made with 3 images captured
> > using my *ist D, all hand held. Again these images weren't
> > shot with the intention of stitching though I'm glad I shot them
> > as I did in this case. The location Sydney Harbour, I'm on the
> > Opera House promenade looking toward Circular Quay.
> > The monster right is P&Os Star Princess.
> >
> > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_22.jpg (~320kB)
>
> > http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html
> >
> > Comments, questions and critiques welcome, might be the last large pano I
> post given the screen size survey responses.
> >
> > More info on the Star Princess:
> >
> >
> http://www.pocruises.com.au/html/star_princess_the_biggest_cruise_liner_aust
> rali
> > a_has_ever_seen_1.cfm
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > Rob Studdert
> > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> > Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> > UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>
>
>

Re: PESO Incidental panos #3

2005-10-31 Thread Brian Walters

Rob

That's really impressive.  I've been away from the list for a while
and didn't see the earlier panos, but I'm going to have to give that
software a try.



Cheers,

Brian

+
Brian Walters
Western Sydney, Australia

Quoting Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Another quick and dirty pano made with 3 images captured using my
> *ist D, all hand held. Again these images weren't shot with the 
> intention of stitching though I'm glad I shot them as I did in this
> case. The location Sydney Harbour, I'm on the Opera House promenade
> looking toward Circular Quay.
> The monster right is P&Os Star Princess.
> 
> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_22.jpg (~320kB)
> 
> Again autostitch was used to create this pano:
> 
> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html
> 
> Comments, questions and critiques welcome, might be the last large
> pano I post given the screen size survey responses.
> 
> More info on the Star Princess:
> 
>
http://www.pocruises.com.au/html/star_princess_the_biggest_cruise_liner_australi
> a_has_ever_seen_1.cfm
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
> 
>

RE: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

2005-10-31 Thread Jens Bladt

I use a normal 17" calibrated (EyeOne) screen, se to 1024x768 pixel.
Regards
Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 31. oktober 2005 14:47
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size


I guess it's about time for another PDML survey, it's been about three
months
since the last one.

So given the prevalence of panos in PAW/PESO of late and the comments
relating
to images not fitting on screens I thought that it may be a good idea to see
what everyone is using screen size and resolution wise. Then we can
determine
how to best size images that are destined to be displayed to the group.

I'm running a colour calibrated screen that has a 20" diagonal viewing area
and
my desk-top is set to display 1600 x 1200 pixels or 102 lines per inch.

So what about everyone else?

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

Christian wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Glad you're attempting this. I just wonder how many will comply with the
> > resultant outcome.
> > Really no need for more than 800 X 800 @ 72 with moderate jpeg
> > compression, yielding a file of no more than 75 to 150 kb
> 
> That's pretty much what I try to keep my images to for web display.
> 
> I figure there are people using 800x600 in which case an 800pixel image is
> slightly too big but I figure there are more people with 1024x768 so an
> 800pixel image is a good size.  I also try to be considerate of people with
> dial up connections and, except for once or twice, try to keep image size
>  >150kb
> 
> Christian

My philosophy, as well 
and, um, I do have dial up

annsan

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

On 31 Oct 2005 at 16:36, Kenneth Waller wrote:

> Glad you're attempting this. I just wonder how many will comply with the 
> resultant outcome.
> Really no need for more than 800 X 800 @ 72 with moderate jpeg compression,
> yielding a file of no more than 75 to 150 kb

It's an interesting concept, I guess a 4x6 print gets across all that most 
images convey in simple terms too but you and I know what subtleties are lost 
in prints that size. I guess that's the disappointment in sharing images as 
small as 800x800 pixels particularly when the source image may be in the order 
of 80MP, the losses in detail are staggering. I instigated a similar survey 
some years back, it will be interesting to compare the results. 

As an aside by default even if I'm running my desk-top at 2048x1536 (which it 
will do quite well) I still have my Browser windows set to open at 1024x768. 
Thereafter it's easy to maximize the Browser window to make full use of the 
screen, I also have auto image resizing enabled so even if an images dimensions 
are beyond the bounds of the current screen it will be resized to fit, again 
it's very easy to then click on the image to reveal a detailed 1:1 view.

So in short I guess I'm saying that aside from reasonable file size constraints 
when using the right tools no image should be too big to display.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO Incidental panos #3

...and I just realised that it's 5 times bigger than the boat I've
been working on for the last year. And it looks huge.

Dave

On 11/1/05, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a damn big boat.
>
> Dave

Re: Just Curious About Converting PEF to DNG

2005-10-31 Thread P. J. Alling

DNG files use some sort of loss less compression.  No real data should 
be lost. 


Shel Belinkoff wrote:


When converting PEF files to DNG, the converted file is roughly 50% of the
original.  That suggests that some, perhaps a lot, of information in the
original file is discarded.  What's lost?

When working with DNG and PEF files, and converting them to PSD or TIFF
files after going through the RAW converter, the file sizes (for DNG and
PEF "originals") are about the same size, and I see no difference in the
results obtained from either format.  How is it that the DNG, which is
about 1/2 the size of a PEF, and the PEF, yield similar sized files when
converted?

All this suggests that the PEF, and I suppose other RAW format files,
contain a lot of unnecessary information.  Given that the results from a
PEF and a DNG file are identical, is there really any reason to save the
PEF file?


Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 




 




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

Re: PESO - The Getaway

I've got no Idea why, but I keep hearing Groucho Marx when I view this picture.

Nicely captured.

Dave

On 11/1/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I watched this guy walking up and down on some clumps of kelp.  I took
> a few shots of him perched up on them.  Then suddenly he grabbed a
> beak full and took off.
>
> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
> ISO 400, 1/3000 sec @ f/4.5
> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
>
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2409.htm
>
> Comments welcome
>
> --
> Bruce
>
>

Re: Cable release

2005-10-31 Thread skye

On 10/31/05, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyway I don't know why someone would want to use a TV remote.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alex Sarbu
>

I was being a cheapskate. My choice was putting more money down or
using what I had, and, I couldn't watch TV and use the camera at the
same time anyway! :)

Re: PESO Incidental panos #3

That's a damn big boat.

Dave

On 11/1/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another quick and dirty pano made with 3 images captured using my *ist D, all 
> hand held. Again these images weren't shot with the
> intention of stitching though I'm glad I shot them as I did in this case. The 
> location Sydney Harbour, I'm on the Opera House promenade looking toward 
> Circular Quay.
> The monster right is P&Os Star Princess.
>
> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_22.jpg (~320kB)
>
> Again autostitch was used to create this pano:
>
> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html
>
> Comments, questions and critiques welcome, might be the last large pano I 
> post given the screen size survey responses.
>
> More info on the Star Princess:
>
> http://www.pocruises.com.au/html/star_princess_the_biggest_cruise_liner_australi
> a_has_ever_seen_1.cfm
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>
>

RE: PESO Incidental panos #3

Nice ... you should do publicity shots for the cruise line ... that's a
pretty big boat 

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert 

> Another quick and dirty pano made with 3 images captured 
> using my *ist D, all hand held. Again these images weren't 
> shot with the intention of stitching though I'm glad I shot them
> as I did in this case. The location Sydney Harbour, I'm on the 
> Opera House promenade looking toward Circular Quay.
> The monster right is P&Os Star Princess.
>
> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_22.jpg (~320kB)

> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html
>
> Comments, questions and critiques welcome, might be the last large pano I
post given the screen size survey responses.
>
> More info on the Star Princess:
>
>
http://www.pocruises.com.au/html/star_princess_the_biggest_cruise_liner_aust
rali
> a_has_ever_seen_1.cfm
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

Yes. It's certainly a good starting point in most cases. Not all, but 
most.

On Oct 31, 2005, at 6:57 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:


On 31 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Paul Stenquist wrote:


PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate translation of a
given color scene. It's quite close to what the values would have been
if shot without filtration.


IOW as if shot was made on a theoretically perfect B&W film?


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO Silk purse or sows ear?

Cotty wrote:
> 
> On 30/10/05, Ann Sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >I have this problem, too --
> >my monitor is set at 1024 x 768 - I can't make it
> >any "finer" than that
> 
> My monitors are 1024X768 as well. What I do on a Mac is drag the pic
> straight from the web browser window and drop it onto the desktop. Then I
> double-click on that new icon on my desktop and it opens the pic in a
> simple picture-viewing utility application as large as the screen will
> allow, without cropping it - so I can see it full frame.
> 
> I don't know if this would work under Windows, but it may help?
> 
> best
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty

Actually, I have auto resize in Firefox so I can
cut and paste hotlink
into the other browser (I use Netscape comm. for
reading all mail) but
it would be nice jsut to click the link and have
it come up in netscape.

ann

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

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

On 31 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Paul Stenquist wrote:

> PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate translation of a 
> given color scene. It's quite close to what the values would have been 
> if shot without filtration.

IOW as if shot was made on a theoretically perfect B&W film?


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: GESO: Mother and Daughter

On 10/30/05, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have now changed the contrast (suggested by Rob) by using the
> shadow/highlight tool in CS:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/1244553/

nice enough shots, but if i may be so bold, one shot would have
sufficed.  seems to be a lot of repetition.  as a series, there's not
much being said that couldn't have been said in one of the stronger
photos, imho.

some nice tender moments in there, though.

-frank

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

Re: PESO - Snapshot of Naisha

Nice story, that complements this excellent shot very well.

Dave

On 10/30/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was taken yesterday on the bus to San Francisco.  It was so nice to be
> able to relate to and photograph these kids (Naisha and her brother)
> without being concerned about cops, being labeled as a pervert or
> pedophile.  The kids' mom was aboard and she had no problem with the
> situation.  So refreshing in light of recent experiences and discussions
> here.
>
> The greatest thing was that, after getting off the bus to grab the train,
> Naisha's brother, who had been sitting in the seat behind me and who had
> been playing with Satan earlier, grabbed my hand and walked with me to the
> platform, where we parted ways.  What a nice experience - so reminiscent of
> the experiences I had years ago when working with street kids and kids in
> the old San Francisco neighborhood.
>
> Perhaps the world isn't the same as it used to be, but some people are ...
> ;-)
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/naisha2.html
>
>
> Shel
>
>
>

PESO Incidental panos #3

Another quick and dirty pano made with 3 images captured using my *ist D, all 
hand held. Again these images weren't shot with the 
intention of stitching though I'm glad I shot them as I did in this case. The 
location Sydney Harbour, I'm on the Opera House promenade looking toward 
Circular Quay.
The monster right is P&Os Star Princess.

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_22.jpg (~320kB)

Again autostitch was used to create this pano:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

Comments, questions and critiques welcome, might be the last large pano I post 
given the screen size survey responses.

More info on the Star Princess:

http://www.pocruises.com.au/html/star_princess_the_biggest_cruise_liner_australi
a_has_ever_seen_1.cfm

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

No, you're incorrect. My retoucher friend knows exactly what she's 
talking about. She does fantastic work and is in great demand among pro 
shooters at about $200 an hour. Sometimes she will go back and alter 
the color image to change the conversion , but she's more likely to 
tinker with it after the fact. She frequently uses curves and masks 
after the fact if more control is needed. But she points out that the 
PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate translation of a 
given color scene. It's quite close to what the values would have been 
if shot without filtration. She did the conversion and some after the 
fact tuneup on my shot of the shoe shine man. 
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3451662


On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:


Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was done 
the

fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by
adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple 
procedure
allows complete control of tonal range and that any more elaborate 
method
takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the need 
for
elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate procedures 
to a

professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply said,
"That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on their
hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer because 
it's

fun. But I don't think it's necessary.


That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it.


But it ain't true. This "professional photo retoucher" doesn't know 
what

she's talking about. There are some tonal changes that can *only* be
accomplished before the image is converted to grayscale. That's why
those of us who use B&W film often use color filters when shooting.

A trivially simple example: You can paint an object in 3 shades of 
gray,

red and green each of which will translate to exactly the same shade of
gray with a particular B&W film or greyscale conversion. Once the image
is in greyscale, you can play with the levels and curves controls until
the heat death of the universe without them ever changing in relation 
to

each other, but using a color filter when shooting B&W film, *or*
adjusting color balance in Photoshop before converting a color image to
greyscale, will give you control of their relative density. This 
applies
to all colors to some extent, and control over these characteristics 
are

what the channel mixer procedures and other recipes accomplish.

What you're dealing with isn't "bullshit for people with too much time
on their hands" but rather "bullshit from a photo retoucher attempting
to conceal a lack of understanding of some very basic photographic
concepts".

BTW: You can't use digital color balance changes to *exactly* duplicate
the effects of a physical color filter applied during shooting, but you
can get pretty close (and that's an entirely different discussion.)


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

Re: PESO - Guy Looking Down a Hole in the Sidewalk

It's one of them ostrich people.

Fun shot that made me LOL.

Dave

On 10/31/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Saw this as I was about to board the train for San Francisco Friday.  It's
> one of those that seemed like a good idea to grab, but deep down you think
> it's a wasted shot.  So, WTF, with digi I can do it without feeling guilt
> at having wasted a frame.  Now I'm feeling guilty about posting it here ...
> Oh, the guilt.  Hellp me ... ;-))
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/workman.html
>
>
> Shel
> "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
>
>
>

Re: PESO: Ripples old, foliage new.

On 10/28/05, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Southwest Virginia appalachia at sunset.  Took a quick flight in
> my plane this week at sunset to try to capture some color.  Haven't had
> time to try to get any better adjustments out of it, but figured I'd share
> anyway.
>
> http://www.ee.vt.edu/~mythtv/PESO/
>
> -Cory
>

gorgeous.

-frank

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

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size


Dell pentium III with a Trinitron 15" diagonal
monitor with res at 1024 x 768

(aside to Rob - but then _you_ knew that :) )


annsan


Rob Studdert wrote:
> 
> I guess it's about time for another PDML survey, it's been about three months
> since the last one.
> 
> So given the prevalence of panos in PAW/PESO of late and the comments relating
> to images not fitting on screens I thought that it may be a good idea to see
> what everyone is using screen size and resolution wise. Then we can determine
> how to best size images that are destined to be displayed to the group.
> 
> I'm running a colour calibrated screen that has a 20" diagonal viewing area 
> and
> my desk-top is set to display 1600 x 1200 pixels or 102 lines per inch.
> 
> So what about everyone else?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO Silk purse or sows ear?

After seeing what you had to work with I'm impressed.

Nice shot.

Dave

On 11/1/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2005 at 13:47, Gaurav Aggarwal wrote:
>
> > Great picture. Loved it. I would like to see the picture in color also just 
> > to
> > understand what you discuss here, if possible. It looks just great in B&W
> > though. No problems with size since I use a 1600x1200 monitor. Where were 
> > you
> > standing when you took this picture? Obviously not on the ground since 
> > there is
> > no distortion that happens when the camera is pointed upwards. Gaurav
>
> Hi Gaurav,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to comment on the image. I was standing on a hill
> but as you'll see in the jpeg extracted from the RAW file below there was
> residual perspective distortion, this I corrected in PS. I used the RAW file 
> to
> extract the working file for the image, it wasn't as burnt out as the file
> below suggests but it was still quite bad, I guess this is a good example of
> why I shoot RAW.
>
> These 12 towers provide 22MW of power to the West Australian city of Albany.
> The rotors are 70m in diameter and the towers are 65m tall so overall at the
> top of the rotor they are 100m above ground, pretty impressive to stand 
> beneath
> :-)
>
> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP6415orig.jpg (~200kB)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>
>

Re: PESO: The Devil's Secretary

On 10/29/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reservations are now being accepted. DA 16-45 on *istD, ISO 1600, f8 @
> 1/15th, 45mm. Just a snapshot, but it shows that when shooting RAW and
> setting the color temp in post, one can achieve a relatively pleasing
> hue even when the subject is seated between two different kinds of
> lighting.
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3835745




nice one, paul.

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

Re: PESO: Video Surveillance

Mark Roberts wrote:
> 
> Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >knarf, I'm not sure it looks cool but to me it is ironic, as if the stone 
> >walls need surveillance.
> >Could fit in a collection of photos of ironies.
> 
> Yeah, I was trying to think of whose style this shot reminded me of:
> Annsan. Oddly (for me) the slight tilt *does* bother me a little with
> this one. Perhaps it needs to be more "straight-laced" given the ironic
> subject matter.
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com

It is kinda me isn't it? :) - sign shot, irony,
etc...
I agree about the slant, I"d like to see the edge
of the building straightened.
Oddly, it reminds me more of Hitchcock films - but
there was a shot
I showed at GFM that had this tone. A very good
shot for Halloween, Frank!
Eeeerie

ann

Re: PESO - Snapshot of Naisha

On 10/29/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was taken yesterday on the bus to San Francisco.  It was so nice to be
> able to relate to and photograph these kids (Naisha and her brother)
> without being concerned about cops, being labeled as a pervert or
> pedophile.  The kids' mom was aboard and she had no problem with the
> situation.  So refreshing in light of recent experiences and discussions
> here.
>
> The greatest thing was that, after getting off the bus to grab the train,
> Naisha's brother, who had been sitting in the seat behind me and who had
> been playing with Satan earlier, grabbed my hand and walked with me to the
> platform, where we parted ways.  What a nice experience - so reminiscent of
> the experiences I had years ago when working with street kids and kids in
> the old San Francisco neighborhood.
>
> Perhaps the world isn't the same as it used to be, but some people are ...
> ;-)
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/naisha2.html
>

beautiful photo, and beautiful story.

thanks, shel.


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

Re: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

2005-10-31 Thread Christian



- Original Message - 
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Glad you're attempting this. I just wonder how many will comply with the 
resultant outcome.
Really no need for more than 800 X 800 @ 72 with moderate jpeg 
compression, yielding a file of no more than 75 to 150 kb


That's pretty much what I try to keep my images to for web display.

I figure there are people using 800x600 in which case an 800pixel image is 
slightly too big but I figure there are more people with 1024x768 so an 
800pixel image is a good size.  I also try to be considerate of people with 
dial up connections and, except for once or twice, try to keep image size 
>150kb


Christian

Re: PESO 2 panos

Autostitch. Found here:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

Dave

On 11/1/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Bob ...
>
> What program is that?
>
> Shel
> "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > Wrom: ZCMHVIBGDADR
>
> > Give the program a try.  It took me about 1/2 hour to figure out how
> > to use it and get the first picture.  In another 15 minutes of
> > experimentation, I had the 2nd...which took some time to 'crunch' on
> > the laptop.
> >
> > Regards,  Bob S.
>
>
>

Re: PESO - The Getaway

On 10/31/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I watched this guy walking up and down on some clumps of kelp.  I took
> a few shots of him perched up on them.  Then suddenly he grabbed a
> beak full and took off.
>
> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
> ISO 400, 1/3000 sec @ f/4.5
> Converted from Raw using Capture One LE
>
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2409.htm
>

dof is perfect, as is composition.

love the position of the wings.  great catch, great timing.

-frank

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

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

And it will be our little secret, because the subject line is about a 
chimp :-).

Paul
On Oct 31, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Cotty wrote:


On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was done 
the

fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by
adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple procedure
allows complete control of tonal range and that any more elaborate 
method

takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the need for
elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate procedures 
to a

professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply said,
"That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on their
hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer because 
it's

fun. But I don't think it's necessary.


That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it. I also
use the grayscale conversion followed by curves rather a lot, and I 
have
to say that nine times out of ten, it works very well for me. 
Sometimes a

bit of dodging and burning.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO - Snapshot of Naisha

Thanks for looking and for your comments Boris.  I'm unsure as to what
makes this snap "honest" especially compared to other photos.  It sounds
nice, though ;-))

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Boris Liberman 

> > http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/naisha2.html
>
> I have just one word to describe this picture - "honesty"... This 
> picture is honest.

Re: PESO 2 panos

Hi Bob ...

What program is that?

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bob Sullivan 

> Give the program a try.  It took me about 1/2 hour to figure out how
> to use it and get the first picture.  In another 15 minutes of
> experimentation, I had the 2nd...which took some time to 'crunch' on
> the laptop.
>
> Regards,  Bob S.

Re: PESO - Guy Looking Down a Hole in the Sidewalk

Hi ... perhaps cropping would constrict the photo too much.  Where would
you crop it?  The tool is a wire cutter ;-))

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Boros Attila 

> http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/workman.html
>
> Maybe cropping the upper part would help, but not sure. I don't mind
> that I can't see his face, but I would like to see what is he doing.
> It looks like he is holding a tool but I can't recognize what it is.

Re: PESO - Snapshot of Naisha

Thanks so much.  I don't know how "gifted" I am - I just keep snapping the
shutter and hope that something good will come of it.

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Gaurav Aggarwal 

> Enjoyed it. Quite amazing. She seems to be saying something that wants me
> sit up, take notice and listen. Would love to see her brother too, if you
shot
> him too and both of them together. You indeed are gifted.

> > http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/naisha2.html

Re: PESO: Alle barna

On 10/30/05, Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I might post a proper picture now:
>
> http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=children
>
> Not necessarily among the best I've taken, but since we were discussing
> picture-taking in the public, and using children as subjects in
> particular, a while back... I have in fact photographed a number of
> children this summer without getting any kind of bad reaction. But I
> guess I'm cheating a bit as I usually pretend to be a tourist taking
> pictures of the same things as everybody else (which would be the person
> to the immediate left of the frame in this case.)
>
> This is the plain uncut truth of the picture. Scan from film done by
> lab, no crop or additional adjustments.
>
> Kodak Elite Colour 400UC film, MZ-5n, F100/2.8 macro.
>

love it, especially the rapt expression of the asian girl in the foreground.

well done!

-frank


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

Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring

2005-10-31 Thread Mark Roberts

Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was done the
>>fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by
>>adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple procedure
>>allows complete control of tonal range and that any more elaborate method
>>takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the need for
>>elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate procedures to a
>>professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply said,
>>"That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on their
>>hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer because it's
>>fun. But I don't think it's necessary.
>
>That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it.

But it ain't true. This "professional photo retoucher" doesn't know what
she's talking about. There are some tonal changes that can *only* be
accomplished before the image is converted to grayscale. That's why
those of us who use B&W film often use color filters when shooting.

A trivially simple example: You can paint an object in 3 shades of gray,
red and green each of which will translate to exactly the same shade of
gray with a particular B&W film or greyscale conversion. Once the image
is in greyscale, you can play with the levels and curves controls until
the heat death of the universe without them ever changing in relation to
each other, but using a color filter when shooting B&W film, *or*
adjusting color balance in Photoshop before converting a color image to
greyscale, will give you control of their relative density. This applies
to all colors to some extent, and control over these characteristics are
what the channel mixer procedures and other recipes accomplish.

What you're dealing with isn't "bullshit for people with too much time
on their hands" but rather "bullshit from a photo retoucher attempting
to conceal a lack of understanding of some very basic photographic
concepts".

BTW: You can't use digital color balance changes to *exactly* duplicate
the effects of a physical color filter applied during shooting, but you
can get pretty close (and that's an entirely different discussion.)

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

RE: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size

2005-10-31 Thread Bob W

15", 1600 x 1200, calibrated (but not for a while)

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 31 October 2005 13:47
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: OT Survey - Computer Desk-top Size
> 
> I guess it's about time for another PDML survey, it's been 
> about three months since the last one. 
> 
> So given the prevalence of panos in PAW/PESO of late and the 
> comments relating to images not fitting on screens I thought 
> that it may be a good idea to see what everyone is using 
> screen size and resolution wise. Then we can determine how to 
> best size images that are destined to be displayed to the group.
> 
> I'm running a colour calibrated screen that has a 20" 
> diagonal viewing area and my desk-top is set to display 1600 
> x 1200 pixels or 102 lines per inch.
> 
> So what about everyone else?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: PESO Silk purse or sows ear?

On 31 Oct 2005 at 13:47, Gaurav Aggarwal wrote:

> Great picture. Loved it. I would like to see the picture in color also just to
> understand what you discuss here, if possible. It looks just great in B&W
> though. No problems with size since I use a 1600x1200 monitor. Where were you
> standing when you took this picture? Obviously not on the ground since there 
> is
> no distortion that happens when the camera is pointed upwards. Gaurav

Hi Gaurav,

Thanks for taking the time to comment on the image. I was standing on a hill 
but as you'll see in the jpeg extracted from the RAW file below there was 
residual perspective distortion, this I corrected in PS. I used the RAW file to 
extract the working file for the image, it wasn't as burnt out as the file 
below suggests but it was still quite bad, I guess this is a good example of 
why I shoot RAW.

These 12 towers provide 22MW of power to the West Australian city of Albany. 
The rotors are 70m in diameter and the towers are 65m tall so overall at the 
top of the rotor they are 100m above ground, pretty impressive to stand beneath 
:-)

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP6415orig.jpg (~200kB)

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PESO Incidental panos #2

On 10/29/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another quick and dirty pano using 3 disparate files captured using my
> old Oly E-10 from a few years back. Again these images weren't shot with the
> intention of stitching, I didn't trim this one so that the original but 
> contorted frames are visible.
>
> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_13a.jpg (~240kB)
>
> Again autostitch was used to create this pano:
>
> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html
>
> Comments, questions and critiques welcome.
>

nice!

the wonky frame looks kinda funky

-frank

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

Re: With a fluttering heart...

On 10/30/05, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I placed my bid and just won an F* 600 F4:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBSAA:US:11&Item=7556939330
>
> I never thought I'd own one. Wow. But my heart really is doing a
> pitter-patter at spending so much. Right now, fortuitously, I have the
> money, but still feel nervous spending so much.
>
> Okay, now I need recommendations for a tripod and head for Big Bertha.
> Bill, what did you wind up getting? Please recommend some affordable
> ones as well as the best ones. Right now I am feeling in economizing
> mode. I think the lens is about 15 pounds.

what a beauty.

congrats!

-frank

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

Re: PESO - Guy Looking Down a Hole in the Sidewalk

koib to us new yawkas 

Shel 
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" 


> [Original Message]
> From: frank theriault 

> the orange pipes and red curb 
> (kerb to our english friends) are 
> strong compositional elements.

Re: PESO - Guy Looking Down a Hole in the Sidewalk

On 10/31/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pancho,
>
> The color version suits me better as well.  A lot of the tones are pretty
> similar when converted to B&W, plus, as you say, the pic is mostly grey
> anyway.  Glad you found the pic to your liking.

the more i look at it, the more i'm thinking colour works.  the orange
pipes and red curb (kerb to our english friends) are strong
compositional elements.

-frank

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

Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side