Re: PESO: my favourite hell-hole
On 25 Nov 2005 at 8:20, Boris Liberman wrote: > Ralf, you can find a PTLens profile for this lens that would probably > correct most of the distortions. I have produced one for use with the 1.53x sensors but not for full frame, it wouldn't take too much tweaking though: begin lens group: pentaxSLR multiplier: 1.5 menu_lens: A24mm f/2.8 cal_abc: 24.0 0.00 -0.007250 0.00 end 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 Experimental Pano
A great panorama. How do you make the images into a 'mov' file? Are those cottages to the right of your VW -- between the road and the beach? Is there any water around there -- fresh I mean of course. Too many questions? Don Jack Isidore wrote: Very nice pano. The google hotspot links to a zip file. Maybe you need to embed the mov file in a html file. Jack On 11/25/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Enough talk, time for another Pano PESO, this one is a bit of an experiment however. I hope I don't offend too many people but it's in Apple QTVR format (MOV) so if you can't view these standalone or in an enabled Browser then you might have to pass. Also it also contains a Google Earth link which shows exactly from where the shot was made. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano084.mov (~880kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s A16/2.8 @ f8 (8 landscape shots) Thumbnail images stitched using Hugin/Enblend and converted to QTVR using Pano2QTVR. Feedback would be appreciated. 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 -- Dr E D F Williams ___ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams See feature: The Cement Company from Hell Updated: Print Gallery-- 16 11 2005
Re: PESO Experimental Pano
On 25 Nov 2005 at 8:33, Jack Isidore wrote: > Very nice pano. > The google hotspot links to a zip file. Maybe you need to embed the > mov file in a html file. > Jack Hi Jack, The link is actually a .kmz file which is a Google Earth placemark that resides at my web site so if you don't have Google Earth installed then it will be useless. http://www.keyhole.com/kml/kml_tut.html http://earth.google.com/ 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 (s) Thanksgiving.
Just a couple of shots from today, from the traditional family get together... http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_drama.html http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_notdinner.html -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO Experimental Pano
Very nice pano. The google hotspot links to a zip file. Maybe you need to embed the mov file in a html file. Jack On 11/25/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Enough talk, time for another Pano PESO, this one is a bit of an experiment > however. I hope I don't offend too many people but it's in Apple QTVR format > (MOV) so if you can't view these standalone or in an enabled Browser then you > might have to pass. Also it also contains a Google Earth link which shows > exactly from where the shot was made. > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano084.mov (~880kB) > > Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s A16/2.8 @ f8 (8 landscape shots) > > Thumbnail images stitched using Hugin/Enblend and converted to QTVR using > Pano2QTVR. > > Feedback would be appreciated. > > 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 Experimental Pano
On 25 Nov 2005 at 8:29, Boris Liberman wrote: > Rob, to simpler folk around here, which viewer should I download please? You're not simple Boris, try: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html 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: DS Remote switch from Shanghai
Hi Leon, Do you mean having the remote mechanically trigger a cable release to your bellows lens at the same time as electronically triggering the D/DS? I don't think so. I took mine apart and this is what it looks like: http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/temp/IMGP2951.JPG (sorry about the quality of the pic - I've had some wine). There isn't much travel on the switch on the remote. You need a good deal for a mechanical cable release. D Leon Altoff wrote: Hi Derby, I would like to find a remote that I can screw in an old manual release into so that I can use it with my bellows. I made one about 5 years ago, but couldn't find a neat box to use for the switch. Do you think there is any chance of modifying the one you have to accept a manual release? Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon Derby Chang wrote: I know that the bits to make a remote switch for the DS can probably be had for about 5 bucks (or more or less free if you work in a company that makes electronic devices, like I do). I had thought about making an adapter for the Cable Switch F so I can use it on either the DS or the PZ1. Not that I'm likely to be using the PZ1 much anymore. But I do like a well made cable - that won't come from me. These guys are selling remote switches on ebay for $AU20 (plus shipping). http://www.novaphotography.biz/home.htm (the website only shows the Canon version, but look on ebay for the Pentax). Mine arrived today. Much larger than the Pentax CS-205, but that's a plus for me. I hate fiddling around for a small switch, especially when I'm shooting night shots. Like the Pentax, it is a combo switch and slider lock, which is much nicer than the Cable Switch F two-finger action. The cable is twice as long as the CS-205. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: PESO -- Time Out
Thank you for the compliments, Powell, Lucas, Jack, Guarav, Frank, William ... Good eye, Bob S.! and Boris, I think it'll be interesting to hear what Galia has to say about it. :) ERNR who hasn't shown it to the subject yet -- but Grandma liked it
Happy Thanksgiving, you'all...
http://www.cs.uregina.ca/~herbertj/movies/WizardsofWinter-SM.wmv Live well. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later You're still allowed to have a darkroom. There's no law that says a digital shooter can't do some film work. Do you still have your darkroom equipment? Set it up and get to work. Get all the stuff I have stored in the basement into rented offsite storage, use the space I am creating to set up a woodworking shop so that I can complete a few projects (bathroom cabinetry, etc) upstairs, then get all those tools into storage and completely gut my basement and deal with the mold problem that has developed since we had the roof off the place in 2003 and it got rained on several times. After that, I can start to think of a new darkroom. In the meantime, I have two bathroom gut and rebuild projects coming up, plus I will most likely be changing careers, more than likely going to work as an overhead door installer (excellent money, hard work). I'm hoping that my darkroom will happen within the next year. Last winter, I bought myself a baby blue Beseler 45 Dichroic, a host of Nikkor enlarging lenses, and several boxes of miscellaneous brick brac that I would like to use. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Not so much a take as a paraphrase in my case. Ansel Adams in Color borrows heavily from his private writings on the issue. Interestingly, he greatly disliked Analog RA4 prints. I recall reading something from Ansel that indicated he was very excited with the coming of digital imaging, though he did pass away before seeing it. The early RA-4 process gave very poor results, I expect he would like where we are now, but there have been many improvements in the technology since RA-4 was introduced. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later I'm no artist, but I like working in PhotoShop . Lots of fun. I don't feel like I'm doing anything much different than what I did in the darkroom, except that I have a lot more control. It's a different set of skills, and it is a more democratic one. It's more likely now that if you can imagine it, you can put it on paper. Some of the things that can be done easily and routinely in Photoshop are incredibly time consuming, and require far more patience and skill to acomplish when one is working with a conventional photographic process, if they can be acomplished at all. I have no problem with competitions wanting to judge an image that has been digitized in a different category from one which has not been digitized. It is no different in philosophy from separating colour from black and white, or painting and photograph for the purpose of competition. With this in mind, I found, while cleaning out the basement, the following cool thing: A Sam Haskins Book of Mini Posters, which contains a couple of dozen foot by foot and a half (more or less) posters of what looks like late 60s kinda flower power erotic art photography. I'm not sure when it was shot, but the Pentax cameras being flogged were the 6x7 and the ESII, so I suppose it was when that camera was current. Anyway, contrived content aside, the artwork itself is very well done, and definitely was pre computer. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: "David Mann" Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later A lot of photographers have someone else do their post-processing. They're probably more likely to direct adjustments from proof prints, rather than stand over the shoulder of the person doing the processing. One time Ron Dunnett made the trip from Vancouver to Regina so that he could watch over my shoulder as we printed a show that he was putting on. It was very instructional for both of us William Robb
Re: PESO -- Time Out
Hi! One of my collection of moments in family life -- http://www.members.aol.com/ernreed/time-out.jpg Comments? I probably should be showing this to Galia, just to remind her that same can be imposed on her as well... Boris
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Tom Reese wrote: > > > I'm sure you would perceive that as OK however if I have a jet trail in the > > midst of the sky of my otherwise pristine natural landscape I'm going to > > consider cloning it out, it shouldn't be there and I can control it being > > there > > except after the fact. Would you view this action as a contradiction WRT to > > the > > concept of the nature photograph? > > I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet > trail out of the frame. I'm a >purist and I would object to the cloning. Although I'm shooting digital now, Tom, I agree with out totally about this kind of thing. I'm getting to like digital, but it is rather out of necessity. The darkroom fumes make me ill, my eyes can't adjust to going back and forth from dark to light to perceive when I've made a good print fast enough, my back and shoulder have been broken in such a way that the stuff I 'd need to do physically in the darkroom to get prints just hurts too much. And more than that, one digital camera with a couple of gigs of card and batteries really has saved me money in the past year for just the information photos I've taken to sell stuff on ebay. I'm trying to sell stock, and digital is the way the agencies are going. But if I have to do more in photoshop than crop, darken a bit or lighten a bit - ad a but more saturation,etc, stuff I'd done in the darkroom, I'd just dump the picture. I wish I still had the funds to shoot slides and get my LX and KX cameras back in working order and buy film and shoot slides... but after the Kodak lab at Fairlawn closed, even when I still shot slides the quality was never the same. > > FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and > interclub competitions. And even with digital, a nature stock agency won't take manipulated stuff... at least mine won't. >That type of manipulation is against the rules. We do have separate digital >categories where that type of >manipulation is permitted. > > Tom Reese > I have to say that I don't even like the introduction of props into the nature close-up scene, no matter how pretty they may end up. annsan well, I'm a little grumpy tonight - achoo again
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Hi! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Fuji NPC 160 for color. Agfa APX 100 for b/w... I don't use slide film... Boris
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Hi! Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Herb... What a very bigoted comment , Herb. How sad. ann, to whom $600 is a hell of a lot of money Pardon my appearance here, but Ann is *absolutely right*. How to put it politely, Herb? But $600 is very significant piece of my monthly salary although mine is considerably above average locally. Boris
Re: PESO: from Cottyland
Hi! I took this in Faringdon, a small market town in Oxfordshire, UK, during a visit there about 2 years ago. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3902783 Getting the scan to resemble the slide has been rather testing, and I still don't have the rich brownish-red of the bricks or the completely neutral grey of the stone where I want them, even with an hour of diddling in PSE2. PZ-1p, FA 50/1.7, exposure not recorded, Elite Chrome 100. Scanned as uncompressed tiff, adjusted in PSE2. Plaudits and brickbats appreciated. Apart from pink/magenta cast it is wonderful... Indeed one starts thinking of Hobbits at once... Boris
Re: PESO Experimental Pano
Hi! Enough talk, time for another Pano PESO, this one is a bit of an experiment however. I hope I don't offend too many people but it's in Apple QTVR format (MOV) so if you can't view these standalone or in an enabled Browser then you might have to pass. Also it also contains a Google Earth link which shows exactly from where the shot was made. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano084.mov (~880kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s A16/2.8 @ f8 (8 landscape shots) Thumbnail images stitched using Hugin/Enblend and converted to QTVR using Pano2QTVR. Feedback would be appreciated. Rob, to simpler folk around here, which viewer should I download please? Boris
Re: PESO: Cityscape at Night
Hi! Here's one of my latest images: http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/ni/Pittsburgh_3296.jpg It was taken with my Pentax *istDS. Let me know what you think. thanks, Glen For some reason it reminded me of SimCity the game... The high mark there is not the highest one though, is it? Well done! Boris
Re: PESO -- Julie and Kate
Hi! http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=258 K1000. M28/3.5 (I think). tri-x. scanned from the negative. Scott, probably it is my youngish age and country of origin, but although I think I can see what you were trying to reach, I would've done it way differently... But since it is your vision, I'd have to keep this to myself. For me, this does not exactly work really. Sorry *sigh*. Boris
Re: PESO: Left
Hi! Part of a series. An attempt to get some experience converting to B&W using some of the techniques described by some here. I could not get the hang of the channel mixer technique, I'll have to revisit that one, I dont think I was doing it right. Anyhow, here is one of the pics that I liked. All comments welcome. http://www.g0nz.com/images/k62605.jpg Gonz, I have two things to say: 1. Wonderful portrait. 2. Use an ever so slight S-curve and add just a scosh of contrast to the face. Boris
Re: Thanksgiving PESO
Hi! http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/tgiving.html Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" It fits your signature ;-). LOL. Boris
Re: PESO: my favourite hell-hole
Hi! First results with the new toys: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1145051 Arcelor's coking plant in Seraing, Belgium. Nothing extraordinary in this shot, BTW. Just normal routine operation with a few badly sealed oven doors and a bit of excess gas being flared off in the background. Never mind the 50,000 people living within a two mile radius. Comments on the shot are welcome. As expected, the LX's light metering has proven itself totally inadequate with such scenery. It suggested 8 secs while at least 30 are needed to get some detail into the shadows and 60 secs is about right. Yet, nothing to be ashamed of. I've never sen anything meter correctly under such conditions. I'd be quite happy if there weren't this nasty barrel distorsion of the 24 mm lens. Contrary to the details given on the linked page, it's the A2.8/24 mm. Anything else in this focal range that would be a little more linear? Ralf, you can find a PTLens profile for this lens that would probably correct most of the distortions. OTOH, the picture you showed us is definitely very apocalyptic... Brrr... Boris
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Herb Chong wrote: > > as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be > shooting anything? > > Herb... What a very bigoted comment , Herb. How sad. ann, to whom $600 is a hell of a lot of money > - Original Message - > From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:58 PM > Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later > > > It may come as a surprise to you, Herb, but some folks simply do not have > > the up front money to pay now. It is cheaper for a lot of us to pay bit by > > bit even if it costs us twice as much in the long run. An I believe Frank > > is like me in that he no longer believes in credit cards.
Re: OT: How my LX Ruined my Weekend
Jack Davis wrote: > > Ann, > A way long time back, when virtually everything was B&W, the little > yellow Kodak box and enclosed instructions, recommended the user "load > the film in low light." > While there have been numerous times when conditions require I take a > chance and load film in blazing sunlight, the 'guilt' of that "low > light" admonition is felt. > > Jack > yup ann, reading this a bit late
Re: Help required from a USA lister
Cotty wrote: > > On 24/11/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >Got your help yet? If not, I'm game. > > Thanks Mark, you're 6th reserve. > > Thanks to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th reserves - you know who you are. > > I'm sorted now, thanks very much to all who replied. > > Much appreciated. > > Cheers, > Cotty > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ drat I knew I should have been reading the list earlier :) achoo - annsan home with a cold
Re: PESO: from Cottyland
At 11:15 AM 11/24/2005, you wrote: I took this in Faringdon, a small market town in Oxfordshire, UK, during a visit there about 2 years ago. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3902783 I really like the peacefulness of this photo. It looks like a hobbit would answer if you knocked on it. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary numbers and those who do not. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/181 - Release Date: 11/24/2005
Re: PESO: from Cottyland
At 01:21 PM 11/24/2005, you wrote: Hobbits? My first thought too. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary numbers and those who do not. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/181 - Release Date: 11/24/2005
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 25, 2005, at 3:26 AM, frank theriault wrote: Even if it's argued that I could get away with one body, the cost of that plus computer upgrades would be minimun $3,000 I get the impression that that would be quite a compromise. Would that give you both the quality and the flexibility you currently have? Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film. I think that's the most relevant thing that anyone has said in this entire thread, especially when we consider that most of the work you show is in B&W. We can talk all we like about cost and convenience but if you don't like doing PS stuff then why should you? FWIW I have tremendous respect for anyone who is willing to mess around in the dark with chemicals. I'd end up drinking the developer and soaking the film in cola (I've just read a Giles collection and it's just the kind of thing he'd draw). Now my eyes are going square from staring at the screen. Time to make dinner... - Dave
Re: PESO Experimental Pano
Excellent, very nicely done. Godfrey On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:00 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: Enough talk, time for another Pano PESO, this one is a bit of an experiment however. I hope I don't offend too many people but it's in Apple QTVR format (MOV) so if you can't view these standalone or in an enabled Browser then you might have to pass. Also it also contains a Google Earth link which shows exactly from where the shot was made. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano084.mov (~880kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s A16/2.8 @ f8 (8 landscape shots) Thumbnail images stitched using Hugin/Enblend and converted to QTVR using Pano2QTVR. Feedback would be appreciated. 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: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 25, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: I can only assume that your suggesting that someone else would have to create the print? Then the photographer would have to be hanging over their shoulder directing them or alternately leave the final image look to the discretion of the printer? A lot of photographers have someone else do their post-processing. They're probably more likely to direct adjustments from proof prints, rather than stand over the shoulder of the person doing the processing. In fact, for best results I know I'd be better off giving someone else my slides. Having absolute control is one thing, but actually being able to use it is another. Unfortunately I can't afford to pay someone else to scan/process/print my work so it ends up getting the second-rate treatment it probably deserves ;) - Dave
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 25, 2005, at 5:11 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The only justifications I've ever been able to come up with for having multiple bodies are a) backup in the field against the event of failure and b) to have multiple emulsions available simultaneously (B&W, Color neg and slide, different speeds). Backup is still important, there is no need on the second count. So you need two bodies, maybe three if you're the kind of person who breaks things a lot. Different bodies have different characteristics which lend themselves to certain situations. I have three 35mm bodies: the Z-1p for AF, the LX for its light weight and quietness, and the K2 for everything else. And a 6x7 for taking good pictures . - Dave
Re: scanning medium format
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Kenneth Waller wrote: > >They scan as JPEGs and when opened the images are about 32mb in size. Now > >when I scan a 35mm slide on my Scan Dual IV as a TIFF I get a file around > >36mb > > Remember the JPEG is compressed. Depending on the amount of compression > chosen that JPEG had a lot more file size than 32mb. Open the JPEG, save to > TIFF and you'll see a much larger file size. > > You are not getting less info, just compressed info. That would only be true if the JPEG compression were lossless. Unfortunately, it isn't, generally - you'll lose some information. The most obvious place to look will be around high-contrast edges (twigs, highlights, etc.) - you'll often see some colour blocking.
Re[2]: PDML Digests -notice any virus activity?
Hello, i've gotten all digests since 2970, no duplicates. 25 from 48 digests since 2970 are 78kb in size and seem to contain some virus. I don't think the address is spoofed, because there are no duplicated or missing digest numbers. Martin Albrecht Here is the header from 2970: > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Delivery-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:16:16 +0100 > Received: from [209.239.33.40] (helo=host24.websitesource.com) > by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu8) with ESMTP (Nemesis), > id 0MKt1w-1EfBL51mop-0004b2 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 > 08:16:16 +0100 > Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by host24.websitesource.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id jAO7GDsq005804; > Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:16:13 -0500 > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:16:13 -0500 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Authentication-Warning: host24.websitesource.com: dbrewer set sender to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #2970 > X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/volume05/2970 > Precedence: list > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > > Content-Type: text/plain > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 05 : Issue 2970 > > Today's Topics: > Your Password [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > -- > > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:00:14 GMT > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Your Password > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > C ontent-Type: m ultipart/m ixed; boundary="0d632f9.86c2e744" > C ontent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --0d632f9.86c2e744 > > Protected message is attached! > > > * Go to: http://www.aol.com > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --0d632f9.86c2e744 > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=reg_pass.zip > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="reg_pass.zip" > > UEsDBAo... > .. (skipped long binary part) > ...AAAlNgA > --0d632f9.86c2e744-- > > > End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 Issue #2970 > **
Re: Happy Thanksgiving to our American Friends
I did, I did, and I don't. Thanks, Frank! On 11/24/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The SL says it all! > > Happy-happy. Don't eat too much, drink too much, or watch too much football. > > Okay, do all of the above, just don't whine about it tomorrow morning! > > cheers, > frank > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I hang out on both and ignore stupidity on both. Godfrey On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Spend some time on Photo.net or DPReview and you'll run across just that. Both sides of this little argument have their fanatics.
Re: Happy Thanksgiving to our American Friends
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 01:47:03PM -0500, frank theriault wrote: > On 11/24/05, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I second that (e)motion ;-). > > -- > > Who are you, Smokey Robinson? Maybe he's Ripley Holden ...
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 24, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Nov 2005 at 19:56, Adam Maas wrote: The 4800's superb, but you can do 11x14's on the R2400 for about half the price. Yep that'd do the trick, it has the same Epson UltraChrome K3™ Ink set. But if I could afford a 4800, I'd get one. Must resist. I went back and forth between the R2400 and R4800. The ability to do 16x20 cut sheet is very appealing to me, but I couldn't justify the additional expense yet as the majority of my printing is within the bounds of an A3 Super paper size. The R2400 has been working out extremely well: it has been interesting to me that the comments from clients I've shown prints to do not start with comments like "what was this printed with" ... they discuss the photographs, not the process/printing technology. That's exactly where I like to be with the process. BTW: The magazine Digital Photo Pro's measurement of the R2400 showed it achieved a higher black density in monochrome printing than any of the wet lab papers available today that they tested against, which at least demonstrates that the capability for high quality B&W printing is there. The current issue on the newsstands also has an interesting take on B&W rendering technique. I think it's too complicated, personally, but will be experimenting with it when I return home ... want to see how it measures up against my home-grown B&W rendering technique. Godfrey
Re: Happy Holiday
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 01:49:31PM -0600, Don Sanderson wrote: > Don't pay any attention to Tom, eat all you want! > I made plenty, let me know if you run out. Unusually for us, we won't be doing anything this year (in fact dinner looks like a baked potato with fixings). We're spending the long weekend taking up the old, stained hardwood floor in our living room, and replacing it with a new floor (maple, this time, rather than oak). That's more than enough work to keep us busy; finding time to cook as well just wasn't going to happen (in fact I'm not sure we'll manage to complete the task in four days). Still, with a UK upbringing we're still not too tied to these odd colonial festivals :-) We usually pull out the stops for Christmas, which is when we'll do our turkey.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 24, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Tom Reese wrote: I have a different opinion. Manipulated images are fake and I think it's wrong to deceive the viewer. I don't want to start another argument. It's a difference of opinion and we've already covered this ground in previous threads. Define what you mean by "manipulated image". Godfrey
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 24, 2005, at 3:42 PM, graywolf wrote: A print is the end product of wet photography. A digital image is the end product of digital photograhy. You have to go through some conversion steps to get from one to the other. A digital image is the master from which the print is made, a print is the end product. This applies to all my photography, whether the capture was on film or with a digital sensor. Godfrey
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Spend some time on Photo.net or DPReview and you'll run across just that. Both sides of this little argument have their fanatics. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I have yet to see one of these disparagements of wet-lab processing made by a "digi-head" (another slur, btw). Godfrey On Nov 24, 2005, at 12:32 PM, graywolf wrote: And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is fair play.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 24, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Yes, and many folks go back to film after the new wears off. You must know a lot of folks that I've never met. I've met a few photographers who dabbled in film again after going to digital, but they're a tiny percentage of the whole. Film is great. I'm still in love with the whole process, and I enjoy darkroom work. But go back? It just doesn't make sense. I know one guy who returned to film process for his B&W after going to a DSLR for a year or two. Of course, this is the same guy who for years balked and squirmed about any camera that weighed more than 8 ounces or was larger than could fit in his pocket, and the DSLR + Lens combination he fell in love with is one of the largest, heaviest setups out there. What that says about the consistency of his decision making I leave up to you to decide. But to me, looking at his film and digital work, I am hard put to see a difference. Which is as it should be ... it's the photographs that matter in the end, not the process used to make them. He does good work, albeit not entirely to my taste aesthetically a good bit of the time. Godfrey
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I have yet to see one of these disparagements of wet-lab processing made by a "digi-head" (another slur, btw). Godfrey On Nov 24, 2005, at 12:32 PM, graywolf wrote: And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is fair play.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
One advantage of the darkroom. I never had an enlarger die in the middle of a print. Bulb burn out yes, die no. My Epson 1200 blew its circuit board and it will be at least a week before another one arrives . At least they are getting cheaper. First one cost almost $500 and this one, my third, is $90. Powell
Re: PESO -- Time Out
Look at the crossed arms. This was a time out, not voluntary. Regards, Bob S. (my daughter just turned 21) On 11/24/05, Lucas Rijnders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:44:48 +0100, E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Powell Hargrave wrote: > > > >> At 11:30 AM 24/11/2005 , you wrote: > >> > >>> One of my collection of moments in family life -- > >>> > >>> http://www.members.aol.com/ernreed/time-out.jpg > >>> > >>> Comments? > >> > >> Nice. Was this voluntary or imposed? > >> > >> > > Imposed. > > Good model: I could have sworn it was voluntary :o) > > -- > Regards, Lucas > >
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I'm no artist, but I like working in PhotoShop . Lots of fun. I don't feel like I'm doing anything much different than what I did in the darkroom, except that I have a lot more control. Paul On Nov 24, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: At 01:48 PM 24/11/2005 , Tom Reese wrote: I have a different opinion. Manipulated images are fake and I think it's wrong to deceive the viewer. I am an artist. My camera is my paint. PhotoShop is my brush. Powell
Re: Shoot now, focus later
At 01:48 PM 24/11/2005 , Tom Reese wrote: >I have a different opinion. Manipulated images are fake and I think it's >wrong to deceive the viewer. I am an artist. My camera is my paint. PhotoShop is my brush. Powell
Re: PESO Experimental Pano
QTVR authoring tools abound on the Mac. there are only a few good ones on Windows. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:28 PM Subject: Re: PESO Experimental Pano Very cool. You seem to be having a lot of fun with panos. I'm going to have to give it a try. The Quick Time presentation is excellent.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
At 01:06 PM 24/11/2005 , graywolf wrote: > >I recently acquired a used watchmaker lathe on ebay. Turns out to be >about 120 years old. Ever see a 120 year old digital camera that still >works? No but my first a QT-150, over 10 years old still works fine. Could have used that lathe today as I turned down some aluminium rod in my drill press to repair the pop up flash on my ZX5n. It works. Powell
Re: OT: How my LX Ruined my Weekend
Graywolf, There are times that I do think I have more than my fair share of them :-) I currently have 6 of them. Look here http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/lxen.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=996 for a peek at them, the viewfinders, and the screens... César Panama City, Florida graywolf wrote: Anyone who wants a LX better hurry before Cesar buys them all up. Is that number 5 or 6, Cesar? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Cesar wrote: Frank, Whew! I thought you were really blaming an LX ;-) I have missed a couple of shots by doing this at times. I have found myself sometimes using 1/2000 or an extremely slow speed - depending on what is opposite to the speeds I have been shooting. The contrasting shutter sound tells me that there is an incorrect setting - if I have been using the A setting. Yes, I should look at the indicators in the viewfinder, and for the most part I do. I find myself getting into more problems with switch settings with my *ist D though. When shooting with the LXen I tend to devote a body to a film type - ask Cotty. With the *ist D I find my problems with forgetting about the white balance settings as the lighting changes. Yes, I shoot jpegs not RAW. I hope the photos turn out well. César Panama City, Florida P.S. Along the same lines as the subject, look at http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/lxen.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=995 to see how PDML enablement 'ruined' my weekend ;-) I was planning on shooting the 67 and *ist D, and I have a roll of b&w to finish in an LX too! frank theriault wrote: Okay, that's an exaggeration. It didn't ruin my weekend, but it pissed me off some. And, really, it was my fault, not the camera's Actually, it was a pretty good weekend. My middle daughter celebrated her 17th, and she had a good party. Of course, pix taken, in this case with the LX/K1.2 50mm/TriX. The next day, my youngest had to go up the road to Gananoque, about 20 miles from Kingston, to be in the local Santa Claus Parade. Seems the playhouse that put on the play that she was in over the summer had a float in the parade, so she went to help decorate it. She found out that she was then going to be on the float, which thrilled her to no end. She got to put on one of the period costumes from Anne of Green Gables, and sing caroles whilst being pulled through town. So, my ex and I go to see the parade. It was quite wonderful. Being used to "big city parades" with expensive floats and world-class marching bands, I was prepared to be underwhelmed. Quite the contrary! It was wonderful. The streets were packed, and every float was full of local folks, who seemed to know everyone along the parade route. There was an incredible sense of community and joy that seems lost in the huge multi-million dollar parades in big cities that I've seen before. So, I have about 1/2 roll in my LX, with a roll in my pocket. I can see Claire's float coming, and by then I have about 5 shots left, so I quick fire them off, so I can load a fresh roll, so I don't get stuck at the end of a roll whilst shooting her and her float. I put the lens cap on, change film, change the shutter dial from Automatic to 1/2000th so that the shutter doesn't stay open interminably while I fire off the first three "pre-shots" (you can see where I'm going), and suddenly my ex yells, "here she is". I run off to snap about 20 or 25 shots of her and her float, quite thrilled to have gotten that many of her. On the way to the car, I notice that I'd left the shutter speed dial at 1/2000th. I was shooting at about f5.6, and on the overcast day, the meter was reading between 1/125th and 1/250th. I was between 3 and 4 stops underexposed. Poop! Oh well, that's what I get for not paying attention, I guess. Plus, that's what I get for regularly switching between 3 or 4 bodies. I think I got about 1/2 roll of pretty good parade shots, but missed all of them of my daughter. Luckily, someone else got lots of shots which they'll share with me, but it's not the same. :-( Still, a wonderful weekend was had, and most importantly, both my daughters that still live at home had terrific times! -frank, back at work on Monday morning... -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: How my LX Ruined my Weekend
frank theriault wrote: On 11/24/05, Cesar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: P.S. Along the same lines as the subject, look at http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/lxen.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=995 to see how PDML enablement 'ruined' my weekend ;-) That's a pretty bland looking LX, Cesar. -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson Yes it is. But it is in such nice shape it should stay stock. I am thinking about reskinning some more cameras at some point. If only I can pick the right one though :-) César Panama City, Florida
Re: PESO Experimental Pano
Very cool. You seem to be having a lot of fun with panos. I'm going to have to give it a try. The Quick Time presentation is excellent. Paul On Nov 24, 2005, at 11:00 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: Enough talk, time for another Pano PESO, this one is a bit of an experiment however. I hope I don't offend too many people but it's in Apple QTVR format (MOV) so if you can't view these standalone or in an enabled Browser then you might have to pass. Also it also contains a Google Earth link which shows exactly from where the shot was made. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano084.mov (~880kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s A16/2.8 @ f8 (8 landscape shots) Thumbnail images stitched using Hugin/Enblend and converted to QTVR using Pano2QTVR. Feedback would be appreciated. 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 Experimental Pano
Enough talk, time for another Pano PESO, this one is a bit of an experiment however. I hope I don't offend too many people but it's in Apple QTVR format (MOV) so if you can't view these standalone or in an enabled Browser then you might have to pass. Also it also contains a Google Earth link which shows exactly from where the shot was made. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano084.mov (~880kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s A16/2.8 @ f8 (8 landscape shots) Thumbnail images stitched using Hugin/Enblend and converted to QTVR using Pano2QTVR. Feedback would be appreciated. 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: Shoot now, focus later
more along those lines - http://www.bythom.com/myths.htm. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Glen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later And just what category would you put him in, if he did the vapor trail removal in the darkroom? You should know that it is also possible to do it without a computer. You remind me of some narrow-minded people from my local camera club which died a few years ago. They tried to cordon off the "digital stuff" from the "real" photographs. Ironically, one of the staunchest defenders of this attitude was also a fellow with the last name of Reese.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
At 07:24 PM 11/24/2005, Tom Reese wrote: > I'm sure you would perceive that as OK however if I have a jet trail in the > midst of the sky of my otherwise pristine natural landscape I'm going to > consider cloning it out, it shouldn't be there and I can control it being there > except after the fact. Would you view this action as a contradiction WRT to the > concept of the nature photograph? I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet trail out of the frame. I'm a purist and I would object to the cloning. FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and interclub competitions. That type of manipulation is against the rules. We do have separate digital categories where that type of manipulation is permitted. Tom Reese And just what category would you put him in, if he did the vapor trail removal in the darkroom? You should know that it is also possible to do it without a computer. You remind me of some narrow-minded people from my local camera club which died a few years ago. They tried to cordon off the "digital stuff" from the "real" photographs. Ironically, one of the staunchest defenders of this attitude was also a fellow with the last name of Reese. later, Glen
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Good idea! My favorite is Elite Chrome 100. Pleasant, accurate, not-too-garish colors, decent speed, fine grain, very predictable, and very versatile. Rick --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/24/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I tend to ignore digital threads. There doesn't > seem to be much else on this list lately. > > > > Amen! > > > > We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So > what's your favorite > film, and why? Give us details, such as which films > you use for what > subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain > lenses or cameras? > Etc. > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com > > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Kodachrome 64, until it dies. Andre
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
> On 11/24/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I tend to ignore digital threads. There doesn't seem to be much else on > > this list lately. I'll bring my Epson 2450 to GFM next year Tom. Then you can play with us. > > > > Amen! > > > > We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite > film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what > subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? > Etc. > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com I use digital for colour now, but, i still shoot a fair amount of B&W film. I like the Kodak 3200 for bar work. The grain is still there but i think its softer than the Ilford 3200. For "normal"speeds i like Tmax 100 or 400 depending on the weather. I think i shoot more 400 afor my old building shots, as i like a bit of extra grain. Seems to make the oldness pop out a bit more. I'v tried Tri X and HP5 but they seem a tad "soft" for my barns and such. Dave Brooks > > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman >
Re: A PESO From Big Bertha
Thanks to everyone who commented. I put a lot of editing time into the Real Southwest photo (getting rid of electrical wires and even a pole), then Shel pointed out that it was not straight. Here is a straightened version: http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3375/display/4447866 Cotty is right about the truck visible through the windshield, but removing that is beyond my PS abilities (and my time right now). Joe
Re: Shoot now, focus later
i have the book too. got it when it came out. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:35 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Not so much a take as a paraphrase in my case. Ansel Adams in Color borrows heavily from his private writings on the issue.
Re: PDML Digests -notice any virus activity?
Now that's just so much more information than I needed. Cotty wrote: On 25/11/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: and how tight your firewalls are. I'm up three octaves but the ointment is working. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Jeez, your English, that should be "me" not "I", but true aside from that. (I on the other hand never need to be questioned...) frank theriault wrote: On 11/24/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Geeze Frank, I've been shooting professionally and I only own one digital body! You're a demanding guy! Kripes, Mark, I was just engaging in sophistry. What is it you warn new list members about Cotty and I? My point was that for the same flexibility I now have with film cameras, I'd need a couple. I know that ain't gonna happen. Just as I started with one film body, so will I start with one digital one (at such time as hell freezes over, or they stop making film, whichever comes first). -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 25 Nov 2005 at 1:20, Tom Reese wrote: > I like to put my best stuff up against other's best work and see how I do. > Judges are indeed a crapshoot. Sometimes they like my work and sometimes they > don't. It's still fun to see what they like and what they don't (even when > it's > mine). I don't take any of it too seriously. Competing has motivated me to try > to shoot truly outstanding pictures and to become a student of art. My > photography has improved as a result. I have two main concerns/observations WRT to this type of competition photography, first I believe it tends to artificially unify photographers perspectives of what makes a good image. And secondly I have never found those in competition to be willing at all to share techniques/locations etc, it's all a big secret with the potential to loose competition points if too much information is given up to the enemy. I don't participate in club competitions though I do still visit occasionally, there are some excellent photographers there but few of the really good ones compete regularly. http://groups.msn.com/stgeorgephotographicsociety > Nature photography does indeed make you aware of how intrusive man has become > in > the natural world. Yes, I have a photographer friend who is very aware of the local botany and he often blows away my notions of untouched wilderness by identifying weeds and plants not endemic to the locale. 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: Shoot now, focus later
i treat photo clubs the way i treat the rule of thirds. it gets you started, but at some point, you have to move on. Herb - Original Message - From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:24 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and interclub competitions. That type of manipulation is against the rules. We do have separate digital categories where that type of manipulation is permitted.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Not so much a take as a paraphrase in my case. Ansel Adams in Color borrows heavily from his private writings on the issue. Interestingly, he greatly disliked Analog RA4 prints. -Adam Herb Chong wrote: that's my take on him too. there is still less control in color than B&W unless you go digital. then the playing field is more level. Herb - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later I've recently read Ansel Adams in Color. The reason Ansel didn't like color photography was the lack of control he had over it. He would have LOVED Photoshop.
Re: Help required from a USA lister
Watch it, if he thinks you;re game he might shoot you... Mark Roberts wrote: Got your help yet? If not, I'm game. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
1. Velvia 50. Love those saturated colours! 2. Plus-X. Fine grain and medium speed. 3. Provia 400F. Low reciprocity failure and a lack of colour shift during long exposures makes it good for astronomy. 4. Provia 100F. For those times when Velvia is just too slow, though I will be switching to Velvia 100 when my current stock needs replenishing. 5. Kodachrome 64. Just because. At 8:14 PM -0500 11/24/05, Scott Loveless wrote: I suppose I should answer my own question. Of the five rolls of FP4 I have shot, I really like it a lot. I bought the stuff in 120 roll, shot the first roll at 125, and have ratcheted my way down to 64. All of it developed in Ilfosol S 1:9. I like it best somewhere around 64 or 80. For faster films I prefer Tri-X. B&H had some HP5 10-packs with a rebate a while back, so I bought 20 rolls. I've been playing with different speeds and developers (D76, Ilfosol S, and HC-110) and find that I consistently like the results I get with Tri-X a bit better than the HP5, regardless of developer. -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 24 Nov 2005 at 19:55, Adam Maas wrote: > Tom Reese wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet > >trail out of the frame. I'm a purist and I would object to the cloning. > > > >FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and > >interclub > >competitions. That type of manipulation is against the rules. We do have > >separate digital categories where that type of manipulation is permitted. > > > >Tom Reese > That's interesting. You do realize that you would thus exclude much of > Ansel Adams work then, right? Such manipulations are darkroom standards. > In fact, back in the early days of photograpy, putting a new sky into a > print was de rigeur because of the problems of plate emulsions that were > only really sensitive to blue light (pre-Orthocromatic emulsions, let > alone modern panchromatic film) and thus you blew out the sky on any > shot of the landscape. Printers kept around stocks of sky images to > provide a sky to landscape shots. Which also raises the question: where do polarizing, graduated or colour filters figure in the equation of what does and doesn't make a nature shot? 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: Shoot now, focus later
Rob Studdert wrote: > Fair enough, I don't participate in club events because of such absolutism. > It's all generally too staid for my liking, if any image doesn't fit very > specific preconceived notions of composition, sharpness, contrast, focus > point etc they don't get anywhere. I like to put my best stuff up against other's best work and see how I do. Judges are indeed a crapshoot. Sometimes they like my work and sometimes they don't. It's still fun to see what they like and what they don't (even when it's mine). I don't take any of it too seriously. Competing has motivated me to try to shoot truly outstanding pictures and to become a student of art. My photography has improved as a result. > Unfortunately now regardless of the remoteness or perceived sanctity of the > place is it possible to shoot without con-trails in the image. Nature photography does indeed make you aware of how intrusive man has become in the natural world. Tom Reese
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Kodak has been inventing ways to raise the price of film to counter its substantial volume decrease. this is one of the ways. Fuji has been keeping its prices essentially constant. Herb - Original Message - From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:10 PM Subject: Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) I just went to the Kodak website to see if they still list EBX (I had heard that they were going to drop it) and they've changed the names of all the Elite Chromes to Kodak Professional Elite Chrome. I don't know if they've improved the films or if it's just a marketing gimmick. The EBX is still listed as being current.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 24 Nov 2005 at 19:56, Adam Maas wrote: > The 4800's superb, but you can do 11x14's on the R2400 for about half > the price. Yep that'd do the trick, it has the same Epson UltraChrome K3 Ink set. > But if I could afford a 4800, I'd get one. Must resist. 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: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
I suppose I should answer my own question. Of the five rolls of FP4 I have shot, I really like it a lot. I bought the stuff in 120 roll, shot the first roll at 125, and have ratcheted my way down to 64. All of it developed in Ilfosol S 1:9. I like it best somewhere around 64 or 80. For faster films I prefer Tri-X. B&H had some HP5 10-packs with a rebate a while back, so I bought 20 rolls. I've been playing with different speeds and developers (D76, Ilfosol S, and HC-110) and find that I consistently like the results I get with Tri-X a bit better than the HP5, regardless of developer. On 11/24/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Loveless" > Subject: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) > > > > > We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite > > film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what > > subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? > > Ilford FP-4, any format, any subject that a low speed film (for me it's an > iso 50 film) can handle. > > William Robb > > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Scott Loveless asked: > We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite > film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what > subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? > Etc. I almost exclusively shoot Elite Chrome Extra Color (EBX-100). I do infrequently use regular Elite Chrome. I know I'm giving up better greens by not using Velvia but I use American made products whenever possible. I just went to the Kodak website to see if they still list EBX (I had heard that they were going to drop it) and they've changed the names of all the Elite Chromes to Kodak Professional Elite Chrome. I don't know if they've improved the films or if it's just a marketing gimmick. The EBX is still listed as being current. Tom Reese
Re: Shoot now, focus later
that's my take on him too. there is still less control in color than B&W unless you go digital. then the playing field is more level. Herb - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later I've recently read Ansel Adams in Color. The reason Ansel didn't like color photography was the lack of control he had over it. He would have LOVED Photoshop.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
William Robb wrote: I enjoyed darkroom work ... but I *do not* miss the smell of fixer on my hands, that always took at least three thorough washings to remove. Did you try baking soda? William Robb um ... Nope.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
graywolf wrote: Your wish is my command. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use that I also bought on ebay. This one is smaller than the ones made more recently and required accessories are hard to find. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe-size.jpg Thanks!
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Scott Loveless wrote: Amen! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman Tri-X overall. I shoot mostly with Tri-X or APX400. But the Canonet gets slow film, around ISO100 although I'm not set on a film for it yet, it's looking like PanF will get the nod. For pushing, I prefer Neopan 400 which pushes nicely to 1600 in D76. Haven't landed on a MF film yet, but I'm running mostly E100GX through the Ricohflex, I just love those big 6x6 slides. -Adam
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
I'm very fond of Plux-X, 120, rated at 100, processed in D-76 1:1. For handheld grab shooting in low light I like Delta 3200/120, rated at 1600. I process that in straight up D-76 or T-Max Developer. Paul On Nov 24, 2005, at 7:32 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Ilford FP-4, any format, any subject that a low speed film (for me it's an iso 50 film) can handle. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Rob Studdert wrote: Since you seem happy to spend cash on good kit why not consider: http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/057/942/StylusPro_4800.pdf http://www.epson.com/cgi- bin/Store/WideFormat/WideFormatDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&infoType=Overview&o id=-12801&category=Wide+Format+Printers That's what I'd buy right now if I were in the market. Cheers, Rob Studdert The 4800's superb, but you can do 11x14's on the R2400 for about half the price. But if I could afford a 4800, I'd get one. -Adam
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I don't remember digital users "putting down" the wet process. Quite the contrary: Most of the digital early adopters I have known were (and are) wet darkroom enthusiasts who found themselves reveling in the ability to have the kind of control over color prints as the darkroom gave them over B&W prints. I certainly fall into this category. And remember when Mike Johnston was on this list and discovered digital? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Tom Reese wrote: I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet trail out of the frame. I'm a purist and I would object to the cloning. FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and interclub competitions. That type of manipulation is against the rules. We do have separate digital categories where that type of manipulation is permitted. Tom Reese That's interesting. You do realize that you would thus exclude much of Ansel Adams work then, right? Such manipulations are darkroom standards. In fact, back in the early days of photograpy, putting a new sky into a print was de rigeur because of the problems of plate emulsions that were only really sensitive to blue light (pre-Orthocromatic emulsions, let alone modern panchromatic film) and thus you blew out the sky on any shot of the landscape. Printers kept around stocks of sky images to provide a sky to landscape shots. -Adam
Re: Shoot now, focus later
You're still allowed to have a darkroom. There's no law that says a digital shooter can't do some film work. Do you still have your darkroom equipment? Set it up and get to work. Paul On Nov 24, 2005, at 7:19 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work- flow. I still pine for my darkroom, shooting portraits on 6x7 FP-4. I miss using my Tachihara, the thrum of my JOBO. The quiet hum that my coldlight makes when first warming up. I miss the magic of watching a print come to life in a tray of developer. It's not a tactile experience anymore, and that was a lot of the enjoyment I derived from this photography thing. I guess count me into the minority. Whats a good inkjet printer that will handle making an 11x14 inch print, that has a decent monochrome inkset. The thing can be dedicated to monochrome, I can get my colour printed on real photo paper. William Robb
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Am stocking Fuji Astia 100F at the moment. Honest color pallet and the finest grain available in slide film. Best combination for scanning. Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Loveless" > Subject: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) > > > > > We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite > > film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for > what > > subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or > cameras? > > Ilford FP-4, any format, any subject that a low speed film (for me > it's an > iso 50 film) can handle. > > William Robb > > > __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I've recently read Ansel Adams in Color. The reason Ansel didn't like color photography was the lack of control he had over it. He would have LOVED Photoshop. -Adam Herb Chong wrote: you've seen documented the amount of manipulations Ansel Adams did to his prints? Herb - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later I'm sure you would perceive that as OK however if I have a jet trail in the midst of the sky of my otherwise pristine natural landscape I'm going to consider cloning it out, it shouldn't be there and I can control it being there except after the fact. Would you view this action as a contradiction WRT to the concept of the nature photograph?
Re: Shoot now, focus later
graywolf, A print can be the end result of Digital Photography. It often is for me, and all my B&W images are edited with a print as the final intent (Colour generally is intended for Web use, I'm not a big colour guy) And the reason why 8x10's are more expensive than at home is that's where the profit is. 4x6's are a cost leader (You don't lose money on them, but you don't make any either) -Adam graywolf wrote: A print is the end product of wet photography. A digital image is the end product of digital photograhy. You have to go through some conversion steps to get from one to the other. That said I do have some digital prints hanging on the wall. That is because I do not have the facilities to do wet color, and there are no labs in this small town that do it either. Interestingly enough I can do an 8x10 cheaper on my printer than I can buy them, but 4x6's are far cheaper to buy. There is also the fact that I had the digital with me when I shot them, and not the film cameras. The Oly fits into a small waist pack that I had, and is convenient to carry. The Graphic fits into... Well ask some of those who saw it a GFM. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:15, graywolf wrote: If the final image is all that is important, and it is going to be used in digital form (Web, pre-press, etc) digital is the way to go because you save a bunch of intermediate steps. If you want an exhibition print film is the way to go because you save a bunch of intermediate steps. I'm in agreement, I still like using my friends darkroom but I'm very glad that wet printing isn't my only option these days. What I don't understand is how it's possible to avoid a bunch of intermediate steps if using film processes to create an exhibition print? I can only assume that your suggesting that someone else would have to create the print? Then the photographer would have to be hanging over their shoulder directing them or alternately leave the final image look to the discretion of the printer? 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: Shoot now, focus later
On 24 Nov 2005 at 18:19, William Robb wrote: > I still pine for my darkroom, shooting portraits on 6x7 FP-4. > I miss using my Tachihara, the thrum of my JOBO. > The quiet hum that my coldlight makes when first warming up. > I miss the magic of watching a print come to life in a tray of developer. > > It's not a tactile experience anymore, and that was a lot of the enjoyment I > derived from this photography thing. > > I guess count me into the minority. Fortunately you still have the option, I have no place I could set up any kind of darkroom that wouldn't upset the running of my house. > Whats a good inkjet printer that will handle making an 11x14 inch print, > that has a decent monochrome inkset. > The thing can be dedicated to monochrome, I can get my colour printed on > real photo paper. Since you seem happy to spend cash on good kit why not consider: http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/057/942/StylusPro_4800.pdf http://www.epson.com/cgi- bin/Store/WideFormat/WideFormatDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&infoType=Overview&o id=-12801&category=Wide+Format+Printers That's what I'd buy right now if I were in the market. 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: Shoot now, focus later
Nice, Reminds me of my Grandfather's watchmaker lathe. Although that was a bit younger I think (1920's IIRC, although it might be older) -Adam graywolf wrote: Your wish is my command. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use that I also bought on ebay. This one is smaller than the ones made more recently and required accessories are hard to find. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe-size.jpg graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- E.R.N. Reed wrote: graywolf wrote: I recently acquired a used watchmaker lathe on ebay. Turns out to be about 120 years old. Ever see a 120 year old digital camera that still works? No, but I really want to see a picture of your watchmaker lathe. Pretty please?
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Not too many wood turning lathes that can turn work to 1/10,000 thousandth of an inch out there. This one could do that in 1885. Remember these things are used for turning things like the pivots on a watch gear. This Whitcomb No. 1 is also the lathe most American and German Watchmaker Lathes are a copy of, the other style is the Swiss which have clamps that go around the bed. Compound cross-slides and tailstocks (this particular one came with a tailstock but it is a lot newer than the lathe) were available for these but a watchmaker could do more accurate work by hand. Also the cross-slides now cost a lot more than the Boley (Which was one of the most expensive watchmakers lathes) I have coming. I have some ideas for making my own. A new Taig Micro Lathe would be cheaper but can not do such accurate work. I want the thing for working on cameras rather than watches, but many of the parts are similar. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Nov 2005 at 18:54, graywolf wrote: Your wish is my command. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use that I also bought on ebay. This one is smaller than the ones made more recently and required accessories are hard to find. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe-size.jpg It's very cute but it looks like a miniature wood turning lathe to me, great for turning out chess pieces I'd say :-) 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: Shoot now, focus later
Paul Stenquist asked: > What do you do with the slides after you shoot them? I flip through the boxes really quickly then I put them on a shelf for later sorting. Once in a while I pull out my lightbox and loupe and go through all the slides. The best ones to go into my binders. I do enter them in our club and interclub competitions but photography for me is about being outside and capturing the beauty in nature. I worry a lot more about what I'm going to shoot next than what I shot yesterday or last week. Tom Reese
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 25 Nov 2005 at 0:24, Tom Reese wrote: > I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet > trail out of the frame. I'm a purist and I would object to the cloning. > > FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and > interclub > competitions. That type of manipulation is against the rules. We do have > separate digital categories where that type of manipulation is permitted. Fair enough, I don't participate in club events because of such absolutism. It's all generally too staid for my liking, if any image doesn't fit very specific preconceived notions of composition, sharpness, contrast, focus point etc they don't get anywhere. Unfortunately now regardless of the remoteness or perceived sanctity of the place is it possible to shoot without con-trails in the image. I confirmed this just recently as there would have been way too numerous shots I would have had to throw away. I have no hesitation in removing elements of the image that I can't avoid but I'm prepared to live with myself for doing so too. No one else ever has to know otherwise. Each to their own I guess. 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: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
- Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Ilford FP-4, any format, any subject that a low speed film (for me it's an iso 50 film) can handle. William Robb
Re: A PESO From Big Bertha
Even more interesting when you know a bit of history. Back in the early fifties when the government was forced to pay the indians a lot of money for past wrongs. Many of them would buy a new car and if it wouldn't start or something they would just walk away and buy another (they really were not used to dealing with lots money just like many lottery winners). One can imagine that happening with this old Buick. Abandoned there where the battery went dead, and years latter the trading post closing and now many years latter along comes Joe with his camera. It is a photo I would not mind having on my wall. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Cotty wrote: On 24/11/05, Joseph Tainter, discombobulated, unleashed: Actually a couple of PESOs. Here's another of my "Real Southwest" series. (Caution: Ruin and Decay. May not be suitable for all audiences.) http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/535671/display/4445956 WOW. A little PS work on the SUV through the windscreen would be acceptable ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/24/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I tend to ignore digital threads. There doesn't seem to be much else on this > list lately. > Amen! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: Lens availability on ebay
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Lens availability on ebay Also anyone have experience with these Russian sites selling the Zenitar 16mm fisheye. I picked up one from a fellow that shipped from the Ukraine, can't remember his eBay handle off hand though. It was a good transaction though. William Robb
Re: My laid up in the hospital and rehab kit
- Original Message - From: "Bill Owens" Subject: My laid up in the hospital and rehab kit Not wanting to take a chance losing my *istD or Optio MX, I find my pocketable Olympus Verve a decent replacement. Biggest disadvantage is the miniscule XD card. Welcome back Bill. We've been worried about you. William Robb
Re: PDML Digests -notice any virus activity?
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" Subject: PDML Digests -notice any virus activity? I was contacted off list by a lurker who notes: Never has happened before, but my "up-to-date" Norton Anti-Virus proggie kicked out both numbers 2970 and 2973 of the PDML saying that a virus was found in each. 2971 and 2970 were accepted properly as were all PDML's before these two numbers. Although it could be a false alarm, Norton has never 'falsed" before in the last year and a half. In fact it has never alarmed before in the last year and a half Now two alarms in an hour. It's pretty common for virus' to spoof email addresses. You can't trust that the email containing it came from the person who apparently sent it. All it means is that the return address is on someone's computer, someplace, not necessarily in their address book, either... William Robb
Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later I'm figuring that it's gonna cost me at least $6,000 to put me in a position where my digital capabilities are equivalent to what I now have in film - and that's likely an low estimate. Even if it's argued that I could get away with one body, the cost of that plus computer upgrades would be minimun $3,000 Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film. I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me "twice as much" as going digital. But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money back. At least, I think that's how it works. Frank forgets that a lot of film users are buying expensive equipment upgrades such as high end scanners and the like, nice monitors and fast computers. Me, I'll stick to fast women. Or come unglued trying. But I digress. Anyway, what the DSLR did to me was cause me to buy another set of lenses, which was more expensive than all the computer upgrades that I can think of, short of a mainframe. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I enjoyed darkroom work ... but I *do not* miss the smell of fixer on my hands, that always took at least three thorough washings to remove. Did you try baking soda? William Robb
