Re: PAW: People Portraits 2005 #47 - GDG
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Back from NY and processing about 250 or so pictures made with the LX1 as well as Pentax DS ... takes time! Some of these photos are proving to be a lot of fun. Hope you like this one... http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm Comments, critique, flames all appreciated. enjoy Godfrey I like it alot - quite intriguing! Ciao, P
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone. Converting it back to a TIFF won't help it - or will it? In Bob's case, all he shoots are JPEG's, so the info was never there in the first place. Plus, the file he provided was a panorama that was stitched together from, IIRC, three separate files, each being (if my math is correct) a JPEG of only about 2.2 mb. IOW, even though the file was 6.5mb the information it contained was about like a 2.2mb JPEG ... does that make sense? In my case, the file starts out as a 16-bit, 120mb or more TIFF, and remains so throughout the editing process until converted to an 8-bit file just before being printed. Had I stitched together three files, as Bob did, the total file size would be closer to 180mb. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: David Mann Bob's file was a jpeg - 5000x3000 pixels (as he mentioned) is a pretty decent-sized file. That'd be 43Mb as an 8-bit tiff.
RE: Peso:Norm and Audrey's 50th
Hi Dave I'm wondering if you really needed flash for these pics. The light looks so harsh, and the shadows don't add much to the photos either. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Dave Brooks http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=viewcurrent=pipes.jpg http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=viewcurrent=couple.jpg
Re: Emailing PUG entries
That could well be, Shel. This morning I got a message from my ISP that they experienced some problems with their SMTP server last night. Sorry about that. Jostein - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:04 AM Subject: Re: Emailing PUG entries So far I've counted six of these messages, all time-stamped the same. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 12/5/2005 3:59:13 PM Subject: Re: Emailing PUG entries Hey, You beat me to it, Adelheid. :-) Thanks. Jostein
RE: Language - Britian, England, or United Kingdom?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simple, really. John === But it took a lot of time and effort to put that explanation together. And all they did was laugh at one misspelled word. Pleebians. surely you mean 'plebians'? Har har har! g -- Cheers, Bob
RE: GESO: East Africa
Looks as though you had a great time. Lovely set of photos. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Jon Paul Schelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 December 2005 06:30 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: GESO: East Africa Hi everyone, I've returned from my trip to East africa, I managed to do just about everything I wanted to - safaris, climbing Kilimanjaro, diving in Zanzibar. I'm trying to put together a bit of a web site, my hope is to use the GPS track overlaid on top of a Google maps page, and linked to my photos and log entries.. but that might take a while for me to set up. In the meantime, I bought a domain, and I've got a bit of a place-holder there, with a few of the photos that I've managed to sort through - take a look if you're interested, I'd love to hear some feedback. http://forksandhope.com/Africa.html JP
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
On 6 Dec 2005 at 0:22, Shel Belinkoff wrote: But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone. This isn't always practically the case, for instance consider a 6MP image containing a single colour, it would save as about 36MB as a 16 bit tiff however even saved as best quality jpeg it would probably be under 500kB, no data is lost. As the complexity of the image increases then so does the size of the jpeg image, the tiff however always remains the same size (so long as it is saved as uncompressed). Just looking at a typical image of mine with high detail and saved as a 16bit tiff has a 67MB file size, converted to 8bit and saved as best quality jpeg it ends up at 5.4MB. I'd hazard a guess that if both files were printed at the optimum print resolution and colour space they would likely be indistinguishable on all but the very best of todays printers. 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: First DA 12-24 Shot
Ohh you also added a nice umbrella in the mirror, good choice!! lol I liked the carpet color of the original, something that went lost in the workflow... anyway, even if interiors doesn't excite me, especially nude ones (without people, that is), I can imagine your on a magazine. I'm talking about the last version one. Cheers, Danilo.
RE: Big Print (24x36 inches)
But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone. Homeopathy? Bob
Re: Yet another enablement.
On 5/12/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: This list is very bad. You are all bad people. Anyway, based on comments I have read, the A* 85/1.4 is a pretty decent lens. I managed to snag what appears to be a nice one off eBay. I had thought, right up until the last moment that I would get it for a nice price too, but it was not to be. I blame this one on Cotty, Bob S, Fred Wasti and Rob Studdert. You are evil men, the lot of you. VICTORY ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
On Dec 6, 2005, at 9:22 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information? When decompressed, the 6.5Mb JPEG with the stated pixel dimensions would turn into 43Mb of data in memory. That's all I was saying, as I was afraid you may have misread the original post as being a 6.5Mb TIFF :) The amount of information contained in a JPEG file doesn't really depend on the size of the JPEG file itself as it depends a lot on the amount of detail present in the image. JPEG compression does throw away a lot of data, which isn't necessarily the same as throwing away a lot of information. I'll qualify that as saying that JPEG should only be used as an output format rather than storage/archiving/editing. Looking at the typical compression ratios I've been getting with my web pics, a 43Mb TIFF reduced to 6.5Mb JPEG would be pretty good. Hopefully the printers didn't try making major adjustments to the JPEG... - Dave
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED / Norwegian characters
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Jostein wrote: It's been ages since I used Pine, but I think it encodes (escapes) the non-ascii letters in a peculiar way. IIRC, there used to be all sorts of problems with mapping characters between Windows and Pine in the older days of the 'Net... Thanks, I will look into it. And so I did. From http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1996/11/msg00141.html AFAIK, pine uses the QUOTED-PRINTABLE encoding whenever the message itself contains non-ascii characters. And that is good, because it's the standard. You can't send 8-bit (weird) characters over (possible) 7-bit nodes. However, http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pine-infom=96821951105671w=2 FEATURE: enable-8bit-to-smtp-server snip However, there are now Internet standards that allow for unencoded 8bit exchange of messages between cooperating systems. Setting this feature tells Pine to try to negotiate unencoded 8bit transmission during the sending process. Should the negotiation fail, Pine will fall back to its ordinary encoding rules. Note, this feature relies on your system's mail transport agent or configured SMTP-Server having the negotiation mechanism introduced in Extended SMTP (ESMTP) and the specific extension called 8BITMIME. I tried it and it does not work; I assume that our SMTP server does not have ESMTP. Safe in the knowledge pine is standards-focused, Kostas
Re: On-site printing
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, William Robb wrote: You might consider switching to a colour film and having them print it as monochromatic, or go to a monochromatic film such as Portra BW. One advantage is that Digital Ice is available, and dust will be less of an issue. Thanks for the suggestion. They have another, analogue machine that I use instead; not quite the dense blacks I like, but no red either. Overall quite pleased with the film-printer combination; must work on this picture-taking thing :-) Kostas
OT - Epson Picturemate Printer
Epson Picturemate - anyone have one? Like it? Thanks. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Sewious Enablement
- Original Message - From: David Mann Subject: Re: Sewious Enablement Just ordered my Merry Christmas to Me gift. Santa will have an extra heavy bag this year, what with trying to slip an Epson 4800 printer under the tree for me. Now I just have to learn how to take pictures I hate you. My work here is done... Can I order 100 prints each of canada geese and kittens? That ought to be enough punishment for you... I've spent so much of my life working in amateur photofinishing, nothing really bothers me anymore. William Robb
Re: Yet another enablement.
- Original Message - From: Cesar Subject: Re: Yet another enablement. Ahhh but Bill you know that deep in your heart you are not innocent. This goes beyond your commentary and remarks on Grandfather Mountain :-) Had I been drinking? I can't take responsibility for my mouth after a couple of beers. Or even a cup of coffee, it seams. William Robb
Re: GESO: Harpist
I like the framing and composition of the first two as well. However, I think in this case that the grain is too harsh and prominent. It renders the flesh tones unpleasant. Since detail isn't critical here, a little gaussian blur might make these much more attractive. On Dec 6, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Tom C wrote: Hi Rick, I like the first two... both are very nice and I would hope that the musician would ask you for prints of them. Well done! The third composition, pardon me for saying, makes her look a little like a caged animal... it feels like she's about to pick up that harp and jam it down my throat. It may be the way the strings intersect her eyes and teeth. :) Tom C. From: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GESO: Harpist Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:34:05 -0800 (PST) Last year, I posted a photo of a harpist friend along with some other shots from a musical soiree. This year I tried a few more, with a bit more light on the subject. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=549685 PZ-1p, FA 24-90, Kodak P3200, spot metered off her face; exposures were generally f/4-5.6 at 1/30-1/60. Negs scanned on my Epson RX500, minimal processing in PE2. Comments invited. Rick __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: 360 dpi
When you can't print at the highest resolution the printer offers, you usually have a paper/profile/software settings mismatch. When everything is dialed in, you should be able to print best at the highest res. Paul On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:51 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: I like the look of premium glossy, but I'm printing both sides of the paper on this thing I'm working on so the double-sided matte is what I'm using. interesting that BEST photo isn't a graywolf wrote: Ann, I found the same thing with my 820, and the R200 that replaced it. Except I use glossy paper. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Ann Sanfedele wrote: I'm printing a roughly 4.5 x 6 image on matte paper on my little old Epson 820 and it seems fine. INterestingly (or not) the stuff looks better set at photo with photo enhance checked rather than Best Photo - which seemed to spill too much ink onto the paper.
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff is restored along with all of the resolution. The 6.5mb jpeg will produce the same resolution as the 43 meg tiff. Some information will be lost. It will probably not be detectable to the human eye if the jpeg wasn't saved repeatedly. Paul On Dec 6, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone. Converting it back to a TIFF won't help it - or will it? In Bob's case, all he shoots are JPEG's, so the info was never there in the first place. Plus, the file he provided was a panorama that was stitched together from, IIRC, three separate files, each being (if my math is correct) a JPEG of only about 2.2 mb. IOW, even though the file was 6.5mb the information it contained was about like a 2.2mb JPEG ... does that make sense? In my case, the file starts out as a 16-bit, 120mb or more TIFF, and remains so throughout the editing process until converted to an 8-bit file just before being printed. Had I stitched together three files, as Bob did, the total file size would be closer to 180mb. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: David Mann Bob's file was a jpeg - 5000x3000 pixels (as he mentioned) is a pretty decent-sized file. That'd be 43Mb as an 8-bit tiff.
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
I should add that 43 megabyte is not very high resolution at 24 x 36. What Shel cites here -- 180 met, 8 bit -- is much more appropriate for a print of that size. Paul On Dec 6, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone. Converting it back to a TIFF won't help it - or will it? In Bob's case, all he shoots are JPEG's, so the info was never there in the first place. Plus, the file he provided was a panorama that was stitched together from, IIRC, three separate files, each being (if my math is correct) a JPEG of only about 2.2 mb. IOW, even though the file was 6.5mb the information it contained was about like a 2.2mb JPEG ... does that make sense? In my case, the file starts out as a 16-bit, 120mb or more TIFF, and remains so throughout the editing process until converted to an 8-bit file just before being printed. Had I stitched together three files, as Bob did, the total file size would be closer to 180mb. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: David Mann Bob's file was a jpeg - 5000x3000 pixels (as he mentioned) is a pretty decent-sized file. That'd be 43Mb as an 8-bit tiff.
Re: First DA 12-24 Shot
Thanks Danilo. I changed the tonality to match the actual color of the room. There was too much yellow in the original, which moved the carpet color more toward green. I have to be accurate here. The umbrella is now history :-). Paul On Dec 6, 2005, at 4:25 AM, danilo wrote: Ohh you also added a nice umbrella in the mirror, good choice!! lol I liked the carpet color of the original, something that went lost in the workflow... anyway, even if interiors doesn't excite me, especially nude ones (without people, that is), I can imagine your on a magazine. I'm talking about the last version one. Cheers, Danilo.
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
Paul Stenquist wrote: When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff is restored along with all of the resolution. The 6.5mb jpeg will produce the same resolution as the 43 meg tiff. Some information will be lost. It will probably not be detectable to the human eye if the jpeg wasn't saved repeatedly. Paul I must interject here...to see if I have been misunderstanding a concept. It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image. That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it that creates small losses which accumulate and soon become noticeable. IOW, don't manipulate a jpeg and you won't suffer image degradation. True or not true? Thanks, keith whaley
Re: East Africa
- Original Message - From: Jon Paul Schelter Subject: GESO: East Africa Hi everyone, I've returned from my trip to East africa, I managed to do just about everything I wanted to - safaris, climbing Kilimanjaro, diving in Zanzibar. I'm trying to put together a bit of a web site, my hope is to use the GPS track overlaid on top of a Google maps page, and linked to my photos and log entries.. but that might take a while for me to set up. In the meantime, I bought a domain, and I've got a bit of a place-holder there, with a few of the photos that I've managed to sort through - take a look if you're interested, I'd love to hear some feedback. http://forksandhope.com/Africa.html Cool pictures. I hope you don't mind, I lifted a few for wallpaper. William Robb
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
- Original Message - From: keith_w Subject: Re: Big Print (24x36 inches) It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image. That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it that creates small losses which accumulate and soon become noticeable. IOW, don't manipulate a jpeg and you won't suffer image degradation. True or not true? True. Opening a jpeg file for viewing then closing it doesn't change the file. Opening a jpeg file then saving it when closing can change the file, since it is then being recompressed. William Robb
Re: Photo scanner vs real film scanner?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way - DSLR's cost no more than a film scanner. If you choose a Pentax, you may still use you analog lenses for the next 5-10 years. Jens Bladt === Good advice. Scanning is a PITA. Actually, DSLRs do cost quite a bit more than something like the Minolta Dual scanners, and scanners are also easier to get hold of 2nd hand at reasonable prices. And some of the photo flatbeds cost next to nothing. But I see your point. I certainly wouldn't consider going via a scanner if I wanted *all* my images in (high-quality) digital form. However, I'm mostly happy with film, and want to do digital processing on only a small subset of the pictures (if any)... And I'm still waiting for the digital, full-frame sensor, MZ-5n of course ;-) - Toralf
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
Of course the initial compression causes some minor loss as well. On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:17 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: keith_w Subject: Re: Big Print (24x36 inches) It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image. That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it that creates small losses which accumulate and soon become noticeable. IOW, don't manipulate a jpeg and you won't suffer image degradation. True or not true? True. Opening a jpeg file for viewing then closing it doesn't change the file. Opening a jpeg file then saving it when closing can change the file, since it is then being recompressed. William Robb
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:08 AM, keith_w wrote: I must interject here...to see if I have been misunderstanding a concept. It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image. That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it that creates small losses which accumulate and soon become noticeable. IOW, don't manipulate a jpeg and you won't suffer image degradation. True or not true? True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it recompresses the data, with commensurate loss. However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in Photoshop) the loss will be minimal. You can resave JPEGs saved at 12 several times before the loss becomes evident. Bob
Re: 360 dpi
Another point about JPEG is that if you rotate a JPEG and resave you will be losing information. There are some applications that can rotate and save JPEGs with no loss. ACDSee is one example. Bob
RE: Peso:Norm and Audrey's 50th
Unfortunatly, i think it was needed. Pretty dark room. However i did not notice until after, that i was in CW mode and i used the pop up, as i forgot my Sigma. I think that mat be why its harsh. I did try and lessen the light in PS but i quess not enough. It look not to bad on the laptop screen, but i quess i should plug into a proper monitor and readjust. Dave Hi Dave I'm wondering if you really needed flash for these pics. The light looks so harsh, and the shadows don't add much to the photos either. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Dave Brooks http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=view¤t=pipes.jpg http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/divad_b/?action=view¤t=couple.jpg
Re: PAW: Zion Canyon from Angels Landing
Hi Tom, Lovely composition Peter. Like Bruce, I'd wish it to be a little more sharp. Did you do any unsharp masking at all? no, I didn't. Original slide is quite sharp, though. :-) Thank you for your comment. Bedo.
Re: PAW: Zion Canyon from Angels Landing
Hi Godfrey, Lovely photo, excellent composition. It's the kind of photo that is best seen in a large print; at this rendering size, it seems a touch soft. thank you, it certainly does look better when projected using my slide projector (about 60x40 inch) ;-) BTW Do you see any improvements in the color rendition in comparison with my last PAW? This time I didn't change a bit on my PC so it should be at least ColorSync managed Bedo.
Sigma DC 10-20 for Pentax is coming
Finally - for lovers of UW angles on DSLR: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120601sigma_10-20mm.asp At last it will be available in K mount. For all these for whom DA 12-24 is not wide enough :-) -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Sony's at it again.
William Robb wrote: At least this time, they may have a point. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000message=16139935 Their reasoning is a big pile of crap. If you want to stop people from confusing two different kinds of battery, make them a different shape! They admit what I suspect is the real reason though - locking their competitors out of the spares market. Or possibly the existence of spare batteries threatens the planned obselescence of their products... S
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
How does the fact that Bob combined three smaller-sized JPEGs to make the 6.5mb panorama effect the picture. Essentially he was printing three 2.2mb quality JPEGs, just all together, or is my reasoning flawed? And what does stitching together three JPEG files do to the information contained in those files? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Rob Studdert Just looking at a typical image of mine with high detail and saved as a 16bit tiff has a 67MB file size, converted to 8bit and saved as best quality jpeg it ends up at 5.4MB. I'd hazard a guess that if both files were printed at the optimum print resolution and colour space they would likely be indistinguishable on all but the very best of todays printers.
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
But Bob used three smaller JPEGs stitched together to arrive at a total figure of 6.5mb. That's not quite the same as a single file of 6.5mb, and, as I asked before, it would seem that the effective amount of information in the large, combined file is the equivalent of 2.2mb or so. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: David Mann Looking at the typical compression ratios I've been getting with my web pics, a 43Mb TIFF reduced to 6.5Mb JPEG would be pretty good. Hopefully the printers didn't try making major adjustments to the JPEG...
Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question
Hi Gang. I did a Google on this but came up empty. Boz's site just mentions the clamp but no details. So. Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the lens. I know what the focus range knob does.(if it does what the Nikon lens does, then yes.LOL) Thanks for any assistance. Dave
Re: Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question
Dave, Tightening it gives greater resistance for manual focusing. It should be loose for auto focusing. Hi Gang. I did a Google on this but came up empty. Boz's site just mentions the clamp but no details. So. Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the lens. I know what the focus range knob does.(if it does what the Nikon lens does, then yes.LOL) Thanks for any assistance. Dave
Re: Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the lens. I don't have it, but have you tried http://www.pentaxusa.com/? Regards, Kostas
Re: Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question
It just increase friction a bit. Jostein - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 10:20 AM Subject: Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question Hi Gang. I did a Google on this but came up empty. Boz's site just mentions the clamp but no details. So. Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the lens. I know what the focus range knob does.(if it does what the Nikon lens does, then yes.LOL) Thanks for any assistance. Dave
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
On 6 Dec 2005 at 6:17, Shel Belinkoff wrote: How does the fact that Bob combined three smaller-sized JPEGs to make the 6.5mb panorama effect the picture. Essentially he was printing three 2.2mb quality JPEGs, just all together, or is my reasoning flawed? And what does stitching together three JPEG files do to the information contained in those files? Interesting question. Well your logic isn't too bad it's just that there are some parameters missing from the equation that we can only guess. Assuming the images overlapped by 50% then the maximum print area could only be 2x not 3x assuming better than ideal. Of course the overlap could be as little as 10% but we don't know at this point. When images are stitched they are transformed to conform to the type of projection required. In these transformations data is lost at the top and bottom of the frame so generally a stitched image needs to be cropped top and bottom in order to remove these transform anomalies, so the overall image will end up becoming slightly narrower. A side effect of a small overlap is the need to crop the edges to a greater extent. Also of course the image may have been cropped further to optimise the composition. Of course there are probably other factors but you get the idea. The composite file hasn't likely one pixel where it was in the original file after all each image has been geometrically transformed to integrate with the adjacent image and then the areas that overlap have been subjected to blending. It might all sound a little impure but the results are often stunning. 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: A Cappuccino and the Paper
Doh! Of course! Shouldn't comment on photos in the morning, afternoon, or evening, I guess... But, surely you mean the left 1/4? I wouldn't want to crop out any of the bike. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: PAW: People Portraits 2005 #47 - GDG
Very intriguing, Godfrey, but maybe a little -too- long an exposure. It took a while to realize that those weren't just two black smudges on the floor--or maybe that's just my slow brain. Rick --- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back from NY and processing about 250 or so pictures made with the LX1 as well as Pentax DS ... takes time! Some of these photos are proving to be a lot of fun. Hope you like this one... http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm Comments, critique, flames all appreciated. enjoy Godfrey __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Raw Shooter Premium
Yes it can apparently -- 90 degrees at a time. I found this by mistake. You need to make a lot of mistakes to find out how this program works. Of course you could read the manual, which, despite being written very well, is incomplete. Don [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don spoke: Raw Shooter can do a hell of a lot. But can it rotate an image further than 45 degrees? If it can, would someone mind enlightening me as to how? It even seems to ingore any in-camera rotation. Ciao, Peter in Sydney -- 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
Retouching Photos in Photoshop
I received a pointer to this site recently. For those of us who often have to retouch or adjust photos, this looks like a good place to visit to read about retouching problems and their solutions, and to ask questions. http://www.retouchpro.com/ Shel
Re: Re: Yet another enablement.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/12/06 Tue AM 11:46:20 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Yet another enablement. - Original Message - From: Cesar Subject: Re: Yet another enablement. Ahhh but Bill you know that deep in your heart you are not innocent. This goes beyond your commentary and remarks on Grandfather Mountain :-) Had I been drinking? I can't take responsibility for my mouth after a couple of beers. Or even a cup of coffee, it seams. Cable stitch or blanket? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Yet another enablement.
oh, man. can I be evil too? William Robb wrote: This list is very bad. You are all bad people. Anyway, based on comments I have read, the A* 85/1.4 is a pretty decent lens. I managed to snag what appears to be a nice one off eBay. I had thought, right up until the last moment that I would get it for a nice price too, but it was not to be. I blame this one on Cotty, Bob S, Fred Wasti and Rob Studdert. You are evil men, the lot of you. William Robb
Re: Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question
Thanks Jostein, Tom and Kosta Now to fid a flower.g GFM look out. Dave It just increase friction a bit. Jostein - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 10:20 AM Subject: Clamp Knob on FA 100 Macro question Hi Gang. I did a Google on this but came up empty. Boz's site just mentions the clamp but no details. So. Can someone fill me in on what the clamp knob does on the lens. I know what the focus range knob does.(if it does what the Nikon lens does, then yes.LOL) Thanks for any assistance. Dave
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
When Velvia first came out, I tried a roll or two. As it happened, I caught a scene that sold well. Resolution was impressive, but the color tones, gosh. I recall the agony of instruction to the pro-lab each time I needed a print. ..and get rid of the burgundy/purple soil and rocks..etc. and knock down that frozen-pea grass color.. Was a relief when I later applied PS and burned a disc with colors that didn't make me nauseous. Pumped colors are one thing, but the Velvia world is another spectrum. Jack --- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched For once I agree with Pal... It's always been my contention that Velvia looks closer to the way I remember the scene than other films (I'm talking about nature/landscape). It's not a good skin-tone film from what I've experienced. People seem to universally comment 'but the picture doesn't do it justice'. I think Velvia puts that punch back in that makes up for the difference between what my eyes saw and what the phototgraphic rendition is. In addition, I think many times the comparisons between Velvia and other films are made w/o the benefit of viewing the exact same image on the films in question, and w/o the benefit of having witnessed the original scene. Velvia always reminds me of the way things looked on Purple Haze trips. It's a form of reality I quite enjoyed. William Robb __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Sony's at it again.
From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/12/06 Tue PM 02:04:21 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Sony's at it again. William Robb wrote: At least this time, they may have a point. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000message=16139935 Their reasoning is a big pile of crap. If you want to stop people from confusing two different kinds of battery, make them a different shape! They admit what I suspect is the real reason though - locking their competitors out of the spares market. Or possibly the existence of spare batteries threatens the planned obselescence of their products... They have been doing this for years. I don't think I have ever seen a pattern Sony spare. I can't (easily) buy genuine ones because I am not an authorised repairer. My choice is to get all work done by authorised Sony agents or not buy Sony products. Anyone care to guess my choice? m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PAW: Zion Canyon from Angels Landing
On Dec 6, 2005, at 5:50 AM, Peter Lacus wrote: BTW Do you see any improvements in the color rendition in comparison with my last PAW? This time I didn't change a bit on my PC so it should be at least ColorSync managed It's somewhat difficult to be specific, but this one looks pretty good on my calibrated screen. Godfrey
Re: Retouching Photos in Photoshop
Some of that stuff is appalling. Don Shel Belinkoff wrote: I received a pointer to this site recently. For those of us who often have to retouch or adjust photos, this looks like a good place to visit to read about retouching problems and their solutions, and to ask questions. http://www.retouchpro.com/ Shel -- 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: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Jack Davis wrote: When Velvia first came out, I tried a roll or two. As it happened, I caught a scene that sold well. Resolution was impressive, but the color tones, gosh. I recall the agony of instruction to the pro-lab each time I needed a print. ..and get rid of the burgundy/purple soil and rocks..etc. and knock down that frozen-pea grass color.. Was a relief when I later applied PS and burned a disc with colors that didn't make me nauseous. Pumped colors are one thing, but the Velvia world is another spectrum. While not intrigued to shoot it (I don't do slides *at all*), I am very curious to see a characteristic sample, if one is available. TIA, Kostas
Re: Sony's at it again.
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:10 AM, mike wilson wrote: At least this time, they may have a point. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp? forum=1000message=16139935 Their reasoning is a big pile of crap. If you want to stop people from confusing two different kinds of battery, make them a different shape! They admit what I suspect is the real reason though - locking their competitors out of the spares market. Or possibly the existence of spare batteries threatens the planned obselescence of their products... They have been doing this for years. I don't think I have ever seen a pattern Sony spare. I can't (easily) buy genuine ones because I am not an authorised repairer. My choice is to get all work done by authorised Sony agents or not buy Sony products. Anyone care to guess my choice? Not to be an advocate for Sony... I had three Sony digital cameras and traveled with them extensively. They took a Li-Ion battery that I was able to find both Sony and third party replacements for all over the US, in Japan, in the UK and Europe. Even on the Isle of Man. Nearly every electronics/video store carried them. Godfrey
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it recompresses the data, with commensurate loss. However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in Photoshop) the loss will be minimal. You can resave JPEGs saved at 12 several times before the loss becomes evident. Bob === Where do you get this 12 times figure? When I was working with graphic files, admittedly not photographs, it seemed to me there was a degradation after the second resave. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Retouching Photos in Photoshop
What do you find appalling? The site covers many aspects of retouching, adjustments, and manipulation, a lot of it applicable to the work many of us do on our own photos. While some of the images may not be your cup of tea you have to remember that Photoshop is used for may types of images, from simple BW photos to highly stylized creations. I found the tutorials to be of interest, and some of the challenges were, if nothing else, good learning experiences. http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/ Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Don Williams Some of that stuff is appalling. Don Shel Belinkoff wrote: I received a pointer to this site recently. For those of us who often have to retouch or adjust photos, this looks like a good place to visit to read about retouching problems and their solutions, and to ask questions. http://www.retouchpro.com/
Re: Re: Sony's at it again.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/12/06 Tue PM 03:23:08 GMT To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Sony's at it again. On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:10 AM, mike wilson wrote: At least this time, they may have a point. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp? forum=1000message=16139935 Their reasoning is a big pile of crap. If you want to stop people from confusing two different kinds of battery, make them a different shape! They admit what I suspect is the real reason though - locking their competitors out of the spares market. Or possibly the existence of spare batteries threatens the planned obselescence of their products... They have been doing this for years. I don't think I have ever seen a pattern Sony spare. I can't (easily) buy genuine ones because I am not an authorised repairer. My choice is to get all work done by authorised Sony agents or not buy Sony products. Anyone care to guess my choice? Not to be an advocate for Sony... I had three Sony digital cameras and traveled with them extensively. They took a Li-Ion battery that I was able to find both Sony and third party replacements for all over the US, in Japan, in the UK and Europe. Even on the Isle of Man. Nearly every electronics/video store carried them. I probably wasn't being clear enough that I was writing about repair parts, not consumables. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PAW: Zion Canyon from Angels Landing
In a message dated 12/5/2005 2:37:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.misenet.sk/USA/AL.html Bredo. == Nice shot! You got it from a good location to see down the canyon. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
It's not 12 times. It's 12 level jpeg quality. When you save a jpeg in photoshop, the save screen allowes you to choose a quality number. 12 is the maximum quality possible. It provides less compression than a lower number but with commensurately less degradation. Paul In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it recompresses the data, with commensurate loss. However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in Photoshop) the loss will be minimal. You can resave JPEGs saved at 12 several times before the loss becomes evident. Bob === Where do you get this 12 times figure? When I was working with graphic files, admittedly not photographs, it seemed to me there was a degradation after the second resave. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
In a message dated 12/6/2005 7:39:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not 12 times. It's 12 level jpeg quality. When you save a jpeg in photoshop, the save screen allowes you to choose a quality number. 12 is the maximum quality possible. It provides less compression than a lower number but with commensurately less degradation. Paul == Aha, my mistake, read too quickly. Thanks. Probably my eyes were okay then, back when I was working on graphic files and decided to save everything as a PSD until I printed. (Actually PaintShop format, but same diff.) Marnie aka Doe My bad. ;-)
Re: PESO: Self portrait about family matters
In a message dated 12/5/2005 1:10:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any critique welcome http://mishka.site.co.il/gallery/albums/25November2005/Canonet_TriX400_14.jpg -- Yours Michael = Just me being weird -- I find the box high up on the wall distracting -- my eye goes bang right to it. So I'd crop it out since it's not the real center of interest. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
Over on the Adobe Photoshop User to User forum the question of image degradation with JPEGs came up. One of the Photoshop wizards posted a test that actually showed how many pixels changed or were lost each time a JPEG was resaved. There were changes and loss of information with ~every~ save. Bob said the loss would be minimal and that one would have to save several times before the loss becomes evident. That's not quite the same thing as there being no loss. However, I firmly believe some people can see smaller amounts of image degradation a lot easier than others. Once again, depending on the image details, the loss may be more or less obvious. Viewing the files @ 100%, or making large prints, will show these losses a lot more than viewing web-sized images or making smaller prints - but we all know that. You are, of course, absolutely correct that he loss exists with every save, although it's not always the same amount of loss. I think the first resave loses the most information, and subsequent saves lose a smaller percentage (based on the specific test shown on the User to User forum). The 12 figure is not the number of times an image is saved. Twelve in this case is a quality setting in Photoshop. When using the Save As function there are twelve quality levels at which a file can be saved, with twelve being the highest quality. Using Save for Web there are 100 levels of quality that can be chosen. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it recompresses the data, with commensurate loss. However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in Photoshop) the loss will be minimal. You can resave JPEGs saved at 12 several times before the loss becomes evident. Bob === Where do you get this 12 times figure? When I was working with graphic files, admittedly not photographs, it seemed to me there was a degradation after the second resave. Marnie aka Doe
Re: OT - Epson Picturemate Printer
On 12/6/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Epson Picturemate - anyone have one? yes Like it? Yes Thanks. You're welcome :-) Cheers, Cotty cheers 2 W. (err, don't really have much more to say about it :-). Anything special you want to know? ) -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
Re: PAW: People Portraits 2005 #47 - GDG
In a message dated 12/5/2005 5:13:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm Comments, critique, flames all appreciated. enjoy Godfrey Nice. Rather like it. I've been told how this can be done, but haven't tried it yet. The pattern on the floor makes it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it recompresses the data, with commensurate loss. However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in Photoshop) the loss will be minimal. You can resave JPEGs saved at 12 several times before the loss becomes evident. Bob === Where do you get this 12 times figure? When I was working with graphic files, admittedly not photographs, it seemed to me there was a degradation after the second resave. Marnie aka Doe I didn't say a word about saving twelve times. 12 is the number used in Photoshop to designate the highest quality JPEG. Bob
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
In a message dated 12/6/2005 7:55:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the first resave loses the most information, and subsequent saves lose a smaller percentage (based on the specific test shown on the User to User forum). The 12 figure is not the number of times an image is saved. Twelve in this case is a quality setting in Photoshop. When using the Save As function there are twelve quality levels at which a file can be saved, with twelve being the highest quality. Using Save for Web there are 100 levels of quality that can be chosen. Shel === Yeah, Paul corrected me re 12. I think you could be right re the first resave. It always seemed that way to me. It does make a difference how many colors there are in the graphic/photo and how many plain areas and detailed areas, etc. I felt I could always see some degradation with every resave. Of course, I was also zooming in and sometimes working pixel by pixel on some area. It becomes pretty obvious when you do that. Basically, the work flow when working with JPEGs is save them as PSDs and work on that instead. That way there is no resave as a JPEG. Whatever, you know that, most know that. Personally, I find JPEGs somewhat to highly annoying. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: PAW: People Portraits 2005 #47 - GDG
In a message dated 12/5/2005 5:13:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm Comments, critique, flames all appreciated. enjoy Godfrey Nice. Rather like it. I've been told how this can be done, but haven't tried it yet. The pattern on the floor makes it. Marnie aka Doe Obviously i'm missing something here. What is being done here. Sorry Godfrey. Dave
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:01:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I didn't say a word about saving twelve times. 12 is the number used in Photoshop to designate the highest quality JPEG. Bob Been corrected on this twice now. :-) Make that three times. Wrote a post too quickly. So much to read, so much to process. Do that sometimes. Old keyboard in mouth, that's me. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: PESO: A Cappuccino and the Paper
In a message dated 12/4/2005 8:49:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673 Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance. cheers, frank == Whoa, frank! That's a real arty photo. No criticisms. I like it very much. Marnie aka Doe
Results of my mini flash poll
Several flash users responded to my poll last week. Every one but me seems to have success in M, Tv, Av, and Green modes. Both with Pentax and Sigma flashes. Looks like it's just me screwing up again/still.:-( Thanks to those that answered. Carry on. Sir backing into a corner
Re: PAW: The Dave Young Quartet, Take 2
In a message dated 11/29/2005 11:41:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3910767size=lg I when I left my house that morning, I had no idea that I'd be catching this concert that afternoon; I was completely unprepared for shooting low-light that day. I had a fresh roll of HP5+ that I pushed two stops, but I'd have rather shot that with an LX/K f1.2 50mm and a roll of Neopan 1600 pushed to 3200. But, under those difficult conditions, I'm pretty satisfied with this one (much more than the last one that I posted of this concert). Thanks for looking and commenting (should you choose to). cheers, frank Nice frank. Not your best, but not bad. I'd be tempted to crop off the light on the left (and the wall line) and see if it doesn't improve it. I like the sax player. I might, also, like just a crop of him alone. Really behind on my PESO comments, been busy, so being selective. Marnie aka Doe
Re: comments on using an iPod to store photos
At those transfer rates, using an IPod would be very painful and not usable for me - I have events where the card needs to be used again in 10-15 minutes. My CompactDrive transfers a gigabyte in a few minutes. And it will transfer at least 10 gigabytes per battery charge. Thanks for the report, it helps to know real world experiences with equipment. Seems the IPod would do in a pinch, but certainly not a day in - day out device. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, December 5, 2005, 10:41:55 PM, you wrote: JPS As I just mentioned, I went to Kenya and Tanzania for a month... JPS The gear that I brought with me was: JPS Pentax *ist DS JPS 2 1G SD cards JPS Many AA rechargeables, 2 sets of disposable CRV3s JPS A-50 f1.4 JPS Tamron 70-300 JPS 18-55 JPS 30G iPod video JPS The iPod worked well enough, but it has 2 fatal flaws JPS 1 - the battery is only good for writing about 800MB.. and that takes JPS about 30 minutes. Still, with car and universal chargers, and 2 SD JPS cards, I could shoot all day and transfer to the iPod at night. JPS 2 - you have to transfer an entire roll of photos, then immediately JPS delete them from the card. The iPod isn't smart enough to know that it JPS is already storing a photo. JPS The damn thing scared the crap out of me on a few occaisions (when wall JPS power was bad, temperature was high, or ?) by either crashing, claiming JPS that _it_ held no photos, or claiming that the camera was empty. JPS Resetting the iPod and/or allowing it to cool fixed the problem every JPS time, but the first couple times this happened I was a little tense. JPS I was concerned that the camera's battery would be run down by JPS transferring directly from the camera to the iPod, but with AA JPS rechargables, it wasn't really an issue. JPS Would I recommend using an iPod for a similar trip? Maybe, but an JPS external battery with a dock connector, camera connector or card reader JPS would be preferable to the apple iPod Camera Connector. JPS http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=M9861G/A JPS JP
Re: PESO PAW - Blue in my Lap
In a message dated 12/4/2005 9:56:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blue is my friend Linda's cat. He's an affectionate Maine Coon. One afternoon he was especially friendly, and made himself at home in my lap for a while. Grabbed this with the little Sony DSC-S85. http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/blue/lap1.html Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax Much better than the average cat pic, Shel. Very nice. Surprised you didn't do a BW conversion though. Or you like that salmon/purple color. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: GESO: Harpist
I didn't comment on this before but I agree whole heartedly with Paul. Paul Stenquist wrote: I like the framing and composition of the first two as well. However, I think in this case that the grain is too harsh and prominent. It renders the flesh tones unpleasant. Since detail isn't critical here, a little gaussian blur might make these much more attractive. On Dec 6, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Tom C wrote: Hi Rick, I like the first two... both are very nice and I would hope that the musician would ask you for prints of them. Well done! The third composition, pardon me for saying, makes her look a little like a caged animal... it feels like she's about to pick up that harp and jam it down my throat. It may be the way the strings intersect her eyes and teeth. :) Tom C. From: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GESO: Harpist Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:34:05 -0800 (PST) Last year, I posted a photo of a harpist friend along with some other shots from a musical soiree. This year I tried a few more, with a bit more light on the subject. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=549685 PZ-1p, FA 24-90, Kodak P3200, spot metered off her face; exposures were generally f/4-5.6 at 1/30-1/60. Negs scanned on my Epson RX500, minimal processing in PE2. Comments invited. Rick __ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
True. keith_w wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff is restored along with all of the resolution. The 6.5mb jpeg will produce the same resolution as the 43 meg tiff. Some information will be lost. It will probably not be detectable to the human eye if the jpeg wasn't saved repeatedly. Paul I must interject here...to see if I have been misunderstanding a concept. It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image. That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it that creates small losses which accumulate and soon become noticeable. IOW, don't manipulate a jpeg and you won't suffer image degradation. True or not true? Thanks, keith whaley -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Results of my mini flash poll
Apparently, some flashes working rather bad on the D (e.g. AF500FTZ) work well on the DS. The DS also works flawlessly with the AF400FTZ (not yet tried on the D). Dario - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:24 PM Subject: Results of my mini flash poll Several flash users responded to my poll last week. Every one but me seems to have success in M, Tv, Av, and Green modes. Both with Pentax and Sigma flashes. Looks like it's just me screwing up again/still.:-( Thanks to those that answered. Carry on. Sir backing into a corner
Re: GESO: Last hurrah with my LX and film?
In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:41:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.westerickson.net/gmb2005/ Let me know what you think! --Mark = Interesting group of photos. Really like the first one, also like the cornice. But I was very put off by the display technique. After the first two, I think it was, I lost the thumbnails and there was no scroll down bar so I could get at them -- so I had no control over what I saw. It also took too long, so I skipped seeing the last two to three close up. Good photos / bad display. HTH, Marnie aka Doe
Re: GESO: East Africa
Thanks David, it was a great trip. I didn't actually lay out the images, I just threw them all up in a line.. just a place-holder for a few people who wanted to see the pics. The text is just the start of my transcribing of my travel log. jp David Mann wrote: On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Jon Paul Schelter wrote: http://forksandhope.com/Africa.html I don't have the time to read the text or look at all of the bigger photos, but there are some nice photos in there. The kitty pics are fine art by definition. The others I really like are (in no particular order): the Kilimanjaro Saddle Serengeti Sunrise And the balloon. Must have been a fantastic trip! BTW the layout of the images is a little trashed on my browser (Safari) - some photos seem to be stuck underneath others. My ancient version of Explorer works fine. - Dave
Re: PESO (s) Thanksgiving.
In a message dated 11/24/2005 11:40:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 == We have a lot of those not for dinners running around here. Sometimes 20-30 at a time. Turkeys actually make some noise, so they are a bit annoying. Not as bad as a rooster, though. Marnie aka Doe
RE: Re Paw: Blue in my lap
Hi Dave Thanks for your kind comments. I know you like cats, and, FWIW, I have one of your cat pics saved on my computer. It's the one of your little tortoise shell in amongst the branches of a Christmas tree and surrounded by some decorations. It's so nice to look at every now and then ;-)) Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax Thanks for letting me know. I like that shot to. It won a 2nd place in Something Funny catagory at the fair. Tree is going up this weekend. I';ll have the camera ready again.LOL Dave and Boo
Re: Yet another enablement.
It depends can you afford to purchase the stovepipe hat and Snidely Whiplash mustache? Doug Brewer wrote: oh, man. can I be evil too? William Robb wrote: This list is very bad. You are all bad people. Anyway, based on comments I have read, the A* 85/1.4 is a pretty decent lens. I managed to snag what appears to be a nice one off eBay. I had thought, right up until the last moment that I would get it for a nice price too, but it was not to be. I blame this one on Cotty, Bob S, Fred Wasti and Rob Studdert. You are evil men, the lot of you. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO: Just a tile
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:34:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/239824. The single element lens was involved here... But no image manipulation otherwise... Have your say please! Boris It's an interesting optical illusion on the tiles, but one I've seen before. So, sorry, Boris, overall it doesn't do much for me. Maybe you ought to try a BW conversion to make it even less obvious where the shot came from. Marnie
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
12 isn't the number of times, it refers to the Quality, (at least in Photoshop there are 12 distinct quality settings for saving jpegs). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it recompresses the data, with commensurate loss. However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in Photoshop) the loss will be minimal. You can resave JPEGs saved at 12 several times before the loss becomes evident. Bob === Where do you get this 12 times figure? When I was working with graphic files, admittedly not photographs, it seemed to me there was a degradation after the second resave. Marnie aka Doe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:54:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 12 isn't the number of times, it refers to the Quality, (at least in Photoshop there are 12 distinct quality settings for saving jpegs). === I wonder how many times I will be corrected before this disappears into cyberspace. Be a tad interesting. But only a tad. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: PAW - Stream Near Glentui
In a message dated 12/5/2005 1:07:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I decided it was about time to post another photo. I've been scanning quite a bit of older stuff lately and this is one of the few I thought was reasonably presentable :) http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=144t=1 - Dave === I rather like that. But I am sort of a sucker for what appears to be secluded areas in nature -- i.e. hidden gardens. The rock and black gap above it are a bit dead center, but other than that I rather like it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO: Our local swamp
In a message dated 11/21/2005 2:12:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Our local swamp: http://leende.dse.nl/peso.htm I hope you like it. Jack === Doesn't do a thing for me, sorry. I think it could be improved with more contrast, or darken highlights in PS though. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
Until everyone who reads your post without reading the rest of the thread logs in. It could be weeks the way some people read the list... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:54:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 12 isn't the number of times, it refers to the Quality, (at least in Photoshop there are 12 distinct quality settings for saving jpegs). === I wonder how many times I will be corrected before this disappears into cyberspace. Be a tad interesting. But only a tad. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Yet another enablement.
It depends can you afford to purchase the stovepipe hat and Snidely Whiplash mustache? nyuh-uh-uhhh Fred
Re: PAW: Waiting for the Bathurst Car
In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:21:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think she was getting exasperated or impatient waiting for the streetcar g: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3923592 Comments are always welcome. Thanks in advance. cheers, frank (who can now use an eye-level viewfinder, which must be good! WooHoo!) = This has a certain charm. Though I could live without the car. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
Bob Shell wrote: On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:08 AM, keith_w wrote: I must interject here...to see if I have been misunderstanding a concept. It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image. That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it that creates small losses which accumulate and soon become noticeable. IOW, don't manipulate a jpeg and you won't suffer image degradation. True or not true? True. Closing a JPEG does not alter it in any way. Saving it recompresses the data, with commensurate loss. However, if you always save JPEGs at the highest quality (12 in Photoshop) the loss will be minimal. You can resave JPEGs saved at 12 several times before the loss becomes evident. Bob In other words, in your jpeg viewing software, choose File/Close,' instead of File/Save. Makes sense to me. Thank you, gentlemen! keith
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
In a message dated 12/6/2005 9:10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Until everyone who reads your post without reading the rest of the thread logs in. It could be weeks the way some people read the list... === I know. LOL. Good thing I have a good ego. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Language - Britian, England, or United Kingdom?
I am not a pleebian, I am a fr man. And I'm off to work in my Lotus, now. You are Number 6. Tom C. (who won't be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered)
Re: PAW: People Portraits 2005 #47 - GDG
On Dec 6, 2005, at 3:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/47.htm Nice. Rather like it. I've been told how this can be done, but haven't tried it yet. The pattern on the floor makes it. Thanks Marnie, and the others who've responded. Obviously i'm missing something here. What is being done here. Sorry Godfrey. What is there to be sorry about? ;-) It's a kind of shooting that I find very easy to do with these relatively insensitive digicams, a lot harder with more sensitive cameras. A capture of motion and stillness, ghostly images of people in motion. Image stabilization makes it easier too. It's hard to nab just the right moment, but with a digital camera the losers are easy to dispense with. I have another that I'm putting up in a few minutes. Godfrey
Re: 1:59am
In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:02:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been reading this list since 9pm and have finally caught up. 300+ messages. Good night all. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- I delete a lot now. No more marathon sessions for me. The older I get the more I need my sleep. Marnie aka Doe
PESO - The Crosswalk
http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/crosswalk.html Just foolin' around with the istDS Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Sony's at it again.
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:37 AM, mike wilson wrote: I probably wasn't being clear enough that I was writing about repair parts, not consumables. Well, I have never needed a part for a Sony camera, but when I do I always want the genuine parts from Sony anyway. Unless you're a camera repair technician, what does it matter? Godfrey
Re: comments on using an iPod to store photos
The iPod is a music [video] player, not a standalone image storage device except for the most casual use. An Epson P2000 plays music, perfoms video and image presentation on a nice big screen, allows preview inspection of both JPEG and RAW format files, and will download 13-15 full 1G memory cards of images per charge, at about 3 minutes download time per card. For $100 more than the top of the line iPod, it's well worth it. Godfrey
Re: Results of my mini flash poll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several flash users responded to my poll last week. Every one but me seems to have success in M, Tv, Av, and Green modes. Both with Pentax and Sigma flashes. Looks like it's just me screwing up again/still.:-( Thanks to those that answered. Here's my 2 cents, Dave: When I use flash I always have the camera set for manual exposure and the flash set to P-TTL auto. Makes it easy to dial in camera and flash exposure compensation individually. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
Saving a jpeg as a tiff or psd eliminates any further loss of quality during editing. But, yes, you have no more information than was in the jpeg to start with. Normally those 16 bit image files only have 10 or 12 bits of information, but remember that is 4x or 16x the information available in an 8 bit file. However if someone is happy with what they are getting, I repeat myself: Good Enough is good enough. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: But it's not a 43mb TIFF - it's a 6.5mb JPEG. How does a small JPEG turn into a larger TIFF file containing more information? Once a file is a JPEG, the information it contained as a TIFF or PSD is gone. Converting it back to a TIFF won't help it - or will it? In Bob's case, all he shoots are JPEG's, so the info was never there in the first place. Plus, the file he provided was a panorama that was stitched together from, IIRC, three separate files, each being (if my math is correct) a JPEG of only about 2.2 mb. IOW, even though the file was 6.5mb the information it contained was about like a 2.2mb JPEG ... does that make sense? In my case, the file starts out as a 16-bit, 120mb or more TIFF, and remains so throughout the editing process until converted to an 8-bit file just before being printed. Had I stitched together three files, as Bob did, the total file size would be closer to 180mb. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: David Mann Bob's file was a jpeg - 5000x3000 pixels (as he mentioned) is a pretty decent-sized file. That'd be 43Mb as an 8-bit tiff.
Re: Language - Britian, England, or United Kingdom?
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:33:17AM +, mike wilson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/5/2005 1:38:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simple, really. John === But it took a lot of time and effort to put that explanation together. And all they did was laugh at one misspelled word. Pleebians. Marnie aka Doe I am not a pleebian, I am a fr man. And I'm off to work in my Lotus, now. The Lotus has made its way onto the shortlist for my next car, but I have to admit that I'm a little wary of buying one when there isn't a dealer closer than 400 miles away.
Re: Big Print (24x36 inches)
Too the best of my knowledge that is correct, Keith. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- keith_w wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: When you open a jpeg, most of the information from the original tiff is restored along with all of the resolution. The 6.5mb jpeg will produce the same resolution as the 43 meg tiff. Some information will be lost. It will probably not be detectable to the human eye if the jpeg wasn't saved repeatedly. Paul I must interject here...to see if I have been misunderstanding a concept. It has been my understanding that if you only open a jpeg for viewing and close it again, there will be NO degradation to the original image. That it's only manipulating a jpeg image and *then* saving it that creates small losses which accumulate and soon become noticeable. IOW, don't manipulate a jpeg and you won't suffer image degradation. True or not true? Thanks, keith whaley
