Re: Setting White balance to cloudy
On 1/31/06, Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All, > > I have just been reading Bryan Peterson's recent book Understanding Digital > Photography. It is an excellent read and I would highly recommend it. In > one part of his book he recommends setting the white balance on the camera > to cloudy +3 . His reasoning for this is it gives his pictures a lot more > warmth and its like shooting Kodak E100Vs in the fact it gives a lot of > saturation. I'm curious about what '+3' stands for. Is it telling me to set exposure compensation for 3? (Seems a bit high) The advice to set white balance to cloudy is one that several people have recommended within my earshot. I tried it once but it was not a scientific test at all, and when it came time to review my photos, I don't remember there being much of a difference. I do think it's a good idea to play around with ALL your white balance settings. For what it's worth I've also heard a suggestion to set your white balance to fluorescent when shooting sunsets -- gives everything a nice reddish tint, so it makes your sunsets redder. Also something that worked for me was keeping a few funky colours stored in your custom white balance settings to play with. At one point, I had red, blue, and green stored in mine. (I was trying to do a digital version of a harris shutter kind of thing.) I tried out some random shots with them too, and ended up with one that pleased my eyes: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye/16598105/ -- skye
Re: no name
I'll try to isolate some part of it and see if that works. Thanks. Cheers, Gautam On 1/30/06, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam Sarup wrote: > > > Ken is it totally off or do you think something could be > > done to give it some appeal? > > > > Thanks, > > Gautam > > Ken has touched on the reeason for it's lack of appeal, but I think a > clarification might be in order. > Too late with the current image, but for later shots, you might find a > way to increase the depth of field to put the entire carving in focus. > There are a lot of "elements" to that piece of art, and it will only be > interesting to see it in person, or for it to be all in focus. > Even as it is, I found myself finding new interesting objects to look > at, but since they were not quite sharp, interest fades... > > Some subjects are very difficult to portray in a photograph, simply > because of their complexity. This may be one of those. Interesting to > look at in person, but how it affects you then won't be captured on film... > > This may be one of those! > > Just my 2¢ -- > > keith whaley > > > > On 1/28/06, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Sorry, but this has no appeal for me. > >> > >>Kenneth Waller > > > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "Gautam Sarup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Subject: PESO: no name > >> > >> > >> > >>>No name and no Pentax content either. This was shot with an M6 > >>>and 50mm Elmar on Efke KB100 in the San Francisco Chinatown. > >>> > >>>Comments are welcome. > >>> > >>>http://static.flickr.com/42/81380197_98d51dd376_b.jpg > >>> > >>>Cheers, > >>>Gautam > >
Re: Setting White balance to cloudy
I've recently taken a lot of photos in cloudy conditions, particularly in early morning light, and had a fair amount of trouble getting a realistic colour balance. That may be more to do with the morning light than the cloudy conditions but I tend to think that it is a bit of both. I didn't have much luck altering the camera settings to, easily anyway, get a realistic colour balance. Now I shoot RAW and adjust the balance later. Note that I am aiming to get the image to resemble what I see (or saw) fairly closely. Peterson may not be dong that. BUT I don't profess to be expert on colour balance issues! Keith McG Charles Wilson wrote: Dear All, I have just been reading Bryan Peterson's recent book Understanding Digital Photography. It is an excellent read and I would highly recommend it. In one part of his book he recommends setting the white balance on the camera to cloudy +3 . His reasoning for this is it gives his pictures a lot more warmth and its like shooting Kodak E100Vs in the fact it gives a lot of saturation. His chapter certainly got me thinking and i thought I might give it a go with my ist D. But I would be interested on other members of the group opinion on this and to know if anyone has tried it. Regards Charles Wilson Sydney Australia
Re: PESO: no name
Jack, This sculpture is in a shop in the San Francisco Chinatown so there's not much scope for taking time to set up a shot. So far what I've understood is to: 1. Isolate some part (center figures.) 2. Increase the DOF. 3. Increase the exposure to get the figures closer to white. I'll probably head over there this weekend and try again if it's still unsold. Thanks. Cheers, Gautam On 1/31/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam, > I've noticed this thread, but didn't check the content 'til just now. > This is likely not a new thought, but have you tried concentrating on > the center figures, using a small aperture and side lighting to give > depth and definition to their features? > > Jack > > > --- Gautam Sarup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Boris, > > > > I should have exposed one more stop. Thanks to the comments > > here I think the whole thing needs to be redone. Will give it > > another shot when I'm in Chinatown next. > > > > Cheers, > > Gautam > > > > On 1/31/06, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > No name and no Pentax content either. This was shot with an M6 > > > > and 50mm Elmar on Efke KB100 in the San Francisco Chinatown. > > > > > > > > Comments are welcome. > > > > > > > > http://static.flickr.com/42/81380197_98d51dd376_b.jpg > > > > > > Gautam, on my monitor I don't see anything really white... Is this > > the > > > way you intended it? > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > >
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
On Feb 1, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: As to the aesthetics of viewing panoramas ... in general, I find most presentations for anything with a more oblong proportion than about 4:1 very difficult to view on any flat screen in a still- image representation. 3:1 is about my limit, but not just for viewing difficulties. I just don't find ultra-mega-wide formats to be aesthetically pleasing as everything ends up being squashed into one dimension. When I was shooting pans a few years ago I found them very difficult to compose. Last time I went out with a panorama mask in the finder I ended up shooting everything full-frame. The 360-degree viewers that people use are good in a way: they show you a scrollable cropped version of the full image which also loops around at the edges. It's a little closer to "being there". The dynamic cylindrical presentation works pretty well for me, although I'd like to be able to slow it down. It's equivalent to making a very very large/long print and mounting it in a circular display, walking around inside it. For this particular one you can click on the image and drag it back and forth. I found that by accident (and I do like that feature). - Dave http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/ http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: PESO - Soft
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: PESO - Soft Not bad. The effect is pretty good, but not exactly like a soft focus lens. I have seen many attempts with PS to duplicate and have yet to see the same thing. I suspect one issue is that when the picture is taken, the actual depth of the image comes into play with the lens effect. When in PS, you are really working on a 2 dimensional image so have a difficult time simulating the depth. I was going to comment on this earlier today, but was short of time this morning. I believe soft focus lenses are using uncorrected spherical abberation to create the effects that they produce. Interesting. They are very pronounced, thats for sure. I have borrowed one from another list member and will post some pics taken with it and a comparable non-soft lens of the same focal length. If you want to emulate the old portraiture style, then short depth of field combined with spherical abberation is what is required, along with lighting that has a fairly rapid fall off. What do you mean by the last bit, like vignetting? Gaussian blur doesn't really do it. I know, I just use it as a layer to add some scattering effects to the sharp image. Its the closest I can get. Did you see the second pic: http://www.g0nz.com/images/k2softaprox.jpg Its basically a gaussian of the original plus some level adjustment, on top of the original with about 20% opacity or so. I think it came out much better than the first, where I tried to get fancier by trying to upsize the image before blurring, so I would get a kind of ghost effect. I've been leaving the sharpness settings on the camera at their minimum setting, which seems to work as well as modern equipment can for classic portraiture. I have an old 7" Aldis Anistigmat that I bought from Dagor77 a while back. At some point, I hope to mount it to a lens board and see what it does. Apparently, they were the cats ass of portrait lenses in their day. Post some pics when you get around to it! Thanks for looking rg William Robb
Setting White balance to cloudy
Dear All, I have just been reading Bryan Peterson's recent book Understanding Digital Photography. It is an excellent read and I would highly recommend it. In one part of his book he recommends setting the white balance on the camera to cloudy +3 . His reasoning for this is it gives his pictures a lot more warmth and its like shooting Kodak E100Vs in the fact it gives a lot of saturation. His chapter certainly got me thinking and i thought I might give it a go with my ist D. But I would be interested on other members of the group opinion on this and to know if anyone has tried it. Regards Charles Wilson Sydney Australia
Re: Chinese Manfrotto copies?
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: OT: Chinese Manfrotto copies? Take a look at these cheap tripod heads. Aren't they Manfrotto copies? At very low prices! I wonder if this is legal? http://tinyurl.com/7d93q Connection refused when trying to connect to tinyurl.com. I wish people would just paste the damned link, most of the time tinyurl doesn't work. Thats strange Bill. You have frequent problems with tinyurl? I've never run into any. rg William Robb
SV: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Thats right - I almmost forgot. Nike - and others - can get Java here: http://www.sun.com/ For those who believe Java is just for fun or annoyance, I can tell you, that here Java is required for those who want internet banking. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 22:15 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) Maybe he needs Java? Jostein - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:03 PM Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > Sorry 'bout that, Mike. > You must be missig the last part of the URL. > Try this: > http://tinyurl.com/77b3v > Regards > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 10:02 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > I'm just getting blue background, title, some link to the software, > the > picture information and your email link. No picture or link to it. > > PC/2000/NS7.2 > > mike > >> >> From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2006/01/31 Tue AM 07:18:25 GMT >> To: >> Subject: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) >> >> It's winter in Denmark: >> http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html >> >> Regards >> >> Jens Bladt >> http://www.jensbladt.dk >> >> >> >> > > > - > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > > >
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
BTW: There's a big difference between javascript (a pseudo-universal scripting language that is quasi-supported in most modern browsers, modeled on Java language syntax) and Java (an object oriented language with C-language-derivative syntax that loads virtual image applets onto an underlying virtual machine interpreter). Jens' panorama is displayed using a real Java applet. As to the aesthetics of viewing panoramas ... in general, I find most presentations for anything with a more oblong proportion than about 4:1 very difficult to view on any flat screen in a still-image representation. Either there is too much distortion or the image just isn't tall enough, even on a cinema format 20" screen. Some do manage to work well, but they're few and far between. Similarly, scrolling around an image larger than the screen is really bothersome and does not allow one to take the image in as a piece. The dynamic cylindrical presentation works pretty well for me, although I'd like to be able to slow it down. It's equivalent to making a very very large/long print and mounting it in a circular display, walking around inside it. Just some of my thoughts on the topics of discussion in this thread. My system comes with a pretty good Java language interpreter embedded in the OS and integrated with the rest of the applications and tools, so there's very little burden other than the download size of the applet. Godfrey ... who worked for Sun Microsystems for a couple of years, managing the design of one of the Java language platforms, "Java Card" ...
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
neat! it would get me dizzy if I left it running for too long, but i like it. Godfrey On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:18 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: It's winter in Denmark: http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
Re: RE: Porta Web Gallery Creator
Actually its really easy to add more photos and edit other setting in your existing album.
Re: Porta Web Gallery Creator
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: RE: Porta Web Gallery Creator The other thing that's important for me is being able to simply add a photo or two without having to redo the whole process. And it would be nice if the photo could be placed anywhere in the queue. A little hand coding may be needed. Bruce introduced me to BreezeBrowser, which I also liked, and I've customized one of Photoshop's web galleries which now works pretty well for me, except that it won't simply add another photo to the queue. It seems that most of the web page makers don't allow that to be done easily or automatically - at least those with which I'm familiar. The trick is to use the same code over and over again, with just the tags for the html or image changed. For example, inserting an image into the PUG, which I was hand coding, involved putting a new page together using the template, inserting the correct image tag, and the target names for the next and last pages, then altering the tags in the previous and next pages, and inserting a tag into the template for the index page. Often, there were a few empty spaces in the coding, so it was just a matter of inserting the target for the thumb, and the name of the thumb. Nothing too major, to be sure. William Robb
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, 12:51:48, pnstenquist wrote: A fat guy squinting in the sun??? He's my financial advisor; I thought I'd put him to some honest work for a change! I'd just received the lens and wanted a subject for my tests of proper operation. A little softening did him a world of good... Regards, Jim
Re: FA* lens selling advice?
On Feb 1, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: Anything photographic is rarely cheap in Britain. Probably one of the most expensive European countries for photographic equipment - next to Skandinaiva, naturally. I still remember selling my RB67 kit in London for slightly more money than I'd bought it for here in NZ. I'd had it for a couple of years so I was pretty pleased about that :) Then I blew it all on a secondhand FA*400/5.6 from B+H. Cheers, - Dave http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/ http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: P645 and loooong exposures
On Feb 1, 2006, at 5:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used a Pentax K2 to try and take star trails. The silver oxide batteries allowed me just 30 minutes before shutting off. I didn't think the K2 used the battery in "B". Maybe it does, but it'll still work OK without the battery. Cheers, - Dave http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/ http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: lens enablement
I shot both Digital (*istD) and film (MX) with my Tamron. Sold it with the D and am missing it, I'll probably get another one in Canon mount, and maybe another one for the MX (that combination works really well) -Adam Bruce Dayton wrote: You haven't said whether you are using digital or not - might have some bearing. I shoot weddings fairly often. I used to use a Tamron 28-75/2.8, which was quite nice. It took a few spills and is out of alignment and the focus gearing is crunched. Since then I picked up an A 35-105/3.5. I have found it to be an excellent lens and the range has been just a little nicer for me. Before I had to switch quite often to a longer zoom. Now I just have to switch to a wider one and that is much less often. So those are my two suggestions: Pentax A 35-105/3.5 Tamron 28-75/2.8
Re: Porta Web Gallery Creator
Don, Thank you for introducing this program. With practically no imaging experience, I found this program very easy to use with respect to re-sizing, caption placement, and assembly. I took image files straight off the card ran them through the program and voila! A gallery was born. http://patkong.jangness.com/san_mateo_album/ Shel, I found that I could add images after creating the initial gallery AND I could place those images anywhere in the line-up. Pat in SF --- Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just tried Porta, which was recomended in the recent > "Web Page" thread. > Simple, effective and VERY, VERY fast! > It's here: > http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/porta/
Re: lens enablement
You haven't said whether you are using digital or not - might have some bearing. I shoot weddings fairly often. I used to use a Tamron 28-75/2.8, which was quite nice. It took a few spills and is out of alignment and the focus gearing is crunched. Since then I picked up an A 35-105/3.5. I have found it to be an excellent lens and the range has been just a little nicer for me. Before I had to switch quite often to a longer zoom. Now I just have to switch to a wider one and that is much less often. So those are my two suggestions: Pentax A 35-105/3.5 Tamron 28-75/2.8 -- Bruce Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 5:35:10 PM, you wrote: SL> Howdy! SL> I'm considering enabling myself with a new zoom lens or two. While I SL> don't really use zooms that much for my personal photography, I've SL> been offered a handful of wedding jobs and am looking at some faster SL> (f2.8) lenses. Pentax lenses would normally be my choice, but they SL> seem to be expensive and rather hard to find these days. Does anyone SL> have an opinion on zooms in the 24-90mm range (give or take) from SL> Sigma, Tamron and Tokina? SL> -- SL> Scott Loveless SL> http://www.twosixteen.com SL> -- SL> "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: lens enablement
I second Adam's recommendation. I've had my Tamron 28-75 for about a year now, and it's everything he says - excellent color, nice and sharp. Nate liked it so much that I got him one, and he usually prefers primes as well. Here's a sample shot I took with the Tam (not full size, but I can send you one if you'd like): http://sunny16.smugmug.com/gallery/407195 Most of the shots in this gallery are from the Tam (it'll be obvious which ones were fisheye shots instead) http://sunny16.smugmug.com/gallery/590362 Hope that helps! Amita On 1/31/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No question. Tamron SP 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. Small, light, sharp as a tack, > gorgeous colour, good bokeh. The Sigma's 4mm wider and 5mm shorter > FL-wise, but noticably wider and softer wide open (The Sigma's good, but > the Tamron's merely superb). I've no info on the Tokina. > > I sold my 28/2.8 after getting the Tamron. had no need for it with the > better performing Tamron (I had an off-brand 28/2.8, not the SMC) > > -Adam > > > Scott Loveless wrote: > > >Howdy! > > > >I'm considering enabling myself with a new zoom lens or two. While I > >don't really use zooms that much for my personal photography, I've > >been offered a handful of wedding jobs and am looking at some faster > >(f2.8) lenses. Pentax lenses would normally be my choice, but they > >seem to be expensive and rather hard to find these days. Does anyone > >have an opinion on zooms in the 24-90mm range (give or take) from > >Sigma, Tamron and Tokina? > > > >-- > >Scott Loveless > >http://www.twosixteen.com > > > >-- > >"You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > > > > >
RE: Porta Web Gallery Creator
Thanks, Don ... I've DL'd the program and will take it for a test drive in a day or so. I'm not thrilled with the appearance as it is, either in your sample or of the skins shown on the web site, but maybe it can be customized. The other thing that's important for me is being able to simply add a photo or two without having to redo the whole process. And it would be nice if the photo could be placed anywhere in the queue. A little hand coding may be needed. Bruce introduced me to BreezeBrowser, which I also liked, and I've customized one of Photoshop's web galleries which now works pretty well for me, except that it won't simply add another photo to the queue. It seems that most of the web page makers don't allow that to be done easily or automatically - at least those with which I'm familiar. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Don Sanderson > Here Shel, I just grabbed a folder full of .jpgs and ran it through Porta. > Didn't bother to edit, rotate, etc. > Took about 1 minute. > Check out the "LightBox" and "Show all" features to the left of the > thumbnails. > The right and left arrows navigate. > Took about an hour to make 12 galleries and check out the features. > > http://www.dsanderson.com/PortaTest/ > > Don > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:55 PM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: RE: Porta Web Gallery Creator > > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > Have you - or has anyone - put up a few pages made with Porta? > > Got a link? > > > > Although I've not tried this program yet, I'm sometimes amazed at how good > > some of the free programs are. Spybot and Irfanview come immediately to > > mind, but there are a few others that I use as well. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Don Sanderson > > > > > Just tried Porta, which was recomended in the recent > > > "Web Page" thread. > > > Simple, effective and VERY, VERY fast! > > > It's here: > > > http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/porta/ > > > > > > While you're there check out his other stuff, like Barnack: > > > http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/ > > > >
Re: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town)
This one time, at band camp, "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we have no bill > of rights so we have no inalienable rights, and specifically no right of > privacy. Putting it another way, our rights as photographers stem from other > people's lack of rights to prevent us taking photos. My understanding was that persons could be photographed anywhere/anyhow except where there was "a reasonable expectation of privacy". This arose from the guy snapping topless women on the beach. She complained and the guy was arrested. It was dismissed in court due because a person (semi)naked on a public beach could not claim any expectation of privacy. IANAL Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: lens enablement
Gee, Scott, even though it's a fair amount of money, the FA 24-90 is one honey of a lens. I doubt you would find its equal in anything but a set of primes, or maybe the 28-70/2.8 (mucho money!). Rick --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy! > > I'm considering enabling myself with a new zoom lens > or two. While I > don't really use zooms that much for my personal > photography, I've > been offered a handful of wedding jobs and am > looking at some faster > (f2.8) lenses. Pentax lenses would normally be my > choice, but they > seem to be expensive and rather hard to find these > days. Does anyone > have an opinion on zooms in the 24-90mm range (give > or take) from > Sigma, Tamron and Tokina? > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com > > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: lens enablement
No question. Tamron SP 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. Small, light, sharp as a tack, gorgeous colour, good bokeh. The Sigma's 4mm wider and 5mm shorter FL-wise, but noticably wider and softer wide open (The Sigma's good, but the Tamron's merely superb). I've no info on the Tokina. I sold my 28/2.8 after getting the Tamron. had no need for it with the better performing Tamron (I had an off-brand 28/2.8, not the SMC) -Adam Scott Loveless wrote: Howdy! I'm considering enabling myself with a new zoom lens or two. While I don't really use zooms that much for my personal photography, I've been offered a handful of wedding jobs and am looking at some faster (f2.8) lenses. Pentax lenses would normally be my choice, but they seem to be expensive and rather hard to find these days. Does anyone have an opinion on zooms in the 24-90mm range (give or take) from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina? -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
lens enablement
Howdy! I'm considering enabling myself with a new zoom lens or two. While I don't really use zooms that much for my personal photography, I've been offered a handful of wedding jobs and am looking at some faster (f2.8) lenses. Pentax lenses would normally be my choice, but they seem to be expensive and rather hard to find these days. Does anyone have an opinion on zooms in the 24-90mm range (give or take) from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina? -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: OT: Recognize Stroke Symptoms for Fast Action
Thanks Keith, it validates the diagnostic tool. Regards, Bob S. On 1/31/06, Keith McGuinness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But perhaps read these first... > http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/stroke.asp > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52795 > > Keith McG > > Bob Sullivan wrote: > > Received this today and it makes good sense. Bob S. > > > > It only takes a minute to read this- > > > > Recognizing a Stroke > > A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he > > can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick > > was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed an getting to the patient within > > 3 hours which is tough. > > > > RECOGNIZING A STROKE > > > > Thank God for the sense to remember the "3" steps. Read and Learn! > > > > Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, > > the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer brain > > damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke. > > > > Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple > > questions: > > > > 1. *Ask the individual to SMILE. > > > > 2. *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. > > > > 3. *Ask the person to SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. . . It is > > sunny out today). If he or she has trouble with any of these tasks, call > > 9-1-1 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatch! er. > > > > After discovering that a group of non-medical volunteers could identify > > facial weakness, arm weakness and speech problems, researchers urged the > > general public to learn the three questions. They presented their > > conclusions at the American Stroke Association's annual meeting last > > February. Widespread use of this test could result in prompt diagnosis and > > treatment of the stroke and prevent brain damage. > > > > A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 > > people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved. > > > > BE A FRIEND AND SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH AS MANY FRIENDS AS POSSIBLE, > > you could save their lives > > > > > >
Re: Porta Web Gallery Creator
OMG this is the most useful program ever!! I have a website, and I'm running the coppermine gallery php template and it is s slow. I can't believe this is free. I love it! I love PDML!
RE: Porta Web Gallery Creator
Here Shel, I just grabbed a folder full of .jpgs and ran it through Porta. Didn't bother to edit, rotate, etc. Took about 1 minute. Check out the "LightBox" and "Show all" features to the left of the thumbnails. The right and left arrows navigate. Took about an hour to make 12 galleries and check out the features. http://www.dsanderson.com/PortaTest/ Don > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:55 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: Porta Web Gallery Creator > > > Hi Don, > > Have you - or has anyone - put up a few pages made with Porta? > Got a link? > > Although I've not tried this program yet, I'm sometimes amazed at how good > some of the free programs are. Spybot and Irfanview come immediately to > mind, but there are a few others that I use as well. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Don Sanderson > > > Just tried Porta, which was recomended in the recent > > "Web Page" thread. > > Simple, effective and VERY, VERY fast! > > It's here: > > http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/porta/ > > > > While you're there check out his other stuff, like Barnack: > > http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/ > >
RE: Porta Web Gallery Creator
Hi Don, Have you - or has anyone - put up a few pages made with Porta? Got a link? Although I've not tried this program yet, I'm sometimes amazed at how good some of the free programs are. Spybot and Irfanview come immediately to mind, but there are a few others that I use as well. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Don Sanderson > Just tried Porta, which was recomended in the recent > "Web Page" thread. > Simple, effective and VERY, VERY fast! > It's here: > http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/porta/ > > While you're there check out his other stuff, like Barnack: > http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/
Re: *ist D manual
Great, that's good to know. I've only downloaded manuals for older cameras. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Adam Maas > The poor quality ones are only the older ones that pentax had to scan. > The newer ones are just converted to PDF electronically and posted. > Quuality is as good or better than the printed mauals. > > -Adam > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >Have you seen the PDF manuals on the Pentax site. All that I've seen are > >like this wrt quality: > > > >http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/K1000.pdf > > > >I don't think "quality" is a word to describe these files ...
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Ahh, yes - that was a specific reference to Java and assorted other such plug-ins. Thanks for clarifying that. Shel > [Original Message] > From: mike wilson > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Who said it was junk? Who said it is inappropriate to offer it as a PESO? > > If you're implying that I said that, or that anyone here said that, the > > implication is dead wrong, and I am somewhat miffed at the idea that you > > think I said or implied any such thing. In fact, quite the contrary - I > > said it was good work. > > > > Shel > > Someone has miisread this, where you were (I think) talking about java: > == > > I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse > > direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not > > downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a > > corporate computer ... > === > > > > > > > > > >>[Original Message] > >>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: > >>Date: 1/31/2006 11:46:28 AM > >>Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > >> > >>I understand Shel's unhappiness here, but I found Jens' panorama quite > > > > interesting and well done. And I believe it's perfectly appropriate to > > offer it as a PESO. Those who wish to view it will do so. Those who would > > prefer not to look at it. won't. But I think it's wrong to dismiss it as > > "junk." It's not junk.
Porta Web Gallery Creator
Just tried Porta, which was recomended in the recent "Web Page" thread. Simple, effective and VERY, VERY fast! It's here: http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/porta/ While you're there check out his other stuff, like Barnack: http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/ Pretty cool, and all free. ;-) Don
Re: PESO - Soft
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: PESO - Soft William, Why not get an old uncoated M42 Tessar off eBay and use it on your digital? Should have quite the 'old-fashioned' look to it. Real Carl Zeiss Tessars are available in M42 mount pretty regularly on the Bay. I happen to like using my Tachihara.. That and your suggestion never occurred to me. Thanks for the idea. William Robb
Re: PESO - Soft
William Robb wrote: I was going to comment on this earlier today, but was short of time this morning. I believe soft focus lenses are using uncorrected spherical abberation to create the effects that they produce. If you want to emulate the old portraiture style, then short depth of field combined with spherical abberation is what is required, along with lighting that has a fairly rapid fall off. Gaussian blur doesn't really do it. I've been leaving the sharpness settings on the camera at their minimum setting, which seems to work as well as modern equipment can for classic portraiture. I have an old 7" Aldis Anistigmat that I bought from Dagor77 a while back. At some point, I hope to mount it to a lens board and see what it does. Apparently, they were the cats ass of portrait lenses in their day. William Robb William, Why not get an old uncoated M42 Tessar off eBay and use it on your digital? Should have quite the 'old-fashioned' look to it. Real Carl Zeiss Tessars are available in M42 mount pretty regularly on the Bay. -Adam
Re: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town)
Thanks for that Paul - I have on occasion (as reported here last year) stood my ground when challenged taking photos in public. I am well aware of the legal situation, but the fact is that the current hysteria about paedophiles, digital cameras and camera-phones is of such intensity that merely carrying a camera seems to inspire some people to look at one suspiciously! And I'm not about to risk having my camera or my nose busted by some thug who thinks he has a right to enforce some non-existent law about taking pictures in public places. Overall though, I will continue to take pictures of every subject except other people's kids, and let he who dares tell me I can't... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:28 PM Subject: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town) John, In Australia there is basically no restriction at all on who or what you can take photos of if you are on public property. If you are on private property (which includes shopping centres and council owned land) then the property owner has the right to set the rules. A lot of the time the restrictions are a mixture of bluff and ignorance. Remember, we have no bill of rights so we have no inalienable rights, and specifically no right of privacy. Putting it another way, our rights as photographers stem from other people's lack of rights to prevent us taking photos. This link ( http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml ) explains it in more detail and includes copyright too. From reading it, there is no bar to street photography and no model release is required for non-commercial work, including selling prints regardless of how much you are charging. Using someone's image for advertising and the like is different and does require a release. A couple of weeks ago one of the members of the Geelong Camera Club was hassled by the local Police for taking photos of a local chemical refinery at sunset. He stood his ground and the next night the Police Minister was on TV explaining that in fact he was perfectly legal to take photos in public, regardless of the subject. The TV footage then cut to a bunch of camera club members all lined up at the refinery taking photos! One of them had a Pentax 6x7. Having said all of that, there's no point being in the right if it gets you a broken nose from an irate parent. Regards, Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:47 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: My Home Town Some really nice shots there Jens, it looks a nice place to live. Good job you don't live in Brisbane, our local paper reported today that all sorts of people are coming down heavily on photography of children in public places, with even parents having to seek permission to take photos of their own kids if there might be others in shot! The gauleiters are at it again... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: GESO: My Home Town For those who might be interested; here's a slide show of photographs from my home town. Please allow some time for the photographs to load. Warning: A fast internet connection is necessary. Windows (IE) users may press F11 for a full screen. The time for each slide can be adjusted at the right hand side, below the image. All images are shot with a Pentax *ist D, most of them utilizing a SMC Pentax lens. Enjoy: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/newfile.html Sorry for the inconvenience of my using the three "extra" Scandinavian letters Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
Re: focusing screens - thickness?
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Charles Robinson wrote: On Jan 31, 2006, at 14:02, Cory Papenfuss wrote: Called up the camera shop. It was a Minolta X-700. I haven't done a direct comparison, but it seems no less bright than the stock -DS screen. It could even be brighter (and would explain the propensity for the camera to underexpose a bit) I know it doesn't make any sense, but a couple messages I've read have stated that the Katz-Eye screen (which DOES appear brighter in the viewfinder) actually makes the camera OVER expose. If that's the case, it would indicate that your replacement screen is, in fact, a shade darker. I repeat again that I don't know why a brighter screen would cause overexposure... Just saying what I've read. I could see how the matte is brighter, but the prism in the center redirects light away from the center (spot) measurement cell. It's gotta be something like that, because it doesn't make sense to have a brighter screen make the camera overexpose. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: *ist D manual
The poor quality ones are only the older ones that pentax had to scan. The newer ones are just converted to PDF electronically and posted. Quuality is as good or better than the printed mauals. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, Have you seen the PDF manuals on the Pentax site. All that I've seen are like this wrt quality: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/K1000.pdf I don't think "quality" is a word to describe these files ... Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi I'd debate "lesser quality" ... I suspect that if you have a decent printer, printing the manual from a PDF file will prove to be higher quality than the booklet provided by Pentax with the camera. I never use the printed manual however. It's much easier to search the PDF file for information. On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Derby Chang wrote: Or for free, though lesser quality, from the Pentax USA site: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/istD_IB.pdf
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:25:25AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to > have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like > an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, > the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. > > This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup > connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or > which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the > user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that > (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and > clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that > knowledge. It's worse than that - if you have other Javascript applications loaded (such as, for example, the rather nice Yahoo! widgets photoframe) then you get terrible visual artifacts - the panorama window flashes on and off, alternating with your other Javascript-driven display. I find this to be even more annoying (and rather worse design) than any of the ghastly flash-driven websites people often complain of. I agree with Shel - it's technology for its own sake. And not only that - it's not even all that good from a technological standpoint.
Re: Put the credit cards away folks.Feb 3 is the new date.
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: Re: Put the credit cards away folks.Feb 3 is the new date. It's a trick! Yeah, there only telling that to Canadians and other foreigners... Like as if any of us could unseat Charles Braswell. William Robb
Re: OT: Recognize Stroke Symptoms for Fast Action
But perhaps read these first... http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/stroke.asp http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52795 Keith McG Bob Sullivan wrote: Received this today and it makes good sense. Bob S. It only takes a minute to read this- Recognizing a Stroke A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed an getting to the patient within 3 hours which is tough. RECOGNIZING A STROKE Thank God for the sense to remember the "3" steps. Read and Learn! Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke. Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions: 1. *Ask the individual to SMILE. 2. *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. 3. *Ask the person to SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. . . It is sunny out today). If he or she has trouble with any of these tasks, call 9-1-1 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatch! er. After discovering that a group of non-medical volunteers could identify facial weakness, arm weakness and speech problems, researchers urged the general public to learn the three questions. They presented their conclusions at the American Stroke Association's annual meeting last February. Widespread use of this test could result in prompt diagnosis and treatment of the stroke and prevent brain damage. A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved. BE A FRIEND AND SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH AS MANY FRIENDS AS POSSIBLE, you could save their lives
Re: focusing screens - thickness?
On Jan 31, 2006, at 14:02, Cory Papenfuss wrote: Called up the camera shop. It was a Minolta X-700. I haven't done a direct comparison, but it seems no less bright than the stock -DS screen. It could even be brighter (and would explain the propensity for the camera to underexpose a bit) I know it doesn't make any sense, but a couple messages I've read have stated that the Katz-Eye screen (which DOES appear brighter in the viewfinder) actually makes the camera OVER expose. If that's the case, it would indicate that your replacement screen is, in fact, a shade darker. I repeat again that I don't know why a brighter screen would cause overexposure... Just saying what I've read. -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: Chinese Manfrotto copies?
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Jens Bladt" > >> Take a look at these cheap tripod heads. >> Aren't they Manfrotto copies? >> At very low prices! >> I wonder if this is legal? >> >> http://tinyurl.com/7d93q > >Connection refused when trying to connect to tinyurl.com. >I wish people would just paste the damned link, most of the time tinyurl >doesn't work. http://www.foto-walser.biz/myfactory20/shop/shop.aspx?Shop=wfUser_FotoWalser&Type=1&Deep=2901 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
This is exactly as I see it. It is a challenge -and a lot of fun - to select a picture meeting the monthly subject. It is almost like a real photo club where you come together each month and discuss each others pictures. I do support upgrading of image size to 800 max (if this can be accomodated on the server) but I don't see this being crucial to the improvement of the gallery. Henk > -Original Message- > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 January, 2006 9:00 AM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) > > > I'm perfectly happy with PUG as it is. Other people do the work and > provide the resources, I am wholly grateful to them for doing so. I > support it to the best of my extremely limited ability. > > It is called "Pentax User's Gallery" and the aim is to display the > possibilities of using Pentax equipment. It would completely > lose that > point if submissions were allowed using any equipment. > > What contributes to the decreasing significance of the > gallery is many > people's inability to have the discipline to submit. I > adminre and am > grateful to those who can and do. The change needs to be in the > mentality of the contributors, not the gallery. > > mike >
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Yes, I misunderstood. You were apparently labeling java as "junk." My apologies. Paul On Jan 31, 2006, at 5:28 PM, mike wilson wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who said it was junk? Who said it is inappropriate to offer it as a PESO? If you're implying that I said that, or that anyone here said that, the implication is dead wrong, and I am somewhat miffed at the idea that you think I said or implied any such thing. In fact, quite the contrary - I said it was good work. Shel Someone has miisread this, where you were (I think) talking about java: === === I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a corporate computer ... === [Original Message] From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 1/31/2006 11:46:28 AM Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I understand Shel's unhappiness here, but I found Jens' panorama quite interesting and well done. And I believe it's perfectly appropriate to offer it as a PESO. Those who wish to view it will do so. Those who would prefer not to look at it. won't. But I think it's wrong to dismiss it as "junk." It's not junk. It's the same view one would have if one stood in the road and turned 360 degrees in order to take in the full landscape. It's a photograph, although a new type of photograph that depends on the availability of certain technology. I don't think digital photographic exploration should be reduced to the lowest common denominator: i.e. don't do it if it requires any new technology to implement. Broadband and java aren't exactly day after tomorrow. They're in general use by a large majority of internet users. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that knowledge. While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or excludes them for doing so.
OT: Recognize Stroke Symptoms for Fast Action
Received this today and it makes good sense. Bob S. It only takes a minute to read this- Recognizing a Stroke A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed an getting to the patient within 3 hours which is tough. RECOGNIZING A STROKE Thank God for the sense to remember the "3" steps. Read and Learn! Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke. Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions: 1. *Ask the individual to SMILE. 2. *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. 3. *Ask the person to SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. . . It is sunny out today). If he or she has trouble with any of these tasks, call 9-1-1 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatch! er. After discovering that a group of non-medical volunteers could identify facial weakness, arm weakness and speech problems, researchers urged the general public to learn the three questions. They presented their conclusions at the American Stroke Association's annual meeting last February. Widespread use of this test could result in prompt diagnosis and treatment of the stroke and prevent brain damage. A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved. BE A FRIEND AND SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH AS MANY FRIENDS AS POSSIBLE, you could save their lives
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
On 31 Jan 2006 at 16:25, William Robb wrote: > Why not just stitch your panorama together and put it up as a jpeg file on > an html page, just like an ordinary picture. It will be wider than most > screens, but can be maneuvered through with sideways scrolling. It's hard to please everybody in the presentation of pano shots. The best way is to provide the pano in two forms of dynamic display ie java based player like Jens used plus a QTVR mov file and along side these a plain old jpeg. The problem is that some images appear too distorted when projected flat particularly when the vertical AOV is great and web space requirements can virtually triple (depending on whether the java player can share the jpg). 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: no name
Gautam, I've noticed this thread, but didn't check the content 'til just now. This is likely not a new thought, but have you tried concentrating on the center figures, using a small aperture and side lighting to give depth and definition to their features? Jack --- Gautam Sarup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > I should have exposed one more stop. Thanks to the comments > here I think the whole thing needs to be redone. Will give it > another shot when I'm in Chinatown next. > > Cheers, > Gautam > > On 1/31/06, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > No name and no Pentax content either. This was shot with an M6 > > > and 50mm Elmar on Efke KB100 in the San Francisco Chinatown. > > > > > > Comments are welcome. > > > > > > http://static.flickr.com/42/81380197_98d51dd376_b.jpg > > > > Gautam, on my monitor I don't see anything really white... Is this > the > > way you intended it? > > > > Boris > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Put the credit cards away folks.Feb 3 is the new date.
On 1/31/06, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Just looked at the GFM site. > > Feb 3 is the new date for the form. > > > > It's a trick! Yeah, there only telling that to Canadians and other foreigners... -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who said it was junk? Who said it is inappropriate to offer it as a PESO? If you're implying that I said that, or that anyone here said that, the implication is dead wrong, and I am somewhat miffed at the idea that you think I said or implied any such thing. In fact, quite the contrary - I said it was good work. Shel Someone has miisread this, where you were (I think) talking about java: == I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a corporate computer ... === [Original Message] From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 1/31/2006 11:46:28 AM Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I understand Shel's unhappiness here, but I found Jens' panorama quite interesting and well done. And I believe it's perfectly appropriate to offer it as a PESO. Those who wish to view it will do so. Those who would prefer not to look at it. won't. But I think it's wrong to dismiss it as "junk." It's not junk. It's the same view one would have if one stood in the road and turned 360 degrees in order to take in the full landscape. It's a photograph, although a new type of photograph that depends on the availability of certain technology. I don't think digital photographic exploration should be reduced to the lowest common denominator: i.e. don't do it if it requires any new technology to implement. Broadband and java aren't exactly day after tomorrow. They're in general use by a large majority of internet users. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that knowledge. While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or excludes them for doing so.
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Jostein wrote: Maybe he needs Java? Jostein Indeed. No java enabled on my machines. Not allowed at work and I am not happy having it on my home machines. I also don't allow tinyurl to send me ads, so that doesn't work either. Sorry, Jens, but I'm out. - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:03 PM Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) Sorry 'bout that, Mike. You must be missig the last part of the URL. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/77b3v Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 10:02 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I'm just getting blue background, title, some link to the software, the picture information and your email link. No picture or link to it. PC/2000/NS7.2 mike From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2006/01/31 Tue AM 07:18:25 GMT To: Subject: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) It's winter in Denmark: http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) What you are suggesting can do this as well - perhaps in a less annoying way. Do you know of a tool that can do this, please let me know. I'm interested! Why not just stitch your panorama together and put it up as a jpeg file on an html page, just like an ordinary picture. It will be wider than most screens, but can be maneuvered through with sideways scrolling. William Robb
Re: *ist D manual
Hi, Have you seen the PDF manuals on the Pentax site. All that I've seen are like this wrt quality: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/K1000.pdf I don't think "quality" is a word to describe these files ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > I'd debate "lesser quality" ... I suspect that if you have a decent > printer, printing the manual from a PDF file will prove to be higher > quality than the booklet provided by Pentax with the camera. > > I never use the printed manual however. It's much easier to search > the PDF file for information. > On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Derby Chang wrote: > > > Or for free, though lesser quality, from the Pentax USA site: > > > > http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/istD_IB.pdf
Re: Chinese Manfrotto copies?
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: OT: Chinese Manfrotto copies? Take a look at these cheap tripod heads. Aren't they Manfrotto copies? At very low prices! I wonder if this is legal? http://tinyurl.com/7d93q Connection refused when trying to connect to tinyurl.com. I wish people would just paste the damned link, most of the time tinyurl doesn't work. William Robb
Re: PESO - Soft
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: PESO - Soft Not bad. The effect is pretty good, but not exactly like a soft focus lens. I have seen many attempts with PS to duplicate and have yet to see the same thing. I suspect one issue is that when the picture is taken, the actual depth of the image comes into play with the lens effect. When in PS, you are really working on a 2 dimensional image so have a difficult time simulating the depth. I was going to comment on this earlier today, but was short of time this morning. I believe soft focus lenses are using uncorrected spherical abberation to create the effects that they produce. If you want to emulate the old portraiture style, then short depth of field combined with spherical abberation is what is required, along with lighting that has a fairly rapid fall off. Gaussian blur doesn't really do it. I've been leaving the sharpness settings on the camera at their minimum setting, which seems to work as well as modern equipment can for classic portraiture. I have an old 7" Aldis Anistigmat that I bought from Dagor77 a while back. At some point, I hope to mount it to a lens board and see what it does. Apparently, they were the cats ass of portrait lenses in their day. William Robb
Re: PESO: no name
Hi Boris, I should have exposed one more stop. Thanks to the comments here I think the whole thing needs to be redone. Will give it another shot when I'm in Chinatown next. Cheers, Gautam On 1/31/06, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > > No name and no Pentax content either. This was shot with an M6 > > and 50mm Elmar on Efke KB100 in the San Francisco Chinatown. > > > > Comments are welcome. > > > > http://static.flickr.com/42/81380197_98d51dd376_b.jpg > > Gautam, on my monitor I don't see anything really white... Is this the > way you intended it? > > Boris > >
Re: Put the credit cards away folks.Feb 3 is the new date.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just looked at the GFM site. Feb 3 is the new date for the form. It's a trick!
Re: *ist D manual
On 31 Jan 2006 at 13:23, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > I thought I said that. > > I'd debate "lesser quality" ... I suspect that if you have a decent > printer, printing the manual from a PDF file will prove to be higher > quality than the booklet provided by Pentax with the camera. True, the illustrations appear to be vector based so if scaled to a larger paper type and printed on a decent laser printer the quality will be excellent. > I never use the printed manual however. It's much easier to search > the PDF file for information. I find that too. 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: *ist D manual
You can order original printed manuals from Pentax as well. Shel > On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Derby Chang wrote: > > Or for free, though lesser quality, from the Pentax USA site: > http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/istD_IB.pdf
Re: XP and SCSI"S
Butch, it all depends on whether you can get XP drivers for the peripheral. When I upgraded my desktop to XP Pro, I had to move my flatbed scanner to another PC as the manufacturer would not provide a driver. http://www.windowsxp-drivers.com/ is a good site for a starting point to obtain drivers, particularly for second-hand stuff where the maker no longer is interested! HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:46 PM Subject: OT: XP and SCSI"S Hi all Computer question. I have a chance to buy an Epson Expression 800 flatbed scanner for $75. It's scsi. I seem to remember reading here that scsi doesn't work well with windows XP. Any thoughts on the matter including price of the scanner would be appreciated. He is throwing in a scsi card so I wouldn't need to buy one. Butch
Re: *ist D manual
I thought I said that. I'd debate "lesser quality" ... I suspect that if you have a decent printer, printing the manual from a PDF file will prove to be higher quality than the booklet provided by Pentax with the camera. I never use the printed manual however. It's much easier to search the PDF file for information. Godfrey On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Derby Chang wrote: Or for free, though lesser quality, from the Pentax USA site: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/istD_IB.pdf
Re: FA* lens selling advice?
>On 29/1/06, Mark Erickson, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>FA* 85/1.4: $500 to $800 depending on condition > >ROTFL > >I'd say $500 to $1500. > >Really. Apologies Mark, I was thinking of the A* 85, not the FA*. (my excuse: moving house and living amongst 75% of the world's cardboard supply). Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA* lens selling advice?
On 31/1/06, Mishka, discombobulated, unleashed: >??? >b&h lists it for 800 new (back ordered at the moment). Sorry - I thought he was referring to the A* 85 Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Maybe he needs Java? Jostein - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:03 PM Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) Sorry 'bout that, Mike. You must be missig the last part of the URL. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/77b3v Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 10:02 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I'm just getting blue background, title, some link to the software, the picture information and your email link. No picture or link to it. PC/2000/NS7.2 mike From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2006/01/31 Tue AM 07:18:25 GMT To: Subject: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) It's winter in Denmark: http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: (sort of) Panorama on Japanese website
Congrats, Jens. A fine treat. :-) Jostein - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:36 PM Subject: OT: (sort of) Panorama on Japanese website Hello list Now I am officially credited for a winter panorama at the Japanese website, promoting Photovista Panorama: http://www.inview.jp/about_us.html The "original" panorama looks like this: http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/ (Well, it's not totally OT - it was shot with a Pentax *ist D and SMC Pentax-A 2-8/20mm) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
Re: P645 and loooong exposures
My longest exposures so far with either original 645 or Nii has been around 15 minutes. On several occasions in temperatures well below zero celsius; when alkaline batteries perform poorly. No problems at all. If you notice any problems, there is an external battery pack accessory for the 645 cameras; with a generous length of cable to keep the batteries inside your clothing or in another warm place. I do hate the thought of being nailed to one spot for 6 hours, though...:-) Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Gasha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:56 PM Subject: Re: P645 and lng exposures Manual says, that fresh set of 6 AA batteries (good alkaline batteries) can take 250 rolls of film. So, i have good Duracell alkalines installed. I think, that i can get more than one 6 hour exposure from fresh batteries. Whatever, the original question was how to keep fresh batteries, and take long exposure :) OK, i still have unfinished roll of film in 645. I'll post results tomorrow. Gatis William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: P645 and lng exposures are you kidding? run out of AA batteries by just keeping the shutter open? how long is going to be the exposure - months? I don't know about the 645, but Pentax indicates in the 6x7 manual that a fresh battery will give about 6 hours of shutter open time. The 6x7 runs on a single PX28 (6 volt) battery, which is essentially 4 S76 batteries in a stack, William Robb
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Sorry 'bout that, Mike. You must be missig the last part of the URL. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/77b3v Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 10:02 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I'm just getting blue background, title, some link to the software, the picture information and your email link. No picture or link to it. PC/2000/NS7.2 mike > > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/01/31 Tue AM 07:18:25 GMT > To: > Subject: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > It's winter in Denmark: > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html > > Regards > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
A fat guy squinting in the sun??? -- Original message -- From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thats amazing. Thanks Jim. I shows a much larger soft effect than I > expected at 2.8. I dont think you can achieve this with cheap normal > lenses as has been mentioned. > > > Jim King wrote: > > Here is a link to some casual portraits illustrating the range of > > softening available from the Pentax FA 85mm f2.8 Soft. lens: > > http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/fa85_soft > > > > Regards, Jim > > > > -- > Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I > was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's > a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? > - Mitch Hedberg >
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
Thats amazing. Thanks Jim. I shows a much larger soft effect than I expected at 2.8. I dont think you can achieve this with cheap normal lenses as has been mentioned. Jim King wrote: Here is a link to some casual portraits illustrating the range of softening available from the Pentax FA 85mm f2.8 Soft. lens: http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/fa85_soft Regards, Jim -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
I didnt notice the tone. My LCD display here is not the best for viewing pics. At home I have a nice large color managed CRT which would probably show it. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hmmm ... you didn't mention the slightly warmer tone ... were you not able to see it? It's subtle. If you view the pic in PS, which is a color managed space, the differences may become more apparent. Glad you found the crop to your liking ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Gonz Very nice, thanks. I see you touched up some of the blemishes, which I debated doing or not. The crop is also very interesting, giving more space to the right and not centering the face. Your crop looks alot better to me. I appreciate your efforts. I learned something. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: Adjusted version: http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/soft.html The Gonz Original: http://www.g0nz.com/images/k2softaprox.jpg The differences are subtle, apart from the crop, so, if you can, you might want to look at the two side-by-side. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Put the credit cards away folks.Feb 3 is the new date.
Just looked at the GFM site. Feb 3 is the new date for the form. Dave
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Who said it was junk? Who said it is inappropriate to offer it as a PESO? If you're implying that I said that, or that anyone here said that, the implication is dead wrong, and I am somewhat miffed at the idea that you think I said or implied any such thing. In fact, quite the contrary - I said it was good work. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/31/2006 11:46:28 AM > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > I understand Shel's unhappiness here, but I found Jens' panorama quite interesting and well done. And I believe it's perfectly appropriate to offer it as a PESO. Those who wish to view it will do so. Those who would prefer not to look at it. won't. But I think it's wrong to dismiss it as "junk." It's not junk. It's the same view one would have if one stood in the road and turned 360 degrees in order to take in the full landscape. It's a photograph, although a new type of photograph that depends on the availability of certain technology. I don't think digital photographic exploration should be reduced to the lowest common denominator: i.e. don't do it if it requires any new technology to implement. Broadband and java aren't exactly day after tomorrow. They're in general use by a large majority of internet users. > Paul > > -- Original message -- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to > > have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like > > an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, > > the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. > > > > This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup > > connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or > > which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the > > user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that > > (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and > > clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that > > knowledge. > > > > While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing > > your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't > > see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or > > excludes them for doing so.
Re: focusing screens - thickness?
Do you remember which Minolta model was the donor? This may be useful for those thousands following you :) Called up the camera shop. It was a Minolta X-700. I haven't done a direct comparison, but it seems no less bright than the stock -DS screen. It could even be brighter (and would explain the propensity for the camera to underexpose a bit) Cheers, -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
I think the polite approach to such a thing might be to offer the viewer a choice, rather than launching straight into the Java stuff and a moving panorama. The key to usability is handing over control to the user, not having the machine (or, more accurately, the programmer) make the user's decisions. Personally, I rather like the panorama, but I also like to be the person who decides what my machine does. It's the difference between driving a car, and catching a bus. -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 January 2006 19:43 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > I understand Shel's unhappiness here, but I found Jens' > panorama quite interesting and well done. And I believe it's > perfectly appropriate to offer it as a PESO. Those who wish > to view it will do so. Those who would prefer not to look at > it. won't. But I think it's wrong to dismiss it as "junk." > It's not junk. It's the same view one would have if one stood > in the road and turned 360 degrees in order to take in the > full landscape. It's a photograph, although a new type of > photograph that depends on the availability of certain > technology. I don't think digital photographic exploration > should be reduced to the lowest common denominator: i.e. > don't do it if it requires any new technology to implement. > Broadband and java aren't exactly day after tomorrow. They're > in general use by a large majority of internet users. > Paul >
Re: OT: Chinese Manfrotto copies?
Probably not entirely legal, but certainly not uncommon. I know several people who use Manfrotto knockoffs (Close enough that my genuine Manfrotto QR plates work in them). -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: Take a look at these cheap tripod heads. Aren't they Manfrotto copies? At very low prices! I wonder if this is legal? http://tinyurl.com/7d93q Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Sure we live in a free world ... and you can present your photos and files in any way you choose. It's just my own situation that makes viewing them difficult, but I also know that there are others on the list that will be excluded from seeing your work as well. I don't know much about panorama tools other than to note that several other panoramas have been presented her using different programs. Rob Studdert is probably our resident pano expert. I just look at 'em. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/31/2006 11:51:03 AM > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > Shel > I'm sure we all appreciate that we (to some extend) live in a free world, > that gives us choises. Some people want Quicktime panoramas, others want > java panoramas, some don't want any. That's fine with me. > Your suggestion about a "scrollable" panorama is actually a very good idea, > I think. But I dont know how to make this. > I have chosen rotation panoramas for three reasons: > 1) A panorama compensates for very wide wide angle lensess (I didn't ivent > panoramas, they have been arround for a long time) > 2) Rotating panoramas makes it possible to show a very slim (or long) > photograph on a computer screen in an exceptable enlargement. > 3) As an architect/planner I want to be able to show a certain location and > alll the views from this location. > > What you are suggesting can do this as well - perhaps in a less annoying > way. > Do you know of a tool that can do this, please let me know. I'm interested! > Regards > Jens > > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 20:25 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to > have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like > an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, > the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. > > This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup > connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or > which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the > user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that > (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and > clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that > knowledge. > > While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing > your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't > see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or > excludes them for doing so. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Date: 1/31/2006 10:37:37 AM > > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > Both, naturally. I took a photograph (and stores it as a computer file, > > which can be reproduced as a photograph). Then turned it into a file in an > > application, that just shows a part of it - which part changes a little > bit > > every second. > > > > Jens Bladt > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:39 > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse > > direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not > > downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a > > corporate computer ... > > > > You say it's a photograph, and then you say it's not a photograph but a > > file. Is it one or the other, or both? ;-)) > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Jens Bladt < > > > > > Hmmm... > > > There is a button to stop it moving... > > > It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... > > > Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... > > > Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate > > > computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... > > > Regards > > > > > > Jens Bladt > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 > > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > > > > Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. > > > It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in > > part > > > because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part > > it > > > made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... > > > ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those > thin
OT: Chinese Manfrotto copies?
Take a look at these cheap tripod heads. Aren't they Manfrotto copies? At very low prices! I wonder if this is legal? http://tinyurl.com/7d93q Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Thanks, Paul. I agree. Well put :-) Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 20:43 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I understand Shel's unhappiness here, but I found Jens' panorama quite interesting and well done. And I believe it's perfectly appropriate to offer it as a PESO. Those who wish to view it will do so. Those who would prefer not to look at it. won't. But I think it's wrong to dismiss it as "junk." It's not junk. It's the same view one would have if one stood in the road and turned 360 degrees in order to take in the full landscape. It's a photograph, although a new type of photograph that depends on the availability of certain technology. I don't think digital photographic exploration should be reduced to the lowest common denominator: i.e. don't do it if it requires any new technology to implement. Broadband and java aren't exactly day after tomorrow. They're in general use by a large majority of internet users. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to > have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like > an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, > the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. > > This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup > connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or > which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the > user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that > (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and > clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that > knowledge. > > While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing > your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't > see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or > excludes them for doing so. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Date: 1/31/2006 10:37:37 AM > > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > Both, naturally. I took a photograph (and stores it as a computer file, > > which can be reproduced as a photograph). Then turned it into a file in an > > application, that just shows a part of it - which part changes a little > bit > > every second. > > > > Jens Bladt > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:39 > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse > > direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not > > downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a > > corporate computer ... > > > > You say it's a photograph, and then you say it's not a photograph but a > > file. Is it one or the other, or both? ;-)) > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Jens Bladt < > > > > > Hmmm... > > > There is a button to stop it moving... > > > It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... > > > Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... > > > Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate > > > computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... > > > Regards > > > > > > Jens Bladt > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 > > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > > > > Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. > > > It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in > > part > > > because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part > > it > > > made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... > > > ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those > things > > > that is done because technology allows it to be done. > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: frank theriault > > > > > > > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > > > > a plug-in before I can look at it. > > > > > > > > > > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > > > It's winter in Denmark: > > > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: *ist D manual
Or for free, though lesser quality, from the Pentax USA site: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/istD_IB.pdf D Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I'd suggest printing the manual from the download file, but Craig Camera, http://www.craigcamera.com/, has reprints of the *ist D manual available for $20. #PTX-466 Instruction Manual Pentax *istD Digital Camera (Reprint) $20.00 Godfrey On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Trevor Bailey wrote: Has anyone got an original owner's manual for a *ist D that they would want to part with? I took delivery of a *ist D from KEH today. Everything was in the box except the Manual. I know that manuals can be d/loaded from Pentax website, But it is not the same as having the real thing. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Shel I'm sure we all appreciate that we (to some extend) live in a free world, that gives us choises. Some people want Quicktime panoramas, others want java panoramas, some don't want any. That's fine with me. Your suggestion about a "scrollable" panorama is actually a very good idea, I think. But I dont know how to make this. I have chosen rotation panoramas for three reasons: 1) A panorama compensates for very wide wide angle lensess (I didn't ivent panoramas, they have been arround for a long time) 2) Rotating panoramas makes it possible to show a very slim (or long) photograph on a computer screen in an exceptable enlargement. 3) As an architect/planner I want to be able to show a certain location and alll the views from this location. What you are suggesting can do this as well - perhaps in a less annoying way. Do you know of a tool that can do this, please let me know. I'm interested! Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 20:25 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that knowledge. While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or excludes them for doing so. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/31/2006 10:37:37 AM > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > Both, naturally. I took a photograph (and stores it as a computer file, > which can be reproduced as a photograph). Then turned it into a file in an > application, that just shows a part of it - which part changes a little bit > every second. > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:39 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse > direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not > downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a > corporate computer ... > > You say it's a photograph, and then you say it's not a photograph but a > file. Is it one or the other, or both? ;-)) > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jens Bladt < > > > Hmmm... > > There is a button to stop it moving... > > It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... > > Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... > > Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate > > computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... > > Regards > > > > Jens Bladt > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. > > It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in > part > > because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part > it > > made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... > > ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those things > > that is done because technology allows it to be done. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: frank theriault > > > > > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > > > a plug-in before I can look at it. > > > > > > > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > > It's winter in Denmark: > > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: PAW - At Chester Station
On 1/31/06, Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Excellent shot Frank, I love it! Great moment captured. > > It's also straight and in focus... Nice to see you're trying new things :) Thank you, Juan! I've got another subway shot getting printed up for next week that should be both tilted ~and~ out of focus. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
I understand Shel's unhappiness here, but I found Jens' panorama quite interesting and well done. And I believe it's perfectly appropriate to offer it as a PESO. Those who wish to view it will do so. Those who would prefer not to look at it. won't. But I think it's wrong to dismiss it as "junk." It's not junk. It's the same view one would have if one stood in the road and turned 360 degrees in order to take in the full landscape. It's a photograph, although a new type of photograph that depends on the availability of certain technology. I don't think digital photographic exploration should be reduced to the lowest common denominator: i.e. don't do it if it requires any new technology to implement. Broadband and java aren't exactly day after tomorrow. They're in general use by a large majority of internet users. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to > have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like > an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, > the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. > > This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup > connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or > which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the > user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that > (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and > clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that > knowledge. > > While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing > your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't > see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or > excludes them for doing so. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Date: 1/31/2006 10:37:37 AM > > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > Both, naturally. I took a photograph (and stores it as a computer file, > > which can be reproduced as a photograph). Then turned it into a file in an > > application, that just shows a part of it - which part changes a little > bit > > every second. > > > > Jens Bladt > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:39 > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse > > direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not > > downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a > > corporate computer ... > > > > You say it's a photograph, and then you say it's not a photograph but a > > file. Is it one or the other, or both? ;-)) > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Jens Bladt < > > > > > Hmmm... > > > There is a button to stop it moving... > > > It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... > > > Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... > > > Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate > > > computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... > > > Regards > > > > > > Jens Bladt > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 > > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > > > > Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. > > > It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in > > part > > > because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part > > it > > > made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... > > > ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those > things > > > that is done because technology allows it to be done. > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: frank theriault > > > > > > > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > > > > a plug-in before I can look at it. > > > > > > > > > > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > > > It's winter in Denmark: > > > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
Here is a link to some casual portraits illustrating the range of softening available from the Pentax FA 85mm f2.8 Soft. lens: http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/fa85_soft Regards, Jim
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
I don't understand the point of what you're doing. It would be simpler to have a panorama that one could scroll through, left to right. It seems like an exercise in technology more than anything else. Speaking for myself, the viewing experience is awful and not at all satisfying. This thing that you've done takes forever to download on a dialup connection, requires plugins that, obviously, some people don't have, or which are not up to date, plus, Java dumps a bunch of hidden files onto the user's computer. Most people may not know that, and some may not want that (I certainly don't) for any number of reasons. I know where they are and clean out the files every now and then, but others may not have that knowledge. While I'm sure you don't care one way or the other, but I won't be viewing your panoramas again. It's quite possible a number of other people won't see your good work because the technology to view the files limits or excludes them for doing so. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/31/2006 10:37:37 AM > Subject: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > Both, naturally. I took a photograph (and stores it as a computer file, > which can be reproduced as a photograph). Then turned it into a file in an > application, that just shows a part of it - which part changes a little bit > every second. > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:39 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse > direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not > downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a > corporate computer ... > > You say it's a photograph, and then you say it's not a photograph but a > file. Is it one or the other, or both? ;-)) > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jens Bladt < > > > Hmmm... > > There is a button to stop it moving... > > It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... > > Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... > > Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate > > computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... > > Regards > > > > Jens Bladt > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > > > > Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. > > It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in > part > > because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part > it > > made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... > > ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those things > > that is done because technology allows it to be done. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: frank theriault > > > > > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > > > a plug-in before I can look at it. > > > > > > > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > > It's winter in Denmark: > > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Both, naturally. I took a photograph (and stores it as a computer file, which can be reproduced as a photograph). Then turned it into a file in an application, that just shows a part of it - which part changes a little bit every second. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:39 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a corporate computer ... You say it's a photograph, and then you say it's not a photograph but a file. Is it one or the other, or both? ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt < > Hmmm... > There is a button to stop it moving... > It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... > Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... > Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate > computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... > Regards > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. > It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in part > because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part it > made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... > ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those things > that is done because technology allows it to be done. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: frank theriault > > > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > > a plug-in before I can look at it. > > > > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > It's winter in Denmark: > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html > > > >
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
So? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:49 AM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos. Well I do & there are plenty of other sites to view images. I said exactly that in my second paragraph. We don't need no stinkin larger photos. And that in my third :) - Dave
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
Hmmm ... you didn't mention the slightly warmer tone ... were you not able to see it? It's subtle. If you view the pic in PS, which is a color managed space, the differences may become more apparent. Glad you found the crop to your liking ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Gonz > Very nice, thanks. I see you touched up some of the blemishes, which I > debated doing or not. The crop is also very interesting, giving more > space to the right and not centering the face. Your crop looks alot > better to me. I appreciate your efforts. I learned something. > > rg > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Adjusted version: > > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/soft.html > > > > The Gonz Original: > > http://www.g0nz.com/images/k2softaprox.jpg > > > > The differences are subtle, apart from the crop, so, if you can, you might > > want to look at the two side-by-side.
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
Very nice, thanks. I see you touched up some of the blemishes, which I debated doing or not. The crop is also very interesting, giving more space to the right and not centering the face. Your crop looks alot better to me. I appreciate your efforts. I learned something. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: Adjusted version: http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/soft.html The Gonz Original: http://www.g0nz.com/images/k2softaprox.jpg The differences are subtle, apart from the crop, so, if you can, you might want to look at the two side-by-side. Shel [Original Message] From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Shel Belinkoff wrote: You might consider getting an old lens, like an Auto Takumar, which can be purchased for a reasonable price, especially if the front element has some "cleaning marks." They are surprisingly "sharp", however, compared to the effects of one of the "soft" lenses like the Pentax 85 2.8 soft. I'm not sure what is happening optically inside those lenses that create that effect, but I'm sure an aproximation can be made in PS if you could break it down to aproximate transformations of the original image. Right now I'm looking for one of those - one recently went for $37.00 on an auction site and was described as being in mint condition. I picked one up not too long ago for $6.00 plus shipping - it had a ding in the front threads so a filter wouldn't attach properly. Wow. Good deal. Also, look at some Russian lenses. I've used one that I borrowed from Juan that gave reasonably soft results, and just bought an Industar for the Leica, also for a measly $6.00 plus shipping. I like the second photo quite a bit, so much so that I couldn't help playing around with it a bit in PS. I did it for my own pleasure, but if you'd like to see it, just say the word. I would like to see it, thanks for looking. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
I clicked on all the buttons, and couldn't get it to stop, only reverse direction. Maybe my Java's not up to date. I don't care - I'm not downloading any more junk like that to my computer. Anyway, this isn't a corporate computer ... You say it's a photograph, and then you say it's not a photograph but a file. Is it one or the other, or both? ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt < > Hmmm... > There is a button to stop it moving... > It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... > Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... > Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate > computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... > Regards > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) > > > Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. > It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in part > because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part it > made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... > ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those things > that is done because technology allows it to be done. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: frank theriault > > > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > > a plug-in before I can look at it. > > > > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > It's winter in Denmark: > > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html > > > >
Re: PESO - Soft part deux (corrected url)
Adjusted version: http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/soft.html The Gonz Original: http://www.g0nz.com/images/k2softaprox.jpg The differences are subtle, apart from the crop, so, if you can, you might want to look at the two side-by-side. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > You might consider getting an old lens, like an Auto Takumar, which can be > > purchased for a reasonable price, especially if the front element has some > > "cleaning marks." > > > They are surprisingly "sharp", however, compared to the effects of one > of the "soft" lenses like the Pentax 85 2.8 soft. I'm not sure what is > happening optically inside those lenses that create that effect, but I'm > sure an aproximation can be made in PS if you could break it down to > aproximate transformations of the original image. > > > Right now I'm looking for one of those - one recently went for $37.00 on an > > auction site and was described as being in mint condition. I picked one up > > not too long ago for $6.00 plus shipping - it had a ding in the front > > threads so a filter wouldn't attach properly. > > > Wow. Good deal. > > > Also, look at some Russian lenses. I've used one that I borrowed from Juan > > that gave reasonably soft results, and just bought an Industar for the > > Leica, also for a measly $6.00 plus shipping. > > > > I like the second photo quite a bit, so much so that I couldn't help > > playing around with it a bit in PS. I did it for my own pleasure, but if > > you'd like to see it, just say the word. > > > > I would like to see it, thanks for looking.
RE: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Hmmm... There is a button to stop it moving... It is a photgraph - not flat but cylindrical... Internet pictures arent really photographs, they are computer files... Java is today a standard feature in a large number of corpotate computers, just like Acrobat Reader, mediaplayers etc... Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. januar 2006 18:06 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often) Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in part because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part it made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those things that is done because technology allows it to be done. Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > a plug-in before I can look at it. > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > It's winter in Denmark: > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html
Re: "Shooting The War"
"Shooting The War" is the name of the documentary. On 1/31/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is "Shooting the War" the name of the documentary or just the subject line > of your message? > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Antonios Kekalos > > > Interesting documentary yesterday afternoon on the Sundance channel. > > Many photo journalists featured. Noticed the documentary was filmed > > in 1999 so many of you may have already seen it. Worth watching if > > it's aired again. Unknown Pentax content. Showed many of the > > photojournalists with their equipment, but my eyes are such I couldn't > > make out and brand names. > > >
RE: "Shooting The War"
Is "Shooting the War" the name of the documentary or just the subject line of your message? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Antonios Kekalos > Interesting documentary yesterday afternoon on the Sundance channel. > Many photo journalists featured. Noticed the documentary was filmed > in 1999 so many of you may have already seen it. Worth watching if > it's aired again. Unknown Pentax content. Showed many of the > photojournalists with their equipment, but my eyes are such I couldn't > make out and brand names.
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
Me too although I already had the plug-in, and did look at the pic. It's a moving panorama, and it drove me nuts. Had to shut it down, in part because it moved and I couldn't see details of any one area, and in part it made me dizzy. It was like looking at a scene while spinning around ... ugh! IMO, it's not a photograph but a movie, and it's one of those things that is done because technology allows it to be done. Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault > I refuse to look at a photo that tells me to download > a plug-in before I can look at it. > On 1/31/06, Jens Bladt wrote: > > It's winter in Denmark: > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/newfile6.html
Re: February PUG is open a bit early
Den 31. jan. 2006 kl. 04.31 skrev Keith McGuinness:
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
AvK wrote:
the February PUG is open.
It can be found at http://pug.komkon.org
It is indeed "small but nice."
Four I think are truly excellent: "Paris from the ground up,"
"Sundial shell," "Undone" and "In the air."
Thanks for the comment on mine ("Sundial shell").
"Paris from the ground up" is my favourite: love it.
Also like the other two you picked: "Undone" and "In the
air" (perhaps influenced by a fondness for airplanes for the latter
choice).
Thanks to both of you!
DagT
Re: PESO - Soft
Not bad. The effect is pretty good, but not exactly like a soft focus lens. I have seen many attempts with PS to duplicate and have yet to see the same thing. I suspect one issue is that when the picture is taken, the actual depth of the image comes into play with the lens effect. When in PS, you are really working on a 2 dimensional image so have a difficult time simulating the depth. -- Bruce Sunday, January 29, 2006, 7:49:05 PM, you wrote: G> I dont have a soft portrait lens. I've been looking for one for a G> while, but I keep missing them. Well, I figured I would try to use PS G> to aproximate the effect. Its hard. Those lenses are quite special. G> Here is an attempt using an older portrait I took some time back: G> http://www.g0nz.com/images/ksoftaprox.jpg G> I did the usual channel mix + desaturated layer for the black and white G> till I got it where I wanted. Then I made a copy of this, upsized it G> about 1%, then trimmed it to the original size. Next, I applied a G> gaussian blur to it plus a little levels adjustment to make it more high G> key. I then took this image and made it a layer on top of the original, G> varying the opacity till I got what looked pretty decent G> My thinking behind this is: its not just a blur that the soft lens G> appear to make, its like adding oof images on top of an actual sharp G> image somehow. It also appears to add like a halo around everything, G> hence the upsizing of the blurry layer. G> Comments welcome. G> Thanks, G> rg
RE: FA* lens selling advice?
Anything photographic is rarely cheap in Britain. Probably one of the most expensive European countries for photographic equipment - next to Skandinaiva, naturally. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 30. januar 2006 23:09 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: FA* lens selling advice? Jens Bladt wrote: > The FA* 28-70mm is (still??) sold new in Germany (Foto Palme) for 1279 Euro > = 1547 USD, including the 17 % German MwSt). > Plus shipping of course - probably 100 Euro on top of it. Last time (about three years ago) I looked, in the UK it was ~£1400. > > European buyers may want a new one and pay a few hundreds more. > > (Sigh: Why doesn't Pentax make lenses like that anyore?) > > Regards > Jens > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 30. januar 2006 08:03 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: FA* lens selling advice? > > > Mark Erickson wrote: > > >>The Buy It Now prices seem steep to me, but, hey, people out there are >>paying that much for them (except for that really high GBP 1300 listing). > > > You've got it the wrong way round, Mark. USA prices are really cheap. > Just ask people to put in offers, using the BIN price as a base. I can > almost guarantee you will sell them abroad. > > Would be buying one of them myself if I wasn't liable to end up without > certain body parts, courtesy of my darling spouse. > > mike > > > > >
Re: P645 and loooong exposures
I used a Pentax K2 to try and take star trails. The silver oxide batteries allowed me just 30 minutes before shutting off. Next time I go to the southern Oregon desert and try star trails again, I'm using a mechanical Spotmatic. Don't know how AAs would work out with the 645. Jim A. > Hi all, > > I'm going to try some longer exposures, maybe star trails, etc. > > So far i know about possibility to run out of batteries. > It is bad. But how about switching off camera after release cable is > fixed? > > Anybody tried it? > > Better idea would be to use fixed lens camera, like Yashica or similar, > with mechanical shutter. But lens diameter matters... And flare issues, > etc... > > Gatis > >
Re: PAW - At Chester Station
Excellent shot Frank, I love it! Great moment captured. It's also straight and in focus... Nice to see you're trying new things :) j On 1/30/06, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know I only did a PAW on Saturday, but I got this one printed up, > too, and I'm away next weekend, so I don't think I'll have a PAW next > week, so I'm posting this early. Besides, I kind of like it (if I can > be so immodest) : > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4073757&size=lg > > All comments, yay or nay, are welcome. > > cheers, > frank > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Peso: Go Figure
Bare Naked Ladies, huh? No problemo. Very nice Bill. The light is great, and the exposure got it just right. William Robb wrote: Please note: By clicking on the below link, you are agreeing that you are of legal age to view a picture of a naked female Homo Sapien, are aware that the picture you are about to see is a picture of a human female wearing no clothing, and will not feign shock or surprise, or take umbrage with me for the content of the picture presented, nor hold me, or anyone else, neither person, company or corporation responsible for any deleterious ramifications you or anyone associated with you, be it person corporation or otherwise, may suffer by viewing such pictures. Otherwise comments welcome. Technical Data: Nikon F2s, Nikkor H85 f/1.8 Kodak T400CN film, shutter speed and aperture unrecorded, but around f/4. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/peso/recent/naked1.html William Robb -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
OT: (sort of) Panorama on Japanese website
Hello list Now I am officially credited for a winter panorama at the Japanese website, promoting Photovista Panorama: http://www.inview.jp/about_us.html The "original" panorama looks like this: http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/ (Well, it's not totally OT - it was shot with a Pentax *ist D and SMC Pentax-A 2-8/20mm) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
