RE: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP)
Thanks, Markus. So am I - interested, that is. I'm sure it's not easy, doing nice shots with a manual focus, manual exposure (sort of) and very heavy, third (or fourth) party lense. I guess these cheap lenses will require F.11 to perform decently, this meens LOTS of light ;-) Don't miss my temporary tests: At the top of the pages is a brick wall (full frame), at the bottom there's a shot of a street sign and buildings (showing just 40-50% of the total image). At the bottom of the page, there's a link to the next focal length. Look at (200mm): http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/newfile1.html Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. marts 2006 08:48 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) Hi Jens no limits on the date or else , the idea has just grown from a message Tim wrote me after I published the first shot with the Tamron SP 500 mirror lens. But I am really interested to see what can be done with cheap tele lens equipment and wildlife/bird photography, others too? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 7:50 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) Thanks, Markus. So, is there a submission date for this competition? It's still a little cold out there (5-10 degrees), so I'm not sure when I'll go bird watching. More snow is comming too ;-) The Noble Pentax lenses. Yes. A new fa 5.6 250-600mm does cost the same as a small car over here - 18000 USD. Definitely not for amateurs ;-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. marts 2006 20:50 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) Hi Jens that will be interesting, do you want to participate in our crappy lens bird photography competition with that lens? You once looked for the Adaptall SP Tamron 200-500mm 5.6, I see one on the net with Nikon adapter that has an instant buy price of 850 Swiss francs which seems quite high? If you want the link privately, let me know. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:42 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) I have been testing a manual Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (monster) lens - against a SMC FA 2.8/80-200m ED(IF) and a SMC M* 4/300mm. The tests seem to indicate, that this is not a bad lens, that is if you can keep it still. It is rather slow. But the mechanics work very smoothly. It handles nicely - that is if you are used to pumping iron, which I'm not :-) However, there are two major problems: It's huge and heavy as h., I'll need a monster tripod as well ;-) It's not an Adpatall 2, so I must do manual metering, like a K- or M-lens on the *ist D. I will publish my results shorlty. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006
Re: Bailing out.
Shel Belinkoff wrote: [...] Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for Kevin. I sometimes feel the same way. There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul. Shel I suggest that Paul sometimes just needs to be Paul. He succeeded. Again. keith
some new latex-pics
Hello, some new pics... Warning...latex fetish pics: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=584966 Pentax lenses used in this session: K35/3.5, M50/1.7, A85/1.4. Film: 1 roll of Ilford XP2. I scanned post-processed those in a hurry, so there may be some things that could have been done better. Timo
Re: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP)
I'm interested too. Will be dificult for me to shoot much (living in plain center of the city) but I'm very curious of what I could do with my stuff too ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
RE: Bailing out.
Wheaters wrote: I am sure you will get basted and cooked over a slow fire for that post, Mmm. Tastes like chicken. I have found that there are two camps out there at the moment. One camp say that all that matters is the picture, how you get there doesn't matter, and digital processing gives more creative control. [...] The other camp says that the process does matter, and living within the constraints of the process is an important part of the process. Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, than it is about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. I do note, however, that when I read a phrase like 'all that matters is the picture' it is almost invariably followed by a non sequitur such as 'therefore you should use digital'. Photography is the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies - Charles Baudelaire Some 3rd-campers: It's just seeing - at least the photography I care about. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Anyone can learn how to develop - Elliott Erwitt Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important - Henri Cartier-Bresson Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Sensor size for new Pentax DSLR
That´s the 645D. It is supposed to have a crop factor of 1.3 relative to the 6x4.5cm negative size. DagT Den 25. mar. 2006 kl. 23.26 skrev Jack Davis: There are some who are propagating a 1.3 crop factor rumor. I'd like to believe it. Jack --- Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Whats the sensor size of yet to come 10mpixel Pentax DSLR?. Any ideas. Is it going to be same APS-C size or larger. Mostly interested to know because this help me select lenses today. All excellent Pentax low dispersion - ED - lenses are coming for *istD sensor size. Info appreciated. -- home http://roman.blakout.net/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
Hi Kevin, Your feelings about our art is a bit surprising, considering your recent reviews of the digital medium format cameras. I thought you were about to go all-in on digital. But of course an investment of this magnitude makes you think twice and more in any case, doesn't it? I understand your sentiment very well, and have met several outdoor photographers thinking the same way. Some of them are the best in the trade in my country. For them, it's not the creative control in post-processing that matters, but rather the working rhythm in the field. Film, manual light meters, maybe large format cameras, all is part of the creative process for some people. Take it away from them, and the joy of photography goes with it. One of the privileges of having a creative profession is to enjoy what your'e doing. Without the joy, it's like any job you would endure for a paycheck. Pack as much joy into your working process as you possibly can! Whatever process. I'm sure your future digital results with the *istD will benefit from returning focus to film for a while as well. Best wishes, Jostein - Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:14 AM Subject: Bailing out. In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now own three of them. My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to thier art and it still flourishes today. To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in a pile of decaying discs. So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: Bailing out.
Den 26. mar. 2006 kl. 03.57 skrev Paul Stenquist: On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. b But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit. Paul No it´s not. It represents two different work flows, both having different advantages and and feelings connected to them. Any expression is affected by the tools. A great musician loves a good instrument. Just because a synthesizer may sound like a Steinway, as well as anything else, doesn´t mean that all pianists have switched for a more flexible tool. I mostly use digital, but love going to the darkroom with MF negatives. It is a different mood, and I think this may be seen on the resulting pictures. DagT
RE: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP)
Hmmm... Ther must be some birds in the city - doves, perhaps ;-) Not to mention the birds can can watch go by ;-) Regards jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. marts 2006 11:18 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) I'm interested too. Will be dificult for me to shoot much (living in plain center of the city) but I'm very curious of what I could do with my stuff too ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006
Re: The Pond
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Kenneth Waller wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The Pond I set a new personal record for filter extravagance and bought an 77mm R72 for my DA 12-24/4. Shot a little pond this morning. It's at 12mm, f11, 4 second exposure. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4260009size=lg Sure conveys a feeling of crispness. Is it snow or is it IR? I think it is a great picture, despite the central feature. Kostas
RE: Bailing out.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote: Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, than it is about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. Hear hear. Best fun I have had with a camera at hand is to snipe at a dear mate's wedding. OK, them asking for the negs afterwards and comparing my pics with the official photog is also great :-) Kostas
Re: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP)
Sure but it even more dificult to get an interesting picture: the bird could be very nice but the background often a bit too... messy ? (and I'm kind ;) On 3/26/06, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm... Ther must be some birds in the city - doves, perhaps ;-) Not to mention the birds can can watch go by ;-) Regards jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. marts 2006 11:18 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) I'm interested too. Will be dificult for me to shoot much (living in plain center of the city) but I'm very curious of what I could do with my stuff too ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: PENTAX-A 3.5/35-105 Limited Edition
On 26 Mar 2006 at 7:37, Michel Carrère-Gée wrote: Who know ? Limited Edition, or modified lens ? http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7601619202rd=1sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AITrd=1 LE, I doubt it. It looks just like a strip of waterproof anti-skid tape has been added. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: OT: New EC law forces Hasselblad to discontinue XPan camera
On 25 Mar 2006 at 13:39, Tim Øsleby wrote: This was directly to the point Ralf. I am convinced the manufacturers have been waiting for this. What surprises me is that they thought we would believe this nonsense. Too true, though if they are only assembling units from stocks of old leaded boards then maybe there is a little credence to it. 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: Bailing out.
On 26 Mar 2006 at 10:31, Bob W wrote: Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks - Henri Cartier-Bresson All else equal I'd bet that a cook would make a better hunter. 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: PENTAX-A 3.5/35-105 Limited Edition
Doubt it too. I really think any Pentax limited or SE edition or whatever would be written somewhere on the lens. Maybe like K1000 SE etc.. but there'd be something written. On 3/26/06, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Mar 2006 at 7:37, Michel Carrère-Gée wrote: Who know ? Limited Edition, or modified lens ? http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7601619202rd=1sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AITrd=1 LE, I doubt it. It looks just like a strip of waterproof anti-skid tape has been added. 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 -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
RE: PENTAX-A 3.5/35-105 Limited Edition
It is a limited edition. It has leatherette on the front end of the barrel. Mine doesn't. I guess the guy put it there himself. Perhaps to cover some scratch or dent. That ought to make it very limited ;-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. marts 2006 13:52 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PENTAX-A 3.5/35-105 Limited Edition Doubt it too. I really think any Pentax limited or SE edition or whatever would be written somewhere on the lens. Maybe like K1000 SE etc.. but there'd be something written. On 3/26/06, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Mar 2006 at 7:37, Michel Carrère-Gée wrote: Who know ? Limited Edition, or modified lens ? http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7601619202rd=1sspagename =STRK%3AMEWA%3AITrd=1 LE, I doubt it. It looks just like a strip of waterproof anti-skid tape has been added. 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 -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006
The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. There's another thing that's nagging me about digital: With analog, it takes very little money to produce a technical quality that can't be distinguished from what you get with the most expensive pro gear. An amateur with a modest budget can get the same quality as a pro with much more money to spend. Take a Kiev 60 (or the more expensive Arax version), put a Schneider 80 mm Xenotar on it and you'll get the same technical quality as if you'd taken your pictures with an expensive Rollei 6000 and the same lens. Take a few pictures with an MX and an SMC 1.4/50 mm plus a few more with, say, a Leica R9 with the 50 mm Leica lens and noone will be able to tell them apart. You need 'real' quality, the stuff that will absolutely blow you away? Want to count the leaves in your wide-angle landscape shots? No big deal. Spend a few hundred to buy a used 4 by 5. Get the idea? These days are over with digital. There is no digital equivalent to the Kiev with the Xenotar and there will never be one. The difference in quality between a *istDS and a 39 mpix back is there for all to see and there's no way around this. It may not show in many applications but it sure does in others. From now on, with our DS or DL we'll have to live with the fact that we'll never again be able to produce the same quality as the big guys simply because there is no affordable alternative to the Hassy with the 39 mpix back. But wait, there's more... Enlargers. Put a decent lens on a Meopta and your prints will be just as good as those made with a Leitz Focomat costing ten times as much. The digital Meopta (aka Photoshop Elements) works in 8 bit as oppposed to 16 bit with the real thing. A little more curve-tweaking and you'll clearly see the fringing and posterizing. So, either fork out your shekels for the CS2 version or learn to live with limitations and inferior quality. Pity, really... DRI as I might, my industrial night shots simply don't work with an APS-C size sensor. Experience from analog 35 mm suggests even a full-format DSLR won't do. It takes something - no matter if analog or digital - at least the size of 645 to keep those star-shaped patterns around the lights tamed and to accomodate the enormous dynamics between highlights and shadows. Stay with analog, you say? As much as I like the ease of digital, I guess I'll have to keep at least the medium format equipment for a significant part of my photography. And I frankly don't see anything happen that will change this situation. Noone will ever make an affordable 12 or 16 mpix full format 645 sensor. His investors would kill him. Now, if only the price for C-41 developer alone hadn't more than doubled over the last 12 months because of manufacturers eliminating certain package sizes (3 x 5 l with Fuji-Hunt) or going bankrupt (Agfa). And I'm afraid that's only the beginning. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: The Pond
There's a light snow cover. I shot some without the central pier as well using different camera positions. To me, the pier makes it more than another pond picture. Paul On Mar 26, 2006, at 5:19 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Kenneth Waller wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The Pond I set a new personal record for filter extravagance and bought an 77mm R72 for my DA 12-24/4. Shot a little pond this morning. It's at 12mm, f11, 4 second exposure. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4260009size=lg Sure conveys a feeling of crispness. Is it snow or is it IR? I think it is a great picture, despite the central feature. Kostas
Re: Bailing out.
graywolf wrote: While I am not doing any serious photography at this time, I do agree with you. Light and chemicals is a different media than light and pixels. I am using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and snapshots thus I get by with a decent PS. Film is what I enjoy, and BW film at that. A hobby is supposed to be enjoyable. The digital workflow is just that to me, WORKflow. If I was trying to make money with photography digital would be the way to go for the types of stuff I did. However I enjoy the old Speed Graphic and trying to get the shot with one film holder (two sheets of film). As a hobby a couple of hours in the darkroom is soothing to my soul; and it is still magic watching an image appear on a blank sheet of paper even after more than 50 years. I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. I suspect that each is supported by a different type of person. There are many techies who love digital, and will thrive on Photoshop and all the things they can do with it. But many creative people are turned off by all this, and prefer to deal with something they can relate to at a human level. I'm in the latter category. I use digital when I have to, and I'm proficient enough to get the job done, but I don't enjoy it. Give me a roll of film anytime - black and white or colour negative, or colour slide, I don't mind. Some creative people have mastered digital, and enjoy it, but it isn't for me. Pixels are a bore. If you want fun, use film! Colin ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Re: The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
Very high quality analog equipment is certainly much more attainable than comparable digital equipment at the present time. But this will change as the digital market matures. Of course that will take time. What matters more to me is that I can achieve very high quality color printing at home with digital. With analog that was very difficult and commercial printing is both expensive and hit and miss in terms of quality. I like to control the entire process. With analog, I could really only do that in BW. I do sometimes miss darkroom work, and I have not yet sold my equipment. But I'm so busy producing digital work that I don't really have time to return to the chemical process. I did want to print from some 16 x20 BW from 4x5 negs, and I had purchased a very good enlarging lens for just that purpose, so I may still do that. On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. There's another thing that's nagging me about digital: With analog, it takes very little money to produce a technical quality that can't be distinguished from what you get with the most expensive pro gear. An amateur with a modest budget can get the same quality as a pro with much more money to spend. Take a Kiev 60 (or the more expensive Arax version), put a Schneider 80 mm Xenotar on it and you'll get the same technical quality as if you'd taken your pictures with an expensive Rollei 6000 and the same lens. Take a few pictures with an MX and an SMC 1.4/50 mm plus a few more with, say, a Leica R9 with the 50 mm Leica lens and noone will be able to tell them apart. You need 'real' quality, the stuff that will absolutely blow you away? Want to count the leaves in your wide-angle landscape shots? No big deal. Spend a few hundred to buy a used 4 by 5. Get the idea? These days are over with digital. There is no digital equivalent to the Kiev with the Xenotar and there will never be one. The difference in quality between a *istDS and a 39 mpix back is there for all to see and there's no way around this. It may not show in many applications but it sure does in others. From now on, with our DS or DL we'll have to live with the fact that we'll never again be able to produce the same quality as the big guys simply because there is no affordable alternative to the Hassy with the 39 mpix back. But wait, there's more... Enlargers. Put a decent lens on a Meopta and your prints will be just as good as those made with a Leitz Focomat costing ten times as much. The digital Meopta (aka Photoshop Elements) works in 8 bit as oppposed to 16 bit with the real thing. A little more curve-tweaking and you'll clearly see the fringing and posterizing. So, either fork out your shekels for the CS2 version or learn to live with limitations and inferior quality. Pity, really... DRI as I might, my industrial night shots simply don't work with an APS-C size sensor. Experience from analog 35 mm suggests even a full-format DSLR won't do. It takes something - no matter if analog or digital - at least the size of 645 to keep those star-shaped patterns around the lights tamed and to accomodate the enormous dynamics between highlights and shadows. Stay with analog, you say? As much as I like the ease of digital, I guess I'll have to keep at least the medium format equipment for a significant part of my photography. And I frankly don't see anything happen that will change this situation. Noone will ever make an affordable 12 or 16 mpix full format 645 sensor. His investors would kill him. Now, if only the price for C-41 developer alone hadn't more than doubled over the last 12 months because of manufacturers eliminating certain package sizes (3 x 5 l with Fuji-Hunt) or going bankrupt (Agfa). And I'm afraid that's only the beginning. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
RE: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP)
I havn't done a formal test with my lens, but so far it looks like that me too, has to shoot at f:8 or more with my Tokina AT-X 150-500 f:5,6. I also have a impression that I have to shoot at 15 meter or closer. Yesterday was a very bright day, with snow, bright sun, and reflections from the sea. When shooting at longer distance I had a lot of contrast problems. I'm not sure it is contrast problems, but thats my diagnose at this stage. I haven't shoot any keepers yet. But, it is fun. Hi Thibouille. I don't know where you live. But I guess if you look around you most likely will find some spots where you can get bird photos without messy backgrounds. Have a walk in a park, go to a lonely sport stadium, try getting on top of some roofs etc. My point is that I'm pretty sure you will find good spots for shooting city birds if you go looking. This is just some ideas up from my sleeve. Have fun. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26. mars 2006 13:44 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) Sure but it even more dificult to get an interesting picture: the bird could be very nice but the background often a bit too... messy ? (and I'm kind ;) On 3/26/06, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm... Ther must be some birds in the city - doves, perhaps ;-) Not to mention the birds can can watch go by ;-) Regards jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. marts 2006 11:18 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Tersting a Tamron Adaptall 6.9 200-500mm (not SP) I'm interested too. Will be dificult for me to shoot much (living in plain center of the city) but I'm very curious of what I could do with my stuff too ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: A little more curve-tweaking and you'll clearly see the fringing and posterizing. Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to save the thing in post. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote: I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science. And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from the computer. One is not intrinsically less work than the other. -Aaron
Re: The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I like to control the entire process. Me too. Which is why it stinks that I find the process so godawful boring. -Aaron
Re: The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to save the thing in post. Won't help. I have to use colour negative film, exactly because of the limited dynamic range of slide film. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
OT: cleaning house
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdpconsult.comQQhtZ-1 Lots of stuff to get rid of. A bunch of oddball assorted lenses. *** The MV-1 outfit is a bargain given the ME II winder attached. And check out my son's *rare* speakers, of course. Also have some stuff lying around the house. These items are worth little or nothing but might make nice household decor. $5 + shipping for all of this: One roll of 620 blcack and white film, still sealed. All it says is Made in Belgium. Green and silver package. Might it be old Agfa? A couple of old GE light meters. A 6x9 wood-framed neg carrier. Has a 3x5 opening with a two-piece metal insert for 6x9 format. PayPal. Collin He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott
Re: The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
At 07:56 AM 3/26/2006, you wrote: Ralf, I'm in general agreement. For those who enjoy and want the best out of film large format is a relatively inexpensive venture. (That is, compared to what I've seen in some 35 outfits.) 4x5 -- a. $150 for a good press camera to start with (Busch Pressman 'D' or Crown Graphic) or $300 - $500 for a decent wood field. (Nagaoka. Perhaps a used Shen Hao or similar.) b. Add a good lens for $100 to $300. (Fujinon, Schneider, most any) or an excellent lens for $300 to $600. (Schneider, Rodenstock) 8x10 -- a. $200 for a starter body (Kodak 2-D) or $1000 for an excellent body. (Deardorff) b. $300 for a basic lens. (Schneider Symmar 300mm) Look at the options and add it up. Then add up what's in your digital world. My outfit is probably a medium-sized film/digital outfit but adds up in value to over $2000. With 8x10 you really don't need an enlarger. Just a contact printing frame and a light source direct enough to allow dodging. These prints will always satisfy. (Last year I met a 4x5 photographer who never enlarged. Nicely-framed 4x5 contacts are/can be rather attractive.) But if you do need to enlarge, just add (build yourself) a new back for the 8x10 (a light source) and put it (the camera) on a heavy copy stand. Collin He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott
Re: Which fast film to use - tutorial for concert shots
Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Pentaxians searching the internet for opinions on different brands of fast film for indoor shots like the coming anniversary event for me I found this site which could be useful to others too: http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_3.htm any opinions on that? greetings Markus Nice comprehensive article. It is a bit dated now, and I think he misses a few key things (even back then) * No Fuji Press? Back in my film shootin' days, I always kept a 20-brick of Press 800 in the fridge. I learnt to live with how easily the reds saturated, and the odd way the shadows became milky sometimes. But I loved its versatility. Didn't like the Press 1600 so much though - colour seems a bit muddy to me. * No mention of Delta 3200? Sure, grain the size of bricks, but the contrast could be controllable by pull processing. Then again, if he didn't like TMZ, he probably didn't like Delta for the same reason. * I could never imagine shooting concerts with T400CN (nor for that matter XP2). I always had to rate them a half a stop or slower to get anything with bite. Maybe I didn't have a lab that could push process it properly. But I don't really like the chromogenic look for concert shots. Not gritty enough (almost too studio-y) Of course now, digital is the way to go for concert shots, *for me* (I don't want to get into that flame war). Digital noise is much more tame-able than film grain at that speed. And the auto-ISO is a gift from heaven for really variable lighting. Anyway, ymmv. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Bailing out.
Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] At one time, if you didn't like something you saw in the viewfinder, you either waited until it moved, or found another picture to take. Now, you just take the picture and clone the offending bits out. And you call yourself an artist for doing it. That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. I think thats true to a point. As my PS skills are still of a limited nature, i spend the time to move or wait.:-) I still prefer to shot my BW as film. Heck this is the 5th time i have taken the high school darkroom class. Mostly due to the bigger room they have over mine. Their equipment is in poor shape, but we work through it. Dave I too am wanting to put the digital camera down and go back to the control that I had when I shot FP-4, not Sandisk. William Robb Equine Photography in York Region
Re: Bailing out.
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. isn't that the case always? best, mishka
RE:
My condolences on the loss of your beloved pet. Butch
Re: Bailing out.
I used to have to make twenty or more BW prints for every magazine article. It would frequently take me at least ten hours. It wasn't art. It was hard, smelly, backgreaking work. Now I can turn out 20 digitals, color or BW in a couple hours at the most. And the convenience of digital means I can apply more artistry to the work. Both have their place, but Aaron is correct, neither is necessarily more artful than the other. Paul On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote: I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science. And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from the computer. One is not intrinsically less work than the other. -Aaron
Re: The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
I don't find either process terribly boring -- darkroom or digital. But I don't process other people's work, only my own. That is much more rewarding than operating a lab. I tried doing custom BW printing at one time many years ago. I got plenty of business in a hurry, but soon learned that I didn't enjoy printing photos that others had taken. Oh there was the rare beauty that engaged me, but they came few and far between. Paul On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I like to control the entire process. Me too. Which is why it stinks that I find the process so godawful boring. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Some people, and Kevin seems to be one of them, prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the results that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one gets from the process. This is absolutely right. I still vastly prefer the darkroom to the computer for BW work, for example. However, this earlier statement from the thread: Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. is absolutely wrong. Computer-based digital imaging isn't, in and of itself, a *simulation* of the darkroom (though a subset of digital techniques, like unsharp masking, are). It's only the accident of history that chemical photography was invented first that makes people think so. If digital had been invented first there would surely be people complaining that chemical photography was just a simulation of digital. Yes, the computer is entirely different technology. That's why the techniques are different rather than a simulation. It's going to be interesting when, in a few (not too many) years, people who have grown up knowing only digital photography start to discover film and darkrooms. The ones who are open-minded enough to do so will be excited by it *because* they are so different, and won't assume for a moment that one is a simulation of the other.
Re: OT: panorama stitcher for Mac?
Tim Sherburne wrote: Hi Paul... I can vouch for ArcSoft Panorama Maker. It's very simple, gives good results, and relatively inexpensive. US$40, you can download it right away, and it's available for Mac and Windows. There's a demo that you can try out first. http://www.arcsoft.com I've done several hi-res 16x20 images (printed by mpix.com) and they've looked great. Only complaint is that the software limits you to 16 total frames in the panorama (I think, I don't have the software handy right now). I'll second everyone's recommendation of Panorama Maker. (I'd have mentioned it earlier but I didn't realize it was available for Mac.) I don't know what the frame limitation number is, but I do know it's fewer than 20 ;-) I'm hoping they fix this (as well as accept 16-bit color) in the next version. Think I'll drop them a line and ask when the next version might be coming. (Current version is getting on for two years old now, I think.)
Re: Thoughts on Russian K-mounts, any?
i tried 20mm/2.5 and didn't particularly liked it, although, for thr money it's hard to beat. It flares easily, large (82mm) and very heavy (allmetal build), and QC is so-so. mine was quite sharp though. best, mishka. On 3/25/06, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone has any experience with Zenitar 16mm/f2.8 K-Mount fisheye lense? http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/zenitar_k_fisheye_lens.htm Nothing against the Zenitar 16/2.6 fisheye, but there ~are~ other Russian K-mount lenses. So, in the spirit of the thread's title, are there any thoughts on [other] Russian K-mounts? Fred
Re: Bailing out.
No ... and that's been stated here several times in several ways. Shel William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. From: Mishka isn't that the case always?
Re: The Pond
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 5:19 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Kenneth Waller wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The Pond I set a new personal record for filter extravagance and bought an 77mm R72 for my DA 12-24/4. Shot a little pond this morning. It's at 12mm, f11, 4 second exposure. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4260009size=lg Sure conveys a feeling of crispness. Is it snow or is it IR? I think it is a great picture, despite the central feature. There's a light snow cover. I shot some without the central pier as well using different camera positions. To me, the pier makes it more than another pond picture. Thanks for the answer. I agree the pier is quite a feature. I was suggesting (without of course knowing the circumstances) that if it was on one side pointing towards the centre it could have been another interesting shot. Not sure if it is possible. Kostas
Re: March Madness
Ok, This has been mostly good natured so far but sheesh...whoda thunk this was the result? Cotty, I think you're off your nut here. But that's just my opinion and we all have one. I still like you though. I do NOT think any good basketball fan would come out with nearly as good a take if you sat him in Bob Rosato's spot and handed him Bob's rig. They would likely come out with some great photos but probably not as many. Part of the art is knowing where to place the remote cameras and framing the areas you want to cover from that angle (in this case there were cameras under the media tables peaking out at the court, on the floor right next to the baskets, Attached to the goals, in the first seating section attached to railings off the corner of the court, in the second level seating section attached to railings, in the third level seating section, and in the catwalk. Most of these were placed where it would be impossible to put a person during the game. I understand your point about the goal of these photos being to sell products and I agree. I don't agree that there's no heart here though. If you watched the game live, then viewed the photos, I'm sure you'd see in the photos the tension, and excitement of the event. These photos capture the game just like any photo captures any event. If there's no heart in them then there's none in much of what's produced anywhere, anytime. SI had four guys at the Dome this week (at the court, not sure if there was anybody back in the photo editing area or if they're just sending the whole take up to headquarters). Their goal was to capture the event for the pages of their publication. I'm sure they'd have a different approach if the goal was human interest, fan experience, or basketball art. But for capturing the game so as to illustrate a story in print, I'm pretty sure there's no better way. Cory Has survived twelve basketball tournaments at the Georgia Dome, but only just. - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:53 PM Subject: Re: March Madness On 25/3/06, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: I guess I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, as it seems that, Cotty, you're pretty well entrenched in your position. I wonder, though: Several times you've shown us shots you've made from the hip, when you've not been looking through the viewfinder. Where to such shots fit into this debate? They have no heart either. They're completely objective. (***IMO***) Don't confuse not having any 'heart' with not having any talent. The shot you referred to http://www.walteromalley.com/hist_hof_robinson2.php?photo=5 is a wonderful shot (if you like baseball ;-) but it is totally heartless! It has no soul. (Uh oh here we go again). I suppose it would be true to say that if I did not know how the pic was taken (either conventionally or fly by wire) then I would have to judge it based purely on the image, which is what I have advocated since I was 15. Which means I'm going around in circles and contradicting myself. I think I'd had too much to drink the other night when I wrote about the basketball setups being heartless. I think I'll retract the whole damn thing and go lie down in a small dark room for a bit. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
Re: cleaning house
Gevaert? All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:19 PM Subject: OT: cleaning house snip One roll of 620 blcack and white film, still sealed. All it says is Made in Belgium. Green and silver package. Might it be old Agfa? snip
Re: OT: New EC law forces Hasselblad to discontinue XPan camera
Rob Studdert wrote: On 25 Mar 2006 at 13:39, Tim Øsleby wrote: This was directly to the point Ralf. I am convinced the manufacturers have been waiting for this. What surprises me is that they thought we would believe this nonsense. Too true, though if they are only assembling units from stocks of old leaded boards then maybe there is a little credence to it. I can't imagine that they *wouldn't* have been assembling units from stocks of previously manufactured boards. I'd bet money that Pentax has been building the 645 and 67 that way for some time. Certainly, the camera manufacturers saw this regulation coming. They were faced with a decision to make: Change manufacturing processes to meet the new regulation or take the new law as an opportunity to obsolete the affected products. Had the worldwide transition to digital taken place a little more gradually, they might have considered the first option. As things have turned out in reality, the decision was a no-brainer.
Re: March Madness
frank theriault wrote: I must be counted in the this is photography camp. If it's done properly, it can be great photography, maybe even art (oh no, don't bring art into this! LOL). Here's one of my favourite baseball photos, one of Jackie Robinson taunting a catcher just before stealing home: http://www.walteromalley.com/hist_hof_robinson2.php?photo=5 I don't remember who the photographer was, but I do remember reading an interview of him, wherein he describes how he took this photo. Normally, he'd be in a strategic location with a moveable camera, but he'd set up at least one or two cameras, usually one trained on home plate, the others pointed down the baselines. These he'd operate by some sort of remote foot pedal. He would watch the action, and fire the remote cameras when the action seemed right. Just because he wasn't looking in the viewfinder, does that mean that there was no art or heart in it? He still had to be there, watch the play, fire the shutter at the precise moment. This, of course, was in the days before motor drives (I wonder if he had an assistant change the magazine for him? - I seem to recall he used speedgraphic press cameras), so it wasn't just mash down the shutter release and hope for the best. I'm with Knarf here. If anything, not being able to see through the viewfinder makes this kind of photography more difficult. Come to think of it, *lots* of people take photos these days without looking through viewfinders: Think of digicams with LCD's on the back! Why not extend the LCD a distance from the camera itself via a cable or even wireless connection? I'll bet this kind of technology will happen in the not-too-distant future, particularly in the case of the kind of sports photographs that started this topic. I guess I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, as it seems that, Cotty, you're pretty well entrenched in your position. I wonder, though: Several times you've shown us shots you've made from the hip, when you've not been looking through the viewfinder. Where to such shots fit into this debate? Well, none of that kind of paparazzi stuff is real photography, anyway! g
RE: Which fast film to use - tutorial for concert shots
Don't know (remember) too much about film. I know you don't need as fast film as you might think! Why? Well, most concerts ar lit with spotlights etc. So, you must under expose by perhaps 2 stops in iorder to avoid, what I call pan-cake-faces (white faces with no features). Spot metering sucks because the performers are often moving too fast. And the meter will stil try to make the measurede parts 18% grey, which is often too dark for white skin in bright light. So, use you normal reading method, then set the camera to MINUS 1 or two. This means that a ISO 400 film is suddenly a ISO 800-1600 film. If you don't have a F.2.8 lens, use ISO 1600-3200 film (negs are the best). I do remember that the FUJI ISO 1600 film is in fact less grainy than the ISO 800 film (negs). You'll need a fast telephoto lens. Preferably something like a F.2.8/80-200mm or similar. And of course a monopod/tripod. Please take a look (all underexposed by 1-2 stops and shot from a monopod or a tripod): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/572671/ http://gallery68719.fotopic.net/ Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. marts 2006 20:41 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Which fast film to use - tutorial for concert shots Hi Pentaxians searching the internet for opinions on different brands of fast film for indoor shots like the coming anniversary event for me I found this site which could be useful to others too: http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_3.htm any opinions on that? greetings Markus -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006
Re: OT: panorama stitcher for Mac?
On 3/26/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll second everyone's recommendation of Panorama Maker. (I'd have mentioned it earlier but I didn't realize it was available for Mac.) I don't know what the frame limitation number is, but I do know it's fewer than 20 ;-) I'm hoping they fix this (as well as accept 16-bit color) in the next version. Think I'll drop them a line and ask when the next version might be coming. (Current version is getting on for two years old now, I think.) Mark maybe consider having a look at PTGui if your using a Windows box. It already accepts 16 bit input files (tiff) and outputs as 16 bit layered (or blended) tiff or psd file. Unfortunately it's not available for Apple users And I know it does more than 20 files. The most I've done is 181 frames for a spherical pano. Dave -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: OT: panorama stitcher for Mac?
David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark maybe consider having a look at PTGui if your using a Windows box. It already accepts 16 bit input files (tiff) and outputs as 16 bit layered (or blended) tiff or psd file. Unfortunately it's not available for Apple users There's a Mac equivalent called PTMac available from: http://www.kekus.com/software/ptmac.html I've been using it for some time and I'm quite happy with it. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Bailing out.
So working with photography using digital process doesn't appeal to you. Fine. Enjoy what does appeal to you, do photography. Why write a big song and dance about it, with the implication that something is wrong with digital? That's what I don't understand. There's nothing wrong with film photography, and there's nothing wrong with digital photography. They are both photography, and they both take skill, art, involvement, passion, etc. If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
It would be difficult to separate the process from the satisfaction of producing a pleasing finished image. Anticipating the end product is what drives the learning and doing process. Jack --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No ... and that's been stated here several times in several ways. Shel William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. From: Mishka isn't that the case always? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas Subject: Re: Bailing out. Both camps are right. But I'm in the latter, well, mostly. I prefer printing digitally. I prefer shooting with film. When I had my darkroom set up, and shot BW film, I printed quite a few pictures. I like darkroom work. I don't seem to be as enthusiastic about digital though. In the 2 1/2 years I've had the DSLR, I don't think I've printed more than a dozen pictures, excluding a wedding that I shot for a friend. I don't think I could manage professional photography any more. I don't like sitting in front of a computer that much. William Robb
Re: Rollei
Thnaks Mishka. He was a very good boy. bill - Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Rollei beautifull dog. you must be lucky to have a friend like that. best,
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bill, I think the danger lies in ease and productivity. If one goes digital all the way through, one may become over-trigger-happy, if you know what I mean. I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in production. William Robb
Re: Rollei
Thanks Boris bill - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Rollei Very sad news. You had a beautiful friend.
Re: Rollei
Thanks Bruce bill - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re: Rollei Bill, A wonderful tribute that really brought some feeling of his personality. My heartfelt condolences at this time.
Re: Rollei
Thanks Amita, he was a sweetheart. bill - Original Message - From: Amita Guha Subject: Re: Rollei What a sweet-looking boy. I'm sorry for your loss. Amita
Re: OT: New EC law forces Hasselblad to discontinue XPan camera
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: RE: OT: New EC law forces Hasselblad to discontinue XPan camera On 25 Mar 2006 at 13:39, Tim Øsleby wrote: I am convinced the manufacturers have been waiting for this. What surprises me is that they thought we would believe this nonsense. Too true, though if they are only assembling units from stocks of old leaded boards then maybe there is a little credence to it. Even if they weren't, there are manufacturing changes required to switch from lead solder to silver solder. If Fuji didn't think they were going to recoup the cost of change of manufacturing, then that would have left Hasselblad with no camera to sell. Fuji has always been a cherry picker company. They won't do anything at a loss if they don't have to. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Bailing out. If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Does the word problem offend you for some reason? Problem == issue, difficulty, stumbling block, obstacle, hitch, plight ... whatever. I see nothing arrogant about stating the fact: the inability to see that there is an equal amount of art in digital photography as there is in film photography is not intrinsic to the photography, it is an inability on the part of the person. Godfrey
Re: OT: New EC law forces Hasselblad to discontinue XPan camera
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:08 AM, William Robb wrote: Even if they weren't, there are manufacturing changes required to switch from lead solder to silver solder. If Fuji didn't think they were going to recoup the cost of change of manufacturing, then that would have left Hasselblad with no camera to sell. Fuji has always been a cherry picker company. They won't do anything at a loss if they don't have to. What about the H series cameras and lenses? The lenses are 100% built by Fuji and the body contains a lot of Fuji content. I'm sure they used the same solder on them as on the Xpan. Bob
Re: The Time Machine (was: Re: New SD Card...)
At 02:35 PM 3/23/2006, John Francis wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:08:35AM -0800, Juan Buhler wrote: Nothing to do with the point, but it's funny how render times stay constant as complexity grows :) That was a point first expounded, AFAIK, by Turner Whitted. There are three classes of image: a 5-to-30-minute image, a two hour image, and a twenty-four-hour-and-up image. Perhaps those three categories would be better referred to as: Renders measured in minutes Renders measured in hours Renders measured in days Of course, the scale can easily be extended at either end to include seconds, weeks, months, years, etc. My personal favorite is renders measured in seconds, but those aren't common enough occurrences, at least not with complex images. take care, Glen
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Bob
Re: The Time Machine (was: Re: New SD Card...)
At 02:08 PM 3/23/2006, Juan Buhler wrote: Funny. All my renders, on the other hand, from silly shampoo TV ads in Argentina in 1992, through Antz, Shrek, Shrek 2, Madagascar and the stuff I'm doing now at Pixar take about the same time to render--in the order of a few hours. Hello Juan, Can you tell me what would be a common resolution for such professional animations? I've been wondering how many pixels would be used horizontally and vertically to create the individual frames of a high-quality, major motion picture. thanks, Glen
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Bailing out. On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Does the word problem offend you for some reason? It does in the context and way you have chosen to write that sentence. It implies something is wrong with the person's thought process, and does so in a very derogatory way. I find that sort of attitude to be arrogant and offensive. Gads, me taking umbrage for someone being offensive. Thats the pot calling the kettle black, no? William Robb
Re: The real digital dilemma - was: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: But I don't process other people's work, only my own. That is much more rewarding than operating a lab. I tried doing custom BW printing at one time many years ago. I got plenty of business in a hurry, but soon learned that I didn't enjoy printing photos that others had taken. Remind me to tell you about the time I had to retouch the photographs of the dog wearing a tiara. The owner had spilled beer on the framed print, let it dry, then tried to pull the photo out, peeling the emulsion off. I spent almost two hours looking at that dog. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: Bailing out. On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Bullshit Bob. For some people, I suspect for many artists, the process is the art. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be basketweavers. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:24 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Does the word problem offend you for some reason? It does in the context and way you have chosen to write that sentence. It implies something is wrong with the person's thought process, and does so in a very derogatory way. Bill, would it be better if the sentence read If you believe that there's only art in chemical photography, that's your problem? In context, that's what he's saying. -Aaron
RE: Bailing out.
Bob Shell wrote: Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Tracey Emin? Malcolm
Re: Bailing out.
Aaron Reynolds: Why is one a craft and one a science? ... because that is my perception. They're both craft and science. ... and that is yours! I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for you, because people should be able to hold differing opinions about the same thing without becoming offended. And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from the computer. One is not intrinsically less work than the other. Once again, that is your perception, your opinion. Just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong. I believe we are both right, because we are talking about our own personal perceptions, opinions that I believe we have an absolute and unalienable right to hold. Do you believe that also? If so, why are you arguing? g Colin ___ Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bill, would it be better if the sentence read If you believe that there's only art in chemical photography, that's your problem? In context, that's what he's saying. How about There can be art in digital photography, the same as there can be art in digital photography. No implication that someones thought process is deficient because they have an expressed preference for one process over the other. What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
How about; There can be art in digital photography, the same as there can be art in chemical photography. woops. William Robb - Original Message - From: William Robb Subject: Re: Bailing out. - Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bill, would it be better if the sentence read If you believe that there's only art in chemical photography, that's your problem? In context, that's what he's saying. How about There can be art in digital photography, the same as there can be art in digital photography. No implication that someones thought process is deficient because they have an expressed preference for one process over the other. What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. William Robb
amazing film experience
Yesterday I was able to experience something truly unusual in film. No, this is not film vs digital or anything stupid like that. There is an Asian film festival happening in San Jose this weekend. Yesterday, I was privileged to join the audience for a viewing of A View from Topaz ... an amazing film, shot and edited by one of the people who lived in the internment camp in the Utah desert from April of 1943 to May of 1945, displaced from home in San Francisco. The film was shot *during his internment!*, an incredibly difficult thing to conceive of since the mere possession of a camera by an internee, at the time, was deemed illegal, a criminal act, etc. That this was regular 8mm color film work, itself rare and unusual to see in home movies of that era. The circumstances which enabled him to obtain his movie camera, photograph the circumstances of his internment, have the film processed and actually be able to see it *while still in the internment camp* are without doubt unique. The photographer passed away last year, having used the same small spring-wound 8mm movie camera to record his life from the early 1930s up to the 1980s. It was a glimpse into a very difficult time for Japanese Americans, and a special gift for those who appreciate what photography can help us see. It was an amazing experience, a true privilege to be able to participate in. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote: I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for you, because people should be able to hold differing opinions about the same thing without becoming offended. You didn't say my opinion is that digital is bad and chemical is good, you said that one IS bad and one IS good. If you're just speaking of your own perception, don't phrase it as an absolute and you won't have to argue it. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:33 AM, William Robb wrote: What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical is the way to go and those who don't agree are soulless automatons. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical is the way to go and those who don't agree are soulless automatons. And what really irks me is that I much prefer to shoot film and hate arguing the other side. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
I stand by my statement, and find my expansion to be the best explanation of my words for those too literal minded to understand the context: The inability to see that there is an equal amount of art in digital photography as there is in film photography is not intrinsic to the photography, it is an inability on the part of the person. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
At 07:52 PM 3/25/2006, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. Digital opens many doors that were previously only dreamed of, particularly for those not adept in photographic arts. Its just not what I want from photography. And like the painter of yore, I wish to stick with my art. Kevin, you are confusing art with craftsmanship. Both are noble concepts, but one should never be confused for the other.
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/26/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote: I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for you, because people should be able to hold differing opinions about the same thing without becoming offended. You didn't say my opinion is that digital is bad and chemical is good, you said that one IS bad and one IS good. If you're just speaking of your own perception, don't phrase it as an absolute and you won't have to argue it. -Aaron WTF? Colin didn't say anything of the sort. Jesus your argumentative. Am I reading the same posts as you? Quit paraphrasing other peoples comments with your spin on them. I don't think one person has said film and chemicals are better than the digital process, or visa versa, just that they have a personal preference. Do we all now need to get lawyers to proof read our posts and correct them to ensure that our personal opinions are clearly and unambiguously outlined before we comment on anything? Frank? How much to have you on retainer? Dave -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: Bailing out.
Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us, Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting pictures), not a photographer. A photographer does photography, a snapshooter does pictures. Funny thing is no one thinks they are a chef because they eat food, no one thinks they are a musician because they listen to music. You have to do the proccess to be a photographer, a painter, a dancer, a chef, a musician, etc. At least that is how I view it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote: Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, than it is about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. Hear hear. Best fun I have had with a camera at hand is to snipe at a dear mate's wedding. OK, them asking for the negs afterwards and comparing my pics with the official photog is also great :-) Kostas
Re: Bailing out.
Well said, Jostein. It is not what you do, it is how much you enjoy doing it that counts. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Jostein wrote: Hi Kevin, Your feelings about our art is a bit surprising, considering your recent reviews of the digital medium format cameras. I thought you were about to go all-in on digital. But of course an investment of this magnitude makes you think twice and more in any case, doesn't it? I understand your sentiment very well, and have met several outdoor photographers thinking the same way. Some of them are the best in the trade in my country. For them, it's not the creative control in post-processing that matters, but rather the working rhythm in the field. Film, manual light meters, maybe large format cameras, all is part of the creative process for some people. Take it away from them, and the joy of photography goes with it. One of the privileges of having a creative profession is to enjoy what your'e doing. Without the joy, it's like any job you would endure for a paycheck. Pack as much joy into your working process as you possibly can! Whatever process. I'm sure your future digital results with the *istD will benefit from returning focus to film for a while as well. Best wishes, Jostein - Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:14 AM Subject: Bailing out. In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now own three of them. My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to thier art and it still flourishes today. To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in a pile of decaying discs. So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Pond
Thanks for looking and commenting, Kostas and all the others who have replied. No, the pier itself is the only access. The pond is actually part of a stream. It's formed by the damming effect of some fallen trees. In the summer I come here to shoot dragonflies. I'm going to have to do a color summer shot of this same area now that I have a sufficiently wide lens. It's very pretty with many aquatic plants and fallen tree trunks, but I never had a lens wide enough to cover it adequately. Paul Paul On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 5:19 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Kenneth Waller wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The Pond I set a new personal record for filter extravagance and bought an 77mm R72 for my DA 12-24/4. Shot a little pond this morning. It's at 12mm, f11, 4 second exposure. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4260009size=lg Sure conveys a feeling of crispness. Is it snow or is it IR? I think it is a great picture, despite the central feature. There's a light snow cover. I shot some without the central pier as well using different camera positions. To me, the pier makes it more than another pond picture. Thanks for the answer. I agree the pier is quite a feature. I was suggesting (without of course knowing the circumstances) that if it was on one side pointing towards the centre it could have been another interesting shot. Not sure if it is possible. Kostas
Re: Bailing out.
You are not even in the same conversation as the rest of us, Paul. We have already stipulated that digital is preferred for commercial production work. However we are talking about photography as a hobby. By the way with a Kodak Versamat Processor you could have turned out those 20 prints in about 10 minutes. Using a 1930's style darkroom for commercial production is a pretty silly idea. About like using an original IBM XT for digital production, or hand painting the covers for Time magazine. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to have to make twenty or more BW prints for every magazine article. It would frequently take me at least ten hours. It wasn't art. It was hard, smelly, backgreaking work. Now I can turn out 20 digitals, color or BW in a couple hours at the most. And the convenience of digital means I can apply more artistry to the work. Both have their place, but Aaron is correct, neither is necessarily more artful than the other. Paul On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote: I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science. And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from the computer. One is not intrinsically less work than the other. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
William Robb wrote: I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in production. Since I read Real World Camera Raw... I've found that my time spent on production has gone *way* down :)
Re: Thoughts on Russian K-mounts, any?
I have one and enjoy its curvilinear distortion. I also have the DA14, which I prefer for most of my ultrawide work, but the Zeni is a very very good lens for something that costs $140 or less, new. Two of my favorites so far: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/25p.htm http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/46.htm Godfrey On Mar 25, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Roman wrote: Anyone has any experience with Zenitar 16mm/f2.8 K-Mount fisheye lense? http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/zenitar_k_fisheye_lens.htm Peace, -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
RE: Bailing out.
That's fine. I'm in good company with other snapshooters, like HCB, Erwitt, most of Magnum and the rest of photojournalism. I'll leave photography to the very Minor Whites. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 March 2006 17:13 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Bailing out. Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us, Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting pictures), not a photographer. A photographer does photography, a snapshooter does pictures. Funny thing is no one thinks they are a chef because they eat food, no one thinks they are a musician because they listen to music. You have to do the proccess to be a photographer, a painter, a dancer, a chef, a musician, etc. At least that is how I view it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote: Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, than it is about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. Hear hear. Best fun I have had with a camera at hand is to snipe at a dear mate's wedding. OK, them asking for the negs afterwards and comparing my pics with the official photog is also great :-) Kostas
Re: Bailing out.
graywolf wrote: Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us, Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting pictures) Hell yes! HCB certainly did!
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in production. Since I read Real World Camera Raw... I've found that my time spent on production has gone *way* down :) Have to agree .. Bruce's discussion of proper procedures leads one to a much more efficient way of working with RAW format captures. But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my time in production is on deciding what I want to present in a photograph, regardless of whether the capture is a film or a digital image, and regardless of whether the process of producing a print is the wet lab or a computer and inkjet printer. If it is otherwise for some, well, they have not acquired adequate skill in the production process of either, in my opinion. And yes, Bill, that is my arrogant attitude towards this nonsense, as differentiated from my prior factual statement. ]'-) Godfrey
Fw: FotoExpress - One man's mobile photo studio
A modern take on an old concept. http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415 William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
Well I kind of said that in response to the articles that implied that anyone who preferred to do things the old way were assholes. Somehow on this list I prefer the analog process always is reacted to as if it was written Anyone who uses digital is stupid. I guess that is because many here have spent thousands of dollars on digital and are a bit insecure about it. Kevin said, and I said, that both processes are worthwhile, but we get more pleasure out of the chemical process. The response was a vigorous counter-attack. In some ways this list has become a digital list and any counter opinion is to be stamped out before it becomes contagious. To me Bill's comment does typify the general attitude I perceive here on the list nowadays. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:33 AM, William Robb wrote: What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical is the way to go and those who don't agree are soulless automatons. -Aaron
RE: amazing film experience
That sounds great. I've heard something of the story about this film. It is an amazing story, indeed. Do you know if the film will be shown elsewhere? Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Yesterday I was able to experience something truly unusual in film. No, this is not film vs digital or anything stupid like that. There is an Asian film festival happening in San Jose this weekend. Yesterday, I was privileged to join the audience for a viewing of A View from Topaz ... an amazing film, shot and edited by one of the people who lived in the internment camp in the Utah desert from April of 1943 to May of 1945, displaced from home in San Francisco. The film was shot *during his internment!*, an incredibly difficult thing to conceive of since the mere possession of a camera by an internee, at the time, was deemed illegal, a criminal act, etc. That this was regular 8mm color film work, itself rare and unusual to see in home movies of that era. The circumstances which enabled him to obtain his movie camera, photograph the circumstances of his internment, have the film processed and actually be able to see it *while still in the internment camp* are without doubt unique. The photographer passed away last year, having used the same small spring-wound 8mm movie camera to record his life from the early 1930s up to the 1980s. It was a glimpse into a very difficult time for Japanese Americans, and a special gift for those who appreciate what photography can help us see. It was an amazing experience, a true privilege to be able to participate in. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
No argument with that. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Mark Roberts wrote: graywolf wrote: Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us, Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting pictures) Hell yes! HCB certainly did!
Re: FotoExpress - One man's mobile photo studio
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:54, William Robb wrote: A modern take on an old concept. http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415 I love it! Wonder what he does when it rains? -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
RE: Bailing out.
-Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my time in production is on deciding what I want to present in a photograph, Some people think the time for making that decision is just before you press the shutter release. Bob regardless of whether the capture is a film or a digital image, and regardless of whether the process of producing a print is the wet lab or a computer and inkjet printer. If it is otherwise for some, well, they have not acquired adequate skill in the production process of either, in my opinion. And yes, Bill, that is my arrogant attitude towards this nonsense, as differentiated from my prior factual statement. ]'-) Godfrey
RE: Fw: FotoExpress - One man's mobile photo studio
Thanks for posting that, Bill. The list can use a little break from the Bailing out thread. Some humor is good. Some years ago I saw a cartoon that showed something similar LOL Hmm, would this be what Weegee'd be doing today? Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb A modern take on an old concept. http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:56 AM, graywolf wrote: Somehow on this list I prefer the analog process always is reacted to as if it was written Anyone who uses digital is stupid. I guess that is because many here have spent thousands of dollars on digital and are a bit insecure about it. A simple statement of I prefer the analog process is innocuous to me. I prefer the digital process but love seeing film/wet-lab images too. It's the statement of I prefer the analog process coupled with a long winded rationalization of why the digital process is fundamentally unsatisfying, boring, robotic and other such nonsense that is disparaging to people's sensibilities. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in production. Since I read Real World Camera Raw... I've found that my time spent on production has gone *way* down :) Have to agree .. Bruce's discussion of proper procedures leads one to a much more efficient way of working with RAW format captures. I have to tell you, Godfrey, that I bought that book mainly on your (repeated) recommendations and I've become something of an evangelist for it. Bruce owes one or both of us some commissions here ;) But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my time in production is on deciding what I want to present in a photograph, regardless of whether the capture is a film or a digital image, and regardless of whether the process of producing a print is the wet lab or a computer and inkjet printer. I think that deciding what you want to present *should* comprise the majority of production time/effort. I can't say that I'm there yet but I'm getting closer. My objective has always been to be as close as possible to the final finished image at the moment I snap the shutter (while still being *willing* to do significant post-production in the inevitable instances in which it is necessary - I'm not going to sacrifice art in the name of philosophy). I even continue to use things like split ND filters, even though plenty of people maintain that it isn't necessary with digital (you can, after all, make separate exposures for foreground and background and combine them later). I don't think there's anything ethically superior about the way I choose to do things, it just works for me on a philosophical level and, I believe, saves me time in post-production.
RE: amazing film experience
Shoot! It was playing in Berkeley and I missed it. Damn! Shel [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff That sounds great. I've heard something of the story about this film. It is an amazing story, indeed. Do you know if the film will be shown elsewhere? [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Yesterday I was able to experience something truly unusual in film. No, this is not film vs digital or anything stupid like that. There is an Asian film festival happening in San Jose this weekend. Yesterday, I was privileged to join the audience for a viewing of A View from Topaz ... an amazing film, shot and edited by one of the people who lived in the internment camp in the Utah desert from April of 1943 to May of 1945
Re: Fw: FotoExpress - One man's mobile photo studio
William Robb wrote: A modern take on an old concept. http://www.pbase.com/scooter41/image/57749415 I saw a photo of someone doing the exact same thing at *least* three years ago! And I know it isn't the same photo because this guy looks different and is clearly using a much more recent printer. Curiously enough, the photo I saw was also in Italy. Perhaps it's even commonplace there at this point?
Using a two axis rail as a substitute for custom pano heads - crazy or viable with modest lens lengths?
I've read that the nodal point is usually somewhere near the aperature blades of a lens. It seems to me, that with modest length lenses, doing either vertical or horizontal panos would be kind of easy to do with a two axis rail. The L-R axis could compensate for any off-lens-axis tripod mount on a camera, and the Forward-Backward axis could be used to position the lens nodal point more or less over the center of the tripod post. Anyone tried this? I'm looking forward to experimenting with such shots with my Optio SV. BTW, it seems to me that pano shots would be one heck of a lot easier with a pan/tilt head than a ball head, even a ball head with a pano base. This would be particularly true for vertical panos or 2-D panos. Comments invited. -Lon
Re: amazing film experience
I think yesterday at noon was it for A View from Topaz but you might contact the folks at http://www.asianamericanfilmfestival.org/ to find out if it will be shown anywhere else sometime soon. I feel quite fortunate in that one of my friends rang me just as I arrived home at 11:30am yesterday to tell me about the film starting at noon ... I grabbed Felipe, ran out the door and rushed to San Jose. We arrived just in time to see it. Godfrey On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: That sounds great. I've heard something of the story about this film. It is an amazing story, indeed. Do you know if the film will be shown elsewhere? Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Yesterday I was able to experience something truly unusual in film. No, this is not film vs digital or anything stupid like that. There is an Asian film festival happening in San Jose this weekend. Yesterday, I was privileged to join the audience for a viewing of A View from Topaz ... an amazing film, shot and edited by one of the people who lived in the internment camp in the Utah desert from April of 1943 to May of 1945, displaced from home in San Francisco. The film was shot *during his internment!*, an incredibly difficult thing to conceive of since the mere possession of a camera by an internee, at the time, was deemed illegal, a criminal act, etc. That this was regular 8mm color film work, itself rare and unusual to see in home movies of that era. The circumstances which enabled him to obtain his movie camera, photograph the circumstances of his internment, have the film processed and actually be able to see it *while still in the internment camp* are without doubt unique. The photographer passed away last year, having used the same small spring-wound 8mm movie camera to record his life from the early 1930s up to the 1980s. It was a glimpse into a very difficult time for Japanese Americans, and a special gift for those who appreciate what photography can help us see. It was an amazing experience, a true privilege to be able to participate in. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
Only if they consider the results artistic. The art of creating they're art. Jack --- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: Bailing out. On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Bullshit Bob. For some people, I suspect for many artists, the process is the art. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be basketweavers. William Robb __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Bob W wrote: But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my time in production is on deciding what I want to present in a photograph, Some people think the time for making that decision is just before you press the shutter release. Some people would be foolish then. In production is defined to be the time after you've captured your exposures and have a selection of them in front of you. That's when you have to decide what to present, not what to capture. Godfrey
