Re: Status of *ist 35mm?
Last October, I've been told by Italian importers that they had no more film *ist's in stock, and no more will come from Pentax. So I believe the *ist was discontinued in 2005, if not in 2004, as remaining stocks are being sold very very slowly. Dario - Original Message - From: Unca Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: Status of *ist 35mm? Has anyone read or heard anything about the status or future of the Pentax *ist 35mm SLR? It's still shown on the Pentax USA site, but is no longer in the catalog for BH or Adorama. Amazon shows it as not in stock and some other sites show the model as discontinued. Is there any official word? I emailed Pentax, but no answer yet. I know the *ist is not highly regarded in PDML-land, but I love my *ist -- if they really are discontinued, I may have to buy one on closeout somewhere or on ebay, just to have a backup. *UncaMikey
Re: Pentax K to EOS Adaptor.
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Cotty wrote: I wanted a fast 50 mil for a D60 That's a bit steep... I'll offer you ten quid for it. - Dave (quoting out of context is fun)
Re: PESO: English saddle in S Louisiana
On Apr 11, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Godfrey's correct here. The reason that sRGB seems to be obeyed is because the native space for most applications that don't obey ICM profiles is quite close to sRGB (Which is in fact why it was created), so they'll usually be close to correct. By native space you really mean that most apps/systems completely ignore the whole concept of colour management, and sRGB just happens to correspond quite well with CRT monitors (by design, not coincidence). As far as web graphics are concerned, it's all academic until every monitor in the world is regularly calibrated profiled. - Dave
Re: PESO - I caught a Bandit !
On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:02 AM, frank theriault wrote: Cute little feller (as opposed to the large slovenly 'coons that waddle around our neighbourhood terrorizing cats). Get a bigger cat... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html? in_article_id=338009in_page_id=1770 Make sure you click on the photo :) - Dave
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
-Original Message- From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 April 2006 00:43 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. In theory, I agree 100% with every word you say. In reality, most of the time, there are 25 meters of water between me and the birds. What alternatives does that leave me with? Investing heavily in lenses (read selling the car), or cropping. Drain the swamp... I would be inclined to find somewhere else to shoot where I'm not forced to do that. Or you could be like Pal Jensen and lie in the bilges of a boat for hours on end. Bob
Re: Some good news ...
From: Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/10 Mon PM 10:20:42 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Some good news ... This stuff is always nice to read: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/ele/149916894.html Oh, I don't know. I'm quite partial to a bit of shudder squeak. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: List problems
On 11/4/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: I've seen no posts from the list in over 12 hours? Yes this is a test. Australia has been ditched from the list. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax K to EOS Adaptor.
I wanted a fast 50 mil for a D60 That's a bit steep... I'll offer you ten quid for it. It's holding down a large chest of drawers against spurious anti-gravity wormholes prevalent in the area. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Action photo and batteries
Morning, http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060405143808 Speaking of batteries I'm using Varta PhotoAccu 2500mAH NiMH rechargeables for several hours every day at about 2-4 degrees celsius and it lasts for 300-500 shots. I'd noticed long (75-300mm) tele zoom is more AF-consuming than wide-angles, so to me shooting sporting event your batteries would stand for half amount above. http://www.en.varta-consumer.com/content.php?path=/1085671775.htmldomain=www.en.varta-consumer.com Good luck, Roman. -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
Re: PS CS2
It seems to load pretty fast for me - it's certainly acceptable Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I love Bridge. I find it especially useful when using InDesign or working on a webpage, where you are juggling lots of different types of files. If only it loaded faster than it does.
Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/10 Mon PM 11:43:03 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. In theory, I agree 100% with every word you say. In reality, most of the time, there are 25 meters of water between me and the birds. What alternatives does that leave me with? Investing heavily in lenses (read selling the car), or cropping. Buy a canoe? http://www.profotos.com/education/promag/articles/december2001/birdblind/index.shtml http://www.iucn.org/themes/SSC/actionplans/grebes/ch4b.pdf m 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: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 00:23 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Hi, first of all, I would question the following statements: photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. Why do you think you have to crop later? What is forcing you to do this? Like you, I have shot mainly slides, and I prefer to compose in the viewfinder. I never shoot with the intention of cropping later, and I very rarely crop. When I've shot wildlife it has usually been with a 400m lens as the longest, plus a 2X TC. Admittedly, most of the wildlife I've shot has been bigger than most birds, but I never found a problem with composing in the viewfinder. I would hazard a guess that any issue you have is more psychological than real. With a hide you should be able to get very close to the birds. At the bird sanctuaries I've been too, the hides and the birds have been very close to each other. I notice that the most popular birding binoculars are something like 8x45, which is not very big. The main issue with them seems to be the need to focus closely, which also tells me something about how close you can get to birds. I recommend that you put these thoughts of cropping out of your mind, and, as you suggest, practice. Get used to the new techniques you are using first, before you expect world-shattering photographs, and accept that it will take some time to get through the learning phase. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 April 2006 22:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large
Re: Photographing fishes frogs
I recall a book I borrowed from the library about shooting pets that had a few pages about a photographer that specialized in aquarium shots. As I recall, he hand held a macro lens with rubber hood, the hood edges touching the aquarium glass. Flash was directed from above, on a cord attatched to the camera. For very small subjects, plexiglass or other clear sheets were used to cage the subjects. And the guy cleaned the aquarium glass first. He missed shots from focus, as well. You may be able to buy a dioptre that takes your macro to life size from Phoenix or Cosina - I have the Phoenix version of your lens and it came with a nice 2-element dioptre. Hope that helps. -Lon Thibouille wrote: I have a couple aquariums (I should say aquirii, I know) here with fishes 2 little frogs (ask my wife why :). I tried to take a couple pictures of these but it seems really difficult. My tripod could help but usually those things were not waiting for me so, not the tripod isn't that useful. Tried to snap a couple with my SMCP-FA 100 3.5 Macro and with my SMCP-FA 50 1.4 with stacked macro filters (how do one name those things, I don't remember) but I came up with mostly boring out of focus pics. Any advices? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations
Jane Bown - Faces: the Creative Process Behind Great Portraits A great BW photographer who used a meterless Oly SLR and carried a lightbulb in her purse as her only accessory. -Lon David Savage wrote: G'day All, OK, if you were to recommend just 2 books on or about photography, preferably not technical I have enough of those, which would they be. Street, landscape, whatever, it doesn't matter, I like them all. The reason I'm asking is I'm I've been in a bit of a photo funk lately, and I need some inspiration. A change of scenery would be better, but that just ain't gonna happen :-). Cheers, Dave S -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test)
On 11/4/06, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: If you havn't noticed On 10/4/06, Gabriel Cain, discombobulated, unleashed: is a regular joke (I believe) from Cotty. No joke! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations
Do you mean On Looking at Photographs? If so, I have that too. It's also very good, but not quite in the same league as On Being a Photographer, in my opinion. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 April 2006 06:56 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations Just got another Lenswork book ... it's out of print so I bought it on CD, printed it and had it bound at the copy shop down the street. On Seeing Photographs Looks to be the same high quality standard that other Lenswork books have shown.
Re: Photographing fishes frogs
Did you mean close-up lenses? greetings Markus Exactly ;) Thanks. -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Contraptions like the ones described in Mike's link is in fact quite popular by bird photographers in Norway too. A home made solution doesn't have to cost a fortune, but the dry suit Tim will need to wear probably will. Nothing more dangerous in the water than weever, though. :-) Jostein - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/10 Mon PM 11:43:03 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. In theory, I agree 100% with every word you say. In reality, most of the time, there are 25 meters of water between me and the birds. What alternatives does that leave me with? Investing heavily in lenses (read selling the car), or cropping. Buy a canoe? http://www.profotos.com/education/promag/articles/december2001/birdblind/index.shtml http://www.iucn.org/themes/SSC/actionplans/grebes/ch4b.pdf m 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: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 00:23 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Hi, first of all, I would question the following statements: photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. Why do you think you have to crop later? What is forcing you to do this? Like you, I have shot mainly slides, and I prefer to compose in the viewfinder. I never shoot with the intention of cropping later, and I very rarely crop. When I've shot wildlife it has usually been with a 400m lens as the longest, plus a 2X TC. Admittedly, most of the wildlife I've shot has been bigger than most birds, but I never found a problem with composing in the viewfinder. I would hazard a guess that any issue you have is more psychological than real. With a hide you should be able to get very close to the birds. At the bird sanctuaries I've been too, the hides and the birds have been very close to each other. I notice that the most popular birding binoculars are something like 8x45, which is not very big. The main issue with them seems to be the need to focus closely, which also tells me something about how close you can get to birds. I recommend that you put these thoughts of cropping out of your mind, and, as you suggest, practice. Get used to the new techniques you are using first, before you expect world-shattering photographs, and accept that it will take some time to get through the learning phase. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 April 2006 22:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I
Re: Photographing fishes frogs
Trap focus, flash remotely held above the tank to freeze action and help close the aperture to increase DOF and loads of persistence. Really didn't think about trap focus :) You will also be suprised at how much detritus there is in the water in the photographs. Yeah, already noticed. Some fishes even have their hanging on to their.. OK I stop ;) It makes them look so stupid IMO :D -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Photographing fishes frogs
Yeah it helps much. Thanks to all :) On 4/11/06, Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recall a book I borrowed from the library about shooting pets that had a few pages about a photographer that specialized in aquarium shots. As I recall, he hand held a macro lens with rubber hood, the hood edges touching the aquarium glass. Flash was directed from above, on a cord attatched to the camera. For very small subjects, plexiglass or other clear sheets were used to cage the subjects. And the guy cleaned the aquarium glass first. He missed shots from focus, as well. You may be able to buy a dioptre that takes your macro to life size from Phoenix or Cosina - I have the Phoenix version of your lens and it came with a nice 2-element dioptre. Hope that helps. -Lon Thibouille wrote: I have a couple aquariums (I should say aquirii, I know) here with fishes 2 little frogs (ask my wife why :). I tried to take a couple pictures of these but it seems really difficult. My tripod could help but usually those things were not waiting for me so, not the tripod isn't that useful. Tried to snap a couple with my SMCP-FA 100 3.5 Macro and with my SMCP-FA 50 1.4 with stacked macro filters (how do one name those things, I don't remember) but I came up with mostly boring out of focus pics. Any advices? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: PS CS2
Maybe you haven't a couple hundred PEF files on the folder used by default by Bridge? I do (yeah I'm very ordonated kind of person lol) and sometimes it is sloow :) On 4/11/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to load pretty fast for me - it's certainly acceptable Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I love Bridge. I find it especially useful when using InDesign or working on a webpage, where you are juggling lots of different types of files. If only it loaded faster than it does. -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Some good news ...
Gimme tissues, gimme tissues :') LOL. Still nice ;) On 4/11/06, Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This stuff is always nice to read: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/ele/149916894.html Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://www.brendemuehl.net He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Status of *ist 35mm?
Another thing against (well, that's personal preference) is that you place the film cartridge the opposite of the usual way. I don't care IMO... On 4/11/06, Unca Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only thing I've heard against the *ist is the crippled mount -- and since I don't have any of the older lenses, it's not a big deal to me. I thought about the MZ-S, but it doesn't work that well with lenses without an aperture ring, and it's much bigger/heavier than I would like. I had a Spotmatic for 30+ years, but after about two years of using the *ist, I must have a thumbwheel! LOL. I could never go back to the old way of changing aperture and shutter speed, I am now addicted to having aperture and exposure compensation and DOF and AE lock all there at my thumb and forefinger. I've tried manual focusing, but the camera is so much faster and more accurate, I gave up and just select the focus point instead. Good luck with the primes, Scott -- I have the DA 40mm and the FA 50mm f1.7, and they work great with this body, very handy. *UncaMikey --- Scott Loveless wrote: For a while now I've been considering buying an MZ-S or PZ-1 to complement the *ist. -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Buy a canoe? http://www.profotos.com/education/promag/articles/december2001/birdblind/index.shtml http://www.iucn.org/themes/SSC/actionplans/grebes/ch4b.pdf m ROTFL ;) -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: PESO - Signs of spring
Lovely shot, Bruce. Alas, we still have two months to go before my garden plum tree looks like that...:-) Jostein - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:54 PM Subject: PESO - Signs of spring We have had a very strange spring here. We had some beautiful days in February and then March came setting records for number of days with rain - 20 right where I live. April is looking the same so far. So we had spring blossoms opening up in February (early) and then kind of struggled along since. I caught this one just as the rain ended for a short while this morning. I took several and decided that I liked the foliage in the top left corner - sort of anchored it and gave it a sense of place. Pentax *istD, Tokina AT-X 400/5.6, Tripod ISO 400, 1/180 sec @ f/5.6 http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3094.htm Comments welcome -- Bruce
Re: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Tim, Every birdspotting site has its own set of limitations, and distance to the birds is a pretty common one. :-( Mike's comment about floating hides may not be as far fetched as it seems, if you for example can make a raft that you can anchor, and which you don't need to submerge yourself in the water. Kinda like the contraption that I referred to yesterday, that would make me seasick...:-) Jostein - Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:53 PM Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
Re: PS CS2
It is pretty cool. The extra versatility of Bridge was the deciding factor in my upgrade for PS CS. Dave S. On 4/11/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed a trial version of CS2 and tried the updated raw converter. Wow! It is so much nicer and more complete than version 2.4. Many of the things I wanted to do in raw but couldn't, can now be done ;-)) Shel -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue AM 08:57:51 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Contraptions like the ones described in Mike's link is in fact quite popular by bird photographers in Norway too. A home made solution doesn't have to cost a fortune, but the dry suit Tim will need to wear probably will. Nothing more dangerous in the water than weever, though. :-) Jostein http://safety-boots.greenham.com/c/pl/66912/Acifort-Ribbed-Full-Safety-Chest-Waders-with-Midsole Weevers, watch out!! 8-))) - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/10 Mon PM 11:43:03 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. In theory, I agree 100% with every word you say. In reality, most of the time, there are 25 meters of water between me and the birds. What alternatives does that leave me with? Investing heavily in lenses (read selling the car), or cropping. Buy a canoe? http://www.profotos.com/education/promag/articles/december2001/birdblind/index.shtml http://www.iucn.org/themes/SSC/actionplans/grebes/ch4b.pdf m 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: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 00:23 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Hi, first of all, I would question the following statements: photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. Why do you think you have to crop later? What is forcing you to do this? Like you, I have shot mainly slides, and I prefer to compose in the viewfinder. I never shoot with the intention of cropping later, and I very rarely crop. When I've shot wildlife it has usually been with a 400m lens as the longest, plus a 2X TC. Admittedly, most of the wildlife I've shot has been bigger than most birds, but I never found a problem with composing in the viewfinder. I would hazard a guess that any issue you have is more psychological than real. With a hide you should be able to get very close to the birds. At the bird sanctuaries I've been too, the hides and the birds have been very close to each other. I notice that the most popular birding binoculars are something like 8x45, which is not very big. The main issue with them seems to be the need to focus closely, which also tells me something about how close you can get to birds. I recommend that you put these thoughts of cropping out of your mind, and, as you suggest, practice. Get used to the new techniques you are using first, before you expect world-shattering photographs, and accept that it will take some time to get through the learning phase. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 April 2006 22:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides
Re: Re: Photographing fishes frogs
From: Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue AM 08:53:55 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Photographing fishes frogs Trap focus, flash remotely held above the tank to freeze action and help close the aperture to increase DOF and loads of persistence. Really didn't think about trap focus :) You will also be suprised at how much detritus there is in the water in the photographs. Yeah, already noticed. Some fishes even have their hanging on to their.. OK I stop ;) It makes them look so stupid IMO :D 8-) Another thing to watch out for is bubbles. If you are taking some time in the process and the water starts to warm slightly, maybe due to heat from lighting or whatever, dissolved gas will start to bubble out over everything. The penning pieces of glass you use will be prone to this. This problem is a real pain if you are trying to photograph wild specimens in small tanks on location. The smaller amount of water heats quite rapidly and it starts to look like a Cola commercial. Unfortunately, when the small tanks would get _colder_ than the lake/pond, the animals are all asleep m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
On Apr 11, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Bob W wrote: I would be inclined to find somewhere else to shoot where I'm not forced to do that. Or you could be like Pal Jensen and lie in the bilges of a boat for hours on end. I'd have a go at just working with what you've got. If your lenses are too short or you can't get close enough, try turning your disadvantage around and include some of the surrounding environment. Or crop like a madman and say that the resultant grain/noise gives it personality... I did that once with a picture of some relatively distant swans on a misty lake. Shot with 400 film, printed at 15x10 then cropped to 10x4... plenty of personality :) - Dave
Re: Question for the low light shooters
I'd say you did a rather good job on the technical side of things considering the conditions. You might pull up the midrange brightness on some of them. You can do that in PhotoShop curves with the rgb curve. Just push the middle up. You might also improve some of them slightly with an adjustment to the shadow brightness level with the PS tool Shadows/Highlights. I know you didn't focus on composition, but next time remember that for most group shots you should frame down. Don't leave as much empty space above the heads. But I think these are excellent for your purpose, and your friends should be very pleased. Paul On Apr 11, 2006, at 1:01 AM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: Last friday I had the chance to do my first indoor available light shooting. The small event was not really a happy one, as this was a farewell lunch for a couple of co-workers that joined the 500 employees that were laid-off last week by the Co. I work for. Anyway I tried to capture some shots as a way for them to remember some of us. I tried half of the shots without flash. The light was really dim with light comming from some spotlights. I expected to use ISO 800 but end up using mostly 1600 (even some 3200). Just want to tell you guys what I did and collect some valuable tips if possible (all shots with my *istDS): 1) I used an FA35/2 wide open, which turn to be acceptable sharp in the centre (I mean, given the fact I used it wide open) 2) Manual mode, spot metered the subject, adjusted ISO, autofocus, switch to manual focus and then burst-shot sets of 3 frames in a row hoping to use the one in the middle (I don't trust my eyes, the autofocus didn't hunt that much, I switched to manual focus so the camera wouldn't try to autofocus between shots) 3) I shot raw to have more latitude in the postprocessing and set white balance to tungsten just to have a reference when processing the raw files 4) End-up using mostly ISO 1600 5) Processed in Capture One usually pushing with the exposure compensation dial between +0.65 to +1.15 6) Adjusted contrast, brightness 7) Saved as TIFF 16 bits 8) Used Neat Image (default parametes) to clean up the noise and save as .jpg 9) Added some sharpening in PSP This is an example shot: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083 large size: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083size=lg Any ideas on how could I improve this next time (hopefully a birthday lunch not a farewell one...)? I liked shooting this way as ppl didn't get disturbed and I could capture some interesting face expressions that otherwise would've been impossible to capture. At the end, just in case, I got the obligatory posed shots (forgot the AF360 so didn't turn good) but I'm amazed with the outcome of the cleaned High ISO. Don't mind the composition as I was focused in the technicalities, hopefully next time I'll be more relaxed ;-) The rest of the shots (extra sharpened for the web) are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/72057594091422991/
RE: *ist Ds and virus ?
Hi Sandra could it be that the laptop tries to boot from CD or even USB drives? Try to boot without a CD or diskette inserted or USB connection. If that works, go into the BIOS setup and change the boot order to hard disk first. You can repair your Windows Installation by fixing the master boot sector, you have to boot with the CD for that. If the problem reappears after that, your hard disk may be faulty or you may have a boot sector virus. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Sandra Hermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:06 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: *ist Ds and virus ? I have a laptop that has never been online. I use it to store pictures and play CC. Today I turned it on and It informed me that the operating system was not availible. Is there anyway I have a virus coming from my camera to the computer? This is the second time the computer has completely lost it's operating system in the space of 2 months. the laptop is only 6 months old.Command and Conquer is on a cd. I have had it on every computer I owned at one point or another. It is on this computer and it acts fine. That is why I am questioning the camera connection. sandy
Re: PESO - I caught a Bandit !
Still don't see the noise. And I even put my glasses on:-). I do see a texture on the nose that is obviously part of the animal and has a grainy appearance. Anyway, we'll have to disagree on this one. Sorry, Godfrey:-)). On Apr 11, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I'm sorry, Paul, but I have to disagree. There is underexposure noise in the shadows, on the nose and even in the eyes. Overall the entire image has a look of brittle edginess that is typical of over-aggressive USM sharpening. It's a high-frequency image with all the fur ... which often get this look when oversharpened even a small amount. It's a very cute composition and would be great if it weren't so noisy/sharpened looking. Godfrey On Apr 10, 2006, at 8:17 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I think that what some are seeing as noise is merely the texture of the tree and the animal's fur. Look at the raccoon's nose and the sky. If there was a lot of noise in the pic it would show up there as well. There's no halo effect that would suggest oversharpening. There is some digital fringing, which can create the illusion of oversharpening on small web images. Paul On Apr 10, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yep - I see it the same way on all counts. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Seems oversharpened and noisy. Excellent composition. Godfrey
Re: PS CS2
I'm just in the process of switching over to this (from CS), and I have to agree. A substantial upgrade. Paul On Apr 10, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I just installed a trial version of CS2 and tried the updated raw converter. Wow! It is so much nicer and more complete than version 2.4. Many of the things I wanted to do in raw but couldn't, can now be done ;-)) Shel
Re: *ist Ds and virus ?
could it be that the laptop tries to boot from CD or even USB drives? Try to boot without a CD or diskette inserted or USB connection. If that works, go into the BIOS setup and change the boot order to hard disk first. You can even boot from most cameras ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Exactly my thoughts, that is very well written Bob! greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:23 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Hi, first of all, I would question the following statements: photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. Why do you think you have to crop later? What is forcing you to do this? Like you, I have shot mainly slides, and I prefer to compose in the viewfinder. I never shoot with the intention of cropping later, and I very rarely crop. When I've shot wildlife it has usually been with a 400m lens as the longest, plus a 2X TC. Admittedly, most of the wildlife I've shot has been bigger than most birds, but I never found a problem with composing in the viewfinder. I would hazard a guess that any issue you have is more psychological than real. With a hide you should be able to get very close to the birds. At the bird sanctuaries I've been too, the hides and the birds have been very close to each other. I notice that the most popular birding binoculars are something like 8x45, which is not very big. The main issue with them seems to be the need to focus closely, which also tells me something about how close you can get to birds. I recommend that you put these thoughts of cropping out of your mind, and, as you suggest, practice. Get used to the new techniques you are using first, before you expect world-shattering photographs, and accept that it will take some time to get through the learning phase. -- Cheers, Bob I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Re: PS CS2
Thibouille wrote: Maybe you haven't a couple hundred PEF files on the folder used by default by Bridge? I do (yeah I'm very ordonated kind of person lol) and sometimes it is sloow :) On 4/11/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to load pretty fast for me - it's certainly acceptable Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I love Bridge. I find it especially useful when using InDesign or working on a webpage, where you are juggling lots of different types of files. If only it loaded faster than it does. -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... Argh! How do you get *ist D RAW files into PS CS? What is bridge and how do you find that? Please chaps ... my CS won't look at RAW files. The Plug-in is there I can see it in the 'About Plug-ins.' Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
Re: Pentax K to EOS Adaptor.
Well if you didn't have that 'Bird of Prey' parked in the field behind the house with the cloaking device on, you wouldn't be having the anti-gravity problems... Bob S. On 4/11/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted a fast 50 mil for a D60 That's a bit steep... I'll offer you ten quid for it. It's holding down a large chest of drawers against spurious anti-gravity wormholes prevalent in the area. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Hi Tim you not only posed a question you also made a strong statement that you **have to** crop your shots even when using a 500mm lens. That's why you got those answers IMHO. Brutally said, I start thinking that your where simply not patient enough for that kind of bird photography yet. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 1:39 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
Re: PS CS2
Bridge is the CS2 improvement on CS's File Browser, which can be used without having Photoshop running. Check to make sure you have the correct version of the Camera RAW plug-in, update 2.1 or higher. They can be downloaded from here: Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Windows http://tinyurl.com/4bhlt Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Macintosh http://tinyurl.com/32lls HTH Dave S. On 4/11/06, Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Argh! How do you get *ist D RAW files into PS CS? What is bridge and how do you find that? Please chaps ... my CS won't look at RAW files. The Plug-in is there I can see it in the 'About Plug-ins.' Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: List problems
Withdrawal symptoms setting in Rob? Dave S. :-) On 4/11/06, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've seen no posts from the list in over 12 hours? Yes this is a test. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Now there's a thought (was Re: *ist Ds and virus ?)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:15:58 +0200 From: Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can even boot from most cameras ;) Put the OS of choice onto your memory card, in a bootable fashion. Put the applications there, too. Use a 2 gig or larger card. Of course, carry a card reader. Then, when ready and out on location, boot from the camera to the OS and applications which you prefer. Collin KC8TKA
Re: List problems
I thought it was because all you northerners were outside enjoying the nicer weather. Instead of warming yourselves by the heat of a flame war. Dave S. :-) On 4/11/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/4/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: I've seen no posts from the list in over 12 hours? Yes this is a test. Australia has been ditched from the list. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: New Announcement?
On 2006-04-05 19:32, Martin Trautmann wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060405/tc_nm/japan_pentax_dc_1 - goal to ship 3.0 million digital cameras in 2006/07 - goal to ship 240 000 DSLRs in 2006/2007 - estimated 120 000 DSLR units in 2005/2006 (what's the number of C, N, KM, O?) Unfortunately no one named those numbers. I guess it's Nikon-SLR: 140 000 (estim. 2006), 240 000 (2005), 310 000 (estim. 2005), 680 000 (2004) Nikon-Digital: 7 800 000 (estim. 2006), 6 610 000 (2005), 5 400 000 (2004) Nikon-DSLR: 1 500 000 (estim. 2006), 1 000 000 (estim. 2005), 300 000 (2004) Canon-Digital: 19 200 000 (estim. 2006), 16 900 000 (2005) Canon-DSLR: 59 % (2006), 2 200 000 (estim. 2006), 1 900 000 (2005) DSLR total: 7 900 000 (estim. 2009 by IDC), 2 500 000 (2004)
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Markus. I am told that Indians has a saying, something like this don't judge a man, without walking a day in his shoes ;-) I have spent hour is the hide. Patience is not going to move the hide, and I am afraid it will not move the birds closer to the hide. So, as I see the situation, I need to find a solution _within_ the limitations. This said: I _really_ hope you are right Markus. Nothing would be better. Anyway. Most of us do crop now and then, don't we? My problem is that I crop badly, when doing it on screen. I'm not only talking about this specific situation. It is a general question. I could have made that clear. So, how do I set my mind in composing mode when doing it? Please... 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: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 13:46 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Hi Tim you not only posed a question you also made a strong statement that you **have to** crop your shots even when using a 500mm lens. That's why you got those answers IMHO. Brutally said, I start thinking that your where simply not patient enough for that kind of bird photography yet. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 1:39 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
Re PS CS2
Funny. I didi the samething last night.:-) I just loaded it, but i still have to update the ACRplugin for it. I have 60 D200 Nef files i cannot open and i need 2 for the newspapaer Wednesday. No pressure:-) Dave I just installed a trial version of CS2 and tried the updated raw converter. Wow! It is so much nicer and more complete than version 2.4. Many of the things I wanted to do in raw but couldn't, can now be done ;-)) Shel David J Brooks Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region www.caughtinmotion.com Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H
Re: List problems
Op Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:46:36 +0200 schreef Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've seen no posts from the list in over 12 hours? Yes this is a test. It is. You failed :o) -- Regards, Lucas
Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue AM 11:39:05 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. The general answer seems to be Do the very best you can in-camera before you think about phixing. There is plenty of room for improvement. Which is meant as encouragement, not insult. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
- Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. Lock your cropping tool into a fixed aspect ratio. Discipline requires limitation. William Robb
Re: Action photo and batteries
On Apr 11, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Roman wrote: Speaking of batteries I'm using Varta PhotoAccu 2500mAH NiMH rechargeables for several hours every day at about 2-4 degrees celsius and it lasts for 300-500 shots. I'd noticed long (75-300mm) tele zoom is more AF-consuming than wide-angles, so to me shooting sporting event your batteries would stand for half amount above. I use a set of Powa NiMH 2500 mAH for about three hours and shoot 600-800 shots in light jacket weather here without needing to change, though I use AF very sparingly and don't power up the screen very often. I haven't had a game this year where I've needed to change batteries. Don't know if I'm just becoming more efficient or if the DS2 is less of a drain than the D was, or some combination of the two. -Aaron
Re: *ist Ds and virus ?
Sandra, If you have had your camera connected to a computer with a virus there is a VERY small chance of a virus being transferred, most modern viruses wouldn't work this way. I have heard of a case where a Canon printer was infected with a virus and infected the rest of an otherwise secure network. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon Sandra Hermann wrote: I have a laptop that has never been online. I use it to store pictures and play CC. Today I turned it on and It informed me that the operating system was not availible. Is there anyway I have a virus coming from my camera to the computer? This is the second time the computer has completely lost it's operating system in the space of 2 months. the laptop is only 6 months old.Command and Conquer is on a cd. I have had it on every computer I owned at one point or another. It is on this computer and it acts fine. That is why I am questioning the camera connection. sandy
Re: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
I could say something smutty juvenile at this point but I'll refrain. Dave S. :-) On 4/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - Wrom: PBARHDMNNSKVF Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. Lock your cropping tool into a fixed aspect ratio. Discipline requires limitation. William Robb -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
RE: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Don't worry Mike. I am not insulted, not at all. If I sound insulted, then thats not my intention. I am frustrated by the situation thats all. 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: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 14:22 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue AM 11:39:05 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. The general answer seems to be Do the very best you can in-camera before you think about phixing. There is plenty of room for improvement. Which is meant as encouragement, not insult. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
Thanks Bill. That's one very good advice ;-) The list is wise, but the wisdom is easily distracted. Keep them coming. 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: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 14:24 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. - Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. Lock your cropping tool into a fixed aspect ratio. Discipline requires limitation. William Robb
Re: PS CS2
David Savage wrote: Bridge is the CS2 improvement on CS's File Browser, which can be used without having Photoshop running. Check to make sure you have the correct version of the Camera RAW plug-in, update 2.1 or higher. They can be downloaded from here: Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Windows http://tinyurl.com/4bhlt Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Macintosh http://tinyurl.com/32lls HTH Dave S. On 4/11/06, Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Argh! How do you get *ist D RAW files into PS CS? What is bridge and how do you find that? Please chaps ... my CS won't look at RAW files. The Plug-in is there I can see it in the 'About Plug-ins.' Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan It's worse than that -- I don't have the right version of CS. The plug-ins (3.2 and 3.3) only work with CS2 apparently. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
RE: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue PM 12:37:07 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Don't worry Mike. I am not insulted, not at all. If I sound insulted, then thats not my intention. I am frustrated by the situation thats all. Welcome to the world of wildlife photography. Be thankful you are not paying for film for all the difficult times. Once you have the problems solved, you can graduate. 8-))) 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: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 14:22 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue AM 11:39:05 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. The general answer seems to be Do the very best you can in-camera before you think about phixing. There is plenty of room for improvement. Which is meant as encouragement, not insult. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
PESO: Passing Crow
I thought I'd entertain you a bit while nagging about the cropping ;-) This is a crop ;-) This crow passed. When looking at it later I liked the abstract look. After some fiddling I decided that I'll let two more birds into the frame. It creates a pattern, a rhythm, can't explain why I see it this way. http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=230021 500mm and 1/200s. The rest of the techie stuff isn't very relevant IMO. I could perhaps have done something with the dark parts in the water, to make the lowest bird more visible. But I didn't. I'm a slob ;-) I played a bit with it in PSEL, trying to add a more surreal feeling. Tried a lot of alternatives, but ended up almost as it came out of the converter. 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)
Late for scapes, on time for macros
http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060411154638 Water is amazing for intimate landscapes, but it's better during the morning hours. I was late for scapes today, but I didn't miss macro closeup fun today. Just wanted to share my spring moments with you. Roman. -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
Re: PS CS2
There are several ways to speed up Bridge. Check out the Adobe User-to-User forums for suggestions, tips, upgrades, and the like. There are people there who are working with many more files than a couple hundred. Perhaps you'll find a way to speed things up. Shel [Original Message] From: Thibouille Maybe you haven't a couple hundred PEF files on the folder used by default by Bridge? I do (yeah I'm very ordonated kind of person lol) and sometimes it is sloow :) On 4/11/06, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It seems to load pretty fast for me - it's certainly acceptable
Re: Late for scapes, on time for macros
Roman, Your mushy is upside down. Jostein - Original Message - From: Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: Late for scapes, on time for macros http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060411154638 Water is amazing for intimate landscapes, but it's better during the morning hours. I was late for scapes today, but I didn't miss macro closeup fun today. Just wanted to share my spring moments with you. Roman. -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
Re: PS CS2
So, CS has a RAW converter. It's good for all versions up to 2.4. What exactly is your problem? Shel [Original Message] From: Don Williams It's worse than that -- I don't have the right version of CS. The plug-ins (3.2 and 3.3) only work with CS2 apparently.
RE: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test)
Sorry. Forgot, Cotty never makes jokes, thats part of his act ;-) Seriously, Cotty. Are you serious? As I read your heading it is a friendly insult. Have I got it completely wrong? 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: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 09:25 To: pentax list Subject: Re: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test) On 11/4/06, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: If you havn't noticed On 10/4/06, Gabriel Cain, discombobulated, unleashed: is a regular joke (I believe) from Cotty. No joke! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Question for the low light shooters
I guess that's why most of the low light photography I see is shot with BW (or BW in mind); makes sense, you can use blown highlights and darks, and the grainiy look actually looks good in BW. I'll give it try next time. thnks On 4/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not a disparagement of your effort, Fernando, but I'm not a fan of the Neat Image 'noise smoothed' look. It makes everything look somewhat plasticky and artificial to me. How to improve on the look ... well, I'm not sure. It depends upon what you're after. I tend to work such low-light situations with BW rendering in mind. Godfrey On Apr 10, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: ... 1) I used an FA35/2 wide open, which turn to be acceptable sharp in the centre (I mean, given the fact I used it wide open) 2) Manual mode, spot metered the subject, adjusted ISO, autofocus, switch to manual focus and then burst-shot sets of 3 frames in a row hoping to use the one in the middle (I don't trust my eyes, the autofocus didn't hunt that much, I switched to manual focus so the camera wouldn't try to autofocus between shots) 3) I shot raw to have more latitude in the postprocessing and set white balance to tungsten just to have a reference when processing the raw files 4) End-up using mostly ISO 1600 5) Processed in Capture One usually pushing with the exposure compensation dial between +0.65 to +1.15 6) Adjusted contrast, brightness 7) Saved as TIFF 16 bits 8) Used Neat Image (default parametes) to clean up the noise and save as .jpg 9) Added some sharpening in PSP http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083 large size: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083size=lg Don't mind the composition as I was focused in the technicalities, hopefully next time I'll be more relaxed ;-) The rest of the shots (extra sharpened for the web) are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/72057594091422991/
OT Test
Now my Horde email account has died on the list. Just a test to see if it shows up in the archives or digest Dave Equine Photography in York Region
Re: PS CS2
Don if you install version 2.4 of the ACR plug-in for CS (the most recent version for CS IIRC) you will then be able to see edit your .pef files. Here's the direct link to the necessary plug-in: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2701 I had CS for some time before upgrading to CS2 had no problems working with the Pentax RAW files, once I installed the updated plug-in (v2.1 at that time). I still have CS installed with v2.4 of ACR. BTW Adobe Bridge is only available with CS2. Cheers, Dave S. On 4/11/06, Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Savage wrote: Bridge is the CS2 improvement on CS's File Browser, which can be used without having Photoshop running. Check to make sure you have the correct version of the Camera RAW plug-in, update 2.1 or higher. They can be downloaded from here: Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Windows http://tinyurl.com/4bhlt Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Macintosh http://tinyurl.com/32lls HTH It's worse than that -- I don't have the right version of CS. The plug-ins (3.2 and 3.3) only work with CS2 apparently. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: Question for the low light shooters
Paul, reading your post I realized that if I had composed that way (I mean the right way) it would've been much better also for the post-process, right? I mean that way I could've avoid some backlight which was problematic to deal with during the shots and in the postprocessing. Didn't know about the Shadows/Highlights. I'll give it a try. Thank you very much. On 4/11/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say you did a rather good job on the technical side of things considering the conditions. You might pull up the midrange brightness on some of them. You can do that in PhotoShop curves with the rgb curve. Just push the middle up. You might also improve some of them slightly with an adjustment to the shadow brightness level with the PS tool Shadows/Highlights. I know you didn't focus on composition, but next time remember that for most group shots you should frame down. Don't leave as much empty space above the heads. But I think these are excellent for your purpose, and your friends should be very pleased. Paul On Apr 11, 2006, at 1:01 AM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: Last friday I had the chance to do my first indoor available light shooting. The small event was not really a happy one, as this was a farewell lunch for a couple of co-workers that joined the 500 employees that were laid-off last week by the Co. I work for. Anyway I tried to capture some shots as a way for them to remember some of us. I tried half of the shots without flash. The light was really dim with light comming from some spotlights. I expected to use ISO 800 but end up using mostly 1600 (even some 3200). Just want to tell you guys what I did and collect some valuable tips if possible (all shots with my *istDS): 1) I used an FA35/2 wide open, which turn to be acceptable sharp in the centre (I mean, given the fact I used it wide open) 2) Manual mode, spot metered the subject, adjusted ISO, autofocus, switch to manual focus and then burst-shot sets of 3 frames in a row hoping to use the one in the middle (I don't trust my eyes, the autofocus didn't hunt that much, I switched to manual focus so the camera wouldn't try to autofocus between shots) 3) I shot raw to have more latitude in the postprocessing and set white balance to tungsten just to have a reference when processing the raw files 4) End-up using mostly ISO 1600 5) Processed in Capture One usually pushing with the exposure compensation dial between +0.65 to +1.15 6) Adjusted contrast, brightness 7) Saved as TIFF 16 bits 8) Used Neat Image (default parametes) to clean up the noise and save as .jpg 9) Added some sharpening in PSP This is an example shot: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083 large size: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083size=lg Any ideas on how could I improve this next time (hopefully a birthday lunch not a farewell one...)? I liked shooting this way as ppl didn't get disturbed and I could capture some interesting face expressions that otherwise would've been impossible to capture. At the end, just in case, I got the obligatory posed shots (forgot the AF360 so didn't turn good) but I'm amazed with the outcome of the cleaned High ISO. Don't mind the composition as I was focused in the technicalities, hopefully next time I'll be more relaxed ;-) The rest of the shots (extra sharpened for the web) are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/72057594091422991/
Re: OT Test
I didn't get it. Dave S. -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: PS CS2
Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, CS has a RAW converter. It's good for all versions up to 2.4. What exactly is your problem? Shel [Original Message] From: Don Williams It's worse than that -- I don't have the right version of CS. The plug-ins (3.2 and 3.3) only work with CS2 apparently. Hi Shel, I can't open ist D RAW files. Photoshop announces they are the wrong format. I have been using RSE up to now but it would seem, from the posts I've read, that Photoshop can do a decent job. So I tried -- but no go. It's not a great loss since RSE works well -- but I thought if I could save a step it would help. I process hundreds of images in a session and anything that saves time would be helpful. I have a stack of CDs half a foot high holding the 'D' images. If one has to import -- as in version 7 -- that takes a whole lot longer than using RSE and CS sequentially. Time is not on my side -- apologies to Mr Jagger. Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
Re: PS CS2
Have you upgraded to v2.4 of ACR? That will certainly do the trick. Shel Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, CS has a RAW converter. It's good for all versions up to 2.4. What exactly is your problem? From: Don Williams I can't open ist D RAW files. Photoshop announces they are the wrong format. I have been using RSE up to now but it would seem, from the posts I've read, that Photoshop can do a decent job. So I tried -- but no go. It's not a great loss since RSE works well -- but I thought if I could save a step it would help. I process hundreds of images in a session and anything that saves time would be helpful.
Re: PS CS2
David Savage wrote: Don if you install version 2.4 of the ACR plug-in for CS (the most recent version for CS IIRC) you will then be able to see edit your .pef files. Here's the direct link to the necessary plug-in: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2701 I had CS for some time before upgrading to CS2 had no problems working with the Pentax RAW files, once I installed the updated plug-in (v2.1 at that time). I still have CS installed with v2.4 of ACR. BTW Adobe Bridge is only available with CS2. Cheers, Dave S. On 4/11/06, Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Savage wrote: Bridge is the CS2 improvement on CS's File Browser, which can be used without having Photoshop running. Check to make sure you have the correct version of the Camera RAW plug-in, update 2.1 or higher. They can be downloaded from here: Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Windows http://tinyurl.com/4bhlt Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39platform=Macintosh http://tinyurl.com/32lls HTH It's worse than that -- I don't have the right version of CS. The plug-ins (3.2 and 3.3) only work with CS2 apparently. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan Yes indeed. It works. Now to see if opening the files directly will save time. I've been batch converting in RSE and discarding quite a high percentage. This may save time. Thanks a whole lot. I should have done this long ago. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
RE: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test)
I've always found the comment to be somewhat insulting and not at all funny. I've mentioned it to Cotty, but hey, he likes it and no one else has complained, so WTF. Now there's two of us ... not that that will change anything. Shel [Original Message] From: Tim Øsleby Seriously, Cotty. Are you serious? As I read your heading it is a friendly insult. Have I got it completely wrong?
Re: PESO: English saddle in S Louisiana
David Mann wrote: On Apr 11, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Godfrey's correct here. The reason that sRGB seems to be obeyed is because the native space for most applications that don't obey ICM profiles is quite close to sRGB (Which is in fact why it was created), so they'll usually be close to correct. By native space you really mean that most apps/systems completely ignore the whole concept of colour management, and sRGB just happens to correspond quite well with CRT monitors (by design, not coincidence). As far as web graphics are concerned, it's all academic until every monitor in the world is regularly calibrated profiled. - Dave Bingo. -Adam
Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations
Yes, that's the one. I agree ... On Being a Photographer is a larger, more potent work. Godfrey On Apr 11, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Bob W wrote: Do you mean On Looking at Photographs? If so, I have that too. It's also very good, but not quite in the same league as On Being a Photographer, in my opinion. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 April 2006 06:56 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations Just got another Lenswork book ... it's out of print so I bought it on CD, printed it and had it bound at the copy shop down the street. On Seeing Photographs Looks to be the same high quality standard that other Lenswork books have shown.
Re: Re PS CS2
PS CS2 is definitely worth the upgrade cost. For Bridge, for Smart Sharpening, for the far better functionality in Camera Raw v3.x alone. Never mind all the other stuff it does over CS as well. Godfrey
AWB or MWB for IR
Just curious. Those that are now shooting digital IR, do you find the AWB(red hue)works better for BW adjustments or using the Manual WB setting(pinkish hue) My experiment using grass and MWB seemed to work well. Comments.? Dave (down to one email that will accept pdml mail:-() Brooks
Re: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
David Savage wrote: On 4/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Discipline requires limitation. I could say something smutty juvenile at this point but I'll refrain. Aw c'mon... pleease?
Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations
A couple of personal favorites: Photography Until Now by John Szarkowski A Creative Approach to Controlling Photography by Harry Boyd, Jr. The second one has unfortunately been out of print for some time and may be hard to find. Bob
Re: PS CS2
On Apr 11, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Don Williams wrote: Yes indeed. It works. Now to see if opening the files directly will save time. I've been batch converting in RSE and discarding quite a high percentage. This may save time. Thanks a whole lot. I should have done this long ago. This has been mentioned here many many times, but it bears repeating. If you're new to CS/ACR2.x or CS2/ACR3.x, you will save a tremendous amount of time by obtaining Bruce Fraser's Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop [ CS | CS2 ] (pick the edition that matches the version of Photoshop you're using as there are substantial differences). Learning how to use File Browser/Bridge to sort and select RAW files for processing, how to develop a set of RAW processing parameters, how to apply them to a lot of files easily and quickly, learning how to automate the tedious and repetitive processes ... learning how to use the software tools effectively is very important to being productive. Bruce's book is about the best presented collection of the RAW concepts and workflow paradigm I've found. Alluding to one previous thread, it's not about photography so much as it's about the software tools used to make photography possible. Godfrey
Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations
Thanks Bob Godfrey. I appreciate the suggestions, you can never have too many books. :-) Dave S. On 4/11/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple of personal favorites: Photography Until Now by John Szarkowski A Creative Approach to Controlling Photography by Harry Boyd, Jr. The second one has unfortunately been out of print for some time and may be hard to find. Bob -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: RE: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test)
It's a real but anachronistic and/or vernacular word. It means disorientated. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue PM 01:25:52 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test) Sorry. Forgot, Cotty never makes jokes, thats part of his act ;-) Seriously, Cotty. Are you serious? As I read your heading it is a friendly insult. Have I got it completely wrong? 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: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 09:25 To: pentax list Subject: Re: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test) On 11/4/06, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: If you havn't noticed On 10/4/06, Gabriel Cain, discombobulated, unleashed: is a regular joke (I believe) from Cotty. No joke! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Bridge and Camera Raw Keyboard Shortcuts
Ian Lyons of Adobe put together a nice PDF list of keyboard shortcuts for Bridge and Camera Raw. Keyboard shortcuts can be very helpful, speed up your use of the program, and can sometimes access features that can't be found in the menus. The following link will take you to a page where you can access or download the shortcuts for both Mac and Windows versions of the programs. http://tinyurl.com/m59vp http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@.3bba10e d/0 Shel
Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:35 AM, David Savage wrote: Thanks Bob Godfrey. I appreciate the suggestions, you can never have too many books. :-) You haven't seen my house! Bob
Re: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test)
Means confused discombobulate discombobulate (dîs´kem-bòb´ye-lât´) verb, transitive discombobulated, discombobulating, discombobulates To throw into a state of confusion. See synonyms at confuse. [Perhaps alteration of discompose.] - dis´combob´ula´tion noun The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- mike wilson wrote: It's a real but anachronistic and/or vernacular word. It means disorientated. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/11 Tue PM 01:25:52 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test) Sorry. Forgot, Cotty never makes jokes, that’s part of his act ;-) Seriously, Cotty. Are you serious? As I read your heading it is a friendly insult. Have I got it completely wrong? 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: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 09:25 To: pentax list Subject: Re: Thoughts on cameras, and a PESO (was Re: OT Nother test) On 11/4/06, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: If you havn't noticed On 10/4/06, Gabriel Cain, discombobulated, unleashed: is a regular joke (I believe) from Cotty. No joke! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO: English saddle in S Louisiana
Thanks for the comments. The profile in PS is for use on my calibrated monitor and printer. Not necessarily anywhere else? Should most work in PS be done in sRGB? Is sRGB the default in most viewer/editors? Mark Stringer - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:57 AM Subject: Re: PESO: English saddle in S Louisiana David Mann wrote: On Apr 11, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Godfrey's correct here. The reason that sRGB seems to be obeyed is because the native space for most applications that don't obey ICM profiles is quite close to sRGB (Which is in fact why it was created), so they'll usually be close to correct. By native space you really mean that most apps/systems completely ignore the whole concept of colour management, and sRGB just happens to correspond quite well with CRT monitors (by design, not coincidence). As far as web graphics are concerned, it's all academic until every monitor in the world is regularly calibrated profiled. - Dave Bingo. -Adam
Re: Bridge and Camera Raw Keyboard Shortcuts
Or you could ge one of these: http://www.logickeyboard.com/ Wouldn't be too good if you custoize your shortcuts though Dave S. On 4/11/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Lyons of Adobe put together a nice PDF list of keyboard shortcuts for Bridge and Camera Raw. Keyboard shortcuts can be very helpful, speed up your use of the program, and can sometimes access features that can't be found in the menus. The following link will take you to a page where you can access or download the shortcuts for both Mac and Windows versions of the programs. http://tinyurl.com/m59vp http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@.3bba10e d/0 Shel -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: Bridge and Camera Raw Keyboard Shortcuts
On 4/11/06, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or you could ge one of these: ...for Photoshop -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: Late for scapes, on time for macros
Of the group, I like the furry willow the best. The composition works well and the DOF is nice. Thanks for sharing. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, April 11, 2006, 6:11:08 AM, you wrote: R http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060411154638 R R Water is amazing for intimate landscapes, but it's better during the R morning hours. I was late for scapes today, but I didn't miss macro R closeup fun today. Just wanted to share my spring moments with you. R Roman.
Re: PESO: English saddle in S Louisiana
PS work should generally be done in a wide-gamut space like AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB. Final images intended for web display or general viewing should be converted to sRGB as it is closest to what an unprofiled PC will give you. Profiles are used to keep things consistent through any colour managed application. Most applications don't have a space, because they don't do colour management. But sRGB is quite close to what they'll display. -Adam Mark Stringer wrote: Thanks for the comments. The profile in PS is for use on my calibrated monitor and printer. Not necessarily anywhere else? Should most work in PS be done in sRGB? Is sRGB the default in most viewer/editors? Mark Stringer - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:57 AM Subject: Re: PESO: English saddle in S Louisiana David Mann wrote: On Apr 11, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Godfrey's correct here. The reason that sRGB seems to be obeyed is because the native space for most applications that don't obey ICM profiles is quite close to sRGB (Which is in fact why it was created), so they'll usually be close to correct. By native space you really mean that most apps/systems completely ignore the whole concept of colour management, and sRGB just happens to correspond quite well with CRT monitors (by design, not coincidence). As far as web graphics are concerned, it's all academic until every monitor in the world is regularly calibrated profiled. - Dave Bingo. -Adam
Re: PESO: Passing Crow
Tim, Mixed feelings on this one. In an abstract sort of way, I like it. I think the one thing that bothers me is the prominent bird is hidden in it's own wing. Just a slight more turn and it would have been perfect. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, April 11, 2006, 5:50:12 AM, you wrote: TØ I thought I'd entertain you a bit while nagging about the cropping ;-) TØ This is a crop ;-) This crow passed. When looking at it later I liked the TØ abstract look. After some fiddling I decided that I'll let two more birds TØ into the frame. It creates a pattern, a rhythm, can't explain why I see it TØ this way. TØ http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=230021 TØ 500mm and 1/200s. The rest of the techie stuff isn't very relevant IMO. TØ I could perhaps have done something with the dark parts in the water, to TØ make the lowest bird more visible. TØ But I didn't. I'm a slob ;-) TØ I played a bit with it in PSEL, trying to add a more surreal feeling. Tried TØ a lot of alternatives, but ended up almost as it came out of the converter. TØ Tim TØ Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) TØ Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds TØ (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
RE: Question for the low light shooters
First: I think you did pretty well. The only thing striking me is that you could have tried using 1/30 at some shots. You might have done that, I only found data for the first shot. Perhaps even tried 1/15, adding some dynamic ;-) You don't _have_ to wear bunny ears to make blurred pictures you know ;-) If you have one, it also might be a good idea using a wider lens. With a wider lens, you definitely could have used a slower speed, or perhaps opened up a step. 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: Fernando Terrazzino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 07:01 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Question for the low light shooters Last friday I had the chance to do my first indoor available light shooting. The small event was not really a happy one, as this was a farewell lunch for a couple of co-workers that joined the 500 employees that were laid-off last week by the Co. I work for. Anyway I tried to capture some shots as a way for them to remember some of us. I tried half of the shots without flash. The light was really dim with light comming from some spotlights. I expected to use ISO 800 but end up using mostly 1600 (even some 3200). Just want to tell you guys what I did and collect some valuable tips if possible (all shots with my *istDS): 1) I used an FA35/2 wide open, which turn to be acceptable sharp in the centre (I mean, given the fact I used it wide open) 2) Manual mode, spot metered the subject, adjusted ISO, autofocus, switch to manual focus and then burst-shot sets of 3 frames in a row hoping to use the one in the middle (I don't trust my eyes, the autofocus didn't hunt that much, I switched to manual focus so the camera wouldn't try to autofocus between shots) 3) I shot raw to have more latitude in the postprocessing and set white balance to tungsten just to have a reference when processing the raw files 4) End-up using mostly ISO 1600 5) Processed in Capture One usually pushing with the exposure compensation dial between +0.65 to +1.15 6) Adjusted contrast, brightness 7) Saved as TIFF 16 bits 8) Used Neat Image (default parametes) to clean up the noise and save as .jpg 9) Added some sharpening in PSP This is an example shot: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083 large size: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083size=lg Any ideas on how could I improve this next time (hopefully a birthday lunch not a farewell one...)? I liked shooting this way as ppl didn't get disturbed and I could capture some interesting face expressions that otherwise would've been impossible to capture. At the end, just in case, I got the obligatory posed shots (forgot the AF360 so didn't turn good) but I'm amazed with the outcome of the cleaned High ISO. Don't mind the composition as I was focused in the technicalities, hopefully next time I'll be more relaxed ;-) The rest of the shots (extra sharpened for the web) are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/72057594091422991/
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
I thought I actually provided an answer but maybe not at as plainly as this. ;-) Crop exactly the same way post-capture as you would in the viewfinder. Exact same principles. Tom C. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:39:05 +0200 List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
One other thought. If all your compoitions in the viewfinder are perfect, you'll NEVER get better at cropping post capture. :-) It works against you, don't you see...? Seriously, as you suggested, practice is what it will take, but using the same eye for balance and aesthetics you'd use when looking through the viewfinder. Why not take some compositions you currently consider throwaway, and see what you can come up with? Tom C. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:39:05 +0200 List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
BTW, I have exactly the same problem you are discussing when bird shooting. The place you'll likely find many birds are in natural areas with bodies of water. I'm separated from the subjects by 10 - 50 meters at my favorite birding location. My longest lens is 500, and I have yet to get a satisfactory shot. At those distances the bird just fills the the spot meter circle in the viewfinder. Cropping inevitably renders an image that is too grainy/noisy. The only solution is really lenses with more reach, or getting closer. I'm considering using some telescopic lenses (camera on the telescope) to see how it works. Tom C. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:39:05 +0200 List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
When pushing the button in the filed it is a _moment_, when doing the same at home it is a _process_. This sums the problem up pretty well I think. It is a psychological thing. Anybody who knows a good shrink ;-) 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: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 17:23 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. I thought I actually provided an answer but maybe not at as plainly as this. ;-) Crop exactly the same way post-capture as you would in the viewfinder. Exact same principles. Tom C. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:39:05 +0200 List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
Setting aperture -- film SLRs
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly change the aperture on the body? I assume you can affect aperture indirectly by changing shutter speed, but can you operate in Av mode? Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? Thanks. *UncaMikey
RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder.
OK then I have the solution... when cropping post capture, hold your camera up and view the monitor through it. I hope you're ambidextrous. Crop in the viewfinder while simultaneously cropping in screen with the mouse. When you've got it right, press the shutter release and dbl-click the left mouse button at the same time. Hope this helps. :-) Tom C. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:40:15 +0200 When pushing the button in the filed it is a _moment_, when doing the same at home it is a _process_. This sums the problem up pretty well I think. It is a psychological thing. Anybody who knows a good shrink ;-) 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: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 17:23 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. I thought I actually provided an answer but maybe not at as plainly as this. ;-) Crop exactly the same way post-capture as you would in the viewfinder. Exact same principles. Tom C. From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:39:05 +0200 List. You are not responding to my question, you are simply burping gas. Helicopter is out of the question ;-) My question was something like this. How do I become better at cropping at computer? I tried to analyze the situation a bit, but the question was as simple as that. 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: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10. april 2006 23:53 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Composing on screen vs. in viewfinder. Those of you reading the list lately may have noticed that I have a project going on, that forces me to explore some new land (read learn new techniques). How a bp should you avoid noticing that? With my endless ranting questions ;-) I have been talking about using longer lenses, building hides and so on. This has been great fun, and I am learning a lot about photography and birds. My longest glass that is usable is 500mm (with converter it tends to be too soft), so I have to crop the pictures to make them interesting. This has made me realise that I am a lot better at composing in viewfinder then I am with composing on computer screen. I have been thinking about this. I have some ideas about why. First: It is that in the field I compose more on instinct. I am there, and I have emotions about the motifs. My heart is involved, and I believe that it is my heart that makes the composing decisions. Back at home, the motifs are more distant to me, so there I compose by brain (and as you know, that's not much of a brain). The second reason has to do with the decisive moment: When I shot slides my mind was in capture mode (sorry Shel, I know you don't like that word). When pushing the button I knew that what is in frame, stays in frame, and what is out of frame, stays out. (Everybody who has tried masking slides in glassless frames, knows that you do everything you can to avoid that activity later). Now, when shooting digitally, being forced to crop later something happens with my mindset. There is no decisive moment in post processing on computer. There is always possible to go back. What I'm saying is that I think I need the decisive moment to make a good composition. I also need to be emotionally connected with the motif in some way. But what do I do about this? Practise is one obvious answer. And I will practise. But, I also have a strong belief in the power and wisdom of this list. I would really surprise me if it doesn't burp up some good ideas and advise. 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)
Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
Unca Mikey wrote: A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly change the aperture on the body? I assume you can affect aperture indirectly by changing shutter speed, but can you operate in Av mode? Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? Thanks. *UncaMikey That *is* an issue. If the body you are using doesn't allow you to set aperture in body, and/or doesn't support an auto-aperture mode, you will only be able to shoot wide open.
Re: Question for the low light shooters
Thanks Tim, I thought I was pushing my luck with 1/45... Now that you mention it would be a good idea to get a larger memory card and experiment a little more next time. I'll give it a try, if I can gain an extra stop with that and avoid ISO1600 that would justify the cost... I thought about the wider lens, maybe an FA20/2.8 (don't have one, just thinking ;o) ), I don't know about the wide sigmas 'cuz I didn't heard good comments of them when used wideopen. That also presents another challenge, right? I mean I'll cover a wider space but still have to work with a narrow depth of field; although it could've been good for this situation where ppl were sitting in line. Thanks again for the ideas On 4/11/06, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First: I think you did pretty well. The only thing striking me is that you could have tried using 1/30 at some shots. You might have done that, I only found data for the first shot. Perhaps even tried 1/15, adding some dynamic ;-) You don't _have_ to wear bunny ears to make blurred pictures you know ;-) If you have one, it also might be a good idea using a wider lens. With a wider lens, you definitely could have used a slower speed, or perhaps opened up a step. 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: Fernando Terrazzino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11. april 2006 07:01 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Question for the low light shooters Last friday I had the chance to do my first indoor available light shooting. The small event was not really a happy one, as this was a farewell lunch for a couple of co-workers that joined the 500 employees that were laid-off last week by the Co. I work for. Anyway I tried to capture some shots as a way for them to remember some of us. I tried half of the shots without flash. The light was really dim with light comming from some spotlights. I expected to use ISO 800 but end up using mostly 1600 (even some 3200). Just want to tell you guys what I did and collect some valuable tips if possible (all shots with my *istDS): 1) I used an FA35/2 wide open, which turn to be acceptable sharp in the centre (I mean, given the fact I used it wide open) 2) Manual mode, spot metered the subject, adjusted ISO, autofocus, switch to manual focus and then burst-shot sets of 3 frames in a row hoping to use the one in the middle (I don't trust my eyes, the autofocus didn't hunt that much, I switched to manual focus so the camera wouldn't try to autofocus between shots) 3) I shot raw to have more latitude in the postprocessing and set white balance to tungsten just to have a reference when processing the raw files 4) End-up using mostly ISO 1600 5) Processed in Capture One usually pushing with the exposure compensation dial between +0.65 to +1.15 6) Adjusted contrast, brightness 7) Saved as TIFF 16 bits 8) Used Neat Image (default parametes) to clean up the noise and save as .jpg 9) Added some sharpening in PSP This is an example shot: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083 large size: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4322083size=lg Any ideas on how could I improve this next time (hopefully a birthday lunch not a farewell one...)? I liked shooting this way as ppl didn't get disturbed and I could capture some interesting face expressions that otherwise would've been impossible to capture. At the end, just in case, I got the obligatory posed shots (forgot the AF360 so didn't turn good) but I'm amazed with the outcome of the cleaned High ISO. Don't mind the composition as I was focused in the technicalities, hopefully next time I'll be more relaxed ;-) The rest of the shots (extra sharpened for the web) are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/72057594091422991/
Re: OT: Seeking Book Recommendations
On Apr 11, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Bob Shell wrote: Thanks Bob Godfrey. I appreciate the suggestions, you can never have too many books. :-) You haven't seen my house! LOL ... mine used to be like that. I now do an edit and purge sweep twice a year to keep them all on the bookshelf and away from the floors, cabinets, bedroom, etc. Problem is that the Keepers are now almost filling the available bookshelf space to capacity, and there's no room for more bookshelves. Godfrey
Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
I believe most of the newer film SLRs aside from the *ist and ZX-30/50/60 assume you want to be in program or shutter priority if the lens is set to A or lacks manual settings. The old bodies that don't utilize the A setting pretty much can't use a lens that doesn't have manual aperture settings, according to bdimitrov's site. For details on a specific camera body, I usually just download the user's manual from Pentax and give it a flip-through. --- Unca Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly change the aperture on the body? I assume you can affect aperture indirectly by changing shutter speed, but can you operate in Av mode? Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? Thanks. *UncaMikey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
