Re: PESO - Trees in Fog
Somewhat mixed feelings about this one. I would like to see it bigger before coming to a final conclusion. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, April 23, 2006, 12:40:48 AM, you wrote: SB http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/trees_in_fog.html From an old negative ... SB Shel
Re: OT: Bragging
Hi! Today, a friend pointed out to me that Leica (my Rottie) is tied for 6th top obedience dog with the Rottweiler Club of Canada. Cool, Huh? Hmmm... Cool indeed... But the again may be you need to change your signature or something ;-). -- Boris
Re: PESO - Trees in Fog
Hi Bruce ... Your feelings then shall have to remain mixed ;-)) I like the smaller size, and, for me, that's part of the presentation. When I make a print, it will also be small ... I just like it that way. Now, you say your feelings are mixed, which, to me, indicates that there are things you like about the photo and things you don't care for. So, what don't you like and what do you like ... if you'd care to elaborate. I get the feeling that not very many people care this one - only two comments, one which is somewhat negative (yours) and the other positive. As for myself, I like it a lot, and enjoy the small size both as a change from large pics and also because I think the scene lends itself to a smaller size. I can see it mounted and matted a very specific way, and having to get up close to see it. It reminds me of old time contact prints. Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Somewhat mixed feelings about this one. I would like to see it bigger before coming to a final conclusion. http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/trees_in_fog.html
Re: PESO - Pier
As far as composition goes, I rather like the lines you have chosen. They make for a less usual, but rather nice scene. Technically, there are some issues with some kind of banding. Good eye on this one. -- Bruce Sunday, April 23, 2006, 9:19:08 AM, you wrote: Eac I am feeling uninspired in naming this. Eac I am back for a while (see the I'm back thread I will write later). Eac I was in Monterey recently and took lots of shots. Felt good. Haven't really Eac done photography for about six months. Eac I took this just as it was getting starting to get dark (in another 5-10 Eac minutes or so it was too dark). I don't really know how to shoot at night so I Eac didn't know what I was doing. :-) Eac This looks sort of lonely, but actually, IIRC, this was the newer busier pier Eac with all the shops and restaurants. I just shot up. But I like the lonely Eac look so I probably shouldn't have told you that. Eac It has lot of noise, but I rather like it. I haven't really done any noise Eac reduction on it. When I tried it (Elements 3, noise reduction), it took out too Eac much of the light/pinkish violet banding. I sort of like it, think it adds Eac flavor. Anyway, I wouldn't want all of that color to disappear. Eac http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/pier.htm Eac Comments welcome. Eac Also maybe suggestions on how to do noise reduction without removing all of Eac the subtler/ pinkier color. (But I don't want to spend money on Noise Ninja). Eac Or tell me if you think it's okay even with banding. Eac Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Pushing Digital
You've lost me completely. I don't understand the math of photography. Just snap the shutter and see what comes out. Push a few buttons in Photoshop, or adjust the light in the darkroom. If it works one way or not another, then the answer is clear. Anyway, I don't even understand terms like quantization, or what a chunkier quantization might be, or why or how you'd amplify a quantization.. I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Shel [Original Message] From: Gonz This does not make sense to me. Assuming a perfect amplification and a perfect digitization for a moment, then a shot that would have a complete dynamic range at ISO 1600 would only go up to 1/4 the dynamic range at ISO 400. So when you amplify this quantization (for 12 bits this would be 2^12/4 = 1024) to the full range, you have chunkier quantitization, as if you only had a 10bit sensor instead of 12. That leads me to believe that there would be more noise associated with this. This is similar to the arguments of keeping your image in 16 bit mode when editing as much as possible, until the final conversion to JPG and 8 bits. Converting to 8 bits first then editing is going to cost you alot of information. I'm not taking into account the effects of Bayer interpolation or other interpolation such as uprezing, etc. That just complicates the way the information is interpreted, but it does not change the absolute underlying numbers.
Re: When will we see a *consumer* DSLR
Bob, as an owner of an SV, I'd like to know why she prefers the S/S4. Size? Bob Sullivan wrote: Anybody had an Optio S or S4 serviced? Are repairs expensive? My daughter wants the S4 back in return for the new SV we bought her. I would like to find an old S4 or S, maybe even a broken one. But the repair cost has made me cautious. Regards, Bob S.
Re: Adapter to use Pentax K glass on Canon EOS APS Digital bodies!
On 23/4/06, Colin J, discombobulated, unleashed: Forgive me if this has been mentioned here before, You are forgiven but I noticed that Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest web site is offering a Pentax K (lens) to Canon EF (body) adapter at $175. For further information follow this link ... http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htm ... and scroll about a third of the way down the page. 175 bucks with no diagrams, illustrations or detailed description of what you're getting? I'll bet he wears binoculars (so he can see the next guy coming a long way off). I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's probably working on that. NOTE: The adapter is said to work only on Digital APS Format EOS bodies, in other words NOT on the full frame EOS 5D, 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II. I do not know why not. Allegedly it's because there's room in the Canon APS body for the aperture lever on the rear of the Pentax lens to fit inside, meaning no 'leverectomy' is required to be able to mount the lens. I don't know for sure because I don't have a Rebel, 10D/20D/30D etc to examine. I do know that it would not work on a 1DmarkII as there is no room there at all. May i ask where you obtained the info that it 'will not work on a 5D/1Ds ? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Recover Edges
For the hell of it I decided to see just how many pixels were recovered on each side. I noticed, some time back, that they didn't seem to be the same on each side of the frame. So I counted the number of lines recovered all round. Left 20, Right 14, Top 12, Bottom 5 For some reason the Pentax engineers don't seem to mask the frame evenly -- in this *ist D anyway. This probably has something to do with the particular sensor -- or batch. Don W Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, have you ever framed your DSLR pic just a scosh to tight, and wished there was something you could do about it? I've been using Thomas Knoll's Recover Edges utility for a few months, and sometimes it's a life saver as I often tend to frame very tightly. Today someone mentioned a Luminous Landscape article about the utility - and although I may have mentioned the utility before, it seemed a good idea to post the LL link in case I didn't, or should someone want to easily and quickly read about it. Here y'go ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/contents/DNG-Recover-Edges.shtml Shel -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
RE: Saving for Web in PE4: update
Hi Godfrey Photo.net accepts only SFW JPG from Photoshop and not safe as greetings Markus Why use Save for Web? Godfrey
Re: Good Program to Download - Check Windows Security
The legendary Steve Gibson has an interesting story of his own experiences. http://www.grc.com/dos/grcdos.htm He has some security tools on his site too. Cheers, Gautam On 4/23/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html I've been using this free program for several months. It does a very good job of analyzing your computer for security and other problems. It's secure in that all information generated remains with you, on your machine, and is not sent to any other outside sites. This program was recommended to me by a couple of computer and graphics specialists at Adobe. You might want to consider downloading it and taking it for a test drive. Shel
Re: Re: PESO - Trees in Fog
Sunday, April 23, 2006, 12:40:48 AM, you wrote: SB http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/trees_in_fog.html From an old negative ... SB Shel Reminds me of one of my favourite Sutcliffe works. Click on top picture. http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/cgi-bin/sutcliffe.pl?TASK=DrawCategoryCATEGORY=RURAPAGENUM=2# - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: *ist D
João Moreira wrote: I have made some researches and, after I saw Dario's homepage, I became a little concerned on the sharpness of the *ist D. Is it really unsharp? If you shoot JPEG, there something left to be desired, as in-camera JPEG conversion is good, but not the best around (Canon, Nikon and Fuji are a bit better). If you shoot RAW, you can have results well comparable to other cameras in the same class (provided that you won't use the crappy PENTAX converter). Use Rawshooter Essentials instead, and be happy. If so, is it something Photoshop can fix (I mean, do you always have to use Photoshop to fix the sharpness of all your photos)? If you want the best appealing results with minimum effort while shooting JPEG, buy a Canon and be damned :-) However, to get the best results, you have to fix (more or less) ALL pictures, irrespectively of the camera system of your choice. Generally speaking, be conservative of picture data. Most of all, set a lower sharpness for capture and then add a proper sharpness via Photoshop. A proper sharpness can vary a lot from picture to picture. By how many points (in average)? I tuly cannot answer this question. See reply above. And what about the colour rendition? It is completely different from the *ist D to the Fujifilm and the Cannon cameras. Which one delivers the right colour? Said that probably there's no such a thing as a correct color rendition, there are however evident cast renditions. I find the Nikon and the Pentax D (and DS/DL natural color setting) to be good, while Canon, Fuji and bright color setting of Pentax DS/DL are way off. Another question: is the *ist D worth the $600.00 over the *ist DL? What are the extra features? That's definitely a matter of opinion. Generally speaking, I'd dare to say a weak no. Buy the DS/DS2 now or wait for the leaked K100D (with shake reduction), soon to be announced. Dario
Re: *ist D
For my needs (I have a DS) the additional cost of the D wasn't worth it. The DS/DS2 has a number of features that even some D users would like, and the D has some features some DS/DS2/DL users might like. I sometimes wonder how many of the D owners would have purchased a DS had it been available at the time. Conversely, how many DS/DS2/DL owners might prefer the D now that they've had and used their cameras for a while. Shel João Moreira wrote: Another question: is the *ist D worth the $600.00 over the *ist DL? What are the extra features?
Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Got my *istDL before Christmas and have so far done nearly all my shooting with the lens that came with the camera: a Sigma 28-125. I've been using that lens because (a) it is autofocus and I have trouble focussing, (b) it has a nice range of focal lengths, and (c) it's fairly light. In the last couple of days I've been shooting with one of my old Pentax lenses: the SMC-A 35-105. This used to be my favourite lens on my Pentax Super-A but it is one heavy beast (and, of course, not AF). This will be old news to many here but the difference in resolution between the Pentax and the Sigma blew me away! I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Keith McG
Re: *ist D
For my taste and kind of shooting, the difference worth considering is (in no special order): D pluses: 1 - two-wheel interface for aperture/shutter speed setting 2 - Direct selection (switch) for AF-S/AF-C D minuses: 1 - Histogram+bright portion warning unavailable 2 - Awkward selection of WB, ISO RAW mode 3 - Erratic TTL flash with flash units other than Sigma EF500DG Super 4 - Smaller LCD If I had to buy one now, I'd probably choose the DS/DS2 based upon such balance of features, other differences being not worth considering for making a choice. I'd discard the DL/DL2 only for the limited number of AF points and the missing TTL support (rather than the viewfinder, which in my opinion is overall not worse than that in the DS). Dario - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:15 AM Subject: Re: *ist D For my needs (I have a DS) the additional cost of the D wasn't worth it. The DS/DS2 has a number of features that even some D users would like, and the D has some features some DS/DS2/DL users might like. I sometimes wonder how many of the D owners would have purchased a DS had it been available at the time. Conversely, how many DS/DS2/DL owners might prefer the D now that they've had and used their cameras for a while. Shel João Moreira wrote: Another question: is the *ist D worth the $600.00 over the *ist DL? What are the extra features?
Re: Pushing Digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Perhaps an advantage of digital photography is that it can satisfy both kinds of people. :-) S
Re: Pushing Digital
On 4/24/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Shel As opposed to developing optimal exposure techniques, developer ratio, chemical temperature, development time amount of agition for film? There has always been a measure of calculation required in photography. Dave S. BTW, I have no idea what Gonz is on about either :-)
OT: my personal pic of the day
Just found this on the web, had a hearty laugh, and thought I'd share it with you: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1394199 Have a nice day. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Re: *ist D
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/24 Mon AM 08:15:48 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist D For my needs (I have a DS) the additional cost of the D wasn't worth it. The DS/DS2 has a number of features that even some D users would like, and the D has some features some DS/DS2/DL users might like. I sometimes wonder how many of the D owners would have purchased a DS had it been available at the time. Conversely, how many DS/DS2/DL owners might prefer the D now that they've had and used their cameras for a while. Shel Comparing the D to the DL2, the former has much better apparent build quality. The latter feels decidedly plastic compared to the former, which has more weight and weight and less flex in panels. The battery door on the DL2 is an accident looking for somewhere to happen, although that might be me being in Hamfist, the barbarian mode. Controls have a roughly similar feel. Jo?o Moreira wrote: Another question: is the *ist D worth the $600.00 over the *ist DL? What are the extra features? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO: Two Walkaround PIcs
Paul Stenquist wrote: Two from this afternoon in Birmingham, Michigan. I couldn't decide between these, so I posted them both. Smoke Break: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4367972 This guy's going to be there all day long! Spare drink and spare cigar by his side, prepared to hang in for the long haul! keith
Re: Pushing Digital
David Savage wrote: BTW, I have no idea what Gonz is on about either :-) Approximately, he's saying that if you deliberately underexpose, you lose shadow detail. This shouldn't really come as a surprise... S
OT Re: Good Program to Download - Check Windows Security
Gautam Sarup wrote: The legendary Steve Gibson has an interesting story of his own experiences. Legendary he may be , but it's worth pointing out that there are many other internet security experts out there with a very low opinion of him. http://grcsucks.com/ S
Largest photo print size for *istDL
Sup, What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. Thank you. -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
GFM Logo update
Seems only the digests are getting through to me again. Sigh. Received an email from Mr. Logo, and the lettering is to small to read when stiched. He sent me a revised, were in the camera body, lens and mountain outline are there and a big PENTAX DISCUSS MAILING LIST is on the outside. Looks pretty gauady.All block letters etc no GFM text. I have suggested he try and remove all of the black letters, ie the 'entax, 'iscuss, 'ailing , 'ist and the NPW text, but keep the GFM text, lens and outline. Keep and move the PDML(in red) over to be more centred with the removal of the black text. If this can be done, is this still ok with the masses. If not, i'll cancel the order. Their version i do not like at all. Dave David J Brooks Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region www.caughtinmotion.com Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
On 4/24/06, Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sup, No thanks I've already eaten. What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. Thank you. I make A3+ size files from my D no worries. Dave S.
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
Hi! Roman a écrit : Sup, What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. Thank you. 2000x3000 pixels on a A4 paper is approx 250 dpi, which is fairly good. On a A3 paper, it would be approx. 160 dpi... The difference will definitely be visible with the naked eye with close examination. However, this kind on print size is not intended to be seen with the nose touching the paper. If your intent is to enlarge these prints to hang them on a wall somewhere, there are chances you'll be happy with them. Put aside a very good analog BW print in an art gallery, this A3 will surely suffer at close examination though. If you can afford a 2m x 3m advertising place somewhere in town, people will look at the image from 10m away, and won't complain about the dpi ;-) Bottom line: maximum enlargement doesn't mean much, it's more a tradeoff between how large you want your print, and how close people will look at it. Patrice
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
Roman wrote: Sup, What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. Thank you. I've got a gorgeous 16x20 on my wall from a D shot at ISO3200 in RAW. -Adam
Re: GFM Logo update
Dave Brooks wrote: Seems only the digests are getting through to me again. Sigh. Received an email from Mr. Logo, and the lettering is to small to read when stiched. He sent me a revised, were in the camera body, lens and mountain outline are there and a big PENTAX DISCUSS MAILING LIST is on the outside. Looks pretty gauady.All block letters etc no GFM text. I have suggested he try and remove all of the black letters, ie the 'entax, 'iscuss, 'ailing , 'ist and the NPW text, but keep the GFM text, lens and outline. Keep and move the PDML(in red) over to be more centred with the removal of the black text. If this can be done, is this still ok with the masses. If not, i'll cancel the order. Their version i do not like at all. Just have PDML in large letters and a silhouette of a cormorant and call it good ;-)
Re: Pushing Digital
If we change the name of the thing is it different? Does the light hitting the sensor make the difference, or the number set on the ISO dial? AFAIK the only difference between a high ISO and a low ISO on a digital camera is where on the curve --and maybe the contrast settings applied-- the final image is placed; the actual light sensitivity of the sensor does not change at all to the best of my knowledge. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Over the last couple of days I was thinking about noise that's generated in digital photo files, and was wondering if longer exposures at lower ISO gave more or less noise than a shorter exposure at higher ISO ratings, assuming the overall exposure is the same in both instances. It seemed like a good idea for some testing. Now, just a few minutes ago, I came across this comment: I believe (he) means that he's set the camera at ISO 400 and then (using the exposure compensation feature) deliberately underexposed 2 stops... thus yielding the same exposure as if the ISO had been set to 1600 to start with. Then, plus two stops of compensation is applied during development (the conversion of the RAW data) [...] With some digital systems [...] it tends to yield a bit more noise (the digital equivalent of grain) than with the (camera's) native ISO 400 setting, but much lower noise than obtained by using the (camera's) native ISO 1600 setting. So [...] it's a way of increasing the quality of shots at higher ISO's. Well, I'm no expert on such matters, but I tend to believe what I see, so i did a quick test. Unfortunately, the light was changing rapidly, and it might be better to try this when the light is more stable. However, this first QD experiment seems to indicate that lower noise is observable using this technique. But don't take my word for it, try it yourself under stable lighting conditions, and see what results you get. Shel
Re: Pushing Digital
On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:01 AM, David Savage wrote: As opposed to developing optimal exposure techniques, developer ratio, chemical temperature, development time amount of agition for film? There has always been a measure of calculation required in photography. And there have always been those who enjoy the process more than the photographs themselves. To each his own. -Aaron
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
On Apr 24, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Roman wrote: What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. With the DS2 and ISO 800 images, I have made very satisfying 16x20 inch photographs. They don't stand up to the nose-to-glass test the way my 35mm 800 ISO film images do, but they're good. At that kind of enlargement size, the lens is more important. The images I enlarged were using an A* 200mm f2.8. -Aaron
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
I make 12 x 18 prints on Super B (13 x 19) paper from *ist D images, which are the same resolution as your DL images. They are very nice. I've shown and sold them in galleries. In my portfolios they're virtually indistinguishable from prints that were made from scanned 6x7 images, which are shown side by side with the *ist D prints. Paul -- Original message -- From: Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sup, What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. Thank you. -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
-- Original message -- From: Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. 2000x3000 pixels on a A4 paper is approx 250 dpi, which is fairly good. On a A3 paper, it would be approx. 160 dpi... Interpolate Patrice, interpolate. I convert my RAW *ist D images to 11 x 17 360 dpi files for printing. The upsized files yield far nicer prints than does a native resolution file. Paul
re: OT: Bragging
Today, a friend pointed out to me that Leica (my Rottie) is tied for 6th top obedience dog with the Rottweiler Club of Canada. Cool, Huh? William Robb Whos is first, that dog Film is dead, or Point'N Shoot vbg Congrats BTW Dave David J Brooks Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region www.caughtinmotion.com Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H D200
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Kieth, which is better? Jack --- Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got my *istDL before Christmas and have so far done nearly all my shooting with the lens that came with the camera: a Sigma 28-125. I've been using that lens because (a) it is autofocus and I have trouble focussing, (b) it has a nice range of focal lengths, and (c) it's fairly light. In the last couple of days I've been shooting with one of my old Pentax lenses: the SMC-A 35-105. This used to be my favourite lens on my Pentax Super-A but it is one heavy beast (and, of course, not AF). This will be old news to many here but the difference in resolution between the Pentax and the Sigma blew me away! I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Keith McG __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
PESO: Spring flower
I'm not usually one for shooting pictures of flowers. Seems it's all been done and usually much better than I can. But... for some reason I really like the light on this one, so I'll grit my teeth, share this with the group, and wait for the onslaught of criticism. :-) http://charles.robinsontwins.org/2006_photos/pages/page_25.html -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: PESO - Pier
Nice, moody shot. I have an urge to nudge the frame down and to the left a bit, though--was there something distracting there? Rick --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am feeling uninspired in naming this. I am back for a while (see the I'm back thread I will write later). I was in Monterey recently and took lots of shots. Felt good. Haven't really done photography for about six months. I took this just as it was getting starting to get dark (in another 5-10 minutes or so it was too dark). I don't really know how to shoot at night so I didn't know what I was doing. :-) This looks sort of lonely, but actually, IIRC, this was the newer busier pier with all the shops and restaurants. I just shot up. But I like the lonely look so I probably shouldn't have told you that. It has lot of noise, but I rather like it. I haven't really done any noise reduction on it. When I tried it (Elements 3, noise reduction), it took out too much of the light/pinkish violet banding. I sort of like it, think it adds flavor. Anyway, I wouldn't want all of that color to disappear. http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/pier.htm Comments welcome. Also maybe suggestions on how to do noise reduction without removing all of the subtler/ pinkier color. (But I don't want to spend money on Noise Ninja). Or tell me if you think it's okay even with banding. Marnie aka Doe :-) http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
Same here. G On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I make 12 x 18 prints on Super B (13 x 19) paper from *ist D images, which are the same resolution as your DL images. They are very nice. I've shown and sold them in galleries. In my portfolios they're virtually indistinguishable from prints that were made from scanned 6x7 images, which are shown side by side with the *ist D prints. Paul -- Original message -- From: Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sup, What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. Thank you. -- home http://roman.blakout.net/
Re: Saving for Web in PE4: update
And so that makes it sensible ... or not ... ? I never post to photo.net. I post in the photo.net forums and put links to my photos, hosted on my websites. I find their posting and display setup needlessly complex and clumsy to use. Godfrey On Apr 24, 2006, at 12:45 AM, Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Godfrey Photo.net accepts only SFW JPG from Photoshop and not safe as greetings Markus Why use Save for Web? Godfrey
Re: Re: *ist D
Hi Mike, IIRC, there's no difference in the bodies of the DS/DS2 and the DL/DL2, so my comments should be valid (as far as opinions go) for the S and the L series. I'm open for corrections, of course, since there's no L here with which to make a direct comparison. It's been a while since I held a D, however, my recollection is that it felt a little more solid that the smaller siblings, but the feeling was illusory, IOW, I didn't get the impression that the smaller cameras were in fact less solid. Larger and heavier usually imparts a more solid feel, but, as a perhaps silly example, would a big, heavy, American car of the sixties fare better in an accident than a smaller, lighter current Toyota Camry? I think not. The S and L cameras all have the same metal frame to impart solidity and rigidity. The DS/DS2 doesn't feel particularly plastic to me, although the D has a more grippy feel - being larger and with more rubberized (if that's the appropriate term) surface area to grip. The battery door is solid on my camera, and was solid on the earlier one as well. I'd disagree with you on it being an accident waiting to happen. I've noticed no flex the camera's panels - actually, yours is the first comment I've heard to that effect. Can you be specific? A camera that flexes is of no use to anyone wanting to use it for masking photographs. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson From: Shel Belinkoff For my needs (I have a DS) the additional cost of the D wasn't worth it. The DS/DS2 has a number of features that even some D users would like, and the D has some features some DS/DS2/DL users might like. I sometimes wonder how many of the D owners would have purchased a DS had it been available at the time. Conversely, how many DS/DS2/DL owners might prefer the D now that they've had and used their cameras for a while. Shel Comparing the D to the DL2, the former has much better apparent build quality. The latter feels decidedly plastic compared to the former, which has more weight and weight and less flex in panels. The battery door on the DL2 is an accident looking for somewhere to happen, although that might be me being in Hamfist, the barbarian mode. Controls have a roughly similar feel.
PESO: ANZAC day
This seems appropriate for today. http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index7/06_04_HeartIR/08.htm D * * -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : -- Original message -- From: Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. 2000x3000 pixels on a A4 paper is approx 250 dpi, which is fairly good. On a A3 paper, it would be approx. 160 dpi... Interpolate Patrice, interpolate. I convert my RAW *ist D images to 11 x 17 360 dpi files for printing. The upsized files yield far nicer prints than does a native resolution file. Paul Yeah, of course, you don't want ugly square pixels all over the place. But even with interpolation, you won't get as much detail with a source image that yields 160 dpi as with a source image that yields 250 dpi (provided that the lens is up to it, of course, and that the file holds a sharp image in the first place). I've made some real-life comparison with various enlargements/interpolation combinations, and I also found out that one gets much better results using Photoshop's interpolation than printer drivers can do. There are very high quality interpolators that can do an amazing job at enlarging prints with very good results at large ratios, too. Patrice
Re: Re: PESO - Trees in Fog
Yep ... that's in part what I was trying to do. Set something of a period feel to the photo. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/trees_in_fog.html Reminds me of one of my favourite Sutcliffe works. Click on top picture. http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/cgi-bin/sutcliffe.pl?TASK=DrawCategoryCA TEGORY=RURAPAGENUM=2#
Re: PESO: ANZAC day
Nice one Derby. Is this the monument with a statue of the fallen soldier being carried on a shield? Tomorrow I'm going to the local march with camera in tow. Dave S On 4/24/06, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems appropriate for today. http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index7/06_04_HeartIR/08.htm D * * -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Pushing Digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote: You've lost me completely. I don't understand the math of photography. Just snap the shutter and see what comes out. Push a few buttons in Photoshop, or adjust the light in the darkroom. If it works one way or not another, then the answer is clear. Well, as long as you know that 12 bits are better than 8, then thats enough to know that what you described is equivalent, and as bad. Thats good enuf. I hope you know about the ratio of f-stops and all that. There's a little math there too you know. Anyway, I don't even understand terms like quantization, or what a chunkier quantization might be, or why or how you'd amplify a quantization.. I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Shel [Original Message] From: Gonz This does not make sense to me. Assuming a perfect amplification and a perfect digitization for a moment, then a shot that would have a complete dynamic range at ISO 1600 would only go up to 1/4 the dynamic range at ISO 400. So when you amplify this quantization (for 12 bits this would be 2^12/4 = 1024) to the full range, you have chunkier quantitization, as if you only had a 10bit sensor instead of 12. That leads me to believe that there would be more noise associated with this. This is similar to the arguments of keeping your image in 16 bit mode when editing as much as possible, until the final conversion to JPG and 8 bits. Converting to 8 bits first then editing is going to cost you alot of information. I'm not taking into account the effects of Bayer interpolation or other interpolation such as uprezing, etc. That just complicates the way the information is interpreted, but it does not change the absolute underlying numbers. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: 6x7 55mm opinions needed
This reminded me -- I did 24x36s of landscapes and interiors for a guy who was using the 55mm 3.5 (don't know which one, but it used to belong to PDMLer Bill O'Neill) and they were quite nice. Not a bad lens by any means. -Aaron -Original Message- From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: 6x7 55mm opinions needed Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:49 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net - Original Message - From: David Weiss Subject: 6x7 55mm opinions needed The older 55f3.5 is softer (especially at corners) but corrected better, has an almost impossible to find 100mm filter size. The older 55f4.0 is sharper, but not as sharp as the latest version, the newer one being a bit lighter (more plastic parts?)and minimum focusing distance a bit better. And then, of course, some people have completely different opinions. I want to use the lens for bw, more for industrial areas than green scenics, but some of those too. A person is offering me a nice condition s-m-c 55f3.5 with a hood, but no filters. I might want a uv or a yellow anyhow, perhaps a polarizer. Any opinons would be appreciated. All the Pentax 6x7 lenses are very good, some are better than others. The SMC Tak 55/3.5 is reputed to be quite good for pictorial use, perhaps less good for lens testing purposes. This may seem like a silly way to judge a lens, but I would look at the availablity and cost of filters and make that a major part of my buying decision. William Robb
PESO - Watching the ship
We saw a ship in the distance heading for the ship channel. We raced over the bridge to get to the observation area. These ships move faster than you think, before you know it, the ship goes by. So part of the excitement is getting to the observation area before the ship passes. We parked the car and ran to the area. My grandson was very excited to see the ship, a huge oil tanker. Here is one of the pics: http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html Comments, critiques, etc. welcome. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: PESO - Pier
In a message dated 4/24/2006 7:13:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nice, moody shot. I have an urge to nudge the frame down and to the left a bit, though--was there something distracting there? Rick === Probably. Think the edge of another building. One with more lights or something. Marnie aka Doe Thanks.
Re: PESO - Watching the ship
Cute kid. You caught his excitement beautifully. Nicely done. Dave S. On 4/24/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We saw a ship in the distance heading for the ship channel. We raced over the bridge to get to the observation area. These ships move faster than you think, before you know it, the ship goes by. So part of the excitement is getting to the observation area before the ship passes. We parked the car and ran to the area. My grandson was very excited to see the ship, a huge oil tanker. Here is one of the pics: http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html Comments, critiques, etc. welcome. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: PESO - Watching the ship
A glorious catch. Absolute treasure! Who shot the image/who is grandchild 'riding'? Jack --- Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We saw a ship in the distance heading for the ship channel. We raced over the bridge to get to the observation area. These ships move faster than you think, before you know it, the ship goes by. So part of the excitement is getting to the observation area before the ship passes. We parked the car and ran to the area. My grandson was very excited to see the ship, a huge oil tanker. Here is one of the pics: http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html Comments, critiques, etc. welcome. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PAW - Digging Miles
Frank - a better title might be How dare you interrupt me? :-) My only nit with this is the cat being centered. You sure got his/her attention. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 8:46 PM To: PDML Subject: PAW - Digging Miles As I mentioned yesterday, since I missed a PAW last weekend, I'll do two this weekend. As you'll see, this one ~has~ to be a PAW LOL: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4371379size=lg Thanks in advance for your comments! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Live Eagle cam
http://www.infotecbusinesssystems.com/wildlife/
Re: my personal pic of the day
Cute! I wonder what'll happen if they run across a cat! Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: my personal pic of the day Just found this on the web, had a hearty laugh, and thought I'd share it with you: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1394199 Have a nice day. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: PESO - Watching the ship
Jack Davis wrote: A glorious catch. Absolute treasure! Who shot the image/who is grandchild 'riding'? Thanks Jack. The grandson is riding on top of his Auntie. I shot the pic when I saw the excitement on his face. He'd never seen a live ship before. It was taken with the *istD + DA16-45 @31mm. Jack --- Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We saw a ship in the distance heading for the ship channel. We raced over the bridge to get to the observation area. These ships move faster than you think, before you know it, the ship goes by. So part of the excitement is getting to the observation area before the ship passes. We parked the car and ran to the area. My grandson was very excited to see the ship, a huge oil tanker. Here is one of the pics: http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html Comments, critiques, etc. welcome. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Bragging
Cool yes - Great! Says alot about Leica's trainer. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Bragging Today, a friend pointed out to me that Leica (my Rottie) is tied for 6th top obedience dog with the Rottweiler Club of Canada. Cool, Huh? William Robb
Re: PESO - Watching the ship
David Savage wrote: Cute kid. You caught his excitement beautifully. Nicely done. Thanks Dave. The color version is also quite nice since the sun was low and gave him a beautiful glow. I might work on that tonight and post it tomorrow for comparison. Dave S. On 4/24/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We saw a ship in the distance heading for the ship channel. We raced over the bridge to get to the observation area. These ships move faster than you think, before you know it, the ship goes by. So part of the excitement is getting to the observation area before the ship passes. We parked the car and ran to the area. My grandson was very excited to see the ship, a huge oil tanker. Here is one of the pics: http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html Comments, critiques, etc. welcome. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: my personal pic of the day
Ha! Fun picture. On 4/24/06, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cute! I wonder what'll happen if they run across a cat! Probably not much. The mouse isn't that big. Dave S. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1394199
Re: PESO - Watching the ship
Well done - a real family keeper - I love the facial expressions. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO - Watching the ship We saw a ship in the distance heading for the ship channel. We raced over the bridge to get to the observation area. These ships move faster than you think, before you know it, the ship goes by. So part of the excitement is getting to the observation area before the ship passes. We parked the car and ran to the area. My grandson was very excited to see the ship, a huge oil tanker. Here is one of the pics: http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html Comments, critiques, etc. welcome. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
RE: PESO - Watching the ship
You caught a great expression ... Shel [Original Message] From: Gonz http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html
Re: PESO - Watching the ship
Excellent. Beautiful granson and mom. Great shot. Paul -- Original message -- From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] We saw a ship in the distance heading for the ship channel. We raced over the bridge to get to the observation area. These ships move faster than you think, before you know it, the ship goes by. So part of the excitement is getting to the observation area before the ship passes. We parked the car and ran to the area. My grandson was very excited to see the ship, a huge oil tanker. Here is one of the pics: http://www.g0nz.com/images/watchingtheship3.html Comments, critiques, etc. welcome. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Recover Edges
I'd seen this before but never tried it, so I was curious just how much 'edge' it would recover from a DS file. I took the RAW example file in DNG format from my DA14mm Examples set at http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-Examples/ I rendered a full native resolution JPEG from it, and then applied the Recover Edges utility. I rendered another full native resolution JPEG. I then took the two JPEGs and overlaid them, put an adjustment layer with Curves between them to lighten the rendering with recovered edges, and jiggled the original around a little bit to help align it. It's not perfect, but this example http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-examples/IMGP2227composite.jpg shows the approximate amount of image area that Recover Edges will add. A scosh too tight is right. There's not a lot of image edge area to recover. It would be of value, though, if you have to make a minor rotation correction and don't want to lose an important edge item. It looks like I can do a rotation of up to about .4 degrees and lose only a small amount of original sized image area. fun fun fun... Godfrey On Apr 23, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, have you ever framed your DSLR pic just a scosh to tight, and wished there was something you could do about it? I've been using Thomas Knoll's Recover Edges utility for a few months, and sometimes it's a life saver as I often tend to frame very tightly. Today someone mentioned a Luminous Landscape article about the utility - and although I may have mentioned the utility before, it seemed a good idea to post the LL link in case I didn't, or should someone want to easily and quickly read about it. Here y'go ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/contents/DNG-Recover-Edges.shtml Shel
Re: Live Eagle cam
2 days until expected hatching. P. At 08:24 AM 24/04/2006 , you wrote: http://www.infotecbusinesssystems.com/wildlife/
RE: PESO - Trees in Fog
Moody and interesting, virtually sepia toned. I like it it! Wish the posted size was a little larger. Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO - Trees in Fog Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:40:48 -0700 http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/trees_in_fog.html From an old negative ... Shel
Re: Live Eagle cam
That's pretty neat. Thanks. Tom C. 2 days until expected hatching. P. At 08:24 AM 24/04/2006 , you wrote: http://www.infotecbusinesssystems.com/wildlife/
Re: Pushing Digital
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Oh, yes. And, of course, never ever discuss the possible differences based on film grain, choice of developer, developing time, etc. etc. :-) In general, photography is no different now than it was pre-digital. The only change is the vocabulary of the detail-oriented minority.
Filters and the PDML
One reason many of you may not be getting all of the email from the PDML is because, for some reason, some of it is being rejected here and there by local servers signed up to the Spamcop service. The messages are being bounced because, according to the bounce message, the PDML has been blacklisted with that service. Of course, when I check the service, the PDML IP address is not listed. What is probably happening is that some server in the same range has been reported, so Spamcop is just blocking the whole range. Looks like I'll have to communicate with them about getting the PDML whitelisted. Thanks, Doug List Guy
Re: Filters and the PDML
Doug Brewer wrote: One reason many of you may not be getting all of the email from the PDML is because, for some reason, some of it is being rejected here and there by local servers signed up to the Spamcop service. The messages are being bounced because, according to the bounce message, the PDML has been blacklisted with that service. Of course, when I check the service, the PDML IP address is not listed. What is probably happening is that some server in the same range has been reported, so Spamcop is just blocking the whole range. Looks like I'll have to communicate with them about getting the PDML whitelisted. Thanks, Doug List Guy Yet more background work we hardly ever hear about. Thanks for your help, Doug,... keith whaley
Test
I'm 129 posts behind the archive. The latest post I have is 20 hours old. regards, Anthony Farr
Re: PESO - Fishy Money (Monterey Aquarium)
Turned out very nice, Marnie. I'm glad that you were able to get some shots that worked for you. Hopefully you will share more of them. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, April 23, 2006, 5:30:10 PM, you wrote: Eac Before I went to Monterey I was smart enough to ask Bruce the settings he Eac used when he was at the aquarium. Eac THANKS, BRUCE!!! Eac If I hadn't used his suggestions, I doubt I would have gotten any decent Eac shots. BTW, I didn't see a DSLR nary anywhere. Not at all. Millions of PS and Eac lots of camera phones. Eac Bruce recommended 3200 ISO, but my Digital Rebel only goes to 1600. Eac So this was shot at 1600 ISO, f 2.8 (on my 50mm), and about 1/15 of a second. Eac The big issue for me was turning my flash off (I was the only one shooting in Eac the aquarium without a flash and I only attempted the tanks that had some Eac interior lighting). I found a spot on the dial to do it, like one of the program Eac modes. I thought I was shooting manual in RAW with the flash off. Nope. Oh, I Eac was shooting manual, alright, but JPEGS. Only found that out when I got home. Eac Luckily most of them need minimal adjustment. And if I could kick my camera Eac without hurting it, I would. Still not sure how to turn the flash off and shoot Eac RAW. Eac Now bear in mind, this is shot through glass, smudged glass at that, and Eac through water and with a large f stop (while the tanks may have been lit from Eac inside, the surrounding room was very dark). But I like the patterns of it. Eac http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/money.htm Eac Comments welcome. Eac Marnie aka Doe
Re: Test
Anthony Farr wrote: I'm 129 posts behind the archive. The latest post I have is 20 hours old. regards, Anthony Farr That's because yours is one of the servers rejecting PDML traffic.
Re: OT: Bragging
Today, a friend pointed out to me that Leica (my Rottie) is tied for 6th top obedience dog with the Rottweiler Club of Canada. Cool, Huh? William Robb -- Congrats, Bill Leica. Very nice. A well-trained dog is a pleasure. I wish I had more time to spend with my border collie, who only needs to be shown something once to learn it. OTOH, I've always suspected that she was actually training me. I can hear Doug thinking Why won't the PDMLers behave as well? Joe
Re: Filters and the PDML
LOL I never saw the original, and I don't see it in the archives ... Doug, thanks for all your work and effort. They are very much appreciated ... Shel Doug Brewer wrote: One reason many of you may not be getting all of the email from the PDML is because, for some reason, some of it is being rejected here and there by local servers signed up to the Spamcop service. The messages are being bounced because, according to the bounce message, the PDML has been blacklisted with that service. Of course, when I check the service, the PDML IP address is not listed. What is probably happening is that some server in the same range has been reported, so Spamcop is just blocking the whole range. Looks like I'll have to communicate with them about getting the PDML whitelisted. Thanks,
Re: Pushing Digital
John Francis wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Oh, yes. And, of course, never ever discuss the possible differences based on film grain, choice of developer, developing time, etc. etc. :-) In general, photography is no different now than it was pre-digital. The only change is the vocabulary of the detail-oriented minority. Ever burn yourself on film? From the DL2 handbook: Care should be taken when removing the SD memory card immediately after using the camera because the card may be hot 8-))
Re: Pushing Digital
Let me try to explain it non-mathematically. Imagine you are weighing something. You are given a scale. The scale has 100 notches that you can balance the thing you are weighing against. So you put on a small object, and it falls between 0 and 9 (out of 100). So there are only 10 slots it can be measured against. Now suppose you have a magic button, that accurately increases the weight of the object so that you can use the full scale, now it can read between 0 and 99 (you mentally have to divide by 10). Which would you rather have, the reading where you have only 10 possible values for the weight, or the one with 100 possible values. Older scales actually work like this, but there is no magic button, there is just different rails, each with their own weight on it, that corresponds to the appropriate range you are trying to weigh. The magic button is the amplifier within the camera that increases the effective iso, and the slots are the quanta that the camera can measure the light levels with. Quantitization is the process of converting the light level of each pixel to a discreet value between 0 and the maximum value in fixed value increments, just like the scale. Except the camera uses powers of two instead of 10. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: You've lost me completely. I don't understand the math of photography. Just snap the shutter and see what comes out. Push a few buttons in Photoshop, or adjust the light in the darkroom. If it works one way or not another, then the answer is clear. Anyway, I don't even understand terms like quantization, or what a chunkier quantization might be, or why or how you'd amplify a quantization.. I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Shel [Original Message] From: Gonz This does not make sense to me. Assuming a perfect amplification and a perfect digitization for a moment, then a shot that would have a complete dynamic range at ISO 1600 would only go up to 1/4 the dynamic range at ISO 400. So when you amplify this quantization (for 12 bits this would be 2^12/4 = 1024) to the full range, you have chunkier quantitization, as if you only had a 10bit sensor instead of 12. That leads me to believe that there would be more noise associated with this. This is similar to the arguments of keeping your image in 16 bit mode when editing as much as possible, until the final conversion to JPG and 8 bits. Converting to 8 bits first then editing is going to cost you alot of information. I'm not taking into account the effects of Bayer interpolation or other interpolation such as uprezing, etc. That just complicates the way the information is interpreted, but it does not change the absolute underlying numbers. -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
A-Series Lens Info Not Showing in Browser/PS
Hi, Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I seem to recall that A lenses would show their focal length in the PS browser and metadata. I'm not seeing that these past couple of days. Is this normal? Shel
Re: Test
Den 24. apr. 2006 kl. 19.15 skrev Doug Brewer: Anthony Farr wrote: I'm 129 posts behind the archive. The latest post I have is 20 hours old. regards, Anthony Farr That's because yours is one of the servers rejecting PDML traffic. ...and so is mine? DagT
PESO - i
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=232428 Comments are welcome. DagT
Re: Filters and the PDML
Doug Brewer wrote: One reason many of you may not be getting all of the email from the PDML is because, for some reason, some of it is being rejected here and there by local servers signed up to the Spamcop service. The messages are being bounced because, according to the bounce message, the PDML has been blacklisted with that service. Don't know about SpamCop's listing criteria but I expect the PDML is probably on some blocklists. This is because the PDML is an unconfirmed mailing list: When you sign up, you start receiving list mail immediately, without any confirmation step. This sounds innocuous in and of itself, but due to the nature of SMTP it's easy to fake a from address and sign up someone else without their knowledge or permission. And it probably, sadly, won't surprise anyone to learn that there some dirtbags out there who've written software that lets you sign your chosen victim up for thousands of mailing lists with a single click :( Imagine getting signed up for a thousand (or more) mailing lists with as much traffic as the PDML and having to unsubscribe from each one. This kind of thing has even been used to bring down mail servers of some smaller providers. IIRC, the PDML used to have subscribe confirmation. Don't know if the listmeister has changed list software or just changed settings but if anyone is having list traffic blocked it might be a good idea for you to ask your provider to whitelist it. After all, you're sending that monthly cheque to them, Doug isn't ;-)
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
Roman wrote: Sup, What is the largest quality print size for 6.1Mpix *istDL images. I'd ordered A4 (200x300mm) photo prints with outstanding detail and sharpness (specially chosen image with lot of detail on it http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060414172055 ) but I wonder if A3 (suggested in my *istDL manual) would be all that good. Your personal experience input appreciated. Thank you. I have a few 20x30 inch prints made from the *istD and upsizing in photoshop. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net
card rescue software
I remember some discussion here a week or two back regards salvaging files from a CF or SD card. I'm not at home and don't have access to my archives just at present ... What was the file recovery software used? Friend of mine has a Sandisk Extreme III 4G card with a bunch of RAW image files on it that needs rescue. thanks Godfrey
Re: Filters and the PDML
And I never got Doug's original message. However, thanks for all the hard Work, Doug. Sometimes it seems like the spammers and the anti-spammers are in a race to see which can make the internet useless first. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- keith_w wrote: Doug Brewer wrote: One reason many of you may not be getting all of the email from the PDML is because, for some reason, some of it is being rejected here and there by local servers signed up to the Spamcop service. The messages are being bounced because, according to the bounce message, the PDML has been blacklisted with that service. Of course, when I check the service, the PDML IP address is not listed. What is probably happening is that some server in the same range has been reported, so Spamcop is just blocking the whole range. Looks like I'll have to communicate with them about getting the PDML whitelisted. Thanks, Doug List Guy Yet more background work we hardly ever hear about. Thanks for your help, Doug,... keith whaley
RE: my personal pic of the day
Very fun indeed, Yhanks for posting Ralf. Manuel -Mensagem original- De: Ralf R. Radermacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviada: segunda-feira, 24 de Abril de 2006 11:22 Para: Pentax Mailingliste Assunto: OT: my personal pic of the day Just found this on the web, had a hearty laugh, and thought I'd share it with you: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1394199 Have a nice day. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Largest photo print size for *istDL
I have printed 12x18 from jpeg, nothing special done, and it looks fine Russell
RE: PESO - i
In English (and in Sundmørsk), the title suggests a self portrait. It's a total bummer, if that's the case ;-) Seriously: This is among your better photographs. And among _your_ better says a lot. 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: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24. april 2006 19:55 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO - i http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=232428 Comments are welcome. DagT
RE: PESO - i
Powerfull image. I like the the way you saw it. Congrats DagT Manuel -Mensagem original- De: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviada: segunda-feira, 24 de Abril de 2006 18:55 Para: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Assunto: PESO - i http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=232428 Comments are welcome. DagT
RE: PESO - i
Great! Shel [Original Message] From: DagT http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=232428
Re: PESO - i
Excellent. Good shadow detail. Imaginative crop. Works for me. Paul -- Original message -- From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=232428 Comments are welcome. DagT
Re: *ist D
I own a DS and a D, and I've worked with files from a Canon Digital Rebel for a couple of friends, which I suppose makes me somewhat more of an expert than most. I've also handled a DL and my impression was that it wasn't much different from the DS. First all Digital captures are a bit soft and require sharpening, some cameras do a better job than others but my opinion is that a good program like Photoshop does better than any camera. So yes by all means shoot raw and sharpen in Photoshop, etc. The amount of sharpening has a lot to do with how big your print/image file will be displayed as well as lens and subject so I don't have an answer there. No color rendition is particularly right, some can be made to look more natural than others. I find the D, to be a bit better in that regard than the DS but both produce comparable images and can be corrected to look alike, especially if you start with a RAW file. Others will probably give a good run down on the merits of the features and control layouts of both cameras (D vs DL), but one I've not seen mentioned is that the deeper hand grip on the DS/DL while being a bit more comfortable to grip makes mounting a mirror telephoto difficult, if I had fatter fingers I couldn't mount it at all, and still hold the camera, while on the D there is no problem at all. Is the D worth $600 more than the DL, well that's up to you but I certainly didn't pay $600 more for my D than for the DS not even close. More like $200, and I didn't pay anything like list for the DS. João Moreira wrote: Gentlemen I think it is the right time for me to move from my ZX-5n to digital. I have made some researches and, after I saw Dario's homepage, I became a little concerned on the sharpness of the *ist D. Is it really unsharp? If so, is it something Photoshop can fix (I mean, do you always have to use Photoshop to fix the sharpness of all your photos)? By how many points (in average)? And what about the colour rendition? It is completely different from the *ist D to the Fujifilm and the Cannon cameras. Which one delivers the right colour? Another question: is the *ist D worth the $600.00 over the *ist DL? What are the extra features? Thanks in advance Joao ___ Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz. http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: card rescue software
I use two different programs PC Inspector File Recovery and PC Inspector Smart Recovery. I haven't checked lately to see if they have new versions that directly support PEF files but they do recover Pentax raw files as TIFFs. These are Windows programs, but they may have MAC versions as well. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I remember some discussion here a week or two back regards salvaging files from a CF or SD card. I'm not at home and don't have access to my archives just at present ... What was the file recovery software used? Friend of mine has a Sandisk Extreme III 4G card with a bunch of RAW image files on it that needs rescue. thanks Godfrey -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO - i
I like the texture, the light around the eye and the crop Russell
Re: A-Series Lens Info Not Showing in Browser/PS
Yes. The chip that tells the camera focal length isn't present in A series lenses. So your memory is faulty. What was that question again??? Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I seem to recall that A lenses would show their focal length in the PS browser and metadata. I'm not seeing that these past couple of days. Is this normal? Shel -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: A-Series Lens Info Not Showing in Browser/PS
I misremembered in a previous thread too: none of the manual focus Pentax lenses (K, M, A series) send any focal length information to the DS body. Only F, FA, DA, D-FA series will provide focal length data. Godfrey On Apr 24, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I seem to recall that A lenses would show their focal length in the PS browser and metadata. I'm not seeing that these past couple of days. Is this normal? Shel
Re: PESO - i
I just got how the title relates to the crop. very clever! Shel
Re: card rescue software
Godfrey, I haven't used it, but my brother has succesfully used it once. http://download.pcinspector.de/pci_us_smartrecovery.exe ftp://ftp2.convar.com/pcinspector/pci_us_smartrecovery.exe HTH, Igor
Re: card rescue software
Thanks for the pointers. PC Inspector products are evidently 100% Windows platform. No sign of anything from them for Mac OS X. For Mac OS X, I have found FileSalvage, PhotoRescue and SanDisk's own RescuePro so far. I can't say how effective any of them are yet, although I've heard reasonable things about PhotoRescue and RescuePro so far. Godfrey
Re: Pushing Digital
Gonz wrote: Let me try to explain it non-mathematically. I still prefer underexpose and you lose shadow detail as an explanation ;-) S
Re: card rescue software
I use two different programs PC Inspector File Recovery and PC Inspector Smart Recovery. I haven't checked lately to see if they have new versions that directly support PEF files but they do recover Pentax raw files as TIFFs. These are Windows programs, but they may have MAC versions as well. I have two (Windows) programs installed here - 1. Lexar Image Rescue 2.0 - http://store.lexar.com/?category=25subcategory=34 2. SanDisk RescuePro 3.0 - http://www.lc-tech.com/software/rprowindetail.html The good news (for me) is that I've never had to use either of 'em. The bad news (for anyone else, I guess) is that I therefore don't know much about them (~yet~, I suppose - g). But, maybe the URL's might help someone... Fred
PESO -- Shad Shack
Another BW conversion. The Connecticut River one had a thriving seasonal business of shad fishing. Small business such as this one were open during the spring shad run and closed the rest of the year. River front property is becoming much too valuable for these business to survive but there are a few still in existence, this isn't one of them... Shad Shack http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_shadshack.html Tech. Info.: Pentax *ist-Ds ISO 400 @ 1/125sec smc Pentax 17mm f4.0 FISHEYE @ f8.0 -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: card rescue software
1. Lexar Image Rescue 2.0 - http://store.lexar.com/?category=25subcategory=34 2. SanDisk RescuePro 3.0 - http://www.lc-tech.com/software/rprowindetail.html But, maybe the URL's might help someone... I should point out that the two programs are downloadable (no waiting for a CD to come) - this might help someone out in a pinch. Fred
Laptops, PC or Mac, and post processing
Cannot decide if i should get a PC version or Mac version(ibook) of CS2. Soo, a question. Anyone using a laptop and external monitor to process photos. If so are the results as you would expect. BTW i'm leaning to the mac version. Also, i have not done anything with colour yet. Is it best to run the mac colour thingy on the laptop screen or the external or both. Dave David J Brooks Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region www.caughtinmotion.com Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H
