Re: My show
On 4/30/06, Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glad you're okay. Best get some gloves, eh? That's what was stupid of me. I have leather gloves, and use them all the time. This time, because it was two blocks, and because I was in a hurry, I didn't wear them. Never ride if in a hurry. j -- Juan Buhler Check out my book: http://www.jbuhler.com/book.html Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
Hello Boris, What is blue gold? I've not decided about the K24/2.8 I want to take some more shots at a greater distance to the subject. Glad you liked the pic ... Shel Boris Wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/rumpledjeansbw.html Excellent textures. Makes one immediately think about the blue gold... So, what your final verdict about your sample of K 24/2.8 on DS?
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
Hi! What is blue gold? Fascinating you should ask this question. In my language/culture there seems to be a term blue gold indicating the time (and grand profit made then) when blue jeans were the most popular wear item. Since then, blue gold is used as another form of blue jeans... I actually thought that it wasn't the original term and that it was borrowed from American culture... -- Boris
Wide lenses and close distances
Hi! Shel recently showed us a picture and added that he wasn't quite sure about performance of his K 24/2.8... Now, having thought about it a bit, I present you a question. Is there a focal distance at which short distance performance of a wide lens is noticeably worse than at infinity? For example, I should say that I made quite a few shots with my 31 Ltd (my widest Pentax lens now) at very close distance (around 1 meter) and I really liked the results. Both shots from my photoblog that I recently posted were made with 31 Ltd. When I had K 24/2.8 I also had mixed feelings about its close range performance. But at the time I thought it was due to my poor eyesight and bad manual focusing technique... -- Boris
Re: My show
Hi! Juan, I am glad you're (mostly) intact. That's what was stupid of me. I have leather gloves, and use them all the time. This time, because it was two blocks, and because I was in a hurry, I didn't wear them. I guess those short rides, runs, drives, etc are the most dangerous ones. Your mind has already *arrived to the destination point* while actually you're in the process... Pleasure to meet you although your face is still behind that camera of yours... Mind if I ask you to show us your face as it is ;-). -- Boris
RE: Spring Trio
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Don Sanderson wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: Spring Trio A little exercise in DOF and simple composition. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4397477 Hi Paul, I was wondering what lens you used for this. I sent a post with comments before, perhaps you didn't get it. Very, very nice. If you click on the details tab, you can see the lens (and I won't repeat the lens, as I saw Paul answered). Nice composition, Paul. I would like to check it on a better monitor; I am not sure about the light. Nice bokeh though! Thanks for sharing. Kostas
Re: Small, Portable Ink Jet Printer - Image Storage
Oh, there's another idea -- get a free gmail account from Google, get a Palm with wireless and e-mail your images to yourself for storage whenever you hit a coffee shop or restaurant or wherever you find wireless access. It was greatly useful on our trip to Washington, where we'd stop for coffee at places where we knew there was free wireless and check all of our e-mail and news from home. I hope you didn't shoot RAW? ;) Nice idea, really, never thought about that. I thought about Gmail (all the PDML for more than a year is on my Gmail) but never thought about sending my JPEGs to my Gmail. -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
May PUG is open
Hi folks, the May PUG is open. It can be found at http://pug.komkon.org Have Fun it is small but nice. Cheers Adelheid -- GMX Produkte empfehlen und ganz einfach Geld verdienen! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner
Re: Small, Portable Ink Jet Printer - Image Storage
Totally inappropriate for her needs. She'll be shooting raw, wants her files handy so she can work on them, has a laptop but doesn't want to carry it around when out of the van, which she may be for a few days at a time. A storage device that allows lots of storage is a better solution. Shel Aaron Wrote: For the non-laptop, has she thought about something like the Palm LifeDrive? Not a ton of storage space, true (4 GB), but it'll do a lot of other things that are useful on a road trip. It has a well-sized screen (over four inches), will do e-mail and internet connected either via a modern cell phone or wireless, and can do many things that you'd want a laptop to do, but it fits comfortably in a pocket. I don't think there's any software for it currently that displays RAW files, and I think that the only card slot in it is for SD. I don't own one -- I own the Palm TX, which is similar but without the 4GB internal storage (it only has about 100mb of user-accessible memory plus whatever you stick in the SD slot), and I've been surprised by how capable it is. So capable, in fact, that my iBook that needs a minor repair may never be repaired. I did get a wireless keyboard for it to speed up my writing. Once I found out that they had upgraded the press box at Rogers Centre to have wireless instead of banks of phone jacks for dial-up modems, I immediately tried pulling out the SD card from the camera and sticking it into the Palm and then sending the files via e-mail as an attachment -- it worked beautifully. It would probably drive me up the wall trying to send all 800, but for filing a couple of key shots in a hurry, it rocks and rolls. Now I'm trying to find a web uploader that works consistently with the internet browser built into the Palm. Oh, there's another idea -- get a free gmail account from Google, get a Palm with wireless and e-mail your images to yourself for storage whenever you hit a coffee shop or restaurant or wherever you find wireless access. It was greatly useful on our trip to Washington, where we'd stop for coffee at places where we knew there was free wireless and check all of our e-mail and news from home.
RE: Wide lenses and close distances
Hello Boris ... I didn't say I was dissatisfied with close distance performance of the K24/2.8. Shel [Original Message] From: Boris Liberman Shel recently showed us a picture and added that he wasn't quite sure about performance of his K 24/2.8... Now, having thought about it a bit, I present you a question. Is there a focal distance at which short distance performance of a wide lens is noticeably worse than at infinity? For example, I should say that I made quite a few shots with my 31 Ltd (my widest Pentax lens now) at very close distance (around 1 meter) and I really liked the results. Both shots from my photoblog that I recently posted were made with 31 Ltd. When I had K 24/2.8 I also had mixed feelings about its close range performance. But at the time I thought it was due to my poor eyesight and bad manual focusing technique... -- Boris
Re: Wide lenses and close distances
Hi! I didn't say I was dissatisfied with close distance performance of the K24/2.8. Hmmm, guess I misinterpreted what you wrote... Anyway, what you wrote led me to some thinking which eventually produced the question I asked. I guess next time I should spend even less time writing the preamble and get straight to the amble ;-). I hereby stand corrected. -- Boris
Re: Limited edition prints?
From: Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/05/01 Mon AM 03:52:03 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Limited edition prints? Hi all, Someone at my opening on Friday asked if my prints were part of a limited edition. They aren't--I think that whole concept is a bit silly. It was silly when using negatives, it is even sillier now, printing digitally. Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add value to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content. I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Don't be silly. 8-)) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On May PUG
Hi! I am terribly sorry... All those holidays and I completely forgotten about the PUG... I feel very much like Neville Longbottom with his rememberall when he cannot remember what he has actually forgotten. (- my voice is properly raised at word forgotten as British way requires ;-) ). Anyway, I thought I'd be the first (most Americans are sleeping) to comment. My absolute favorite is: No Title by Kenneth Waller, because it looks like a painting to me. The second best picture is: The Green Trousers by Gianfranco Irlanda, because I really like the humor in there. The third best (is there such a thing as the third best in English?) is: Thinking Green by Joseph Tainter, although I should say that significant part of the credit should go to a person who spelled environMENTALists this way. Cheers! -- Boris
Alkos (was [test] Pentax smc-k 50/1.4 vs. smc-m AF 35-70/2.8 vs. DA 18-55/3.5-5,6)
On 1/5/06, alkos, discombobulated, unleashed: Go to www.pad.go.pl I'm not into the lens tests, but I had a look around your site (which was not the easiest to navigate it has to be said ;-) but there is some tremendous work there. Inspirational and absolutely first class. Amongst the bets mono work I have seen anywhere. Look in 'Archives' top left and browse using the images at left. Well done Alkos, that is fabulous. Bob W will enjoy that, I know, as will many others. Just my cup of tea. Stunning stuff! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: May PUG is open
On Mon, 1 May 2006, AvK wrote: the May PUG is open. Thanks Adelheid. Kostas
Re: Alkos (was [test] Pentax smc-k 50/1.4 vs. smc-m AF 35-70/2.8 vs. DA 18-55/3.5-5,6)
On Mon, 1 May 2006, Cotty wrote: On 1/5/06, alkos, discombobulated, unleashed: Go to www.pad.go.pl Stunning stuff! Thanks for the heads up Cotty. I recall going to Alkos's site before, his photography is really inspiring. Kostas
RE: Alkos (was [test] Pentax smc-k 50/1.4 vs. smc-m AF 35-70/2.8 vs. DA 18-55/3.5-5,6)
Yes, indeed. I've sampled a few and will be back for more. Very good (apart from the navigation!). -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 May 2006 09:12 To: pentax list Subject: Alkos (was [test] Pentax smc-k 50/1.4 vs. smc-m AF 35-70/2.8 vs. DA 18-55/3.5-5,6) On 1/5/06, alkos, discombobulated, unleashed: Go to www.pad.go.pl I'm not into the lens tests, but I had a look around your site (which was not the easiest to navigate it has to be said ;-) but there is some tremendous work there. Inspirational and absolutely first class. Amongst the bets mono work I have seen anywhere. Look in 'Archives' top left and browse using the images at left. Well done Alkos, that is fabulous. Bob W will enjoy that, I know, as will many others. Just my cup of tea. Stunning stuff! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Limited edition prints?
I think you would be unnecessarily limiting future sales. I think limited edition photographs are a silly idea. You could, perhaps, do a limited edition of a certain style of print, say platinum or something similarly exotic, but you would need to make it quite clear that it was a particular set of prints made in a certain way that was limited, not the picture itself. The photography market has anyway found its own way of putting a premium on certain categories of print. Vintage prints made by HCB in the 30s are more valuable than technically better ones made recently by M. Gassmann, for example. Same with vintage prints by someone like AA. If (when :o)) you reach the stellar heights of these 2, the prints you've produced now will be astronomically valuable whether or not the edition is labelled 'limited', simply because they are being produced in small quantities by necessity. Photographs are rather like Japanese woodblock prints in this respect. Prints by people like Hiroshige were produced in great numbers and sold cheaply, but time has its own way of limiting editions, so originals are now quite scarce and valuable. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Juan Buhler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 May 2006 04:52 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Limited edition prints? Hi all, Someone at my opening on Friday asked if my prints were part of a limited edition. They aren't--I think that whole concept is a bit silly. It was silly when using negatives, it is even sillier now, printing digitally. Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add value to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content. I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Cheers, j -- Juan Buhler Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
RE: My show
Glad to hear you're ok. Congratulations - you look very well hung... -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Juan Buhler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 May 2006 06:42 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: My show Since Godfrey mentioned it, here is a brief report about my show opening last Friday: Everything was hanged and ready on Thursday night. Friday afternoon, I was running late for the opening. I actually live three blocks from the gallery, so I stopped at home to drop one of my layers (had just crossed the Bay Bridge on the Vespa) and pick up the 16-45. On the three blocks to the gallery, I had a helmet problem, and somehow lost control of the Vespa, and went down. I hurt my hands badly (just road rash, but profound, and in both hands) and my knee. Oh, and my black turtleneck, aka artist costume was torn badly. So during the opening, I was limping and wearing bandages on both hands. At least it wasn't a posthumous opening :) Other than that, it was great. A lot of people showed up (in two waves actually, the gallery was full two times, with a slow period in the middle.) Some old friends, some new ones. After the opening, the few people left went for tapas to a nearby restaurant. I ended up not taking any pictures myself. So for illustration, here are three from the night before, after hanging the photographs: http://static.flickr.com/52/138032928_aff18d09e1_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/55/138032851_94a31cb332_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/51/138032821_f3447ba121_o.jpg Thanks for looking, j -- Juan Buhler Check out my book: http://www.jbuhler.com/book.html Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
RE: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
Possibly this comes from the good old Soviet days when every tourist entering Russia brought a trunk full of Levis to sell, and homo sovieticus was desperate to buy them. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 May 2006 07:28 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans Hi! What is blue gold? Fascinating you should ask this question. In my language/culture there seems to be a term blue gold indicating the time (and grand profit made then) when blue jeans were the most popular wear item. Since then, blue gold is used as another form of blue jeans... I actually thought that it wasn't the original term and that it was borrowed from American culture... -- Boris
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
Hi! Possibly this comes from the good old Soviet days when every tourist entering Russia brought a trunk full of Levis to sell, and homo sovieticus was desperate to buy them. Bob, you're probably right. Now, this did not occur to me initially. Does it mean I am ceasing to be homo sovieticus ;-). *kidding* -- Boris
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
On Mon, 01 May 2006 05:37:42 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once you put all your files into a repository as large and as fast as a hard drive based backup system, making conversions en masse is simply not an issue. - Move the data to a new archive? Plug in the new drive, plug in the original, tell the OS to copy it. Have lunch or go to bed. It will be done by the time you get back. - Convert the data to a new format? Plug in the original archive, write a short script to do whatever conversion is necessary, go away and let the computer work. It's not that difficult, once you pass a certain threshold of resources and understanding. They say that tight-rope walking over Niagara isn't that difficult - once you pass a certain threshold of resources and understanding. John Godfrey On Apr 30, 2006, at 9:05 AM, George Sinos wrote: Bob - I don't see the time or cost of format conversion as different than the investment I'm making in scanning slides and prints into digital formats. And digital files are much easier and cheaper to convert to new formats than film and paper. Usually these conversions can be performed over a relatively long period of time. It's rare that everything must be converted on short notice. I see the situation as better than that of film conversion. As far as cheap on-line storage is concerned, I mentioned one current partial solution for photos earlier in the this thread. Others cannot be far behind. But US$ 40 per year for unlimited storage of jpg files is extremely cheap. Given that four copies of the files are stored in three locations in different regions of the country I feel pretty secure in using this as one part of my backup strategy. See you later, gs http://georgesphotos.net On 4/30/06, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip the problem is, though, that you will probably have to maintain an unbroken chain of conversions for however long you want to keep the files. This involves cost, either as work or as money, for each conversion. snip The only other possibility that might have a viable future is online storage similar to that that Google offer (or may offer soon). If storage online is cheap enough and secure enough, some company will offer it as a long-term archive for things like photos. They will take care of conversions transparently to the user, and economies of scale will make it profitable. Bob -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
Yes, Boris. You are now officially a running dog lackey of the capitalist bosses, and an enemy of the people. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 May 2006 10:14 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans Hi! Possibly this comes from the good old Soviet days when every tourist entering Russia brought a trunk full of Levis to sell, and homo sovieticus was desperate to buy them. Bob, you're probably right. Now, this did not occur to me initially. Does it mean I am ceasing to be homo sovieticus ;-). *kidding* -- Boris
Re: My show
Congratulations on a successful opening. Sorry to hear about your mishap but glad you regrouped in time. Paul On May 1, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Juan Buhler wrote: Since Godfrey mentioned it, here is a brief report about my show opening last Friday: Everything was hanged and ready on Thursday night. Friday afternoon, I was running late for the opening. I actually live three blocks from the gallery, so I stopped at home to drop one of my layers (had just crossed the Bay Bridge on the Vespa) and pick up the 16-45. On the three blocks to the gallery, I had a helmet problem, and somehow lost control of the Vespa, and went down. I hurt my hands badly (just road rash, but profound, and in both hands) and my knee. Oh, and my black turtleneck, aka artist costume was torn badly. So during the opening, I was limping and wearing bandages on both hands. At least it wasn't a posthumous opening :) Other than that, it was great. A lot of people showed up (in two waves actually, the gallery was full two times, with a slow period in the middle.) Some old friends, some new ones. After the opening, the few people left went for tapas to a nearby restaurant. I ended up not taking any pictures myself. So for illustration, here are three from the night before, after hanging the photographs: http://static.flickr.com/52/138032928_aff18d09e1_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/55/138032851_94a31cb332_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/51/138032821_f3447ba121_o.jpg Thanks for looking, j -- Juan Buhler Check out my book: http://www.jbuhler.com/book.html Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
Re: Limited edition prints?
On Apr 30, 2006, at 11:52 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: Someone at my opening on Friday asked if my prints were part of a limited edition. They aren't--I think that whole concept is a bit silly. It was silly when using negatives, it is even sillier now, printing digitally. Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add value to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content. I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Serious galleries and buyers want limited edition prints. My prints that I sell are all limited to editions of 100. When I reach 100 it doesn't mean that I don't ever print that image again, but that I don't print that interpretation in that size again. The rules of this were all established long ago, before photography was considered art. You may feel that it is silly, but buyers will not. Bob
Re: My show
Nice story Juan, But isn't it true that you actually got into a fight with the gallery owner and cut your hands when you threw him through the window? I mean, that's WAY more rebel artist than your story. You never hear of anybody crashing their scooter on Entertainment Tonight or in Rolling Stone, do you? ;) CW glad you had a good night, mostly - Original Message - From: Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:42 AM Subject: My show Since Godfrey mentioned it, here is a brief report about my show opening last Friday: Everything was hanged and ready on Thursday night. Friday afternoon, I was running late for the opening. I actually live three blocks from the gallery, so I stopped at home to drop one of my layers (had just crossed the Bay Bridge on the Vespa) and pick up the 16-45. On the three blocks to the gallery, I had a helmet problem, and somehow lost control of the Vespa, and went down. I hurt my hands badly (just road rash, but profound, and in both hands) and my knee. Oh, and my black turtleneck, aka artist costume was torn badly. So during the opening, I was limping and wearing bandages on both hands. At least it wasn't a posthumous opening :) Other than that, it was great. A lot of people showed up (in two waves actually, the gallery was full two times, with a slow period in the middle.) Some old friends, some new ones. After the opening, the few people left went for tapas to a nearby restaurant. I ended up not taking any pictures myself. So for illustration, here are three from the night before, after hanging the photographs: http://static.flickr.com/52/138032928_aff18d09e1_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/55/138032851_94a31cb332_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/51/138032821_f3447ba121_o.jpg Thanks for looking, j -- Juan Buhler Check out my book: http://www.jbuhler.com/book.html Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 4/28/2006
Re: My show
Wow... Overshare. CW - Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 5:02 AM Subject: RE: My show Glad to hear you're ok. Congratulations - you look very well hung... --
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
Hi! Yes, Boris. You are now officially a running dog lackey of the capitalist bosses, and an enemy of the people. ROTFL. -- Boris
Re: Spring Trio
Hi Kostas. Thanks for looking. The light is open shade, adjusted to what I consider a pleasing color temperature during conversion. On May 1, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Don Sanderson wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: Spring Trio A little exercise in DOF and simple composition. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4397477 Hi Paul, I was wondering what lens you used for this. I sent a post with comments before, perhaps you didn't get it. Very, very nice. If you click on the details tab, you can see the lens (and I won't repeat the lens, as I saw Paul answered). Nice composition, Paul. I would like to check it on a better monitor; I am not sure about the light. Nice bokeh though! Thanks for sharing. Kostas
Re: Spring Trio
On Mon, 1 May 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote: On May 1, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Don Sanderson wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: Spring Trio A little exercise in DOF and simple composition. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4397477 Hi Paul, I was wondering what lens you used for this. I sent a post with comments before, perhaps you didn't get it. Very, very nice. If you click on the details tab, you can see the lens (and I won't repeat the lens, as I saw Paul answered). Nice composition, Paul. I would like to check it on a better monitor; I am not sure about the light. Nice bokeh though! Thanks for sharing. Hi Kostas. Thanks for looking. The light is open shade, adjusted to what I consider a pleasing color temperature during conversion. And, on my desktop monitor, I agree! I really like the shape of the most OOF flower, I have to say. And out of curiosity, what time of day was it? Midday (judging from the open bloom)? Kostas
Re: Spring Trio
It was late afternoon. The tulips are in the shadow of my house and were illuminated by open north sky. Paul On May 1, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote: On May 1, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Don Sanderson wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: Spring Trio A little exercise in DOF and simple composition. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4397477 Hi Paul, I was wondering what lens you used for this. I sent a post with comments before, perhaps you didn't get it. Very, very nice. If you click on the details tab, you can see the lens (and I won't repeat the lens, as I saw Paul answered). Nice composition, Paul. I would like to check it on a better monitor; I am not sure about the light. Nice bokeh though! Thanks for sharing. Hi Kostas. Thanks for looking. The light is open shade, adjusted to what I consider a pleasing color temperature during conversion. And, on my desktop monitor, I agree! I really like the shape of the most OOF flower, I have to say. And out of curiosity, what time of day was it? Midday (judging from the open bloom)? Kostas
PESO - Bad News?
Natalka has a look of concern on her face, as if she's receiving bad news: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4401945size=lg Comments always welcome. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Small, Portable Ink Jet Printer - Image Storage
On May 1, 2006, at 2:50 AM, Thibouille wrote: It was greatly useful on our trip to Washington, where we'd stop for coffee at places where we knew there was free wireless and check all of our e-mail and news from home. I hope you didn't shoot RAW? ;) Nice idea, really, never thought about that. I thought about Gmail (all the PDML for more than a year is on my Gmail) but never thought about sending my JPEGs to my Gmail. Heh, no -- I shot film. We didn't try the e-mailing ourselves idea, just checked e-mail etc. -Aaron
Re: Small, Portable Ink Jet Printer - Image Storage
On May 1, 2006, at 3:27 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Totally inappropriate for her needs. She'll be shooting raw, wants her files handy so she can work on them, has a laptop but doesn't want to carry it around when out of the van, which she may be for a few days at a time. A storage device that allows lots of storage is a better solution. Hrm -- well, if she wants to work on them, I think she'll need the laptop, no? A more important point -- do any of these printers print from RAW? And whose RAW files do they support? It may not be practical to leave the laptop at home for this project. -Aaron
May PUG Comments
Two catch my eye: a. Aspidistra -- This is what film is meant for! Great job. b. Green -- And some would rather do this on the computer! One catches my mind: a. Thinking Green -- Good documentary photo. (Though the commentary is a negative.)
Re: Limited edition prints?
It's a matter of pride for some people. If the artist is very good, they want the first, or one of the first, prints available. Now if one wants to play into this head game ... Collin KC8TKA
Re: waist-level viewfinder
graywolf Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:49:58 -0700 Another I did not see the original of... 1st choice a 5x7 Graflex (Just kidding) I don't know about waist-level with a 5x7 Speed but you can get an old RB Speed that has this monster hood for peering into the back ... Waist-level keeps people from thinking that you're pointing something at them. That's a good thing in today's paranoid world. Here's some thoughts: 1. Most of the Mamiya TLR lenses are fairly low-contrast units. Unless you get the later D DS editions. Coatings are much better on those. 2. RB67 is an excellent choice if (a) you keep in on a tripod or (b) you are built like a (Kansas/Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Oklahoma) farm boy. (our wedding was shot by a big farm boy who hand-held his RB67 for 3+ hours. With the prism, grip, flash, etc.) 3. LX if you have the money and want to stay 35mm. Collin KC8TKA
Re: waist-level viewfinder
I'm surprised that noone's mentioned a Pentax 6x7 or 67 with the prism removed. I borrowed a Kiev 60 for a few months, and shot off a couple of rolls with the prism off and the viewfinder hood on. Was a lot like shooting with my Yashica Mat, except for the blanking out of the viewfinder after the shutter fired. And the loud *SPROING* noise. -Mat
Re: Life in the Raw
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Don Williams wrote: Sorry, I didn't remember about Cory's disability. But every every time I start toying with the idea of re-installing Red Hat something like this happens to set me right. I love Microsoft -- I don't think. The server can run Linux via a dual boot system, but I have it running XP Pro at the moment. It acts as a storage facility in case of disasters which happen with awful regularity here in little Toivakka. Aino's PC downstairs has extra drive capacity and acts as a dumping ground too. Not to fan the OS religious wars, but my disability is most certainly a choice. I used to be a Macintosh fanatic (circa '88-'98), but after getting jerked around on the OS rewrite for 6 years or so, I didn't want to buy an overpriced machine just to run it. I've played with MacOSX enough to see that it is a very refined and graceful extension to the 15-year old elegance that was NeXTStep (which I had the pleasure of using on original black NeXT hardware). I bypassed the Winders world altogether and moved exclusively to Linux. Windows sucks so bad in ideology, performance, stability, useability, and cost that I cannot fathom why so many people still use it. Just about EVERYONE I know who uses it (technical folks mostly) gripes about it being such a shoddy, incestuous, pile of sh*t cesspool... yet continually work around the security, performance, and useability flaws. At least I can always pare my linux distro of choice down to the core and get rid of rampant code bloat. I'm willing to accept some inconvenience and incompatibility with proprietary systems. That's actually one of the same reasons I didn't jump ship from Pentax when I got my DSLR they're the least proprietary. K-mount, AA-batts, SD-cards, pseudo-TIFF RAW files, sensor datasheet available, etc. Sorry about the rant... must have brewed up BitchBlend in the espresso machine this morning... :) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Re: waist-level viewfinder
From: Mat Maessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/05/01 Mon PM 01:17:25 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: waist-level viewfinder I'm surprised that noone's mentioned a Pentax 6x7 or 67 with the prism removed. Look in the archives. 8-) It would have to be medium format for me, as I can't critically focus with the camera at waist level with 35mm. Probably not with MF either. I borrowed a Kiev 60 for a few months, and shot off a couple of rolls with the prism off and the viewfinder hood on. Was a lot like shooting with my Yashica Mat, except for the blanking out of the viewfinder after the shutter fired. And the loud *SPROING* noise. -Mat - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Horse passport pic's digitally. An observation
Hi all. Well horse show season is gearing up and horses that want to show and don't have a passport(thats right, horses need em to show) have been contacting me for said pictures. Did some Sunday at the farm we board at, and unlike previous years, shot them all with a Dslr as opposed to film. Most horses dont stand still and you need a fairly specific pose for nmarkings etc, so i tend to just follow it around, camera glued to my eye, while the owner trys to set the animal up, and i just shoot when things look close and up. Worked out well. Both horses moved around a lot and wound up shooting 40 odd pictures of each, to get 1-2 that are acceptable. Showed them on the laptop, client picks them out then it was off to Shoppers Drug Mart were they have a Kodak download machine to get prints from their photo machine. Decent quality reprints on Matte paper at $0.30 a piece. My charge $10.00 per horse,mind you it took 20 odd minutes per. Ink jets prints are out as if they get wet and have to change pictures, its another $90.00. Point of this is, when i did this on film, and i needed to shoot a full roll to get the picture I had to spring for developing and prints. Now its laptop and Kiosk's. Welcome to the 21st century Dave.:-) Dave
Re: My show
In a message dated 4/30/2006 10:43:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ended up not taking any pictures myself. So for illustration, here are three from the night before, after hanging the photographs: http://static.flickr.com/52/138032928_aff18d09e1_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/55/138032851_94a31cb332_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/51/138032821_f3447ba121_o.jpg Thanks for looking, j Glad you're okay. Glad show went well. Gee, all these people with their own shows! I feel outclassed. :-) I read one time that most accidents occur within 5 miles of home (we speed up in familiar territory, feeling we know the way and/or impatient to get home). So ironically we must be most careful near home rather than on a major expressway (unless that is right near our home), on a trip, or whatever. Take Care. Excitement can derail us too. Marnie aka Doe
Re: A Busy Photo Weekend
On Apr 30, 2006, at 23:56, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I saw the prototype of the book he's produced ... with its lovely faux swede cover ];-) ... and admired the prints in the flesh. So much nicer than seeing them in low-rez web JPEG form. ..I'm just wondering what a faux Swede looks like. Bleached-blonde hair, perhaps? -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: PESO - Rumpled Jeans
On 4/30/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This started out as just a test of the K24/2.8 on the istDS, but when I looked through the finder, the image looked more interesting than anticipated. So, after making some shots with the 24mm, I switched lenses to the K35/2.0 for a somewhat tighter perspective and different view. After making the adjustments in PS, it seemed the pic might lend itself better to a BW interpretation, so here it is: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/rumpledjeansbw.html Tech Stuff: istDS, K35/2.0 @ F8.0 1-second exp., ISO 200, converted using Double Hue Sat method Interesting. Very interesting (the result, that is). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Limited edition prints?
On May 1, 2006, at 8:11, Jack Davis wrote: He finally 'forced' himself to destroy it by punching it full of holes with a check canceling punch. Said he never got over it and never considered doing it again. Ouch! That pained me just to read it! -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
On May 1, 2006, at 2:45 AM, John Forbes wrote: They say that tight-rope walking over Niagara isn't that difficult - once you pass a certain threshold of resources and understanding. Tightrope walking over Niagra Falls is just as difficult as tightrope walking anywhere else. Once you have the skill to walk a tightrope high up in open air, you can do it anywhere. All it takes beyond that is courage, insanity or stupidity, depending upon the perspective of the person judging you. Few can develop the skill. It is not comparable to learning how to operate a computer and knowing what to do to move data, which simply takes storage devices, a little time with a book, and a plan to do what is required. Nearly anyone can do it, except for the very incompetent. Godfrey
Re: Limited edition prints?
I was going to say the same thing -- it doesn't matter how much the membership of the PDML thinks this is a silly idea. It's what buyers look for, so if you want to sell the prints, you have a limited edition. -Aaron On May 1, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Bob Shell wrote: Serious galleries and buyers want limited edition prints. My prints that I sell are all limited to editions of 100. When I reach 100 it doesn't mean that I don't ever print that image again, but that I don't print that interpretation in that size again. The rules of this were all established long ago, before photography was considered art. You may feel that it is silly, but buyers will not.
Re: Limited edition prints?
In a message dated 4/30/2006 8:53:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add value to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content. I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Cheers, j === I always figured, if I even get to the level of mixing artwork and photography and producing something, I'd go with limited edition prints. It is definitely the way to go. The way to make money. Buyers want to know that they are buying something rather rare. That, in other words, there haven't been hundreds and hundreds of copies run off. (They are also willing to pay more that way.) It applies especially well to artwork (silk screens and things, although not that many do silk screens anymore), but I am not sure how well it applies to photography. And, yes, digital seems to make it rather silly. But not completely silly. Having a master doesn't mean that one literally makes a continuous series of a bunch of prints. And prints are the product as far as most people are concerned, not the master. Personally, if I ever do this, I meant to research it. I think there are loopholes so that one can do a reprint say in the future, say 20 years later, if it is necessary. Forms and legalities. Ways to reassure people this is a limited edition (of 25-50-whatever). Guaranteed by the artist. But that the artist still retains all rights to the master. And that there is a loophole for further reprints if necessary (shows, museums, etc.) There must be someplace on the Net that details how to do this legally. It's a good idea, in other words. It's the way the art world (and maybe the photography world) work. For good reasons, when you think about it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Life in the Raw
On 1 May 2006 at 9:21, Cory Papenfuss wrote: I bypassed the Winders world altogether and moved exclusively to Linux. Windows sucks so bad in ideology, performance, stability, useability, and cost that I cannot fathom why so many people still use it. Just about EVERYONE I know who uses it (technical folks mostly) gripes about it being such a shoddy, incestuous, pile of sh*t cesspool... yet continually work around the security, performance, and useability flaws. I'm sure your report is accurate, but amongst photographers you'll find the late Windows platforms to be both utilitarian, stable and capable of running the current state of the art imaging software and colour management systems. 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
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity? It is not comparable to learning how to operate a computer and knowing what to do to move data, which simply takes storage devices, a little time with a book, and a plan to do what is required. Nearly anyone can do it, except for the very incompetent. The very vast majority of people are not interested in this subject. They want technology that works, is simple, and doesn't require much thought or maintenance. Up intil recently, the vadt majority of pictures were stored on a hard copy, and were easily accessed, all one had to do was take the negative or print to the lab and place an order. Now that the computer industry has taken over the job of image storage, it has a defacto responsibility to the consumer to emulate the simplicity of film based image storage. This means a responsible approach to long term standards of file storage, and a long term approach to file retrieval. William Robb
Re: Limited edition prints?
Limiting the quantity of something raises the cachet value of it, and increases it's desirablity, providing it isn't just a one off piece of shit. If you don't limit the number of prints that you make, and make it clear to the customer that what they are buying is one of a small number of units, you may as well be selling Britney Spears posters out of the trunk of your car. William Robb
Re: Life in the Raw
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Life in the Raw I'm sure your report is accurate, but amongst photographers you'll find the late Windows platforms to be both utilitarian, stable and capable of running the current state of the art imaging software and colour management systems. Here we go, it looks like the Crusades are starting again. William Robb
Re: Life in the Raw
I suspect we have returned to the which is better: hammer or screwdriver? argument. -Aaron On May 1, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 May 2006 at 9:21, Cory Papenfuss wrote: I bypassed the Winders world altogether and moved exclusively to Linux. Windows sucks so bad in ideology, performance, stability, useability, and cost that I cannot fathom why so many people still use it. Just about EVERYONE I know who uses it (technical folks mostly) gripes about it being such a shoddy, incestuous, pile of sh*t cesspool... yet continually work around the security, performance, and useability flaws. I'm sure your report is accurate, but amongst photographers you'll find the late Windows platforms to be both utilitarian, stable and capable of running the current state of the art imaging software and colour management systems.
Re: Limited edition prints?
In a message dated 5/1/2006 6:53:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Limiting the quantity of something raises the cachet value of it, and increases it's desirablity, providing it isn't just a one off piece of shit. If you don't limit the number of prints that you make, and make it clear to the customer that what they are buying is one of a small number of units, you may as well be selling Britney Spears posters out of the trunk of your car. William Robb = Exactly. This is an area where my knowledge is foggy. But the thing to be aware of, is that some famous artists may only produced say only 25 prints (or less) of one thing DURING THEIR LIFETIME. That is really what a limited edition print means. It's like having only one painting in existence. Only a certain number of prints ever in existence. So it is something to think about beforehand, how many prints of one thing you want in existence for your lifetime. I am sure someone on this list knows more about it than I. But I think it requires some thought before committing oneself. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Life in the Raw
Well, XP is a fairly decent OS. Bloated as hell, mind you,but that applies to most Linux distributiions too. It hardly ever crashes. Of course if you do not know how to tame it Redmond keeps changing it with those nasty automatic updates. One a couple of months ago changed the look and feel on me. I shall have to go back and reload XP from the CD on this machine with updates turned off, I guess. Just to put my position in perspective here, Cory, I have been running Slackware since 0.9. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cory Papenfuss wrote: On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Don Williams wrote: Sorry, I didn't remember about Cory's disability. But every every time I start toying with the idea of re-installing Red Hat something like this happens to set me right. I love Microsoft -- I don't think. The server can run Linux via a dual boot system, but I have it running XP Pro at the moment. It acts as a storage facility in case of disasters which happen with awful regularity here in little Toivakka. Aino's PC downstairs has extra drive capacity and acts as a dumping ground too. Not to fan the OS religious wars, but my disability is most certainly a choice. I used to be a Macintosh fanatic (circa '88-'98), but after getting jerked around on the OS rewrite for 6 years or so, I didn't want to buy an overpriced machine just to run it. I've played with MacOSX enough to see that it is a very refined and graceful extension to the 15-year old elegance that was NeXTStep (which I had the pleasure of using on original black NeXT hardware). I bypassed the Winders world altogether and moved exclusively to Linux. Windows sucks so bad in ideology, performance, stability, useability, and cost that I cannot fathom why so many people still use it. Just about EVERYONE I know who uses it (technical folks mostly) gripes about it being such a shoddy, incestuous, pile of sh*t cesspool... yet continually work around the security, performance, and useability flaws. At least I can always pare my linux distro of choice down to the core and get rid of rampant code bloat. I'm willing to accept some inconvenience and incompatibility with proprietary systems. That's actually one of the same reasons I didn't jump ship from Pentax when I got my DSLR they're the least proprietary. K-mount, AA-batts, SD-cards, pseudo-TIFF RAW files, sensor datasheet available, etc. Sorry about the rant... must have brewed up BitchBlend in the espresso machine this morning... :) -Cory
Re: Life in the Raw
On 1 May 2006 at 9:52, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I suspect we have returned to the which is better: hammer or screwdriver? argument. At least we aren't talking about hockey. 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
Re: PESOs - Sea Flower/Find the Fish
In a message dated 4/30/2006 6:09:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it a flower or a sea urchin? Could be an animal. Paul == I think a sea anemone is an animal. Marnie aka Doe Don't go by my title, that was for fun.
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
On May 1, 2006, at 6:47 AM, William Robb wrote: The very vast majority of people are not interested in this subject. They want technology that works, is simple, and doesn't require much thought or maintenance. Up intil recently, the vadt majority of pictures were stored on a hard copy, and were easily accessed, all one had to do was take the negative or print to the lab and place an order. Now that the computer industry has taken over the job of image storage, it has a defacto responsibility to the consumer to emulate the simplicity of film based image storage. This means a responsible approach to long term standards of file storage, and a long term approach to file retrieval. To quote your expression on previous occasions, Bill: that's a load of bullshit. The very vast majority of people never thought about archiving and never will. Most of those people's photographs are damaged or lost over time. Are you saying that these kinds of people are representative of the PDML community of subscribers? There seems to be quite a bit of interest in the subject in this community of subscribers, given how many posts have been made on this thread. To say that someone else has the responsibility to do the work for you indicates that you personally just don't want be bothered taking care of what you ought to. For that 'vast majority of people' you allude to, I think the industry is busy delivering various kinds of solutions for them already. Not because of any high-falutin' de facto responsibility but because there's money to be made in providing storage solutions that are easy to use. Regards the standards, well, the only thing for certain is that they're a great idea. That's why there are so many of them. Godfrey
Re: Life in the Raw
In a message dated 5/1/2006 7:06:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, XP is a fairly decent OS. Bloated as hell, mind you,but that applies to most Linux distributiions too. It hardly ever crashes. Of course if you do not know how to tame it Redmond keeps changing it with those nasty automatic updates. One a couple of months ago changed the look and feel on me. I shall have to go back and reload XP from the CD on this machine with updates turned off, I guess. Just to put my position in perspective here, Cory, I have been running Slackware since 0.9. graywolf I am very selective about which updates I install. In fact, I've turned the automatic updates warning thing off. Most are for plugging holes in Outlook (which I don't use) to prevent viruses anyway. Marnie aka Doe
Re: My show
Dammit, Juan! How's the *scooter*??? ;-)
Re: Limited edition prints?
Juan, The subject of your post reminds me of an Ansel Adam story related in one of his books. It, of course, was negative related and in order to guarantee the image be a limited addition, agonized greatly over destroying the negative. He finally 'forced' himself to destroy it by punching it full of holes with a check canceling punch. Said he never got over it and never considered doing it again. I've never thought I'd be at a point, personally, where it would be done. I've furnished images for limited sale wherein the seller requested they be signed and numbered. Felt sort of like an unspoken marketing 'ploy'. Jack --- Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Someone at my opening on Friday asked if my prints were part of a limited edition. They aren't--I think that whole concept is a bit silly. It was silly when using negatives, it is even sillier now, printing digitally. Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add value to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content. I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Cheers, j -- Juan Buhler Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Life in the Raw
First off, the original capture file is the source ... How could you extract more metadata in the process of converting from PEF to DNG? I'm referring to the closed-nature of some of the metadata in the EXIF of the RAW file. Of course there's no more data (other than whatever the DNG conversion might want to record about itself). What it *might* allow is open-access to some of the unknown data. I've tried to contact Pentax to get more information on the VendorTAG-type EXIF tags, with little success. If one proprietary company (Adobe) manages to beg/borrw/steal/reverse-engineer/buy the ability to read this stuff and put it in an open-format like DNG, I consider that more data. DNG conversion simply moves all the existing metadata into the DNG format, along with the sensor data. The real advantage of the DNG format, aside from taking up less space through applying lossless compression to the sensor data, is that it was designed to be a container format so more metadata can be added to the RAW file itself (RAW processing parameters, IPTC data, etc) without otherwise affecting the RAW data at all. So ultimately a DNG file usually has more metadata in it but the additions come from processing with savvy applications, not from the original RAW format file. Godfrey As a wrapper, that's fine. The way I understood it (which could be way off since I've never even played with it since I cannot), was one could a) convert to DNG, or b) throw the original RAW file in as well. If I was guaranteed I could always reverse the process through an open-source means, option a) would be a viable archival method to get the compression and pseudo-application-agnostic qualities. Option b) seems like a silly idea for archival since it takes up even more space than the original file. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
In a message dated 5/1/2006 6:49:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now that the computer industry has taken over the job of image storage, it has a defacto responsibility to the consumer to emulate the simplicity of film based image storage. This means a responsible approach to long term standards of file storage, and a long term approach to file retrieval. William Robb === Ahem. Computers are still not THAT easy to use. (I believe in computers adapting more to people than the other way around.) And there are still tons of people who use computers who don't know how to do more than the basic stuff (email, word processing, browsing). I am a geek, but I don't think everyone should have to be a geek just to use a computer. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Limited edition prints?
To be a truly limited edition you have to run off that number of prints then destroy the negative, matrix, woodblock, silkscreen, etc. Any other way and someone, no matter how honest the author, can run off some more later on. Now how in the hell can you do that with a digital image? Of course limited editions appeal to the investor type who has no idea how to judge the artistic merits of a print. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof ---
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
On Mon, 01 May 2006 14:38:45 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 1, 2006, at 2:45 AM, John Forbes wrote: They say that tight-rope walking over Niagara isn't that difficult - once you pass a certain threshold of resources and understanding. Tightrope walking over Niagra Falls is just as difficult as tightrope walking anywhere else. Once you have the skill to walk a tightrope high up in open air, you can do it anywhere. All it takes beyond that is courage, insanity or stupidity, depending upon the perspective of the person judging you. Few can develop the skill. It is not comparable to learning how to operate a computer and knowing what to do to move data, which simply takes storage devices, a little time with a book, and a plan to do what is required. Nearly anyone can do it, except for the very incompetent. And the very busy, who don't have time to learn computer programming from scratch just in order to keep their images updated. Developing your argument, we should all go off like Linus Torvalds and create our own operating systems. And grow our own vegetables, bake our own bread, drill for our own oil. That's fine for geeks, market gardners, bakers and wild-catters. But not for the rest of us. John Godfrey -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PESOs - Sea Flower/Find the Fish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/30/2006 6:09:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it a flower or a sea urchin? Could be an animal. Paul == I think a sea anemone is an animal. Animal. Phylum cnidaria: corals, jellyfish, etc. BTW, Marnie, my original reply never made it to the list. nice shot! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net
Re: My show
Mark Roberts wrote: Dammit, Juan! How's the *scooter*??? ;-) yeah, I wondered that myself...
Re: batteries discharging quickly in *istD
La Crosse charger highly recommended. I read the La Crosse delivers a more reliable charge at 500-700ma as it can do a better job of detecting the cut off point. I was having some flaky battery problems at 200ma which vanished when I upped the charge rate. 700ma is still well below the safe charge limit. Agreed. Charging at the low rate (200mAh) makes it difficult for the La Crosse to detect the cut off voltage when charging high capacity batteries. For a good modern cell, 200mAh is only C/10. I generally charge 500mA as a minimum, and the cells don't even start to get warm until 700mA. If I am refreshing a set at 1000mA, I'll put a computer fan nearby to keep them cool. One bad battery in a set can ruin your day and you need a charger with individual circuits and a readout to spot the bad one. I have also found some NiMH can self discharge much faster than the advertised rate. Absolutely. I've been keeping track of individual cells in my La Crosse charger for a year or so now. Cell capacities change and are rarely matched in a set... even out of the box. Unless you've got the information, it's easy to dismiss NiMH batteries as not worth the trouble. If you match sets by *capacity*, they last a long time. -Cory Powell At 12:16 AM 30/04/2006 , Don wrote: If you get a La Crosse charger you'll be able to keep your NiMH cells healthy. I think a good way to shorten the life of NiMH cells is to fast charge them. I charge mine at 200 ma. -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Limited edition prints?
J,Would the 'inaccuracy' detract even, the least bit, from the satisfaction of the sale? Depends on your comfort level. Jack --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/30/2006 8:53:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add value to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content. I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Cheers, j === I always figured, if I even get to the level of mixing artwork and photography and producing something, I'd go with limited edition prints. It is definitely the way to go. The way to make money. Buyers want to know that they are buying something rather rare. That, in other words, there haven't been hundreds and hundreds of copies run off. (They are also willing to pay more that way.) It applies especially well to artwork (silk screens and things, although not that many do silk screens anymore), but I am not sure how well it applies to photography. And, yes, digital seems to make it rather silly. But not completely silly. Having a master doesn't mean that one literally makes a continuous series of a bunch of prints. And prints are the product as far as most people are concerned, not the master. Personally, if I ever do this, I meant to research it. I think there are loopholes so that one can do a reprint say in the future, say 20 years later, if it is necessary. Forms and legalities. Ways to reassure people this is a limited edition (of 25-50-whatever). Guaranteed by the artist. But that the artist still retains all rights to the master. And that there is a loophole for further reprints if necessary (shows, museums, etc.) There must be someplace on the Net that details how to do this legally. It's a good idea, in other words. It's the way the art world (and maybe the photography world) work. For good reasons, when you think about it. Marnie aka Doe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Wierd list!
Interesting how I won't ever see one of my posts, yet it will be replied to by another. Selective distribution(?) :-[ Jack __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Life in the Raw
Cory Papenfuss wrote: On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Don Williams wrote: Sorry, I didn't remember about Cory's disability. But every every time I start toying with the idea of re-installing Red Hat something like this happens to set me right. I love Microsoft -- I don't think. The server can run Linux via a dual boot system, but I have it running XP Pro at the moment. It acts as a storage facility in case of disasters which happen with awful regularity here in little Toivakka. Aino's PC downstairs has extra drive capacity and acts as a dumping ground too. Not to fan the OS religious wars, but my disability is most certainly a choice. I used to be a Macintosh fanatic (circa '88-'98), but after getting jerked around on the OS rewrite for 6 years or so, I didn't want to buy an overpriced machine just to run it. I've played with MacOSX enough to see that it is a very refined and graceful extension to the 15-year old elegance that was NeXTStep (which I had the pleasure of using on original black NeXT hardware). I bypassed the Winders world altogether and moved exclusively to Linux. Windows sucks so bad in ideology, performance, stability, useability, and cost that I cannot fathom why so many people still use it. Just about EVERYONE I know who uses it (technical folks mostly) gripes about it being such a shoddy, incestuous, pile of sh*t cesspool... yet continually work around the security, performance, and useability flaws. At least I can always pare my linux distro of choice down to the core and get rid of rampant code bloat. I'm willing to accept some inconvenience and incompatibility with proprietary systems. That's actually one of the same reasons I didn't jump ship from Pentax when I got my DSLR they're the least proprietary. K-mount, AA-batts, SD-cards, pseudo-TIFF RAW files, sensor datasheet available, etc. Sorry about the rant... must have brewed up BitchBlend in the espresso machine this morning... :) -Cory Unfortunately, given the state of colour management and image editing software on Linux, it's simply not viable for anything beyond basic editing. I run Linux (Debian and Ubuntu), OS X, XP and NeXTSTEP 3.3 on my home network, all but Debian on desktops as Debian is my standard server OS (installed from Bluewall tarballs and updated to current STABLE). I like Linux as a desktop OS, almost as much as I like OS X. But I do my heavy lifting on Windows XP because it is the best combination of cost and capability for what I do (I wish I could have acquired a Mac as fast and expandable as my PC for even 50% more than I payed for the PC). XP has its issues, but when it comes to value, it wins. And it's a thoroughly competent OS (The only other MS Desktop OS that can claim that is 2000). -Adam
Re: time for a new SD reader ...
On 4/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Happily, the Epson P2000 with firmware v2.5.1 installed handles the 2G SD card just fine. The joy of firmware upgradeable devices! :-) Godfrey I am so glad you posted that! I just bought a 2Gb Corsair SD card and tried to download the shots to my P-2000 this weekend. Message came up - no images on card (of course, there were) Checked my firmware version - v02.04 Went to Epson Canada site to check for updates. None. Newest version was v02.04 which is what I had. Now thanks to your post, I checked on Epson USA website and lo and behold there it is! Newer firmware with support for 2Gb cards Thank you, Godfrey! (and a big fat raspberry to Epson Canada) -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
Re: waist-level viewfinder
On May 1, 2006, at 6:24 AM, mike wilson wrote: It would have to be medium format for me, as I can't critically focus with the camera at waist level with 35mm. Probably not with MF either. I don't think you can 'critically focus' any camera held at waist level without a magnifier, regardless of format. The notion of waist level finders isn't critical focus, it's the ability to *frame* at waist level easily. 35mm is a touch small for that, 6x4.5 and up are much nicer. The Sony R1's 2 LCD is pretty good too: it is bright and contrasty, is pretty easy to see even in sunlight due to its transflextive technology. Godfrey
Re: On May PUG
The third best (is there such a thing as the third best in English?) is: Thinking Green by Joseph Tainter, although I should say that significant part of the credit should go to a person who spelled environMENTALists this way. Thank you, Boris. Yes, the good people of Heber, Arizona, deserve the credit. And about a month after I took this photo, they took that sign down and put up a new one. Same message. Joe
Re: My show
A bittersweet evening. But glad you are okay. Joe
Re: Life in the Raw
On May 1, 2006, at 6:10 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: First off, the original capture file is the source ... How could you extract more metadata in the process of converting from PEF to DNG? I'm referring to the closed-nature of some of the metadata in the EXIF of the RAW file. Of course there's no more data (other than whatever the DNG conversion might want to record about itself). What it *might* allow is open-access to some of the unknown data. I've tried to contact Pentax to get more information on the VendorTAG-type EXIF tags, with little success. If one proprietary company (Adobe) manages to beg/borrw/steal/reverse- engineer/buy the ability to read this stuff and put it in an open- format like DNG, I consider that more data. 'Maker notes' in the EXIF data are not easily decipherable because the EXIF specification left too much ambiguous and up to the whim of the manufacturers. Same reason there two different ways to represent both aperture and shutter speed in the EXIF spec. Adobe's other initiative, the Extensible Metadata Protocol format (XMP) is a much much more sensible metadata specification that I'm hoping becomes a standard for all application utilities. This has little to do with DNG format. DNG conversion simply puts the EXIF data into the converted file in a standardized format, with appropriate sections for tags whose structure is unknown/ unpredictable. All the same data is there. The way I understood it (which could be way off since I've never even played with it since I cannot), was one could a) convert to DNG, or b) throw the original RAW file in as well. If I was guaranteed I could always reverse the process through an open- source means, option a) would be a viable archival method to get the compression and pseudo-application-agnostic qualities. Option b) seems like a silly idea for archival since it takes up even more space than the original file. It's not a mutually exclusive A or B choice. One can convert to DNG and bring all the data from the RAW file into the container format. Optionally, one can also embed the original RAW file into the container, whole, for those who want to be able to extract the original RAW file again, for whatever reason, at some future date. I also find this a relatively useless option ... I haven't found anything I couldn't do with DNG files compared to PEF, ORF, SR2, SRF, CRW, RAW and MRF format files, and the DNG files are smaller, contain more metadata after I've added my IPTC and Camera Raw parameters. The only reason that I can see for wanting an original RAW file format is to take advantage of some special software that can only operate on the original RAW format data ... To my mind, that's a deficiency of the software, not the DNG file format, because all the original data is there in the DNG already. I haven't found anything like that worth being interested in so far either. To convert a DNG file without the embedded original RAW format back to the original RAW format file runs counter to the purpose of creating a standard format that contains RAW file data. It could be done, I'm sure, if it were deemed important ... after all, the DNG Converter had to have the specific knowledge of all those RAW file formats to create the DNG file. Of course, you'd be throwing away some of the additional metadata added later in the process. Why is it necessary to be guaranteed that this is possible? Is it desirable for some practical reason? Godfrey
List Constipation?
I'm getting anxiety hemorrhoids waiting for my posts (an insignificant couple) to be passed..er posted. (cute..huh?) Jack __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Life in the Raw
On Mon, 1 May 2006, graywolf wrote: Well, XP is a fairly decent OS. Bloated as hell, mind you,but that applies to most Linux distributiions too. It hardly ever crashes. Of course if you do not know how to tame it Redmond keeps changing it with those nasty automatic updates. One a couple of months ago changed the look and feel on me. I shall have to go back and reload XP from the CD on this machine with updates turned off, I guess. Just to put my position in perspective here, Cory, I have been running Slackware since 0.9. Ignoring the known security issues, two things are necessary to make a system useful IMO: Virtual desktops and a good window manager. I've tried a number of virtual desktops under winders and they're all fundamentally broken due to the crappy scheduler and the way winders draws windows. The window manager is broken and unchangeable... and I don't count changing the Tele-tubby icons as being changable. I do agree that the later linux distros are bloated. A bit annoying as far as I'm concerned... especially with the GTK2 thinking that less is more in functionality. At least it's possible to choose a smaller on or whittle down a bigger one into something lightweight. With Winders you're pretty much stuck. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
On May 1, 2006, at 7:22 AM, John Forbes wrote: It is not comparable to learning how to operate a computer and knowing what to do to move data, which simply takes storage devices, a little time with a book, and a plan to do what is required. Nearly anyone can do it, except for the very incompetent. And the very busy, who don't have time to learn computer programming from scratch just in order to keep their images updated. Developing your argument, we should all go off like Linus Torvalds and create our own operating systems. And grow our own vegetables, bake our own bread, drill for our own oil. Learning how to operate a computer has virtually nothing to do with learning how to build and/or program one. Do you, John, know how to drive an automobile or choose a television broadcast? You must also, then, have mastered the art of designing and manufacturing these devices. Oh yes: You took/take pictures on film with a camera. Therefore, you know how to design and manufacture a camera, film, chemicals, enlarger, printing paper, etc etc. That is what the hyperbole in your logic is saying. That logic is flawed, and is not a development of my argument. Godfrey
Re: Life in the Raw
Unfortunately, given the state of colour management and image editing software on Linux, it's simply not viable for anything beyond basic editing. Sadly true, but it is getting better. Cinepaint works pretty well for maintaining color-managed workflow. The lprof folks have been working on getting profiling stuff working too. While it *is* possible to go color-managed, end-end editing, it's not easy and very bug-prone at the moment. Gimp is immediately removed from contention due to only 8-bit and no color managed. The latter is being worked on, but is rather silly without the former IMO. I run Linux (Debian and Ubuntu), OS X, XP and NeXTSTEP 3.3 on my home network, all but Debian on desktops as Debian is my standard server OS (installed from Bluewall tarballs and updated to current STABLE). I like Linux as a desktop OS, almost as much as I like OS X. But I do my heavy lifting on Windows XP because it is the best combination of cost and capability for what I do (I wish I could have acquired a Mac as fast and expandable as my PC for even 50% more than I payed for the PC). XP has its issues, but when it comes to value, it wins. And it's a thoroughly competent OS (The only other MS Desktop OS that can claim that is 2000). Heavy lifting for image-processing maybe. Most of the heavy-lifting that I need to do is research engineering numerical simulation. The stability and performance of the Windows kernel, GUI, and everything else is woefully inadequate for reliable simulations like that. To each their own though... I only extol benefits for ME, but don't try to convert anyone. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Life in the Raw
Here we go, it looks like the Crusades are starting again. William Robb Lemme see if I can stop what I started: MacOS-X: Elegant interface, solid OS, seamless applications for photography and many other things. High hardware cost. Winders: Adequate interface, stability, performance, color management, for most photography work. Linux: Almost completely useless for pro-photography work. Lack of integrated color management, device support, and easy-to-use applications. If you're willing to tinker and figure things out, you can generally get done what you need without paying for any software. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Life in the Raw
To convert a DNG file without the embedded original RAW format back to the original RAW format file runs counter to the purpose of creating a standard format that contains RAW file data. It could be done, I'm sure, if it were deemed important ... after all, the DNG Converter had to have the specific knowledge of all those RAW file formats to create the DNG file. Of course, you'd be throwing away some of the additional metadata added later in the process. Why is it necessary to be guaranteed that this is possible? Is it desirable for some practical reason? It is only desireable from an archival standpoint. A one-way transformation is not lossless, therefore one never has the original file. As you say, it may be a limitation of the software that can only deal with PEF files. That may be true, but still... if the DNG cannot be undone, then it's a lossy process. In my (relatively unique) situation, DNG is much less useful. I can use standard TIFF libraries to deal with PEF files. I have no conversion utilities at my disposal to convert between the two formats either way. With numerous open-source parsing utilities for the PEF (TIFF) format, I feel as though it is more open for me under linux. If there were an open-source (bi-directional) conversion utility to convert between the two, I would likely use DNG format to save space. As it is now, I losslessly compress them using bzip2 and get most of the benefit with none of the risk. Again... to each their own. Whatever floats your 'scope. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Small, Portable Ink Jet Printer - Image Storage
She's not leaving the laptop at home, but when she's out of the van - sometimes for a few days at a time - she doesn't want to tote the laptop around, so some sort of storage device would be helpful, especially one with a screen. The small printers don't have to print RAW - she can convert to JPEG or TIFF and then print. No one prints from RAW, anyway. RAW being 16-bit and printers only accommodating 8-bit. Shel [Original Message] From: Aaron Reynolds Shel Belinkoff wrote: Totally inappropriate for her needs. She'll be shooting raw, wants her files handy so she can work on them, has a laptop but doesn't want to carry it around when out of the van, which she may be for a few days at a time. A storage device that allows lots of storage is a better solution. Hrm -- well, if she wants to work on them, I think she'll need the laptop, no? A more important point -- do any of these printers print from RAW? And whose RAW files do they support? It may not be practical to leave the laptop at home for this project.
Re: Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a geek Mark! 8-) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
Hey, I'm probably at the low end of the technology oriented. Not a complete dunce, but nowhere near as knowledgeable as many people on the list. However, I can burn a CD or DVD, or copy my files to a second hard drive easily enough. I may not always know the fastest way to do things, and I don't know squat about writing scripts or such things, but it's far from rocket science. Copying all my files to a USB hard drive takes all of a minute of my time. While the machine churns away, I'm having a nice hot cup of tea, playing with my cats, photographing, or doing something else. Operating a computer is, for many tasks, no more difficult than operating a dishwasher. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes And the very busy, who don't have time to learn computer programming from scratch just in order to keep their images updated. Developing your argument, we should all go off like Linus Torvalds and create our own operating systems. And grow our own vegetables, bake our own bread, drill for our own oil. That's fine for geeks, market gardners, bakers and wild-catters. But not for the rest of us.
Re: Life in the Raw
On May 1, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: To convert a DNG file without the embedded original RAW format back to the original RAW format file runs counter to the purpose of creating a standard format that contains RAW file data. It could be done, I'm sure, if it were deemed important ... after all, the DNG Converter had to have the specific knowledge of all those RAW file formats to create the DNG file. Of course, you'd be throwing away some of the additional metadata added later in the process. Why is it necessary to be guaranteed that this is possible? Is it desirable for some practical reason? It is only desireable from an archival standpoint. A one-way transformation is not lossless, therefore one never has the original file. As you say, it may be a limitation of the software that can only deal with PEF files. That may be true, but still... if the DNG cannot be undone, then it's a lossy process. I think you're playing semantics with the definition of lossless. If you apply a transformation to data, the transformation is considered lossless if none of the data is lost. A transformation from PEF to DNG format preserves all of the data and is lossless. A DNG file is just as archival as a PEF file because both contain the same data, represented in different structures. The transformation from DNG to PEF is certainly possible, it just hasn't been done because it isn't something which a high value priority. If it were, a utility to do it could be constructed. There's nothing lossy about it, unless you consider the loss of metadata added to the DNG file which has no possibility of representation in the PEF file. In my (relatively unique) situation, DNG is much less useful. ... That much we agree upon. (BTW: DNG files are yet another specialization of TIFF in structure, so the same utilities that work on PEF files as specialized TIFFs would also work on DNG files.) Godfrey
Re: Life in the Raw
LOL ... Stopping this sort of thing is much much harder than starting it. :-) I do like how your summation of operating system attributes only refers to hardware costs in one case. I didn't know that hardware was a part of the OS. ];-) Godfrey On May 1, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: Lemme see if I can stop what I started: MacOS-X: Elegant interface, solid OS, seamless applications for photography and many other things. High hardware cost. Winders: Adequate interface, stability, performance, color management, for most photography work. Linux: Almost completely useless for pro-photography work. Lack of integrated color management, device support, and easy-to-use applications. If you're willing to tinker and figure things out, you can generally get done what you need without paying for any software.
Re: OT: How do you store your precious moments for posterity?
On May 1, 2006, at 7:22 AM, John Forbes wrote: It is not comparable to learning how to operate a computer and knowing what to do to move data, which simply takes storage devices, a little time with a book, and a plan to do what is required. Nearly anyone can do it, except for the very incompetent. And the very busy, who don't have time to learn computer programming from scratch just in order to keep their images updated. Developing your argument, we should all go off like Linus Torvalds and create our own operating systems. And grow our own vegetables, bake our own bread, drill for our own oil. Learning how to operate a computer has virtually nothing to do with learning how to build and/or program one. Do you, John, know how to drive an automobile or choose a television broadcast? You must also, then, have mastered the art of designing and manufacturing these devices. Oh yes: You took/take pictures on film with a camera. Therefore, you know how to design and manufacture a camera, film, chemicals, enlarger, printing paper, etc etc. That is what the hyperbole in your logic is saying. That logic is flawed, and is not a development of my argument. Godfrey
Re: CS and RAW files from DL2
IIRC the DL's write speed was closer to the D in spec. rather than the DS/DS2 still should be faster than is being reported. mike wilson wrote: From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/04/30 Sun PM 03:11:00 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: CS and RAW files from DL2 Unless the DL2 has been seriously downgraded, the buffer should hold five frames regardless of card write speed. -Aaron That's the bit that's bothering me. m -Original Message- From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Re: CS and RAW files from DL2 Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:58 am Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do you have to keep going into the menus? What are you changing, and why? I mostly don't have to, I just am at the moment as I'm playing with it. On the occasions where I have to, it's because the other user 8-))) has left it on a setting that I prefer not to use and it needs adjusting. It's OK but not yet instinctive but I found that the camera sometimes doesn't respond properly. Probably an issue with my example. In what way doesn't it respond properly? On occasions, it's not doing the stop down thing to take an exposure reading. Doubly annoying as it's not consistent. May just be a cleanliness of the lens mount issue. How fast is your write speed? Mine will take two shots, then takes about seven seconds to begin firing at about five second intervals. How fast is your SD card? I can get five continuous shots from the DS, and then one about every second or so thereafter. I'm using an 80X card, and it's noticeably faster than the slower card I used before. I believe the DL has at least the same buffer and write speed as the DS, and maybe even the ability to take advantage of faster cards. Don't know. It's a no-name (actually Dane-elec) 1Gb card I got for £14. Needed one in a hurry, so I got the cheapest option I could. The nearest name brand card was £90. I did try a card from work that was another non-famous brand and that was the same. The much smaller capacity Jessop's card (presumably based on a famous brand but quite old technology now) was similar. Can't find any buffer or write speed specs. Even if I could double the write speed, the result is still going to be a pain when, for example, trying to photograph birds at feeders. I haven't seen any options for firmware upgrades with the 2 yet, so that may have some bearing on the matter. mike - 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 -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Re: waist-level viewfinder
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/05/01 Mon PM 03:10:34 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: waist-level viewfinder On May 1, 2006, at 6:24 AM, mike wilson wrote: It would have to be medium format for me, as I can't critically focus with the camera at waist level with 35mm. Probably not with MF either. I don't think you can 'critically focus' any camera held at waist level without a magnifier, regardless of format. The notion of waist level finders isn't critical focus, it's the ability to *frame* at waist level easily. 35mm is a touch small for that, 6x4.5 and up are much nicer. The Sony R1's 2 LCD is pretty good too: it is bright and contrasty, is pretty easy to see even in sunlight due to its transflextive technology. There's no point in framing at waist level if you then have to bend double to focus. It's a paradox with this type of finder that I never resolved. The original post gave me the impression that part of the desire was to be less obtrusive.Not sure it can work like that. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: PESO - Bad News?
frank theriault wrote: Natalka has a look of concern on her face, as if she's receiving bad news: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4401945size=lg Comments always welcome. cheers, frank Nah... Probably that lower lip stud got caught on her dental appliance, and you can imagine how nasty *that* is! g keith
Re: PESOs - Sea Flower/Find the Fish
It's a sea anemone an animal that looks like a plant... Paul Stenquist wrote: Is it a flower or a sea urchin? Could be an animal. Paul On Apr 30, 2006, at 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, not sure. But it is an interesting idea. I'll try it. Thanks!, Godfrey. Marnie = Marnie, I think this photo would be great in a BW rendering! Godfrey On Apr 30, 2006, at 7:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing exciting, but I liked the simplicity of this. Sea Flower http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/seaflower.htm -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
A few pictures of Juan's reception ...
I only made five exposures while at Juan's reception. I posted them all here: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/jb-spr-20060428/ Hardly great art, but I like the first and the last. All were made with the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 Fish-Eye. (Juan, I can send you the full resolution JPEG versions this evening if you would like them.) Godfrey
Re: PAW: Buy This Calendar!!
I hope Ann's paying you for the advertising. frank theriault wrote: It's soft, but I like it anyway. You may or may not like it. Take a look: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4400735size=lg Comments welcome. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Limited edition prints?
That's what I do. All my prints are limited editions... Juan Buhler wrote: Hi all, Someone at my opening on Friday asked if my prints were part of a limited edition. They aren't--I think that whole concept is a bit silly. It was silly when using negatives, it is even sillier now, printing digitally. Now, I actually haven't printed more than 4 or 5 of any of my photographs. So making them limited editions of 50, or even 25, would be easy (and meaningless.) It seems like this would add value to my pictures though, for some reason not really related to their content. I'm actually thinking about doing this--meaningless as it is, it's also free for me... What are the thoughts of the list about this? Cheers, j -- Juan Buhler Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESOs - Sea Flower/Find the Fish
On May 1, 2006, at 12:22, P. J. Alling wrote: It's a sea anemone an animal that looks like a plant... All this talk of Anemones and nobody has referenced this classic Pearls Before Swine strip yet!: http://www.randomjottings.net/images5/pearls_before_swine.gif -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: Small, Portable Ink Jet Printer - Image Storage
She wants a P-2000 or P-4500. A good friend of mine, whi shoots RAW, uses his P-2000 for dive trips. It easily lasts him a week of diving and he does his conversions when he gets home. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: She's not leaving the laptop at home, but when she's out of the van - sometimes for a few days at a time - she doesn't want to tote the laptop around, so some sort of storage device would be helpful, especially one with a screen. The small printers don't have to print RAW - she can convert to JPEG or TIFF and then print. No one prints from RAW, anyway. RAW being 16-bit and printers only accommodating 8-bit. Shel [Original Message] From: Aaron Reynolds Shel Belinkoff wrote: Totally inappropriate for her needs. She'll be shooting raw, wants her files handy so she can work on them, has a laptop but doesn't want to carry it around when out of the van, which she may be for a few days at a time. A storage device that allows lots of storage is a better solution. Hrm -- well, if she wants to work on them, I think she'll need the laptop, no? A more important point -- do any of these printers print from RAW? And whose RAW files do they support? It may not be practical to leave the laptop at home for this project.
Re: Limited edition prints?
On May 1, 2006, at 8:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a matter of pride for some people. If the artist is very good, they want the first, or one of the first, prints available. Now if one wants to play into this head game ... In the days when artists made prints from etching plates, lithographic plates, wood blocks, etc., the first prints were always sharper than the last ones. The plate or block deteriorated with use. This was the reason for preferring early prints in an edition. With photographic silver prints or digital inkjet prints this is no longer the case, and the last print in an edition will be just as good as the first, so it makes no sense for a collector of photographs to prefer earlier prints in an edition. Bob
RE: Limited edition prints?
-Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 May 2006 14:52 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Limited edition prints? Limiting the quantity of something raises the cachet value of it, and increases it's desirablity, providing it isn't just a one off piece of shit. If you don't limit the number of prints that you make, and make it clear to the customer that what they are buying is one of a small number of units, you may as well be selling Britney Spears posters out of the trunk of your car. nothing wrong with that. Bob
Re: Life in the Raw
On Mon, 1 May 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: LOL ... Stopping this sort of thing is much much harder than starting it. :-) I do like how your summation of operating system attributes only refers to hardware costs in one case. I didn't know that hardware was a part of the OS. ];-) Godfrey For MacOS it is pretty much by definition. Aside from recent hacking endeavors WRT MacOS-X-intel on non-macs, the history has required purchasing Macintosh hardware to run MacOS. That's pretty much the main reason why I don't run MacOS today. My current machine is a dual Athlon 2400 built for about 1/4 the price of a single (slower) processor Mac at the time. Hardware cost: 25% of slower Mac. OS cost: $0 Application cost: $0 Aggravation: more. Freedom to tinker: priceless... :) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
