Re: A girl in that hat

[Toine]

Nice picture and good exposure with the bright white fabric above her.
Toine

On 6/16/06, Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060616194510
>
> --
> home 
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A PESO I Like

[Bruce Dayton]

Wow, looks like something I would expect to see in an Audubon book or
something.

I'm a bit curious about using noise ninja at ISO 400 - care to
explain?  I think I would have sharpened it a touch more, myself.

-- 
Bruce


Friday, June 16, 2006, 7:10:52 PM, you wrote:

JT> I set up a feeder and took a lot of bird photos in April with Big Bertha
JT> -- the F* 600 F4. I am just now getting around to processing them, and
JT> couldn't wait to post this one:

JT> http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3527/display/5935586

JT> Comments welcome, of course.

JT> Joe




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pixels are different! (Was: Where Do All the Pixels Come From)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Igor,

I explained the conceptual basis of RAW gamma correction and chroma  
interpolation to RGB channel rendering in a previous email,  
specifically to promote understanding of the fact that there are  
inescapable losses from RAW to TIFF format.

Godfrey

On Jun 16, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:

> While almost everything has been said on the subject,
> I would like to mention one important issue, so that a possible
> confusion is avoided.
> The text above, while being correct, can cause a confusion.
> It might seem that since 16-bit TIFF has more bits to operate,
> it is a "reacher" format compared to RAW, so no information is lost
> in the conversion RAW->TIFF.
> (I've seen it people thinking this way, and was under a similar
> impression in the very beginning of understanding RAW vs TIFF
> differences).

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

PESO - Hugs

[Shel Belinkoff]

http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/hugs.html

It, y'know, like totally California ...

Sony DSC-S85


Shel




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[David Savage]

Thanks Kenneth,

I should have tried to get some with more DOF & looser framing. But I
only got 3 quick shots before it got bored with me and wondered off
;-)

Dave

On 6/17/06, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >this is my first ever cat picture
>
> I'd say you did well with it. Obviously a lot of possibilities for a
> portrait but I like what you've done here with the DOF.
>
> Kenneth Waller

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[David Savage]

On 6/17/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/6/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> I like it :-)

Good!

When I was working on putting up the web page it reminded me of your
beast which makes appearances here now and again

Thanks for commenting.

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[David Savage]

G'day Ann,

Your spot on in regards to being curious.

To set the scene. It's standing at the entrance of the back porch,
looking toward the entrance to the house, where it's just heard
someone inside moving around.

It wants inside in the worst possible way :-)

Thanks for commenting.

Dave

On 6/17/06, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Savage wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
>
> Sweet capture, Dave -  but he looks misnamed in this shot -
> more like curious or defiant or... hmmm..
> kinda like he is saying the feline equivalent of "Duh"  -
> well, you did say he was less timid than
> he used to be :)
>
> ann

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[David Savage]

On 6/17/06, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/16/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
>
> I think this is a terrific photo!
>

Thank you Frank.

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[David Savage]

On 6/17/06, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Savage wrote:
> >
> > 
>
> Excellent photo of a beautiful cat!
>

Thanks Keith

> >
> > It's now not as scared of me as it once was. :-)
>
> I hope you can find a way to provide shelter for the poor thing over the 
> winter...
>

I'm think of setting it up a warm bed in a corner of the back porch

> > P.S. this is my first ever cat picture.
> >
>
> Hah! I love it...instant expert!  

LOL

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pixels are different! (Was: Where Do All the Pixels Come From)

[John Francis]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 09:47:29PM -0400, Igor Roshchin wrote:
 
[much snipped]
 
> Converter from RAW does what is called demosaicing, by 
> mixing values from the mosaic to assign values to the pixel in between.
> While the description below might not be exact, I think it is presents
> a picture that is easy to understand. If you were to put the mosaic
> described above on a square-ruled paper (matrix), then we can put
> "pixels" P on the nodes (corners of the squares):
> 
> R_G_R_G
> _P_P_P_
> G_B_G_B
> _P_P_P_
> R_G_R_G
> _P_P_P_
> G_B_G_B
> 
> In the demosaicing process, essentiall the value of each pixel "P"
> is assigned based on the values of the four surrounding sensor sites.
> While in a small image above it looks like you have fewer "P"'s than
> R's, G's, and B's altogether, but when you have a large matrix,
> the difference in number is negligible (in the scenario described
> here it would be ~ 5000 pixels for a ~2000x3000 matrix which is ~0.1%, 
> but in reality it could be a bit more (no pun intended), depending on 
> the implementation)

Not only is this over-simplified; it's wrong.  Most de-mosaicing
algorithms put the pixel centres coincident with the sensor sites,
rather than in between.  They don't replace an actual sensor value;
they interpolate missing components, often using rather more than
just the four neighbouring pixels.  Because they use values from
one or more rows or columns of neighbouring pixels is one reason
why the 'full' image size (3008 x 2008 in this case) is smaller
than the actual sensor dimensions (3040 x 2024).

> It is this demosaicing process when the white balance, sharpness, gamma
> correction, ISO values, etc are being used in the conversion. 

Again, incorrect.  The ISO value is generally used to control the
gain of an analog amplifier during the actual data readout from
the sensor before the conversion to digital values.  As such, the
sensor values in the RAW file have already had ISO scaling. In fact
in some cameras (although not in the Pentax models) the white balance
is also applied in the analog domain.  Furthermore, sharpening at
this stage is only done in certain converters; while Adobe Camera
Raw can apply sharpening (and image re-sizing) during RAW conversion,
many converters do no such processing, leaving that for editing.

> Since the process of demosaicing is fully mathematically reversible,

Not necessarily.  While a simple averaging scheme is (close to)
reversible, subject only to there being not quite enough data values
to uniquely determine the outermost pixel values, there are several
other demosaicing algorithms that are not reversible.

> I think this rather simple documents explains some of these issues
> in more detail:
> http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
> 
> I hope I didn't cause too much confusion, and my explanation was 
> helpful to somebody.
> 
> Igor

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Gear Combo Test -- Big Bertha and Sigma TC

[Christian]

Joseph Tainter wrote:
> This was taken from a distance of about 6 m, and was just to test for 
> the combination of lens and teleconverter. I am pleased by the sharpness 
> of the combination, but not by the loss of saturation that the 
> teleconverter caused. Pentax *ist D @ ISO 800; Pentax F* 600 mm F4; 
> Sigma EX 1.4x teleconverter; 1/[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Noise Ninja; slight unsharp 
> mask. This is shown at Actual Pixels.
> 
> http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3527/display/5935593
> 
> Joe
> 

Not bad.

I, sadly, don't have funds for a 600/4 so I tested a 300/4 with 1.4x AND 
2x TCs (sorry Canon gear) here is the full frame (resized for web)

ISO 800 f11 1/250
http://ww2.xian.us:8080/flicker_full_IMG_4798.jpg

and here is a full size, actual pixel crop:
http://ww2.xian.us:8080/flicker_detail_IMG_4798.jpg

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens

[Rick Womer]

With my PZ-1p, I used the 24-90 all the time.

When I got the ist D, I bought a 16-45, and thought I
would use it the same way: all the time, and usually
at the wide end.  For some reason, not so.

I frequently find myself switching to the 24-90 for
the ist D, and shooting with it midrange-to-long. 
Dunno why.

Second place: the 17-28 on the PZ-1p.  Alas, the 10-17
has been back-ordered for two months now...

Rick

--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Having used a friends DA 16-45 for almost a week
> now, I'm beginning to
> enjoy the convenience of using a zoom lens.  I'm
> still of mixed feelings
> about the 16-45, and before making any decision
> about buying it or another
> zoom I've decided to wait and see what the
> forthcoming 16-50/2.8 is like
> and see about trying other zoom lenses.
> 
> Some of the issues that Godders has with the 16-45,
> namely its size and the
> way it extends at the short end, don't bother me too
> much, although I can
> certainly see his point, and would probably like the
> lens a little more if
> it didn't extent so much, or at all.  My biggest
> issue is sharpness and the
> ability of the lens to render fine detail in certain
> situations.  It seems
> like a fine "walking around" lens, but thus far
> casual comparisons with,
> for example, the A50/1.4 and a couple of other
> primes, seem to indicate
> that the 16-45 is not the best for certain subjects
> and certainly certain
> situations.  I don't like the way the lens flares in
> some lighting
> conditions.
> 
> So, as I'd like to try other zooms before making a
> final decision, perhaps
> you can suggest your favorite zoom, and why you like
> it.  This might help
> me decide which zoom to seek out and try next.
> 
> Thanks for any help and suggestions.
> 
> 
> Shel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> 


http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: The Mighty Cat

[Daniel J. Matyola]

This happened a few miles from where I live.

New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the US, and dense
even by European standards.  Still, in the suburbs close to wooded
areas, when have large herds of deer, large flock of wild turkeys,
fox, coyotes and the occasional bear, right in our back yards.

On 6/12/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for posting that ... it made my morning.  The story reminded me of
> the time one of my ducks beat up the neighborhood tom cat, and ran him out
> of the yard 
>
> Shel
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Carlos Royo
>
> > A really funny story about a cat chasing a black bear.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5067912.stm
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Gear Combo Test -- Big Bertha and Sigma TC

[Joseph Tainter]

This was taken from a distance of about 6 m, and was just to test for 
the combination of lens and teleconverter. I am pleased by the sharpness 
of the combination, but not by the loss of saturation that the 
teleconverter caused. Pentax *ist D @ ISO 800; Pentax F* 600 mm F4; 
Sigma EX 1.4x teleconverter; 1/[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Noise Ninja; slight unsharp 
mask. This is shown at Actual Pixels.

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3527/display/5935593

Joe

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pixels are different! (Was: Where Do All the Pixels Come From)

[Bob Sullivan]

Igor,
Thanks, that works for me.
I didn't realize raw actually stayed in the sensor format until conversion.
Regards,  Bob S.


On 6/16/06, Igor Roshchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you were look at the same pixel in a 16bit TIFF file rendering of
> > the 12bit RAW data, the relative values of the channel assignments
> > would be the same, but you have 16x as many numbers available to
> > describe the values in the original RAW file which is then scaled to
> > a representation in a discrete numeric space 8x larger (0-4095 in the
> > RAW data, 0-32767 in the 16bit RGB channel (the topmost bit is not
> > used so it's actually 15 bits of data)). Only 4096 of the values in
> > the 16bit space are actual photosite RAW values, they're fitted into
> > the larger space because current computing machinery manages 16 bit
> > numbers with greater efficiency than 12 bit numbers, in general,
> > *and* because as you perform Real or Discrete valued operations on
> > these numbers, there are more numbers to represent the results, thus
> > greater precision and less likelihood of clipping or round off errors.
>
> While almost everything has been said on the subject,
> I would like to mention one important issue, so that a possible
> confusion is avoided.
> The text above, while being correct, can cause a confusion.
> It might seem that since 16-bit TIFF has more bits to operate,
> it is a "reacher" format compared to RAW, so no information is lost
> in the conversion RAW->TIFF.
> (I've seen it people thinking this way, and was under a similar
> impression in the very beginning of understanding RAW vs TIFF
> differences).
>
> One has to remember that information in RAW is stored differently.
> The jpeg/tiff you get from DS or after conversion in PS is
> 3008x2008. This size corresponds to the 6MP size of the sensor,
> i.e. to ~ 3008x2008 sensor sites.
> (I leave aside the question of a few "extra" pixels which are not
> being used in the conversion in PS, but can be used by some other
> software). However, in the JPEG/TIFF, - each pixel has information
> about 3 colors (RGB), while in RAW - you have a "mosaic":
> out of each 4 sensor sites 2 have information about G(reen),
> and 1 - R(ed), and 1 - B(lue):
> RGRG
> GBGB
> RGRG
> GBGB
> (4x4 part of the sensor )
>
> Converter from RAW does what is called demosaicing, by
> mixing values from the mosaic to assign values to the pixel in between.
> While the description below might not be exact, I think it is presents
> a picture that is easy to understand. If you were to put the mosaic
> described above on a square-ruled paper (matrix), then we can put
> "pixels" P on the nodes (corners of the squares):
>
> R_G_R_G
> _P_P_P_
> G_B_G_B
> _P_P_P_
> R_G_R_G
> _P_P_P_
> G_B_G_B
>
> In the demosaicing process, essentiall the value of each pixel "P"
> is assigned based on the values of the four surrounding sensor sites.
> While in a small image above it looks like you have fewer "P"'s than
> R's, G's, and B's altogether, but when you have a large matrix,
> the difference in number is negligible (in the scenario described
> here it would be ~ 5000 pixels for a ~2000x3000 matrix which is ~0.1%,
> but in reality it could be a bit more (no pun intended), depending on
> the implementation)
>
> It is this demosaicing process when the white balance, sharpness, gamma
> correction, ISO values, etc are being used in the conversion.
>
> Since the process of demosaicing is fully mathematically reversible,
> the loss of the initial information happens at this point.
> That's why you have better control over the image when it is in RAW
> format even compared to when it is in 16-bit TIFF.
>
> I think this rather simple documents explains some of these issues
> in more detail:
> http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
>
> I hope I didn't cause too much confusion, and my explanation was
> helpful to somebody.
>
> Igor
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A PESO I Like

[Paul Stenquist]

Very nice. I might take the cloning tool and clean some of that stuff 
off his beak. But that's just me. Excellent shot.
Paul
On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:10 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:

> I set up a feeder and took a lot of bird photos in April with Big 
> Bertha
> -- the F* 600 F4. I am just now getting around to procesery
>
> http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3527/display/5935586
>
> Comments welcome, of course.
>
> Joe
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

A PESO I Like

[Joseph Tainter]

Joe,
Great photo.  Doles the bird have a disease?  White spots on the beak?
Regards,  Bob S.

-

No, it was feeding. Those are seeds. I did another version in which I 
cloned some beak over the seeds, but I decided I liked the original better.

There may be a future PESO on the subject of these birds feeding.

Thanks,

Joe

-

On 6/16/06, Joseph Tainter  wrote:
 > I set up a feeder and took a lot of bird photos in April with Big Bertha
 > -- the F* 600 F4. I am just now getting around to processing them, and
 > couldn't wait to post this one:
 >
 > http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3527/display/5935586
 >
 > Comments welcome, of course.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain

[Shel Belinkoff]

Perhaps by a furlong ;-))

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Ann Sanfedele 

> > But yes, Frank looks like Eugene Levy.


> I see the resemblence - but Frank is better looking by a
> mile :)



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

FS: several Pentax lenses (and an AF body)

[Carlos Royo]

For sale:

SMC Pentax-A 15 mm. 3.5, , an excellent ultra wide lens, LN- 600 euros.

SMC Pentax-A 50 mm. 1.2, the fastest lens Pentax has ever made, in A
version.
LN- 250 euros.

SMC Pentax 85 mm. 1.8 (K series)+ original lens hood, well used, but no
dust inside. The lens was serviced 3 years ago and shows some brassing,
but the aperture and focus rings work smoothly, There's a very tiny
coating mark in the back element, hardly visible, which doesn't affect
the image quality. As many of you will know, nowadays it is a very
difficult to find lens. 250 euros.

SMC Pentax-FA 80-320 mm. 4.5-5.6 (AF, black version). Ex+. 150 euros.

Pentax MZ-5 AF SLR + F remote switch and FG battery pack. Ex+. 120 euros.

Prices don't include shipping expenses from Spain.

Regards,

Carlos




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A PESO I Like

[Bob Sullivan]

Joe,
Great photo.  Doles the bird have a disease?  White spots on the beak?
Regards,  Bob S.

On 6/16/06, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I set up a feeder and took a lot of bird photos in April with Big Bertha
> -- the F* 600 F4. I am just now getting around to processing them, and
> couldn't wait to post this one:
>
> http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3527/display/5935586
>
> Comments welcome, of course.
>
> Joe
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

A PESO I Like

[Joseph Tainter]

I set up a feeder and took a lot of bird photos in April with Big Bertha 
-- the F* 600 F4. I am just now getting around to processing them, and 
couldn't wait to post this one:

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/3527/display/5935586

Comments welcome, of course.

Joe

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 6/16/2006 12:32:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 

I think this is a terrific photo!

cheers,
frank
===
Ditto. And I am not a cat fancier.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Test, please ignore. (Right!)

[Bob Sullivan]

Don,
This made it to the list.
Now if I could clear up myown posting problem.
Regards,  Bob S.

On 6/16/06, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Setting up G-Mail and Rules to replace my defunct [EMAIL PROTECTED] account.
>
> Don
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 6/15/2006 10:25:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When this thread warped into Frank looks like Eugene Levy it was a bit 
bizarre, now I'm wondering if I bought a ticket to the Twilight Zone, I 
don't remember buying one.
===
Someone said the biker looked like Frank.

Later I said he looked like Eugene Levy (which, thanks frank, he was who I 
meant).

Then it went from there to Frank looks like Eugene Levy (though actually 
Frank is handsomer).



Seems like a pretty typical PDML thread to me. 

Bouncing all over the place...

Marnie aka Doe ;-)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Pixels are different! (Was: Where Do All the Pixels Come From)

[Igor Roshchin]

> If you were look at the same pixel in a 16bit TIFF file rendering of  
> the 12bit RAW data, the relative values of the channel assignments  
> would be the same, but you have 16x as many numbers available to  
> describe the values in the original RAW file which is then scaled to  
> a representation in a discrete numeric space 8x larger (0-4095 in the  
> RAW data, 0-32767 in the 16bit RGB channel (the topmost bit is not  
> used so it's actually 15 bits of data)). Only 4096 of the values in  
> the 16bit space are actual photosite RAW values, they're fitted into  
> the larger space because current computing machinery manages 16 bit  
> numbers with greater efficiency than 12 bit numbers, in general,  
> *and* because as you perform Real or Discrete valued operations on  
> these numbers, there are more numbers to represent the results, thus  
> greater precision and less likelihood of clipping or round off errors.

While almost everything has been said on the subject,
I would like to mention one important issue, so that a possible 
confusion is avoided. 
The text above, while being correct, can cause a confusion.
It might seem that since 16-bit TIFF has more bits to operate,
it is a "reacher" format compared to RAW, so no information is lost
in the conversion RAW->TIFF.
(I've seen it people thinking this way, and was under a similar 
impression in the very beginning of understanding RAW vs TIFF 
differences).

One has to remember that information in RAW is stored differently.
The jpeg/tiff you get from DS or after conversion in PS is
3008x2008. This size corresponds to the 6MP size of the sensor,
i.e. to ~ 3008x2008 sensor sites.
(I leave aside the question of a few "extra" pixels which are not
being used in the conversion in PS, but can be used by some other 
software). However, in the JPEG/TIFF, - each pixel has information
about 3 colors (RGB), while in RAW - you have a "mosaic":
out of each 4 sensor sites 2 have information about G(reen), 
and 1 - R(ed), and 1 - B(lue):
RGRG
GBGB
RGRG
GBGB
(4x4 part of the sensor )

Converter from RAW does what is called demosaicing, by 
mixing values from the mosaic to assign values to the pixel in between.
While the description below might not be exact, I think it is presents
a picture that is easy to understand. If you were to put the mosaic
described above on a square-ruled paper (matrix), then we can put
"pixels" P on the nodes (corners of the squares):

R_G_R_G
_P_P_P_
G_B_G_B
_P_P_P_
R_G_R_G
_P_P_P_
G_B_G_B

In the demosaicing process, essentiall the value of each pixel "P"
is assigned based on the values of the four surrounding sensor sites.
While in a small image above it looks like you have fewer "P"'s than
R's, G's, and B's altogether, but when you have a large matrix,
the difference in number is negligible (in the scenario described
here it would be ~ 5000 pixels for a ~2000x3000 matrix which is ~0.1%, 
but in reality it could be a bit more (no pun intended), depending on 
the implementation)

It is this demosaicing process when the white balance, sharpness, gamma
correction, ISO values, etc are being used in the conversion. 

Since the process of demosaicing is fully mathematically reversible,
the loss of the initial information happens at this point.
That's why you have better control over the image when it is in RAW 
format even compared to when it is in 16-bit TIFF.

I think this rather simple documents explains some of these issues
in more detail:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

I hope I didn't cause too much confusion, and my explanation was 
helpful to somebody.

Igor


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Test, please ignore. (Right!)

[Don Sanderson]

Setting up G-Mail and Rules to replace my defunct [EMAIL PROTECTED] account.

Don

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[Shel Belinkoff]

Not too bad at all for a first attempt.  Cats, even those that know you and
are comfortable with you, can often be difficult to photograph.  I'd like
to see more of Scaredy ...

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: David Savage 


> I haven't been shooting much lately, but this evening when I got home
> from work I grabbed this (~125kb):
>
> 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Ah I see someone beat me to this. ;-)

On Jun 16, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

> Sounds like you could have fun with these ...
> http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/pentax.php
>
> There's a page for the 16-45:
> http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Sounds like you could have fun with these ...
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/pentax.php

There's a page for the 16-45:
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php

Godfrey

On Jun 16, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood:
>
> One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that  
> fit over
> the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually  
> poorly
> optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by  
> their
> design in order to fit over the hood.  This was made clear to me  
> some years
> ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were  
> designed to
> slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45.   
> Even on
> film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could  
> often -
> usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens.
>
> I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the  
> 16-45
> hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
> deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be  
> available - the
> standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at  
> 11:00 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: camera club question re: projected image contests

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Bob W wrote:

>> We just project slides. The club I belong to is quite happily
>> ignoring digital.
>
> I suppose you could say the give digital the finger...

LOL

Good for them. When the last film production line is closed down,  
they'll all sing in chorus, "And we'll all go together when we go..."

;-)

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain

[Ann Sanfedele]

Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> 
> I never thought of it before...
> 
> But yes, Frank looks like Eugene Levy.
> 
> A lot.
> 
> -Aaron

I see the resemblence - but Frank is better looking by a
mile :)

ann

> 
> -Original Message-
> 
> From:  "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj:  Re: PESO: The terror of the mountain
> Date:  Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:46 am
> Size:  825 bytes
> To:  "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> 
> On 6/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > ==
> > Hehehe. Thanks for the laugh. He reminds me of that actor who was the father
> > in American Pie (I or II, maybe both not sure, maybe I have the wrong movie
> > too).
> >
> > Scary fellow.
> >
> 
> I must confess that I've not seen either movie, but my guess is that
> you're referring to Eugene Levy, Toronto resident (Rosedale, actually;
>  he lives about 5 minutes from me) and comedic character actor.  He
> got his TV start on SCTV, for those of you who remember that show from
> the 80's.  For the past 20 years I've been consistently told that I
> resemble him (especially when I'm clean-shaven).
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[Ann Sanfedele]

David Savage wrote:
> 
> G'day All,
> 
> For starters let me apologies to those who can't stand all things feline ;-)
> 
> I haven't been shooting much lately, but this evening when I got home
> from work I grabbed this (~125kb):
> 
> 
> 

Sweet capture, Dave -  but he looks misnamed in this shot -
more like curious or defiant or... hmmm..
kinda like he is saying the feline equivalent of "Duh"  -
well, you did say he was less timid than
he used to be :)

ann

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: camera club question re: projected image contests

[Bob W]

> 
> We just project slides. The club I belong to is quite happily 
> ignoring 
> digital.
> 
> William Robb 
> 

I suppose you could say the give digital the finger...

Bob



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Steve Jolly]

Steve Jolly wrote:
> My own experimentation suggests that you can't do much better than that. :-)

Not without dramatically widening the entrance aperture, anyway...

S


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: DA 16-45 flare resistance

[brooksdj]

I'll add my 2c here.
The only flare in my 16-45 i have experienced was with shooting an IR shott 
into the
sun,,through a few trees.

Other than that 1 time the lense has done great at shots aiming towars the sun.

Dave  

> I understand your concern. But I've never 
experienced the kind of 
> prismatic flare you showed on those examples with any Pentax lens, 
> prime or zoom. I can't offer any explanation.
> Paul
> On Jun 16, 2006, at 6:18 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> > Shooting directly into the sun with every SMC lens I've ever used has 
> > never
> > been an issue, nor have i experienced such flare as in "awfulflare.jpg"
> > with primes in similar situations.  Maybe the 16-45 needs a better 
> > hood or
> > I've just encountered its nemesis.  In any case, it's just an example 
> > of a
> > situation in which the flare was unexpected and totally unacceptable.  
> > It's
> > unimportant to me if it's a tendency for all zooms to do that - it's 
> > not a
> > "feature" I care for ;-))
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> Here's a DA 16-45 shot that was taken directly into the full summer 
> >> sun.
> > I believe I've shown it here before. It appears to be totally free of 
> > any
> > obvious flare. I'm not wild about the picture, due to the exaggeration 
> > of
> > the woman's shape and the rim light on her hair, but it serves to
> > illustrate the flare resistance of the lens:
> >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4570412&size=lg
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Paul Stenquist]

I have some 67mm hoods for my 6x7 lenses. I'll have a look at them 
tomorrow.
Paul
On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> the DA16-45 takes a 67mm sized thread, but I just fiddled a bit and 
> found
> that using a hood with a diameter as small as 58mm will work, 
> depending on
> the other dimensions of the hood.  A quick look through Boz's site 
> suggest
> that the 67mm bayonet hood from the 24-90 might be a possibility.  
> Using a
> quickly cut piece of back construction paper, it looks like the 
> standard
> hood can be almost 1/2-inch deeper all around and show no signs of
> vignetting - although the test and measurements are really rough, it's
> clear to me that there's definitely room for significant improvement.
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Paul Stenquist
>
>> Okay, you may very well be right on this one. For example, I use the
>> 135/3.5 Super Tak hood on my FA 50/1.4. As you said, there's 
>> frequently
>> room for improvement. I think the lens is 62mm thread. I'll have to 
>> see
>> what I have on hand in that size and try some alternatives.
>
>
>> On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>>
>>> Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood:
>>>
>>> One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that fit
>>> over
>>> the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually
>>> poorly
>>> optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by
>>> their
>>> design in order to fit over the hood.  This was made clear to me some
>>> years
>>> ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were
>>> designed to
>>> slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45.  
>>> Even
>>> on
>>> film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could
>>> often -
>>> usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens.
>>>
>>> I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the
>>> 16-45
>>> hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
>>> deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be available
>>> - the
>>> standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at 
>>> 11:00
>>> 
>>>
>>> Shel
>>>
>>>
>>>
 [Original Message]
 From: Bruce Dayton
>>>
 Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
 flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get 
 the
 sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause 
 it
 to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
 frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
 would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun 
 that
 would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
 enough.

 Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
 would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
 outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
 16-45, but at a different angle.

 The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and 
 so
 the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
 frame and so it really showed.

 Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
 where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
 lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
 noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
 movement to fix the problem.

 Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Steve Jolly]

Steve Jolly wrote:
> You could try the paper hood at 
> http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php as 
> a starting point for experimentation - the template alone gives an extra 
> 5mm or so over the plastic one.

My own experimentation suggests that you can't do much better than that. :-)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A girl in that hat

[David J Brooks]

Quoting Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Cute expression on her face.  The exposure for her face is quite good.
> It really suffers from her white hat against a white sky.  I would try
> to darken the sky if you can.  Otherwise, nice pic!
>
> --
> Bruce

Agree

Dave
>
>
> Friday, June 16, 2006, 12:45:15 PM, you wrote:
>
> R> http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060616194510
>
> R> --
> R> home 
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>



Equine Photography in York Region

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Shel Belinkoff]

I already checked that site and I may dl a couple of templates.  But it's
just as easy - easier, actually - to use a piece of construction paper that
can be easily slipped over the existing hood and moved forward and back to
see just how much deeper the hood can be.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Date: 6/16/2006 6:36:19 PM
> Subject: Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]
>
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> > I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the 16-45
> > hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
> > deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be available -
the
> > standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at 11:00

>
> You could try the paper hood at 
> http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php as 
> a starting point for experimentation - the template alone gives an extra 
> 5mm or so over the plastic one.
>
> S
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Paul,

the DA16-45 takes a 67mm sized thread, but I just fiddled a bit and found
that using a hood with a diameter as small as 58mm will work, depending on
the other dimensions of the hood.  A quick look through Boz's site suggest
that the 67mm bayonet hood from the 24-90 might be a possibility.  Using a
quickly cut piece of back construction paper, it looks like the standard
hood can be almost 1/2-inch deeper all around and show no signs of
vignetting - although the test and measurements are really rough, it's
clear to me that there's definitely room for significant improvement.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist 

> Okay, you may very well be right on this one. For example, I use the 
> 135/3.5 Super Tak hood on my FA 50/1.4. As you said, there's frequently 
> room for improvement. I think the lens is 62mm thread. I'll have to see 
> what I have on hand in that size and try some alternatives.


> On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood:
> >
> > One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that fit 
> > over
> > the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually 
> > poorly
> > optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by 
> > their
> > design in order to fit over the hood.  This was made clear to me some 
> > years
> > ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were 
> > designed to
> > slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45.  Even 
> > on
> > film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could 
> > often -
> > usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens.
> >
> > I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the 
> > 16-45
> > hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
> > deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be available 
> > - the
> > standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at 11:00 
> > 
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Bruce Dayton
> >
> >> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
> >> flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the
> >> sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it
> >> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
> >> frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
> >> would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that
> >> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
> >> enough.
> >>
> >> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
> >> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
> >> outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
> >> 16-45, but at a different angle.
> >>
> >> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so
> >> the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
> >> frame and so it really showed.
> >>
> >> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
> >> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
> >> lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
> >> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
> >> movement to fix the problem.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Steve Jolly]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the 16-45
> hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
> deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be available - the
> standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at 11:00 

You could try the paper hood at 
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php as 
a starting point for experimentation - the template alone gives an extra 
5mm or so over the plastic one.

S


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Bruce Dayton]

What you say makes sense.  The hood has to be a little wider to be
able to reverse around the body of the lens.  I've got to do a little
searching around, seeing  how I don't have many hoods that aren't
designed for a specific lens.  My 77mm Heliopan will sit between the
lens threads and the custom hood.  I'll have to give that one a try
just to see if it vignettes at all.

I had to quickly go try it - at the 45mm end it worked fine.  At the
16mm end, it looked like I had put on one of those Cokin filters that
makes you think you are looking through a rifle scope or something -
very heavy vignetting.

-- 
Bruce


Friday, June 16, 2006, 4:04:23 PM, you wrote:

SB> Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood:

SB> One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that fit over
SB> the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually poorly
SB> optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by their
SB> design in order to fit over the hood.  This was made clear to me some years
SB> ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were designed to
SB> slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45.  Even on
SB> film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could often -
SB> usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens.

SB> I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the 16-45
SB> hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
SB> deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be available - the
SB> standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at 11:00 

SB> Shel



>> [Original Message]
>> From: Bruce Dayton 

>> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
>> flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the
>> sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it
>> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
>> frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
>> would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that
>> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
>> enough.
>>
>> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
>> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
>> outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
>> 16-45, but at a different angle.
>>
>> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so
>> the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
>> frame and so it really showed.
>>
>> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
>> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
>> lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
>> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
>> movement to fix the problem.
>>
>> Thoughts?






-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Advice on shooting Kodak UC in LX

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Bailey"
Subject: Advice on shooting Kodak UC in LX


>I bought my first rolls of Kodak UC to use in my LX.
> Did need to shoot this at the rated ISO?  It's been a
> long time since I've had 36 ex film in the camera.

It's kind of a good idea to shoot film at something close to it's rated 
speed, at least until you know if you need to adjust.
Kodak is making it more and more difficult all the time to get ISO 
information off the box. The last Kodak film I looked at had the ISO in 
small print somewhere in the vicinity of the barcode.

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: DA 16-45 flare resistance

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: DA 16-45 flare resistance


> Here's a DA 16-45 shot that was taken directly into the full summer sun. I
> believe I've shown it here before. It appears to be totally free of any
> obvious flare. I'm not wild about the picture, due to the exaggeration of
> the woman's shape and the rim light on her hair, but it serves to
> illustrate the flare resistance of the lens:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4570412&size=lg

I've noticed that flare is often worse if the light source is just outside
the picture than in the picture. Shel's "awfulflare" picture os a good 
example of this sort of thing.

William Robb



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Paul Stenquist]

Okay, you may very well be right on this one. For example, I use the 
135/3.5 Super Tak hood on my FA 50/1.4. As you said, there's frequently 
room for improvement. I think the lens is 62mm thread. I'll have to see 
what I have on hand in that size and try some alternatives.
Paul
On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood:
>
> One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that fit 
> over
> the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually 
> poorly
> optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by 
> their
> design in order to fit over the hood.  This was made clear to me some 
> years
> ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were 
> designed to
> slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45.  Even 
> on
> film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could 
> often -
> usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens.
>
> I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the 
> 16-45
> hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
> deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be available 
> - the
> standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at 11:00 
> 
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Bruce Dayton
>
>> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
>> flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the
>> sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it
>> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
>> frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
>> would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that
>> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
>> enough.
>>
>> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
>> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
>> outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
>> 16-45, but at a different angle.
>>
>> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so
>> the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
>> frame and so it really showed.
>>
>> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
>> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
>> lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
>> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
>> movement to fix the problem.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Paul Stenquist]

  I''ve shot at least 500 frames with the DA 16-45, probably quite a few 
more. And i've used the standard hood with all of them. Remember, this 
lens is 16mm at the wide end. I suspect Pentax has optimized the hood. 
However, I should point out that I always "flag"  the sun with my free 
hand whenever I think it might be a problem. It's a good practice.
Paul

On Jun 16, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:t

> I understand what you're saying, and your little test makes sense.  In 
> the
> past I've done similar tests to test the viability of different lens 
> hoods,
> and i was thinking of what hood might work better on the 16-45.  
> Getting
> away from the tulip hood might be helpful, and perhaps some 67mm 
> threaded
> metal hoods might work, such as the hood from a A*85/1.4, or some hoods
> designed for 6x7 lenses.  I've always tried to use the deepest or 
> tightest
> hoods I could find to reduce the possibility of such things happening. 
>  For
> example, on my A*200/2.8 I'd use a hood like the Heliopan I sold you 
> and
> than add a certain Nikon hood to the front of that - just an example.  
> Or,
> on the 77mm I use a Takumar hood from the Super Tak 135/3.5, which also
> works well on the A50/1.4.  For my 35mm lenses on the DS I've been 
> using
> hoods that were designed for lenses around the 105mm focal length, and 
> I've
> really gone tight with the hood I'm using on the K18/3.5. So, it's 
> possible
> that a better hood will solve or reduce the problem.
>
> Before getting Patsy's lens to try, I asked the list about hoods for 
> the
> 16-45 and everyone who replied said the standard hood was best.  I'm no
> longer convinced that's the case - in fact, I was skeptical from the
> beginning.
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>> Date: 6/16/2006 3:07:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]
>>
>> Hello Shel,
>>
>> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
>> flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the
>> sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it
>> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
>> frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
>> would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that
>> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
>> enough.
>>
>> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
>> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
>> outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
>> 16-45, but at a different angle.
>>
>> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so
>> the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
>> frame and so it really showed.
>>
>> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
>> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
>> lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
>> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
>> movement to fix the problem.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
 [Original Message]
 From: Bruce Dayton
>>
 I'm curious if you had a filter on the lens for the awful flare
 version.  I know the shot you took of me had a filter on it albeit 
 an
 SMC filter.

 I have never seen flare like the awful on from my 16-45 - but if I
 think flare could be an issue, I always take of the filter.  Just
 curious.  I may have to go out and see if I can get mine to flare 
 that
 badly.
>>
 SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/bruceflare.jpg
 SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/awfulflare.jpg

 SB> Shel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Shel Belinkoff]

Some more thoughts on the 16-45 hood:

One of the things I discovered over the years was that hoods that fit over
the lens for storage, such as the hood for the 16-45, are usually poorly
optimized for best results since they are generally compromised by their
design in order to fit over the hood.  This was made clear to me some years
ago when testing hoods from Takumar lenses, many of which were designed to
slip over the lens in the same manner as the hood for the 16-45.  Even on
film cameras it was determined that a hood from a longer lens could often -
usually - be used to advantage on a shorter lens.

I just did a very Q&D test of extending the protective area of the 16-45
hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either
deeper or narrower, or both.  So, IMO, a better hood may be available - the
standard hood can certainly be improved upon.  Film (digital) at 11:00 

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
> flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the
> sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it
> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
> frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
> would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that
> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
> enough.
>
> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
> outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
> 16-45, but at a different angle.
>
> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so
> the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
> frame and so it really showed.
>
> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
> lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
> movement to fix the problem.
>
> Thoughts?



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Shel Belinkoff]

I understand what you're saying, and your little test makes sense.  In the
past I've done similar tests to test the viability of different lens hoods,
and i was thinking of what hood might work better on the 16-45.  Getting
away from the tulip hood might be helpful, and perhaps some 67mm threaded
metal hoods might work, such as the hood from a A*85/1.4, or some hoods
designed for 6x7 lenses.  I've always tried to use the deepest or tightest
hoods I could find to reduce the possibility of such things happening.  For
example, on my A*200/2.8 I'd use a hood like the Heliopan I sold you and
than add a certain Nikon hood to the front of that - just an example.  Or,
on the 77mm I use a Takumar hood from the Super Tak 135/3.5, which also
works well on the A50/1.4.  For my 35mm lenses on the DS I've been using
hoods that were designed for lenses around the 105mm focal length, and I've
really gone tight with the hood I'm using on the K18/3.5. So, it's possible
that a better hood will solve or reduce the problem.

Before getting Patsy's lens to try, I asked the list about hoods for the
16-45 and everyone who replied said the standard hood was best.  I'm no
longer convinced that's the case - in fact, I was skeptical from the
beginning.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Date: 6/16/2006 3:07:02 PM
> Subject: Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]
>
> Hello Shel,
>
> Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
> flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the
> sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it
> to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
> frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
> would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that
> would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
> enough.
>
> Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
> would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
> outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
> 16-45, but at a different angle.
>
> The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so
> the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
> frame and so it really showed.
>
> Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
> where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
> lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
> noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
> movement to fix the problem.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Bruce Dayton 
>
> >> I'm curious if you had a filter on the lens for the awful flare
> >> version.  I know the shot you took of me had a filter on it albeit an
> >> SMC filter.
> >>
> >> I have never seen flare like the awful on from my 16-45 - but if I
> >> think flare could be an issue, I always take of the filter.  Just
> >> curious.  I may have to go out and see if I can get mine to flare that
> >> badly.
>
> >> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/bruceflare.jpg
> >> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/awfulflare.jpg
> >>
> >> SB> Shel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: DA 16-45 flare resistance

[Paul Stenquist]

I understand your concern. But I've never experienced the kind of 
prismatic flare you showed on those examples with any Pentax lens, 
prime or zoom. I can't offer any explanation.
Paul
On Jun 16, 2006, at 6:18 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Shooting directly into the sun with every SMC lens I've ever used has 
> never
> been an issue, nor have i experienced such flare as in "awfulflare.jpg"
> with primes in similar situations.  Maybe the 16-45 needs a better 
> hood or
> I've just encountered its nemesis.  In any case, it's just an example 
> of a
> situation in which the flare was unexpected and totally unacceptable.  
> It's
> unimportant to me if it's a tendency for all zooms to do that - it's 
> not a
> "feature" I care for ;-))
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Here's a DA 16-45 shot that was taken directly into the full summer 
>> sun.
> I believe I've shown it here before. It appears to be totally free of 
> any
> obvious flare. I'm not wild about the picture, due to the exaggeration 
> of
> the woman's shape and the rim light on her hair, but it serves to
> illustrate the flare resistance of the lens:
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4570412&size=lg
>> Paul
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: DA 16-45 flare resistance

[Shel Belinkoff]

Shooting directly into the sun with every SMC lens I've ever used has never
been an issue, nor have i experienced such flare as in "awfulflare.jpg"
with primes in similar situations.  Maybe the 16-45 needs a better hood or
I've just encountered its nemesis.  In any case, it's just an example of a
situation in which the flare was unexpected and totally unacceptable.  It's
unimportant to me if it's a tendency for all zooms to do that - it's not a
"feature" I care for ;-))

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Here's a DA 16-45 shot that was taken directly into the full summer sun.
I believe I've shown it here before. It appears to be totally free of any
obvious flare. I'm not wild about the picture, due to the exaggeration of
the woman's shape and the rim light on her hair, but it serves to
illustrate the flare resistance of the lens:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4570412&size=lg
> Paul



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Boris,

I purposely left the range open because a) I don't know what's available;
b) I want to consider all options; c) asking an open ended question
sometimes elicits a more broad ranging discussion that generates
information about which I may not even know enough to ask questions.  Zooms
are essentially very new to me.  I've never used one as much as I have the
past few days.  If, for example, a few people say that the 70-210 is a
great lens, I may be inclined to consider it and go to the trouble of
finding one to see how it may work for me.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Boris Liberman 

> I used to have 28-135 by Sigma, 70-222/3.5 by Soligor, 28-70/4 by 
> Pentax, then 28-105 IF and F 70-210... Among those the F 70-210 is my 
> favorite. It is sharp wide open even at 210 mm. It has very pleasant 
> bokeh for a slow zoom. It is simply excellent optic for the price.
>
> I realize you're not probably looking for a tele-zoom, but you did not 
> specify that in the question ;-).



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Bruce,

Please see my reply to Boris' message and similar question.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> You didn't indicate what basic range you are interested in.  Are you
> looking for an ultrawide-wide, wide-short tele, short tele-long tele,
> etc.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Shel,

Intrigued, I took my 16-45 and FA 50/1.4 outside here to test for
flare.  It is 100 degrees and very sunny right now, so easy to get the
sun in the image.  As I worked with the 16-45 first, I could cause it
to flare when I put the sun just outside of the top corner of the
frame.  If I moved the sun into the frame just slightly, it flare
would go away.  So it seemed that there was one angle of the sun that
would catch the glass just right that SMC coatings wouldn't help
enough.

Then I put on the FA 50 and tried the same thing.  On this lens, it
would flare just as the sun was put into the frame, rather than just
outside it.  It can be made to flare just about as easily as the
16-45, but at a different angle.

The picture that Paul Stenquist showed had the sun in the frame and so
the flare was mostly absent.  Your shot has the sun just outside the
frame and so it really showed.

Anyway, in my quickie test, it seemed that there was a single spot
where the flare would really show, but I could make another Pentax
lens do just about the same thing.  That is probably why I haven't
noticed any real flare problems with mine - it didn't take much of a
movement to fix the problem.

Thoughts?

-- 
Bruce


Friday, June 16, 2006, 2:30:10 PM, you wrote:

SB> Hi Bruce,

SB> There was no filter in use for the awful flare shot, and the factory lens
SB> hood was used both times.  I know it was with the shot of the houseboat,
SB> and I'm sure it was when I used your lens in the restaurant.

SB> Shel



>> [Original Message]
>> From: Bruce Dayton 

>> I'm curious if you had a filter on the lens for the awful flare
>> version.  I know the shot you took of me had a filter on it albeit an
>> SMC filter.
>>
>> I have never seen flare like the awful on from my 16-45 - but if I
>> think flare could be an issue, I always take of the filter.  Just
>> curious.  I may have to go out and see if I can get mine to flare that
>> badly.

>> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/bruceflare.jpg
>> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/awfulflare.jpg
>>
>> SB> Shel






-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A girl in that hat

[frank theriault]

On 6/16/06, Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060616194510



Lovely candid portrait!

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO - My Lonely Ass Redux

[frank theriault]

On 6/15/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't expect anyone to like these.  I can't say I do, though I find them
> interesting and odd how much color changes the mood.
>
> They are manipulations done while I was goofing with "Harry's Filters".
>
> Here are some non-photographs:
>
>
>
> My Lonely Ass in Hell
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4567637
>
>
> My Lonely Ass Blue Moon
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4567644
>
>
> and the original unmanipulated
>
> My Lonely Ass
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4147790
>

I prefer the original, but that's just me, I suppose.

BTW, were you in hell, you'd not be lonely.  I'll be there, as will
most of my friends.  We'll be smoking and drinking and swearing and
having a grand ol' time.



cheers,
knarf

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[Mishka]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_sulfate

and, more to the point,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Na2SO4_solubility.png

On 6/16/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks! I had sort of suspected that may be the case.  Sodium Sulfate
> apparently can combine with water to make a penta or a decahydrate.  I
> understand that the decahydrate form contains 10 parts H20 and the penta,
> only 5, and was wondering why/when it would be in one form vs. the other.
>
> What I'm hoping for in the end is crystals of a granular size.  Is there a
> way to speed up the evaporation?
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> >Subject: Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there
> >Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:52:52 -0400
> >
> >proportion doesn't matter -- Na2SO4 . 10H2O will form from the solution
> >anyway.
> >just dissolve the anhydrous salt in a (minimal amount of ) hot water
> >and put it in a
> >fridge.
> >
> >On 6/16/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (or even somebody a little more chemically literate than myself). I've
> > > looked high and low for a simple formula I can understand to no avail.
> > >
> > > I have anhydrous sodium sulfate Na2SO4 and I want to mix it with water
> >to
> > > precipitate out in crystal form sodium sulfate decahydrate Na2SO4 .
> >10H2O.
> > >
> > > What proportion of water to sodium sulfate is required?  Any specific
> > > temperature the solution should start out at?
> > >
> > > Don't ask why. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom C.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > PDML@pdml.net
> > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > >
> >
> >--
> >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >PDML@pdml.net
> >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[Mishka]

Deca- will precipitate fromf the solution. Septa- (7H2O) (not penta!)
will come from deca-
as it loses the water (e.g. heated).
Don't evaporate it. Just cool down the (warm, ~50C) solution in a
fridge to about 0C (32F),
when it solubility drops to essentially zero.


On 6/16/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks! I had sort of suspected that may be the case.  Sodium Sulfate
> apparently can combine with water to make a penta or a decahydrate.  I
> understand that the decahydrate form contains 10 parts H20 and the penta,
> only 5, and was wondering why/when it would be in one form vs. the other.
>
> What I'm hoping for in the end is crystals of a granular size.  Is there a
> way to speed up the evaporation?
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> >Subject: Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there
> >Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:52:52 -0400
> >
> >proportion doesn't matter -- Na2SO4 . 10H2O will form from the solution
> >anyway.
> >just dissolve the anhydrous salt in a (minimal amount of ) hot water
> >and put it in a
> >fridge.
> >
> >On 6/16/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (or even somebody a little more chemically literate than myself). I've
> > > looked high and low for a simple formula I can understand to no avail.
> > >
> > > I have anhydrous sodium sulfate Na2SO4 and I want to mix it with water
> >to
> > > precipitate out in crystal form sodium sulfate decahydrate Na2SO4 .
> >10H2O.
> > >
> > > What proportion of water to sodium sulfate is required?  Any specific
> > > temperature the solution should start out at?
> > >
> > > Don't ask why. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom C.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > PDML@pdml.net
> > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > >
> >
> >--
> >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >PDML@pdml.net
> >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Bruce,

There was no filter in use for the awful flare shot, and the factory lens
hood was used both times.  I know it was with the shot of the houseboat,
and I'm sure it was when I used your lens in the restaurant.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> I'm curious if you had a filter on the lens for the awful flare
> version.  I know the shot you took of me had a filter on it albeit an
> SMC filter.
>
> I have never seen flare like the awful on from my 16-45 - but if I
> think flare could be an issue, I always take of the filter.  Just
> curious.  I may have to go out and see if I can get mine to flare that
> badly.

> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/bruceflare.jpg
> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/awfulflare.jpg
>
> SB> Shel



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Mac software question

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

On 2006-06-16, at 17:34, Mark Roberts wrote:

> Just fired it up. It's running OS 8.1

So use the power of Drive setup to zero all data on disk ;-)

Cheers,
Sylwek


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Lensebabies

[Marco Alpert]

One here from last year:

http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/peso12.html

It's the original version on the Ds. It's actually a lot of fun (and  
particularly so with digital since you get immediate feedback of  
what's inherently a trial-and-error process).

- Marco


On Jun 16, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Roman wrote:

> Anyone has photos made with lensebabies? Seems forgotten, yet
> rediscovered concept. Some nice examples would be nice to decide  
> whether
> invest some money and play with these toys.
>
> Thank you,
> Roman.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: camera club question re: projected image contests

[Jostein]

Hi Tom,

In our local branch of Biofoto (mother-organisation at: 
http://www.biofoto.no), the competition goes in two separate classes. 
Projected digital images, and projected slide film images. We have a 
Dell XGA projector (1024x768), and a Leica Pradovit RT-s 35mm slide 
film projector.

Meetings take place in a large auditorium (200 seats, at least) at 
Oslo University.

The competition has been arranged like this for almost 2 years now. To 
begin with, all the projected images were lumped in one class. 
However, by consensus, this arrangement was dropped after 6 months 
because the digital images constantly came out on top. It was simply 
terribly unfair to the 35mm slide film images.

Our experiences are that the lo-rez digital images look far, far 
better when projected than do 35mm slides. Projector brightness has a 
lot to do with that. A sufficiently powerful bulb in the Leica 
Pradovit would melt the film base. The film highlights has a granular, 
gritty look that none of us really gave any thought before digital. 
Even from high resolution films like Velvia, Provia or E100VS, which 
still are the dominating emulsions.



Jostein

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: camera club question re: projected image contests


> Hey all,
>
> Our photo club currently has competitions in slides and prints. 
> We're going to combine projected digital images and slides in future 
> contests in order to provide maximum opportunity for participation. 
> Members won't have to make prints to enter contests and they'll save 
> a lot of aggravation and expense.
>
> My question from other club members is:
>
> are you having contests with projected images? What resolution do 
> you use for the images? Have you had any problems?
>
> thanks for your help.
>
> Tom Reese
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

[P. J. Alling]

Looks like Mr. Scumbag modified the text to no longer point to Mark's 
site.  Ah. well it was too good to last I suppose.

Ann Sanfedele wrote:

>A while back there was an article in the NY TIMES (maybe as
>much as a year or two) where 
>someone was giving advice to novice /potential sellers on
>ebay - actually suggestion they
>look for pictures of things they were selling elsewhere and
>link to them!  Needless to say,
>there was a lot of mail sent to the Times about that.
>
>Not that it would necessarily help, but I sign all my
>displays with my ebay handle -
>although 99% of the time I'm selling things that almost no
>one else has listed - and I virtually
>never sell anything new.
>
>We had a great time once when someone listed a CANON - I
>think it was - and had grabbed
>a shot from Bonz's site -- when it was discovered, photos
>started showing up in it's place
>that were - um - well - not of a camera - :)
>
>ann
>
>
>Don Sanderson wrote:
>  
>
>>Mark, I've seen your page "quoted" several times on eekBay.
>>I've also had my photos used in other auctions.
>>I've reported all instances of copy theft (yours and mine) to
>>the powers that be.
>>Sometimes helps, sometimes not.
>>Actually, I feel rather sorry for poor As*s that can't get thru
>>life by the rules without cheating.  ;-(
>>
>>Don
>>
>>On 6/15/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>eBay auction
>>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=762505&ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ1
>>>Looks a lot like this:
>>>http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm
>>>
>>>(Already reported to eBay)
>>>
>>>--
>>>Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
>>>www.robertstech.com
>>>412-687-2835
>>>
>>>--
>>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>PDML@pdml.net
>>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>--
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>
>  
>


-- 
When you're worried or in doubt, 
Run in circles, (scream and shout).


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare

[P. J. Alling]

Not till you mentioned it.

Charles Robinson wrote:

>On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:57, Roman wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I too love this lense, and had noticed serious flare in tele mode  
>>closer
>>to the end - 90mm
>>
>>and less flare on 43mm on this sunset shot.
>>
>>http://roman.blakout.net/r-rated/480x360-imgp0512.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>
>Pretty photo.
>
>So, did anyone else try to browse the "r-rated" directory after  
>looking at that shot, or am I the only one?  :-)
>
>  -Charles
>
>--
>Charles Robinson
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Minneapolis, MN
>http://charles.robinsontwins.org
>
>
>  
>


-- 
When you're worried or in doubt, 
Run in circles, (scream and shout).


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A girl in that hat

[Kenneth Waller]

You caught the subject at just the right moment. Her smile & composure makes 
it.
I'd prefer a little more room between the LH side of the hat & the edge of 
the image. The blank top of the photo is a distraction for me.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: A girl in that hat


> Well done. A nicely composed portrait and a good compromise in a difficult 
> exposure situation. You could probably bring in some more of the burned 
> out hat with the shadow/highlight or curves tools in PhotoShop. A little 
> highlight burn in might help as well. But I like it as presented.
> Paul
> -- Original message --
> From: Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060616194510
>>
>> -- 
>> home 
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[Tom C]

Thanks! I had sort of suspected that may be the case.  Sodium Sulfate 
apparently can combine with water to make a penta or a decahydrate.  I 
understand that the decahydrate form contains 10 parts H20 and the penta, 
only 5, and was wondering why/when it would be in one form vs. the other.

What I'm hoping for in the end is crystals of a granular size.  Is there a 
way to speed up the evaporation?



Tom C.






>From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there
>Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:52:52 -0400
>
>proportion doesn't matter -- Na2SO4 . 10H2O will form from the solution 
>anyway.
>just dissolve the anhydrous salt in a (minimal amount of ) hot water
>and put it in a
>fridge.
>
>On 6/16/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (or even somebody a little more chemically literate than myself). I've
> > looked high and low for a simple formula I can understand to no avail.
> >
> > I have anhydrous sodium sulfate Na2SO4 and I want to mix it with water 
>to
> > precipitate out in crystal form sodium sulfate decahydrate Na2SO4 . 
>10H2O.
> >
> > What proportion of water to sodium sulfate is required?  Any specific
> > temperature the solution should start out at?
> >
> > Don't ask why. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[Cotty]

On 17/6/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>
>
>

I like it :-)


>
>P.S. this is my first ever cat picture.

Mark!!


-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[Kenneth Waller]

>this is my first ever cat picture

I'd say you did well with it. Obviously a lot of possibilities for a 
portrait but I like what you've done here with the DOF.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)


> G'day All,
>
> For starters let me apologies to those who can't stand all things feline 
> ;-)
>
> I haven't been shooting much lately, but this evening when I got home
> from work I grabbed this (~125kb):
>
> 
>
> It's a stray that the neighbours took in not long after moving here. I
> don't know it's name but I call it "Scaredy Cat". For many years you
> just had to take a step towards it and it would take off. It's also
> without a doubt the physically smallest cat in the neighbourhood and
> is routinely beaten up by the others
>
> With winter upon us & it's owners letting it fend for itself at night
> (don't get me started on what I think of that) it has been visiting a
> lot lately. The saucers of warm milk & water that it's given might
> have something to do with that.
>
> It's now not as scared of me as it once was. :-)
>
> Technically not the best, and excuse me if the colours & contrast are
> a bit off as I'm currently working on an uncalibrated system, but I
> thought it was kinda cute so I thought I'd post it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave S.
>
> P.S. this is my first ever cat picture.
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in JPEGMode)

[Kenneth Waller]

Much appreciated Godfrey !

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in 
JPEGMode)


> Much of this has been answered already through several emails, I
> thought I'd try to bring it all together and add a little more of the
> mathematics...
>
>> ... So, if JPEG loses, or throws away, a lot of information, why
>> are the files
>> when converted to TIFF (or PSD) so large?  Where does the extra
>> info come from? ...
>
> In the camera...
> The image is not created in JPEG format then converted to TIFF. The
> order of operations is
>  RAW sensor data -> 8bit RGB rendering -> Compressed 8bit RGB rendering
>
> The RGB rendering is what the camera uses to create the TIFF file. It
> is larger than the RAW file because the RAW file uses 12bits to
> describe each photosite state where the TIFF file uses an [r,g,b]
> triplet of three 8-bit bytes to describe each pixel, where the number
> of pixels is the same as the number of photosites. That's 24 bits vs
> 12 bits to describe the same thing, so the uncompressed TIFF file has
> to be at least twice as large. There is additional overhead in the
> TIFF file's structure as well.
>
> The JPEG rendering is the compressed 8bit RGB rendering. It's
> resulting smaller file size is a matter of compression coding,
> packing the [r,g,b] pixel array values into a more compact form of
> numbers that can be 'unpacked' back into a reasonably accurate
> rendering of the RGB image according to an algorithm.
>
> Out of the camera...
> Taking a RAW file and performing RAW conversion to an 8bit TIFF file
> does the same thing that doing this in the camera does. If you
> convert a RAW file to a 16bit TIFF file, each of the pixels is
> assigned an [r,g,b] value with 16bit values instead of 8bit values,
> which allows for more precision in manipulation ... the resulting
> data size is twice again as large as an 8bit TIFF file. Taking a JPEG
> file and converting it to a 8bit TIFF file simply reverses the JPEG
> packing back into the expanded, simple  8bit per channel [r,g,b]
> pixel description array.
>
> Precison 8bit vs 16bit:
> Say you look at a pixel value from an 8bit TIFF file and you get a
> triplet like [128, 128, 128]. That represents the amounts of R, G and
> B that are added together to produce the total intensity and color
> value of that pixel, on a scale of 0-255 possible values in each color.
>
> If you were look at the same pixel in a 16bit TIFF file rendering of
> the 12bit RAW data, the relative values of the channel assignments
> would be the same, but you have 16x as many numbers available to
> describe the values in the original RAW file which is then scaled to
> a representation in a discrete numeric space 8x larger (0-4095 in the
> RAW data, 0-32767 in the 16bit RGB channel (the topmost bit is not
> used so it's actually 15 bits of data)). Only 4096 of the values in
> the 16bit space are actual photosite RAW values, they're fitted into
> the larger space because current computing machinery manages 16 bit
> numbers with greater efficiency than 12 bit numbers, in general,
> *and* because as you perform Real or Discrete valued operations on
> these numbers, there are more numbers to represent the results, thus
> greater precision and less likelihood of clipping or round off errors.
>
> An illustrative example would be the 'digital' volume knob on many
> modern automobile radios. As you turn the knob, the display might
> display a range from 0 to 10, or it might display a range from 0 to
> 100. The actual analog amplitude of the volume is the same, but it is
> represented from none to max in two different resolutions... with the
> 0-10 representation you only get to set one of ten steps, with the
> 0-100 representation, you can set a lot more precisely the exact
> volume you want, with 10x the steps between values.
>
>> ... Further, when viewing a high quality JPEG in Photoshop, it
>> shows the file
>> size in the status bar to be about the same as the TIFF TIFF (or
>> PSD) file
>> made from that JPEG. ...
>> And why does Photoshop show the smaller JPEG file to be the size of
>> the larger TIFF or PSD file.
>
> Photoshop's description of image size is a description of the size of
> the uncompresed, actual pixel value array. If the array is packed in
> a JPEG or 'compressed LZW' TIFF file, it unpacks the values into an
> uncompressed array before reporting the size, which means that a PSD,
> TIFF or JPEG image with the same number of pixels and the same bit
> depth will show as the same size.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>> ...Taking an image shot in highest quality JPEG on the DS results
>> in a file
>> size of 1,900kb.  Doing absolutely nothing to it but converting to
>> a TIFF
>> results in a file size of 17,600kb.  Converting that file to 16-bit

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

[Mark Roberts]

Ann Sanfedele wrote:

>We had a great time once when someone listed a CANON - I
>think it was - and had grabbed
>a shot from Bonz's site -- when it was discovered, photos
>started showing up in it's place
>that were - um - well - not of a camera - :)

Well, I haven't stooped to that level. 
Yet ;-)

Still, the seller is no longer infringing on Fred's copyright. BTW, I
got Fred's permission to use his photo on my site (after it became a
permanent fixture - it was supposed to be temporary when I first
posted it). The eBay seller didn't, and since he was using the image
to sell a product, he's several miles distant from any hope of
claiming "fair use"!

Note also that the eBay listing in question isn't an auction, it's a
fixed price sale from an "eBay Store". I think that means it'll remain
up indefinitely until the item sells. Wonder how long it'll take until
the seller notices anything's changed?
 
-- 
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A girl in that hat

[Bruce Dayton]

Cute expression on her face.  The exposure for her face is quite good.
It really suffers from her white hat against a white sky.  I would try
to darken the sky if you can.  Otherwise, nice pic!

-- 
Bruce


Friday, June 16, 2006, 12:45:15 PM, you wrote:

R> http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060616194510

R> -- 
R> home 




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: A girl in that hat

[pnstenquist]

Well done. A nicely composed portrait and a good compromise in a difficult 
exposure situation. You could probably bring in some more of the burned out hat 
with the shadow/highlight or curves tools in PhotoShop. A little highlight burn 
in might help as well. But I like it as presented.
Paul
 -- Original message --
From: Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060616194510
> 
> -- 
> home 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

[Kenneth Waller]

Thanks Shel.
I was just curious.
Those seem like very good reasons for RAW IMHO.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode


> Hi, Ken ...
>
> Sure ... I'm often shooting in changing light, going from dark to light
> situations, sometimes grab a shot or two without thinking about exposure 
> or
> ISO, sometimes shooting with older lenses, sometimes with newer lenses,
> sometimes I previsualize a photo's result, which means that I may want 
> over
> or under exposure compared to the meter, and I'll see the final image with
> certain adjustments in mind, which means I need latitude and flexibility
> that JPEG can't give me.  Also, I like the idea of being able to use the
> raw file in other ways later on - maybe changing the interpretation of a
> photo.  I suppose I've spent too many years in the darkroom where a lot of
> adjustments can be made.  Never cared much for slide film, so shooting 
> with
> the transparency state of mind is odd for me - plus I like to do B&W
> conversions and I believe RAW allows greater opportinities for that as
> well.  Not that it can't be done with JPEG, but there seems to be greater
> flexibility with raw.
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Kenneth Waller
>
>> > RAW works best for my style of
>> > photography and for my temperament.
>>
>> Care to elaborate Shel?
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

[Gonz]

Put a porn image.  LOL!

rg


Mark Roberts wrote:
> Don Sanderson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Good move!
> 
> 
> :)
> You know, I agree with your assessment that this guy is more pathetic
> than anything else. I've seen other people reference my pages in eBay
> auctions before and it's fine with me as long as they give credit and
> a URL - I don't even demand that they ask permission first. This sad
> case couldn't even be bothered to remove the style tags from my HTML
> code or the "Please don't telephone me with questions about this lens"
> text. Watta loser! (Love how he describes the lens as "Macro, wide
> angle, zoom"!)
> 
> I'm going to update the image with something a little more obnoxious
> every day and see how long it takes until it's noticed.
> 
> BTW: If the person who called to tell me about this auction is a PDML
> lurker - thanks!
>  

-- 
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I 
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's 
a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT Some times the little guy DOES win

[frank theriault]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:36:45 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
> Just talked to the friends that are living in the farm house that we used to 
> rent back in
> 1981-83.
> Remember i posted several shots of the house, as it was to be demolished.
>
> Well, its not going to be now. They are going to save it.
>
> Woo Hoo.
>
> Not sure if it was due to my Letter to the Editor, likely not, but i like to 
> think so.
>
> Well at least the end to my week is nice.:-)
>
> On a sad note, i hear they found early native artifactes on site, and are 
> hushing that up
> so they
> can hurry up and strip soil. Now i need to think of someone to call about 
> this.
>
> The amount of artesion wells is slowing up the project though.
> Some days there is a god.
>
> Thanks fo listening.
>
> Dave

Indian and Northern Affairs?

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/minist_e.html

That might be a good place to start.  Or maybe your local MP.

Anyway, the good news part of your post is great, Dave.  Who knows if
it was due to your letter, but I bet that at the very least, it was a
contributing factor.

Sometimes the little guy does win.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

A girl in that hat

[Roman]

http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060616194510

-- 
home 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Mac software question

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Adam Maas wrote:

> Hoopers, or Kanga's as they're more typically known, cannot run OS X
> without the help of XPostoFacto (As they are essentially a Powerbook
> 3400 with a G3 instead of a 603e).

I always knew them as Hooper. They were the last laptop project I  
worked on before I left Apple for my two-year stint at Sun in 1997. I  
returned to Apple in 1999... and had Mac OS X running on a Hooper in  
my office, but then I never used it other than for testing purposes  
and it was probably a ways pre-pre release ... that was probably fall  
1999 and Mac OS X was released on March 24, 2001. ;-)

> Wallstreet's were the first officially supported PowerBooks for OS  
> X. Wallstreets were supported through 10.2, 10.3 was the first  
> version of OS X to obsolete any hardware.

Didn't realize that the Wallstreet couldn't run under 10.3. Time does  
get on!

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

[Ann Sanfedele]

A while back there was an article in the NY TIMES (maybe as
much as a year or two) where 
someone was giving advice to novice /potential sellers on
ebay - actually suggestion they
look for pictures of things they were selling elsewhere and
link to them!  Needless to say,
there was a lot of mail sent to the Times about that.

Not that it would necessarily help, but I sign all my
displays with my ebay handle -
although 99% of the time I'm selling things that almost no
one else has listed - and I virtually
never sell anything new.

We had a great time once when someone listed a CANON - I
think it was - and had grabbed
a shot from Bonz's site -- when it was discovered, photos
started showing up in it's place
that were - um - well - not of a camera - :)

ann


Don Sanderson wrote:
> 
> Mark, I've seen your page "quoted" several times on eekBay.
> I've also had my photos used in other auctions.
> I've reported all instances of copy theft (yours and mine) to
> the powers that be.
> Sometimes helps, sometimes not.
> Actually, I feel rather sorry for poor As*s that can't get thru
> life by the rules without cheating.  ;-(
> 
> Don
> 
> On 6/15/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > eBay auction
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=762505&ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ1
> > Looks a lot like this:
> > http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm
> >
> > (Already reported to eBay)
> >
> > --
> > Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
> > www.robertstech.com
> > 412-687-2835
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Mac software question

[Adam Maas]

Hoopers, or Kanga's as they're more typically known, cannot run OS X 
without the help of XPostoFacto (As they are essentially a Powerbook 
3400 with a G3 instead of a 603e). Wallstreet's were the first 
officially supported PowerBooks for OS X. Wallstreets were supported 
through 10.2, 10.3 was the first version of OS X to obsolete any hardware.

-Adam



Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> 
> 
>>Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No need for a third party utility.
>>>
>>>* The Finder includes a "Secure Erase" feature for items you put in
>>>the trash. See the menu command "Finder -> Secure Empty Trash".
>>>
>>>* If you need to erase an entire disk drive volume, the Disk Utility
>>>application includes secure erasure of disk volumes.
>>
>>Which versions of the OS have these features? One of the Macs I'm
>>dealing with is a G3 Powerbook. Don't know which version it's running
>>yet, but it's at least 5 years old. maybe older.
> 
> 
> All Mac OS X systems since v10.1 release in 2001.
> 
> PowerBook G3 represents a range of five models made from late 1997 to  
> 2002:
> 
> 1997-98: PowerBook G3 "Hooper" - oldest, squared off case design with  
> SCSI and serial ports
> 1998-1999: PowerBook G3 "Wall Street" - softer 'pillow' case design  
> with SCSI and serial ports
> 1999: PowerBook G3 "Lombard" - thinner, pillow case design with USB  
> and SCSI ports
> 2000-2001: PowerBook G3 "Pismo" with dual FireWire and USB ports
> 
> Hoopers and Wall Streets could run Mac OS X up to 10.1 but only to a  
> limited extent, due to lack of RAM and video options. Lombards were  
> made for only a short time, they can run 10.3 but had limited video  
> cards so some things do not run well or weren't fully supported.  
> Pismos can run all versions of Mac OS X up to the current 10.4  
> generation.
> 
> If you need to scrub an older PowerBook drive that is not configured  
> with Mac OS X:
> 
> - For a Pismo, it's very easy. Set the PowerBook into FireWire Target  
> Mode and connect it to any other Mac OS X system via a FireWire  
> cable. Then run Disk Utility and use one of the Secure Erase options.  
> Or obtain a Mac OS X installation CD or DVD, boot the system with it  
> (with the CD or DVD in the optical drive, power up the system with  
> the 'C' key held down, this will automatically search for a bootable  
> volume in the optical drive first). You can then run the Disk Utility  
> from the Installer's Tools menu and use a secure erase option on the  
> drive.
> 
> - For older PowerBooks, you'll need an installation CD for Mac OS X  
> v10.1 specifically to boot the systems from the optical drive and  
> perform a secure erase of the hard drive. If you don't have that, you  
> can use a FireWire to SCSI adapter cable for a more modern system and  
> a SCSI System Connector cable for the old PowerBook. The latter cable  
> is inserted into the SCSI port, and connected to the adapter and the  
> modern system and then the old PB system is started. This starts the  
> PowerBook up as a SCSI Target Drive, which Disk Utility can then see  
> and run a secure erase.
> 
> Without the right pieces on these older machines, doing a good secure  
> erase will require finding a bootable CD or SCSI drive with Mac OS 9  
> and a secure erase utility written for the older operating system.  
> The age and value of such an old system means that it is probably  
> much less trouble to extract the drive and physically destroy it  
> rather than waste time finding all the bits to do a secure erase.
> 
> PowerBook G3 Pismo system are still quite viable ... I fitted mine  
> with 768M RAM and a 60G fast drive in 2004 and used it until two  
> months ago running Mac OS X v10.4.x, when I bought my PowerBook G4  
> 1.67Ghz system. I've since sold the PBG3 to a friend who is  
> continuing to use it for his daily internet and accounting work. :-)
> 
> Godfrey
> 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[frank theriault]

On 6/16/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> G'day All,
>
> For starters let me apologies to those who can't stand all things feline ;-)
>
> I haven't been shooting much lately, but this evening when I got home
> from work I grabbed this (~125kb):
>
> 

I think this is a terrific photo!

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hectic Times

[frank theriault]

On 6/16/06, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>
> Don't you ever try to compete with me in Russian, Frank ;-).
>

Yes, well, just remember, I only speak one language, but I speak it poorly.  ;-)

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare

[frank theriault]

On 6/16/06, Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I too love this lense, and had noticed serious flare in tele mode closer
> to the end - 90mm
>
> and less flare on 43mm on this sunset shot.
>
> http://roman.blakout.net/r-rated/480x360-imgp0512.jpg
>

Have the aliens landed?  Are those their pods?

Seriously, lovely pic, Roman.

cheers,
frank
-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 24-90 flare

[Charles Robinson]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:57, Roman wrote:

> I too love this lense, and had noticed serious flare in tele mode  
> closer
> to the end - 90mm
>
> and less flare on 43mm on this sunset shot.
>
> http://roman.blakout.net/r-rated/480x360-imgp0512.jpg
>

Pretty photo.

So, did anyone else try to browse the "r-rated" directory after  
looking at that shot, or am I the only one?  :-)

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: camera club question re: projected image contests

[Jens Bladt]

Hello Tom
We have discussed the samme matter at our last camera club meeting. We are
going to allow digital entries as well as prints and slides.
We haven't yet decided about resolution, compression, size - the chaiman and
the board is deciding on this issue.
In my experience a max 1024x768 pixel image (made from a 3000x2000 300 ppi
file and then compressed (throug Save to Web in PS) will make a  200 KB
filew,which is quite usable for projections/slide shows. Anyway, this is
what I usually do.
Take a look at: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Diasshow.html
click. Vis Dias Show

And see the camera club web site at:
http://www.koege-foto-klub.dk/



Regards

Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Tom
Reese
Sendt: 16. juni 2006 15:47
Til: Pentax List
Emne: camera club question re: projected image contests


Hey all,

Our photo club currently has competitions in slides and prints. We're going
to combine projected digital images and slides in future contests in order
to provide maximum opportunity for participation. Members won't have to make
prints to enter contests and they'll save a lot of aggravation and expense.

My question from other club members is:

are you having contests with projected images? What resolution do you use
for the images? Have you had any problems?

thanks for your help.

Tom Reese

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/367 - Release Date: 06/16/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/367 - Release Date: 06/16/2006


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[David Savage]

On 6/17/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because if I told you I'd have to kill you... :-)
>

Good to know.

I won't ask.

Dave S 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[keith_w]

David Savage wrote:
> G'day All,
> 
> For starters let me apologies to those who can't stand all things feline ;-)
> 
> I haven't been shooting much lately, but this evening when I got home
> from work I grabbed this (~125kb):
> 
> 

Excellent photo of a beautiful cat!

> It's a stray that the neighbours took in not long after moving here. I
> don't know it's name but I call it "Scaredy Cat". For many years you
> just had to take a step towards it and it would take off. It's also
> without a doubt the physically smallest cat in the neighbourhood and
> is routinely beaten up by the others
> 
> With winter upon us & it's owners letting it fend for itself at night
> (don't get me started on what I think of that) it has been visiting a
> lot lately. The saucers of warm milk & water that it's given might
> have something to do with that.
> 
> It's now not as scared of me as it once was. :-)

I hope you can find a way to provide shelter for the poor thing over the 
winter...

> Technically not the best, and excuse me if the colours & contrast are
> a bit off as I'm currently working on an uncalibrated system, but I
> thought it was kinda cute so I thought I'd post it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave S.
> 
> P.S. this is my first ever cat picture.
> 

Hah! I love it...instant expert!  

keith whaley

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[Mishka]

proportion doesn't matter -- Na2SO4 . 10H2O will form from the solution anyway.
just dissolve the anhydrous salt in a (minimal amount of ) hot water
and put it in a
fridge.

On 6/16/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (or even somebody a little more chemically literate than myself). I've
> looked high and low for a simple formula I can understand to no avail.
>
> I have anhydrous sodium sulfate Na2SO4 and I want to mix it with water to
> precipitate out in crystal form sodium sulfate decahydrate Na2SO4 . 10H2O.
>
> What proportion of water to sodium sulfate is required?  Any specific
> temperature the solution should start out at?
>
> Don't ask why. :-)
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[Tom C]

Because if I told you I'd have to kill you... :-)



Tom C.






>From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there
>Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:39:48 +0800
>
>On 6/17/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (or even somebody a little more chemically literate than myself). I've
> > looked high and low for a simple formula I can understand to no avail.
> >
> > I have anhydrous sodium sulfate Na2SO4 and I want to mix it with water 
>to
> > precipitate out in crystal form sodium sulfate decahydrate Na2SO4 . 
>10H2O.
>
>...huh?
>
>Chemistry was never one of my better subjects
>
> > What proportion of water to sodium sulfate is required?  Any specific
> > temperature the solution should start out at?
> >
> > Don't ask why. :-)
> >
>
>Why not? :-)
>
>Dave S.
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[David Savage]

On 6/17/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (or even somebody a little more chemically literate than myself). I've
> looked high and low for a simple formula I can understand to no avail.
>
> I have anhydrous sodium sulfate Na2SO4 and I want to mix it with water to
> precipitate out in crystal form sodium sulfate decahydrate Na2SO4 . 10H2O.

...huh?

Chemistry was never one of my better subjects

> What proportion of water to sodium sulfate is required?  Any specific
> temperature the solution should start out at?
>
> Don't ask why. :-)
>

Why not? :-)

Dave S.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

OT Some times the little guy DOES win

[brooksdj]

Hi all.
Just talked to the friends that are living in the farm house that we used to 
rent back in
1981-83.
Remember i posted several shots of the house, as it was to be demolished.

Well, its not going to be now. They are going to save it. 

Woo Hoo.

Not sure if it was due to my Letter to the Editor, likely not, but i like to 
think so.

Well at least the end to my week is nice.:-)

On a sad note, i hear they found early native artifactes on site, and are 
hushing that up
so they
can hurry up and strip soil. Now i need to think of someone to call about this.

The amount of artesion wells is slowing up the project though.
Some days there is a god.

Thanks fo listening.

Dave



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: camera club question re: projected image contests

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Tom Reese wrote:

> From: "Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> ... While a slide can be projected vertically and horizontally  
>> with equal
>> quality, the digital imager is a horizontal rectangle. Therefore,  
>> with a
>> 1600x1200 imager, horizontal images will be 1600x1066, while vertical
>> images will be only 1200*800 (2/3 images like 24x36 and APS-C). The
>> projected vertical image will be much smaller, with the same dot  
>> size,
>> and will lose more detail.
>
> thank you Patrice. I wasn't aware of the vertical orientation  
> issue. That's certainly food for thought.

Tom,

That's why we specified the pixel dimensions for digital images as we  
did. Assuming a 1024x768 projector, you keep the area of the image  
constant and the area of the photograph constant so as not to  
prejudice judges with the "size matters" business.

http://homepage.mac.com/godders/projection-formats.jpg illustrates a  
2:3 proportion image in H and V orientation fitted into a 1024x768  
(4:3 ratio) display space with equal image area. The photos present  
at the same resolution and quality, regardless of orientation.

This issue is different when displaying prints or projecting  
slides ... you can turn the medium for H and V orientations and use  
the entire display field.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

PESO: Scaredy Cat (For cat fanciers)

[David Savage]

G'day All,

For starters let me apologies to those who can't stand all things feline ;-)

I haven't been shooting much lately, but this evening when I got home
from work I grabbed this (~125kb):



It's a stray that the neighbours took in not long after moving here. I
don't know it's name but I call it "Scaredy Cat". For many years you
just had to take a step towards it and it would take off. It's also
without a doubt the physically smallest cat in the neighbourhood and
is routinely beaten up by the others

With winter upon us & it's owners letting it fend for itself at night
(don't get me started on what I think of that) it has been visiting a
lot lately. The saucers of warm milk & water that it's given might
have something to do with that.

It's now not as scared of me as it once was. :-)

Technically not the best, and excuse me if the colours & contrast are
a bit off as I'm currently working on an uncalibrated system, but I
thought it was kinda cute so I thought I'd post it.

Cheers,

Dave S.

P.S. this is my first ever cat picture.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: camera club question re: projected image contests

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Glad to help, Tom.

On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Tom Reese wrote:

>>  From a mechanical perspective, the "professional" quality slide
>> projection system was a disaster.
>
> We've conducted slide contests for years without any problems at  
> all and we'll continue those.

I suspect you have a well maintained projector system and people  
familiar with setting it up and using it. I was shocked at how much  
of a mess the event I described was with regard to the slide projector.

> My question was about adding digital projections to the competition  
> in order to allow more people to participate. Some of our members  
> shoot digitally and don't have the equipment, expertise or $ to  
> produce medium to large prints for our club competitions. I want to  
> afford ALL members the opportunity to participate in the contests  
> from point and shooters on up. Digital projection would provide  
> that opportunity.
>
> I don't want to create another digital projector category because  
> the contests take too long now. It's a fast easy process to switch  
> projectors on the stand and combining slides and digital projection  
> into one contest seems to be a relatively simple thing to do.

The keys to success are:

- choose the right digital projector with good imaging quality for  
the venue you
will be displaying in.
- set up a computer and the projector to work together well.  
Calibrate the
projector if possible. (It's useful to at least have a test image  
with grayscale
step wedge and color bars to make projection time adjustments.)
- pick good software to manage the presentation of the digital images
- test the whole setup before the event to debug it.

If you do this, and you have a well worked out slide projection  
system, it's easy to switch between them.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Mac software question

[Bob Shell]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

>> For previous OS versions, you can use BURN.  I used it prior to
>> switching to OS 10.4, and it does a great job.  You can find info  
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.thenextwave.com/burnHP.html
>
> Looks like just what I need but I get an "Unable to set up secure
> anonymous FTP" message when I click their download link. Tried Mac and
> Windows, couple of different browsers on each.


Sorry, looks like they may be gone.  I guess I'm not the only one who  
didn't need it when OS X came along.

Bob

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

DA 16-45 flare resistance

[pnstenquist]

Here's a DA 16-45 shot that was taken directly into the full summer sun. I 
believe I've shown it here before. It appears to be totally free of any obvious 
flare. I'm not wild about the picture, due to the exaggeration of the woman's 
shape and the rim light on her hair, but it serves to illustrate the flare 
resistance of the lens:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4570412&size=lg
Paul

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Lensebabies

[Bob Shell]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Roman wrote:

> Anyone has photos made with lensebabies? Seems forgotten, yet
> rediscovered consept. Some nice examples would be nice to decide  
> whether
> invest some money and play with these toys.


I reviewed the Lensbaby for Digital Camera Magazine, but my review  
doesn't seem to have gotten onto the website yet:

http://www.digicamera.com/

I had a lot of fun playing with the "lens" and got some pretty cool  
results.

Bob

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hectic Times

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

> I think I used the wrong word.  It should have been "swank", not
> "swanky", so I think I should have said "one of Toronto's swankest
> communities".  An on-line dictionary defines it as "1.  Imposingly
> fashionable or elegant; grand.
>2. Ostentatious; pretentious."
> 
> I think of it as "rich"

Roger that.

> The place we're in is anything but rich or swank, but the
> neighbourhood is one of Toronto's richest - we're in the midst of
> mansions, and when I step out my front door, I'm at risk of being run
> over by Aston-Martins and Bentleys.

'Martins are cool. Bentleys are too...

>> Axe like in "behead"? Bad idea methinks...
> 
> 
> No, "axe" as in urban slang for "ask".  It's my way of paying homage
> to hip-hop culture, homies.  

When you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your 
head... Right?

Well, no non-native speaker can ever reach the level of control and 
fluency of a real native speaker...

Don't you ever try to compete with me in Russian, Frank ;-).

Boris


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

OT: Question for for the Chemists out there

[Tom C]

(or even somebody a little more chemically literate than myself). I've 
looked high and low for a simple formula I can understand to no avail.

I have anhydrous sodium sulfate Na2SO4 and I want to mix it with water to 
precipitate out in crystal form sodium sulfate decahydrate Na2SO4 . 10H2O.

What proportion of water to sodium sulfate is required?  Any specific 
temperature the solution should start out at?

Don't ask why. :-)



Tom C.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: FS: several Pentax lenses (and an AF body)

[John Bailey]

Ummm,

The one I just bought from Joe must be the -K version.
My LX came with the SMC Pentax-A 50/1.4 lens.  Way
back
then I didn't know that is a mismatch since the LX
doesn't have aperture selection via the body.

John

--- Carlos Royo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> SMC Pentax-A 50 mm. 1.2, the fastest lens Pentax has
> ever made, in A
> version.
> LN- 250 euros.
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:49 AM, David Savage wrote:

> I must admit, as a long time zoom user I'm now something of a "prime
> snob", so the zooms don't get much of a workout.

:-)

In the past, I always tried zooms with my 35mm SLR gear and gave them  
up for various reasons of flare, size, weight or speed. I never  
considered my self a 'prime snob', I just tend to work with  
relatively few focal lengths and prefer the speed and size of the  
primes.

In recent years, zoom lenses have really come a long way with with  
some exceptional quality performance. The fixed lens digital camera  
lenses at the high end are remarkable ... the lenses on my Sony F707/ 
F717/R1, Konica Minolta A2, and Panasonic FZ10 have been amazing  
performers.

My shooting habits, however, haven't changed as much. I still tend to  
prefer prime focal lengths for their speed and compactness, even  
though the margins are smaller than they used to be. But the wide to  
normal range provided by the FA20-35 is such a perfect match for that  
huge percentage of my photography, and the FA20-35 is such a good  
performer, that it's won me over and I hardly miss having primes in  
this range except occasionally for the speed.

While I still have the 100-300 and 35-70, I don't think I've taken a  
picture with either of them in months and months. I'm rarely using  
anything longer than the 77mm now, most of my "long lens" work is the  
FA50/1.4!

Godfrey


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: camera club question re: projected image contests

[Tom Reese]

From: "Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> My club organizes every year quite a big contest (as far as a few 
> thousands candidate photos is considered big), and seriously considered 
> digital projection along with slides.
> We discussed with other clubs and decided that we would not venture into 
> this yet, mainly for manpower reasons (reception, sorting etc...).
> 
> However, we've often projected digital in various other occasions.
> 
> What we learned:
> The quality is certainly behind slide projection, in resolution, and 
> specially in color accuracy and stability (compared to a reasonably good 
> slide projector typically available in a club). Maybe it's because the 
> digital projectors we used were bad, but this proved noticeable with 
> various recent models. Regarding color rendition, we did not have the 
> hardware to calibrate the projected image, though.
> 
> The photos are not on the same playing ground not only depending on the 
> support (digi vs. film), but also depending on the image orientation. 
> While a slide can be projected vertically and horizontally with equal 
> quality, the digital imager is a horizontal rectangle. Therefore, with a 
> 1600x1200 imager, horizontal images will be 1600x1066, while vertical 
> images will be only 1200*800 (2/3 images like 24x36 and APS-C). The 
> projected vertical image will be much smaller, with the same dot size, 
> and will lose more detail.

thank you Patrice. I wasn't aware of the vertical orientation issue. That's 
certainly food for thought.

Tom Reese

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net