Re: Backwards Compatibility
He could even mount M42 Super Taks and SMC Takumars on his Canon T90. That was a great camera. I still have mine. Jim A. At a camera club night a younger meber (using a analog Canon 90 -something) was looking at all the DSLR's - aiming to choose/buy one. He liked the Pentax, it felt good to the hands, he thought. I told him about the backwards comaptibility - how he could use 50 year old lenses, with certain limitations to functionlity. A member with a Canon 20D said Oh, Canon's can do that too. So, they decised to try it right away. The test came to a very quick stop, as it was not possible to even mount the old Canon lens on the 20D body ;-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 07/12/2006 -- 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: Re follow up on DS speed test
Igor, Your question led me to doubt my memory of the last test I did with the Ultra II SD card so I ran the test a second time with the Sandisk Ultra II card, 60x nominal speed, for both RAW and JPEG *** and updated the page with these additional results and corresponding QuickTime movies. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/ There is no measured improvement on RAW capture performance. The improvement on JPEG *** captures going to the Transcend 150x card is a 3 frames in 60 seconds, about 3.4% total improvement. Not a lot ... I retract the substantial judgement. Amusingly, the price of Transcend 150x 2G SD cards is barely more than half the price of Sandisk Ultra II 2x SD cards. This justifies my prior feelings: that there is very little benefit to in-camera performance with a card faster than the Sandisk Ultra II for the *ist DS body. Godfrey On Jul 13, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote: Hi Godfrey, This is an interesting test. I've done like this once before with a couple of SanDisk 1GB cards (Ultra II and a yellow gaming card), and reported them here. (I did only tests for RAW.) In a similar setting, the time required for the first 5 shots to be fully recorded was 19 seconds. In your case this is 16 seconds. So, you see about 19% increase in the recording rate. (The corresponding rates are ~2.6 MB/s and 3.1 MB/s. Ghm.. I thought, previously I was getting a somewhat larger number. I hope I am not making some mistake now.) I don't know what are the numbers for JPEGS with Ultra II, but I am not sure why you are saying that the difference for JPEG format is much larger than that for RAW format? I suspect that the recording rate should be the same regardless of the format, and it is only the file size that is different (if we discount the time required for conversion/compression as being negligibly small). Maybe I didn't understand what you meant. Do you mind explaining the last sentence below? Thank you, Igor PS. It is rather interesting that there is a change in the exposure from shot to shot. Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:15:47 -0700 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I bought a couple of Transcend 150x 2G SD cards (at $40 apiece, I couldn't resist). So I figured I'd revisit the timings we played with in May ... There is an improvement over 80x cards, not so much for RAW but substantial if capturing in JPEG *** format. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: When we get out new K10D's in the fall...
On 14.07.2006, at 06:01 , Peter Loveday wrote: Hmm, interestingly this forum (I think?) seems to indicate DNG support: http://hobby7.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/dcamera/1140771650/ I hope this is only fake. With photographing setting inside MENU, AF mode is changed single AF (AF.S)/continuous AF (AF.C) part could prove it as AF.C and AF.S modes are changed by mechanical switch on K10D. 1/4000 s and 1/180 s synchro with minimal iso200 is the same as 1/2000 s and 1/90 s synchro at iso100 - certainly not top parameters that we would expect from this class of DSLR. I would rather expect 1/8000 s and 1/250 s - as it was in Z-1P. Cheers, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
Den 14. jul. 2006 kl. 03.11 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:13:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the leading professors in Copyright issues in Norway has stated that the painting is illegal, and things seem to be going my way, but it has been a busy week... here´s a link with where you can see the pictures: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.708983 DagT = Whoa. He didn't change it at all, did he? And your photo is so much better. Good luck on this, Dag. Maybe you can look at it as imitation is the most sincere from of flattery. Look at it that way, that is, before you win. I know, I should, except that it annoys me that it is one of his arguments. He claims that he did ask a photographer once who said that well, of course, it is an honor. I told him that sure, it would have been an honor to be asked. (but with this picture I would not have allowed it). DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Photography Travel: The Great Pluvial of '06
Wow - that's quite a story about the lightning. Glad you got out of it alive. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Tainter Sent: 14 July 2006 04:40 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Photography Travel: The Great Pluvial of '06 My wife and I are just back from a week of camping in the Four Corners. We got a late start last Wednesday, so we camped that night at Chaco Canyon National Monument in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. The next morning it rained for several hours. It rained during the day too. Even when not raining, the weather was overcast and poor for landscape photography. The next day there were intermittent rains. So on Friday we headed to Hovenweep National Monument in southeastern Utah. The next morning it rained for several hours. This is very unusual, even during the summer monsoon season. Next we headed for lower elevation -- a campground along the San Juan River near Bluff, Utah. This gave my wife the opportunity to spend the equivalent of a new lens on a piece of Navajo jewelry at a trading post. (Actually I was happy to buy it for her. She had seen a nice piece in this store four years ago and not bought it then. She never forgot the piece, though, and there it was, still awaiting her. That's one of the great things about trading posts in places out of the way.) On Sunday we headed north to Moab. Monday afternoon we stood at Dead Horse Point overlooking Canyonlands and the Colorado River, and watched a storm to the east deluge Moab. Moab got two inches in an hour, and several main roads (including the main highways) had to be closed. Then, stupid us, standing out on Dead Horse Point, my wife and I both managed nearly to get struck by lightning. (The nearest threatening-looking clouds were several miles away, but lightning can get you from that distance.) Dead Horse Point has an observation deck, below which are the rocks of the mesa. Bonnie was on the observation deck and I was a few feet below her on the rocks. Suddenly I felt/heard a crackling in my hat. At the same time she heard static in her ears. It took a split second for both of us to get past saying silently to ourselves Wow, that's weird, recognize what it was, simultaneously yell to each other, and drop to the ground. Apparently it was a horizontal bolt that never connected with the ground -- cloud to cloud. Whew. I've been close to lightning strikes before (30-40 yards), but this was too much. We gave up on Dead Horse Point for that day. Bonnie's ears hurt for several hours. On Tuesday we took a boat down the river into Canyonlands. There was only a little rain. On Wednesday we came home -- and not a drop all day. Because of the weather the photo opportunities weren't what I had hoped for. But I did exercise the DA 14, DA 10-17, and D FA 50, all of which had been getting flabby. My time permitting, look for some posts. It's good to be back with the list again. 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
PUG reminder and apology
Hi guys and gals, The next PUG deadline approacheth. Time to get the submissions ready, folks. The apology is for not having the submission form currently up and running. The ISP has been notified, and I await response. News of the condition will be coming. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: New favourite body
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/13 Thu PM 06:44:52 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New favourite body Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:11 AM, mike wilson wrote: To the melody of American Pie http://www.thelyricssite.com/Music_And_Song_Lyrics_Home.php? search=songidid=1326 Thanks mike. I'd forgotten about that one. I have it on CD too. Quite a chuckle... :-) Mike's the PDML authority on Weird Al Yankovic. I happen to know that last year he had a shipment of Weird Al CD's carried over by a personal courier from Pittsburgh because he couldn't find them in the UK. :) Worth every penny. A highly recommended service - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Thanks to Godfrey and others
I once transposed the Polish words for Italian and hairy. Which explained the confused look on my hostess's face when I asked her about the Italian tiles in her bathroom From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/13 Thu PM 09:31:00 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thanks to Godfrey and others I recently had a six-year-old make fun of my Croatian. Not only did he make fun of my pronunciation, but he called all of his friends over, did an impression of my pronunciation (which made the other six-year-olds howl with laughter) and begged me to speak again to entertain them all. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is in fact second. My Hebrew skills leave much to be desired. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
Hi Skye, You have to check out the local copyright laws where you live to be sure, but I would say that owner X is not allowed to make further copies unless that is specifically agreed upon. That's basically what copyright is all about. The buyer only buys the right to own the item, not to make replicas. If you look at the way most photo stock agencies operate, they sell photos along the same principles. Buyer pays for the right to use the image in a restricted way. The wider it is published, the more he has to pay. And the photographer's name should always be published with the photo. Dunno how this changes after the photographer's demise. Jostein On 7/13/06, skye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That reminds me. I don't know the legal answer (logically or morally I know my own answer, which is no for life, yes for death) so I have to ask the question: Last night at a local photo club meeting, one of the new members brought up a question similar to the situation below, with one difference. If an artist sells his work to Owner X, can Owner X make and sell a derivative copy of the work, or give someone else permission to do so? (And does this rule change if the artist dies? I think with books it's a 50-year thing after the author dies?) -- skye On 7/13/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to keep your minds off politics .-) During my holiday I was reading and listening to music but had the TV on (and sound off), just in case there was a weather forecast. Suddenly something known caught my attention on the TV. In a program about some opera seminar in western Norway a singer was standing in front of a painting, and the painting was identical to one of my photographs. After some detective work, and help from the Norwegian community at www.foto.no, I found the painter, and he admitted that he had downloaded my picture and used it, but he refused to take the picture down and claimed that he was a not a very good painter and therefore his painting was not a copy of my picture. He said that he would sell it if someone wanted it and that I could by it if I wanted to. Now the story has been twice in the local radio station and will be in the local newspaper tomorrow. But since I live in a different part of the country I have only seen the references on Internet. One of the leading professors in Copyright issues in Norway has stated that the painting is illegal, and things seem to be going my way, but it has been a busy week... here´s a link with where you can see the pictures: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.708983 DagT -- 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: A weird little story of Copyright
Hi Dag, That's pretty arrogant behaviour from the painter. Hope you get the painting destroyed. Make sure that he agrees also to destroy any sketches he made prior to the final painting, and to confirm his action in writing. Jostein On 7/13/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to keep your minds off politics .-) During my holiday I was reading and listening to music but had the TV on (and sound off), just in case there was a weather forecast. Suddenly something known caught my attention on the TV. In a program about some opera seminar in western Norway a singer was standing in front of a painting, and the painting was identical to one of my photographs. After some detective work, and help from the Norwegian community at www.foto.no, I found the painter, and he admitted that he had downloaded my picture and used it, but he refused to take the picture down and claimed that he was a not a very good painter and therefore his painting was not a copy of my picture. He said that he would sell it if someone wanted it and that I could by it if I wanted to. Now the story has been twice in the local radio station and will be in the local newspaper tomorrow. But since I live in a different part of the country I have only seen the references on Internet. One of the leading professors in Copyright issues in Norway has stated that the painting is illegal, and things seem to be going my way, but it has been a busy week... here´s a link with where you can see the pictures: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.708983 DagT -- 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: Backwards Compatibility
Jens Bladt wrote: At a camera club night a younger meber (using a analog Canon 90 -something) was looking at all the DSLR's - aiming to choose/buy one. He liked the Pentax, it felt good to the hands, he thought. I told him about the backwards comaptibility - how he could use 50 year old lenses, with certain limitations to functionlity. A member with a Canon 20D said Oh, Canon's can do that too. So, they decised to try it right away. The test came to a very quick stop, as it was not possible to even mount the old Canon lens on the 20D body ;-) hm let's see, to mount m42 (50 year old) lenses on a Pentax DSLR you need an adapter To mount Canon FD lenses on a Canon DSLR you need an adapter Same kind of computability I'd say. So they didn't have an adapter at the club? Doesn't make it any less compatible. The Canon can take the screw mount lenses too and K-mount and etc... all you need are adapters. Just like Pentax. The nice thing about Pentax is that the k-mount changed very little between manual and auto focus bodies (aperture rings and A contacts not withstanding; don't need to start that war again) whereas the Canon manual focus (FD) and AF (EF) mounts are entirely different. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Safety
There's not much about Norm that could be described as normal. You mean, in the same way that there's not much about Jack that could be described as jackal? Jostein-al -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Thanks to Godfrey and others
When reading this thread I was sure you would chime in with my little mess-up with certain biting insects...:-) Jostein scratching his leg On 7/14/06, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I once transposed the Polish words for Italian and hairy. Which explained the confused look on my hostess's face when I asked her about the Italian tiles in her bathroom From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/13 Thu PM 09:31:00 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thanks to Godfrey and others I recently had a six-year-old make fun of my Croatian. Not only did he make fun of my pronunciation, but he called all of his friends over, did an impression of my pronunciation (which made the other six-year-olds howl with laughter) and begged me to speak again to entertain them all. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is in fact second. My Hebrew skills leave much to be desired. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- 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: Re follow up on DS speed test
Hi, G Thanks for doing all this. Even though there seems not to be much of an in camera advantage to using a card faster than about 80X. I think I'm going to get the 150X Transcend card anyway. The price/capacity ratio is too good to pass up, the faster downloading may be helpful (I ~think~ my system was a little faster than yours even with the slower card 9mbs, iirc), so it'll be interesting to see what it'll do with a card that's rated almost twice as fast, plus the newer cameras (Pentax or other brands) may be able to take better advantage of the faster cards, as might subsequent card readers. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Igor, Your question led me to doubt my memory of the last test I did with the Ultra II SD card so I ran the test a second time with the Sandisk Ultra II card, 60x nominal speed, for both RAW and JPEG *** and updated the page with these additional results and corresponding QuickTime movies. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/ There is no measured improvement on RAW capture performance. The improvement on JPEG *** captures going to the Transcend 150x card is a 3 frames in 60 seconds, about 3.4% total improvement. Not a lot ... I retract the substantial judgement. Amusingly, the price of Transcend 150x 2G SD cards is barely more than half the price of Sandisk Ultra II 2x SD cards. This justifies my prior feelings: that there is very little benefit to in-camera performance with a card faster than the Sandisk Ultra II for the *ist DS body. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Underside of a Leaf
Thanks, Godders ... Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Good stuff! That's a great shot. http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/greenunderleaf.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Excitement in Cottyland
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/14 Fri AM 05:47:54 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Excitement in Cottyland On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: I can understand how an RAF plane crashing is news, but the pub part? Isn't everything over there near a pub? I like how they interviewed a guy who'd been attending a training course at the pub. To me, that sounds like a very relaxed interpretation of either training or pub... probably for the purposes of explanation to the boss and/or wife :) Renting facilites is a major source of income to those premises that have the space, these days. Income from alcohol/food is a minor part. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
hm let's see, to mount m42 (50 year old) lenses on a Pentax DSLR you need an adapter To mount Canon FD lenses on a Canon DSLR you need an adapter Same kind of computability I'd say. Except that the newest FD lenses are not 50 years old. :-) Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Lucas Rijnders wrote: No: Canon Fd register is shorter than EOS, so with an adapter you either loose infinity focus, or you need an optical adapter: essentially a weak TC. That is different, and arguably inferior, to M42-to-K... The original statement was that it was not possible to mount a FD lens on an EOS body. based on one attempt at a camera club without the required adapter. Regardless of tradeoffs (optical adapter) it IS possible. Different and inferior is for another debate which I will not involve myself in. You can mount almost everything on EOS, due to the short register and lerge diameter, but not K-mount, unless you castrate the lens. Ask Cotty :o) He has been pretty successful, so it is possible. The fact that there are adapters commercially available for it (with or without taking a hacksaw to the lens) means it is possible. Useful or practical is another question. :-) -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Op Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:32:20 +0200 schreef Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jens Bladt wrote: At a camera club night a younger meber (using a analog Canon 90 -something) was looking at all the DSLR's - aiming to choose/buy one. He liked the Pentax, it felt good to the hands, he thought. I told him about the backwards comaptibility - how he could use 50 year old lenses, with certain limitations to functionlity. A member with a Canon 20D said Oh, Canon's can do that too. So, they decised to try it right away. The test came to a very quick stop, as it was not possible to even mount the old Canon lens on the 20D body ;-) hm let's see, to mount m42 (50 year old) lenses on a Pentax DSLR you need an adapter To mount Canon FD lenses on a Canon DSLR you need an adapter Same kind of computability I'd say. So they didn't have an adapter at the club? Doesn't make it any less compatible. The No: Canon Fd register is shorter than EOS, so with an adapter you either loose infinity focus, or you need an optical adapter: essentially a weak TC. That is different, and arguably inferior, to M42-to-K... Canon can take the screw mount lenses too and K-mount and etc... all you need are adapters. Just like Pentax. The nice thing You can mount almost everything on EOS, due to the short register and lerge diameter, but not K-mount, unless you castrate the lens. Ask Cotty :o) -- Regards, Lucas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Thanks to Godfrey and others
I think everyone should tell their _own_ story 8-) From: Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/14 Fri AM 08:33:32 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: Thanks to Godfrey and others When reading this thread I was sure you would chime in with my little mess-up with certain biting insects...:-) Jostein scratching his leg On 7/14/06, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I once transposed the Polish words for Italian and hairy. Which explained the confused look on my hostess's face when I asked her about the Italian tiles in her bathroom From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/13 Thu PM 09:31:00 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thanks to Godfrey and others I recently had a six-year-old make fun of my Croatian. Not only did he make fun of my pronunciation, but he called all of his friends over, did an impression of my pronunciation (which made the other six-year-olds howl with laughter) and begged me to speak again to entertain them all. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is in fact second. My Hebrew skills leave much to be desired. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- 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 - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
On 14/7/06, Lucas Rijnders, discombobulated, unleashed: You can mount almost everything on EOS, due to the short register and lerge diameter, but not K-mount, unless you castrate the lens. Ask Cotty :o) I prefer to think of it as a circumcision. -- 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: Backwards Compatibility
On 14/7/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: He has been pretty successful, so it is possible. The fact that there are adapters commercially available for it (with or without taking a hacksaw to the lens) means it is possible. Useful or practical is another question. :-) Not only possible but entirely usable. I use the A*85 and the K15 all the time. In practice, using aperture priority, I focus (with say the 85) and then quickly stop down accordingly, although I usually shoot portraits wide open with it, as that is what it was born to do. I have now consolidated my lens lineup to these: Pentax K15mm 3.5 Canon 24-70 2.8 L Canon 65mm MP-E macro Pentax A*85mm 1.4 Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS matched 2X converter -- 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: PESO - Underside of a Leaf
http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/greenunderleaf.html Very nice shot, you old fart. -- 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: A weird little story of Copyright
On 14/7/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: That's pretty arrogant behaviour from the painter. Hope you get the painting destroyed. Make sure that he agrees also to destroy any sketches he made prior to the final painting, and to confirm his action in writing. If it was me I'd vandalise the painting and accept a court case. -- 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: Excitement in Cottyland
On 14/7/06, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed: I like how they interviewed a guy who'd been attending a training course at the pub. To me, that sounds like a very relaxed interpretation of either training or pub... probably for the purposes of explanation to the boss and/or wife :) I did my first ever training course in a pub when I was 16 or so (ok I looked 18 ;-) The course consisted of one exercise which involved a radial motion using the forearm, raising a pint pot from bar to lips, and back. Repeat. My tutor gave me 100%. -- 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: Backwards Compatibility
If a lens is female - that would be close to illegal in Denmark ;- 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 Cotty Sendt: 14. juli 2006 11:39 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Backwards Compatibility On 14/7/06, Lucas Rijnders, discombobulated, unleashed: You can mount almost everything on EOS, due to the short register and lerge diameter, but not K-mount, unless you castrate the lens. Ask Cotty :o) I prefer to think of it as a circumcision. -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Backwards Compatibility
Isn't all you need a tiney Screw Mount adapter? Most Pentax users have one ... no problem at all. I guess the spring aperture from a Spotmatic lens will work, won't it. And the T90 isn't 50 years old - 20-25 years perhaps - like an SMC-M or SMC-A lens - which won't need the adapter. 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 Christian Sendt: 14. juli 2006 10:32 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Backwards Compatibility Jens Bladt wrote: At a camera club night a younger meber (using a analog Canon 90 -something) was looking at all the DSLR's - aiming to choose/buy one. He liked the Pentax, it felt good to the hands, he thought. I told him about the backwards comaptibility - how he could use 50 year old lenses, with certain limitations to functionlity. A member with a Canon 20D said Oh, Canon's can do that too. So, they decised to try it right away. The test came to a very quick stop, as it was not possible to even mount the old Canon lens on the 20D body ;-) hm let's see, to mount m42 (50 year old) lenses on a Pentax DSLR you need an adapter To mount Canon FD lenses on a Canon DSLR you need an adapter Same kind of computability I'd say. So they didn't have an adapter at the club? Doesn't make it any less compatible. The Canon can take the screw mount lenses too and K-mount and etc... all you need are adapters. Just like Pentax. The nice thing about Pentax is that the k-mount changed very little between manual and auto focus bodies (aperture rings and A contacts not withstanding; don't need to start that war again) whereas the Canon manual focus (FD) and AF (EF) mounts are entirely different. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- 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: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Excitement in Cottyland
On 13/7/06, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed: Isn't everything over there near a pub? Mercifully yes. -- 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: What is this lens?
I don't know...an aftermarket screwmount? It could be a total POS. IMO, you could better spend your money elsewhere. Tom Reese -- Original message -- From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nope, that's for sure. Looks well made and by the diameter and length I was thinking fast short tele. Thought I bid plenty high to get it and find out. Thought wrong. ;-) Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: What is this lens? Definitely not a Pentax lens ... Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson ? Now that I've lost this auction, does anyone know exactly what it was? I smelled a fast 85 or something like that. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=110005873742 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 -- 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: Backwards Compatibility
Op Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:39:21 +0200 schreef Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 14/7/06, Lucas Rijnders, discombobulated, unleashed: You can mount almost everything on EOS, due to the short register and lerge diameter, but not K-mount, unless you castrate the lens. Ask Cotty :o) I prefer to think of it as a circumcision. That'd be cutting of the built-in hood :o) -- Regards, Lucas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Op Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:18:21 +0200 schreef Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Lucas Rijnders wrote: No: Canon Fd register is shorter than EOS, so with an adapter you either loose infinity focus, or you need an optical adapter: essentially a weak TC. That is different, and arguably inferior, to M42-to-K... The original statement was that it was not possible to mount a FD lens on an EOS body. based on one attempt at a camera club without the required adapter. Regardless of tradeoffs (optical adapter) it IS possible. Different and inferior is for another debate which I will not involve myself in. If you allow for optical adapters, you can mount everything on everything, so the discussion becomes meaningless... You were supporting the 20D owners who said 'our 20D can do that too', while practically it can't. I know a fine art photographer who still has a dual Fd/EOS setup: Fd with his old quality lenses for serious work, EOS with AF zooms for 'snaps'. If there were a practical way to use his Fd lenses on EOS, he'd use it, I think... On the other hand, with a Pentax you spend $15,- and you're in business, and this is widely done... You can mount almost everything on EOS, due to the short register and lerge diameter, but not K-mount, unless you castrate the lens. Ask Cotty :o) He has been pretty successful, so it is possible. The fact that there are adapters commercially available for it (with or without taking a hacksaw to the lens) means it is possible. Useful or practical is another question. :-) Quite relevant, as the young member was considing purchasing, and probably actually using, a camera (brand)... -- Regards, Lucas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Lucas Rijnders wrote: If you allow for optical adapters, you can mount everything on everything, so the discussion becomes meaningless... ding ding ding! we have a winner! You were supporting the 20D owners who said 'our 20D can do that too', while practically it can't. yes it CAN! practically with an adapter it CAN. just as practical with Pentax or Canon with a screw mount adapter! I know a fine art photographer who still has a dual Fd/EOS setup: Fd with his old quality lenses for serious work, EOS with AF zooms for 'snaps'. If there were a practical way to use his Fd lenses on EOS, he'd use it, I think... On the other hand, with a Pentax you spend $15,- and you're in business, and this is widely done... I have both m42-EOS and FD-EOS adapters. They both work fine. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Excitement in Cottyland
The course consisted of one exercise which involved a radial motion using the forearm, raising a pint pot from bar to lips, and back. Repeat. My tutor gave me 100%. Har. Everyone knows you can't get more than 96%. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Lucas Rijnders wrote: Quite relevant, as the young member was considing purchasing, and probably actually using, a camera (brand)... So he would choose Pentax because it has backwards compatability for lenses he doesn't own? Why? If he chooses Canon (and I am not saying he should) at least with the proper adapter he can use his FD lenses and with another adapter he can still use screw mount lenses. There are limitations to both Pentax and Canon backwards compatability; albeit less with Pentax if you don't mind the green button thing (which I don't mind). -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Cotty wrote: I prefer to think of it as a circumcision. Cruel. As any rites of passage. :-) Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
Sounds like fun. Hard to imagine Dag doing it, though...:-) Jostein On 7/14/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14/7/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: That's pretty arrogant behaviour from the painter. Hope you get the painting destroyed. Make sure that he agrees also to destroy any sketches he made prior to the final painting, and to confirm his action in writing. If it was me I'd vandalise the painting and accept a court case. -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Calibrating Adobe Camera Raw
First, allow my disclaimer: I don't know if this is a worthwhile tool, if there's an easier or better way to calibrate ACR, or if it even needs doing at all. Still, based on conversations in another venue, there is interest in what this program does, although not specifically ~this~ program. Take a look if you're interested ... maybe the more technically oriented or experienced people can report back on the value of this calibration program (a script, actually). http://fors.net/chromoholics/download/ Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: What is this lens?
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Tom Reese wrote: [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson ? Now that I've lost this auction, does anyone know exactly what it was? I smelled a fast 85 or something like that. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=110005873742 I don't know...an aftermarket screwmount? It could be a total POS. The barrel construction and writings look a lot like my K-mount 100/2 Soligor. This is an 1.8 or a 1.5. At 3ft closest focal distance its probably an 85, though Soligor also made a 135/1.5 and a 135/1.8. http://medfmt.8k.com/third/table1.txt All speculative, you know :-) Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Christian wrote: You were supporting the 20D owners who said 'our 20D can do that too', while practically it can't. yes it CAN! practically with an adapter it CAN. just as practical with Pentax or Canon with a screw mount adapter! Yes, but not as practical as Pentax D can do it with K and M lenses and that's the end of the story. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
I don't use this, but i bought an Expodisk in the spring and so far i thing very highly of it. My D2H used to have what i thought were exposure fluctuations, or more lilely WB problems. Since using this disk, my shots all have the same exposure and nice feel to them. Very little if any adjustments now. Its a bit expensive, about $170.00 Can, but i think its worhwhile Dave Hi, anybody using a WhiBal? http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html If so, are they any use, or is it just more crap adding weight to my camera bag? Thanks, Bob -- 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 weird little story of Copyright
Hah! I can do wonders with an axe .-) Even more fun: Send three kids with paint into the gallery and go for a walk. Just imagine the two boys in the painting coming into the gallery and start painting on their own picture. DagT Den 14. jul. 2006 kl. 12.29 skrev Jostein Øksne: Sounds like fun. Hard to imagine Dag doing it, though...:-) Jostein On 7/14/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14/7/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: That's pretty arrogant behaviour from the painter. Hope you get the painting destroyed. Make sure that he agrees also to destroy any sketches he made prior to the final painting, and to confirm his action in writing. If it was me I'd vandalise the painting and accept a court case. -- 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 -- 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: Backwards Compatibility
On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Christian wrote: The original statement was that it was not possible to mount a FD lens on an EOS body. based on one attempt at a camera club without the required adapter. Regardless of tradeoffs (optical adapter) it IS possible. Different and inferior is for another debate which I will not involve myself in. As correct as your argument is, I can mount a Canon FD lens on my Volkswagen Golf. That does not make it anything useful to the spirit of the original statement. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, DagT wrote: Hah! I can do wonders with an axe .-) Even more fun: Send three kids with paint into the gallery and go for a walk. Just imagine the two boys in the painting coming into the gallery and start painting on their own picture. DagT Wrong Dag, this will sell on ebay for 5 gazilion bucks[1]. Your axe-work will likely not. Kostas [1] Esp if accompanied with a picture of the fact, taken with a K-mount Soligor 135/1.5 mounted on a Nocan 5D. :-P -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Op Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:23:36 +0200 schreef Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Lucas Rijnders wrote: Quite relevant, as the young member was considing purchasing, and probably actually using, a camera (brand)... So he would choose Pentax because it has backwards compatability for lenses he doesn't own? Why? Where did I say that? To me, the price difference between, for instance, an EF 50/1.4 and the A 50/1.4 would be a compelling reason. Your (and his) mileage may vary. If he chooses Canon (and I am not saying he should) at least with the proper adapter he can use his FD lenses and with another adapter he can still use screw mount lenses. There are limitations to both Pentax and Canon backwards compatability; albeit less with Pentax if you don't mind the green button thing (which I don't mind). -- Regards, Lucas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
William Robb wrote: From: Bob W anybody using a WhiBal? http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html If so, are they any use, or is it just more crap adding weight to my camera bag? They want enough for it. Go to your local framing shop and aske them for a window from a white mat they have cut. Better yet, get several different ones (the art supply shops near me all have a bewildering number of whites). A little experimentation, using each one as a white balance card, and you should be able to achieve a variety of white balances appropriate to various needs. -- 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: Bad taste
On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. It kind of reminds me of the difference between sending a television image from one place to another, as opposed to teleporting that same object. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or Star Trek. They're two different concepts entirely, and can't be confused (although Willie Wonka confused them). 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: Seriously Off Topic: War is starting in Israel
On 7/13/06, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vic, This list is a special place. The level of civility is high for an internet group as is the desire to be genuinely helpful. snip snip We see the participants as other human beings and friends. Stick around for a while, the feeling will grow on you. I agree with everything you said, Bob. We're closer to a family than many other groups of people; indeed, I recall one list member saying that as he has no family, we're as close as he'll get. g I have several stories of wonderful friends helping me out when I needed help. Of course, like all friends or families, sometimes tensions and emotions run high, things are said, we have little flame wars and arguments. Sometimes people come and go from the list for periods of time, sometimes people just need a break; Lord knows I've needed a break from my family from time to time over the years. Most of them end up coming back. Which is a good thing. I'm always amazed at this list, however. There's really no other place like it that I've experienced. And, sometimes we even talk about Pentax cameras! g 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: A weird little story of Copyright
Den 14. jul. 2006 kl. 11.36 skrev Cotty: On 14/7/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: That's pretty arrogant behaviour from the painter. Hope you get the painting destroyed. Make sure that he agrees also to destroy any sketches he made prior to the final painting, and to confirm his action in writing. If it was me I'd vandalise the painting and accept a court case. It would have been tempting if it was closer, but I don´t have the time to travel 500km just to vandalize a painting .-) DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
What's the need for cards and things when the white balance can be set in raw converters? Maybe they're useful when shooting JPEG or TIFF? Shel [Original Message] From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: 7/14/2006 4:51:35 AM Subject: Re: WhiBal? William Robb wrote: From: Bob W anybody using a WhiBal? http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html If so, are they any use, or is it just more crap adding weight to my camera bag? They want enough for it. Go to your local framing shop and aske them for a window from a white mat they have cut. Better yet, get several different ones (the art supply shops near me all have a bewildering number of whites). A little experimentation, using each one as a white balance card, and you should be able to achieve a variety of white balances appropriate to various needs. -- 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
Re: WhiBal?
On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: What's the need for cards and things when the white balance can be set in raw converters? Maybe they're useful when shooting JPEG or TIFF? I've been in places that do not conform to any of the normal white balance options -- it's useful to set a custom WB to keep from having to do that work in post. Or, like me, if you shoot jpeg. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
frank theriault wrote: On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. I like Michael Reichmann's contrast between photography and painting: They're exact opposites because the painter starts with a blank canvas and can put anything he or she can imagine on it, whereas the photographer starts with a scene or subject (potentially the whole world) and has to decide what to *leave out* of the scene he/she frames in the viewfinder. -- 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: Bad taste
Well, photographers sometimes paint on thier images - or adds stuff made by hand or machine. Painters certaily use photographs. Either as a starting point or the iamge was projected on tto the cancas by lenses and mirrors - then painted. Brushes and CCD's/film are both tools for human image making - and are quite often combined. The most popular Danish painting (Kroyer: Hip hip Hurra), which was recently elected the most popular painting in Denmark - was made with photographs as a starting point. Annother starting point was of cource the actual artisist party in Skagen. 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 frank theriault Sendt: 14. juli 2006 13:54 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Bad taste On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. It kind of reminds me of the difference between sending a television image from one place to another, as opposed to teleporting that same object. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or Star Trek. They're two different concepts entirely, and can't be confused (although Willie Wonka confused them). 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Bob W wrote: Hi, anybody using a WhiBal? http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html If so, are they any use, or is it just more crap adding weight to my camera bag? Thanks, Bob Obviously this company is a subsidiary of the P.T. Barnum School of Digital Photography and Heavy Equipment Operation. Probably affiliated with the Close Cover Before Striking School of Business. Bob P.S.: Here's what I do use: http://warmcards.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Bad taste
This doesn't make sence to me Mark. The painter often starts with the same thing - what he sees with his eyes - or what he imagines in his mind. So does the photographer. It's really the same: Humans making images with what ever tools he/she finds suitable to work with. What count's is - IMO - the result, the image - not which tools were used. That's not really important at all. 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 Mark Roberts Sendt: 14. juli 2006 14:08 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Bad taste frank theriault wrote: On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. I like Michael Reichmann's contrast between photography and painting: They're exact opposites because the painter starts with a blank canvas and can put anything he or she can imagine on it, whereas the photographer starts with a scene or subject (potentially the whole world) and has to decide what to *leave out* of the scene he/she frames in the viewfinder. -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
On 7/14/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As correct as your argument is, I can mount a Canon FD lens on my Volkswagen Golf. Err...Aaron it's called a 1Ds Mark II. It's big, but not that bad. ;-) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Christian wrote: You were supporting the 20D owners who said 'our 20D can do that too', while practically it can't. yes it CAN! practically with an adapter it CAN. just as practical with Pentax or Canon with a screw mount adapter! Yes, but not as practical as Pentax D can do it with K and M lenses and that's the end of the story. Kostas Yep, Pentax K mount can mount any K mount lens Canon EF mount can mount any EF mount lens. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
B and W Film Tests by Iris Davis
Is Tri-X no longer King of the Hill? Do digi shooters care? http://www.lookingglassphoto.com/funwfilm.html Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
On Jul 14, 2006, at 4:17 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: Dunno how this changes after the photographer's demise. Simple, he doesn't care anymore. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
Ironically, the 20D has absoluetly no issues with mounting M42 lenses via an adaptor, just like Pentax. Nikon F mount is also quite doable, along with Leica R, Contax/Yashica and OM mount. Of the major mounts only FD, MD and Minolta AF cannot be adapted with a plain adaptor (K mount can be adapted with a plain adaptor to EF-S, and if the aperture lever is trimmed, to all EF via a very new adaptor or Cotty's mount replacement procedure). I've personally used M42 and F mount lenses on EF when I had my EOS 3. -Adam Lucas Rijnders wrote: Op Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:18:21 +0200 schreef Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Lucas Rijnders wrote: No: Canon Fd register is shorter than EOS, so with an adapter you either loose infinity focus, or you need an optical adapter: essentially a weak TC. That is different, and arguably inferior, to M42-to-K... The original statement was that it was not possible to mount a FD lens on an EOS body. based on one attempt at a camera club without the required adapter. Regardless of tradeoffs (optical adapter) it IS possible. Different and inferior is for another debate which I will not involve myself in. If you allow for optical adapters, you can mount everything on everything, so the discussion becomes meaningless... You were supporting the 20D owners who said 'our 20D can do that too', while practically it can't. I know a fine art photographer who still has a dual Fd/EOS setup: Fd with his old quality lenses for serious work, EOS with AF zooms for 'snaps'. If there were a practical way to use his Fd lenses on EOS, he'd use it, I think... On the other hand, with a Pentax you spend $15,- and you're in business, and this is widely done... You can mount almost everything on EOS, due to the short register and lerge diameter, but not K-mount, unless you castrate the lens. Ask Cotty :o) He has been pretty successful, so it is possible. The fact that there are adapters commercially available for it (with or without taking a hacksaw to the lens) means it is possible. Useful or practical is another question. :-) Quite relevant, as the young member was considing purchasing, and probably actually using, a camera (brand)... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: What is this lens?
He misread the markings. It's YS-PE, not VS-PE . The YS lens mount system was from Sigma, so this is most likely a Sigma lens. YS adapters are like T-mounts, interchangeable to make the lens work on different cameras, but with auto diaphragm. Early to mid-70s vintage. Lens looks like a fast 85. Bob On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Now that I've lost this auction, does anyone know exactly what it was? I smelled a fast 85 or something like that. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=110005873742 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: What's the need for cards and things when the white balance can be set in raw converters? Maybe they're useful when shooting JPEG or TIFF? I've been in places that do not conform to any of the normal white balance options -- it's useful to set a custom WB to keep from having to do that work in post. Or, like me, if you shoot jpeg. White balance cards can be useful even when you're shooting in RAW: You take a test shot with the white balance card in the scene, under the lighting you need to balance for. Then you take your money shots without the white balance card present (but obviously under the same lighting conditions). When you come to do your RAW conversions, you open up the shot that has the WB card in the scene and use that to get your conversion settings. You use those settings to convert all the real shots (the ones that don't have the WB card in them). If you've done everything correctly (and the lighting conditions haven't changed between your first shot and your last), all your shots will be properly balanced. -- 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: PUG reminder and apology
Thanks for the reminder! Got the pic chosen (architecture theme), just need to locate it and see if I prepared it properly. Or did I already submit it a few months ago?? Too much going on, too little brainpower... Rick --- Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys and gals, The next PUG deadline approacheth. Time to get the submissions ready, folks. The apology is for not having the submission form currently up and running. The ISP has been notified, and I await response. News of the condition will be coming. Jostein -- 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: Bad taste
On 7/14/06, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This doesn't make sence to me Mark. The painter often starts with the same thing - what he sees with his eyes - or what he imagines in his mind. So does the photographer. It's really the same: Humans making images with what ever tools he/she finds suitable to work with. What count's is - IMO - the result, the image - not which tools were used. That's not really important at all. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, as we seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. 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: Backwards Compatibility
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: Backwards Compatibility At a camera club night a younger meber (using a analog Canon 90 -something) was looking at all the DSLR's - aiming to choose/buy one. He liked the Pentax, it felt good to the hands, he thought. I told him about the backwards comaptibility - how he could use 50 year old lenses, with certain limitations to functionlity. A member with a Canon 20D said Oh, Canon's can do that too. So, they decised to try it right away. The test came to a very quick stop, as it was not possible to even mount the old Canon lens on the 20D body ;-) Aparently, it is possible to mount FD lenses to an EOS body with an adaptor. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
Actually the difference between Painting and Photography is that Painters can have long detailed discussions without once mentioning paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. frank theriault wrote: On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. It kind of reminds me of the difference between sending a television image from one place to another, as opposed to teleporting that same object. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or Star Trek. They're two different concepts entirely, and can't be confused (although Willie Wonka confused them). cheers, frank -- 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: Backwards Compatibility
On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:05 AM, William Robb wrote: Aparently, it is possible to mount FD lenses to an EOS body with an adaptor. Yes it is. Canon themselves even made such an adapter in the early days of EOS. But the adapter has an optical element in it to correct for the fact that you can't get the FD lens close enough to the film plane. That optical element increases focal length ( I think I recall the factor as something like 1.3X). The cheap adapters use a cheaply made optical element and significantly degrade image quality. In practice, not a good solution to the problem. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 70mm macro lens?
The missing focal length in the series 17.5, 25, 35, 50, 70*, 100, 140, 200, 280, 400, etc. *Except for the 70 there has always been something within a few percent of that square-root-of-two series. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- mike wilson wrote: Unusual length for 35mm. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
On 7/14/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the difference between Painting and Photography is that Painters can have long detailed discussions without once mentioning paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. That's such crap. I've not once heard a photographer talk about paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. 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: 70mm macro lens?
I can imagine! However, the lens makes sense for cropped framed digital as it gives the same effect as a 100mm macro on 35mm. That was probably the best selling and most profitable lens in the line up. No wonder someone has come out with a 70mm macro for the DSLR's. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Boris Liberman wrote: I think it is a decent lens, but I'd rather use my 77 Ltd. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: B and W Film Tests by Iris Davis
Interesting. Before I went digital I had switched to the T-Max films for the most part after about thirty years of shooting mainly Tri-X. I was very happy with the T-Max 100 in either T-Max developer or D-76, and liked the 400 when it was rated at 200 and souped in something gentle like D-76 1:1. I still have some T-Max (and some outdated but well stored Plus-X) in the freezer. One of these days... Paul -- Original message -- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is Tri-X no longer King of the Hill? Do digi shooters care? http://www.lookingglassphoto.com/funwfilm.html 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: Backwards Compatibility
Bob Shell wrote: On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:05 AM, William Robb wrote: Aparently, it is possible to mount FD lenses to an EOS body with an adaptor. Yes it is. Canon themselves even made such an adapter in the early days of EOS. But the adapter has an optical element in it to correct for the fact that you can't get the FD lens close enough to the film plane. That optical element increases focal length ( I think I recall the factor as something like 1.3X). The cheap adapters use a cheaply made optical element and significantly degrade image quality. In practice, not a good solution to the problem. Bob Canon actually made two different adaptors. One was the 1.28x TC Adaptor, the other was the FD Macro converter, which lacked the optical element, but was solely intended for Macro use. The latter is far more common as Canon made them for a few years. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
Op Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:43:18 +0200 schreef frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 7/14/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the difference between Painting and Photography is that Painters can have long detailed discussions without once mentioning paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. That's such crap. I've not once heard a photographer talk about paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. Those are photoshop terms, Frank. Them digital photographers never shut up about them :o) -- Regards, Lucas, FG -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
That gets into some strange territory. Copyright in most countries protects your image (the photo) from commercial use by others. The painting is clearly a derivative work. In some countries derivative works are not allow without permission, in others they are. Even the courts do not seem to understand the copyright laws. It is clear that copyright (USA) does not protect ideas, only the results of the ideas, but in some cases the courts have ruled as if the idea is protected. I have no idea what the specific laws say in your country. If they are your kids, you might add into your side of the issue that he does not have a model release for them either. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- DagT wrote: Just to keep your minds off politics .-) During my holiday I was reading and listening to music but had the TV on (and sound off), just in case there was a weather forecast. Suddenly something known caught my attention on the TV. In a program about some opera seminar in western Norway a singer was standing in front of a painting, and the painting was identical to one of my photographs. After some detective work, and help from the Norwegian community at www.foto.no, I found the painter, and he admitted that he had downloaded my picture and used it, but he refused to take the picture down and claimed that he was a not a very good painter and therefore his painting was not a copy of my picture. He said that he would sell it if someone wanted it and that I could by it if I wanted to. Now the story has been twice in the local radio station and will be in the local newspaper tomorrow. But since I live in a different part of the country I have only seen the references on Internet. One of the leading professors in Copyright issues in Norway has stated that the painting is illegal, and things seem to be going my way, but it has been a busy week... here´s a link with where you can see the pictures: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.708983 DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Bad taste
Perhaps so, perhaps not. I don't know enough painters to know ;-) 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 P. J. Alling Sendt: 14. juli 2006 15:40 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Bad taste Actually the difference between Painting and Photography is that Painters can have long detailed discussions without once mentioning paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. frank theriault wrote: On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. It kind of reminds me of the difference between sending a television image from one place to another, as opposed to teleporting that same object. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or Star Trek. They're two different concepts entirely, and can't be confused (although Willie Wonka confused them). cheers, frank -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 70mm macro lens?
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, graywolf wrote: The missing focal length in the series 17.5, 25, 35, 50, 70*, 100, 140, 200, 280, 400, etc. *Except for the 70 there has always been something within a few percent of that square-root-of-two series. Yes, but there has usually been an 85. 70 is too short or too long for me (on 35mm). 85 is so borderline I have let go of my 85/2 in favour of the 100/2 (or the 90/2.8 if space is tight). YMMV. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Another lens test and a quiz
I took the lawn mower to the city today to be repaired. It's still under guarantee -- and Aino and I walked about a bit and visited an impressive Manor House nearby; and then our favourite place Viherlandia (the big nursery I've mentioned before). I took the opportunity of testing the Tokina SD 28~70 in its Macro position and also took some ordinary pictures around the Manor. I think the lens is not bad at all. The results are here: http://picasaweb.google.com/don.donwilliams/Converted/ added to the existing gallery and they start with a picture of the Manor about half way down. There is something very 'different' about four of the pictures. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
On 7/14/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/14/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the difference between Painting and Photography is that Painters can have long detailed discussions without once mentioning paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. That's such crap. I've not once heard a photographer talk about paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. For quite a few years I used soft paint brushes to clean the dust off my my lenses/equipment after a day of shooting before I packed it away. Now a couple of quick puffs of breath and a swipe with my shirt is about the extent of my cleaning routine. Damn digital makes you (well me anyway) lazy. Dave VBG -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
Yes, they are the only ones who should do that! -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: On 7/13/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is clearly a case where one artist should respect the intellectual property rights of another. How would he like it if someone took a picture of his painting and started marketing reproductions of it? I know that museums and art galleries take a rather dim view of that sort of thing... cheers, frank -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
Thank you Jostein, I will pass the info on. It was an interesting topic of conversation on that night (or maybe we're a boring group :), so I may do more research in the future, in my spare time... --s On 7/14/06, Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Skye, You have to check out the local copyright laws where you live to be sure, but I would say that owner X is not allowed to make further copies unless that is specifically agreed upon. That's basically what copyright is all about. The buyer only buys the right to own the item, not to make replicas. If you look at the way most photo stock agencies operate, they sell photos along the same principles. Buyer pays for the right to use the image in a restricted way. The wider it is published, the more he has to pay. And the photographer's name should always be published with the photo. Dunno how this changes after the photographer's demise. Jostein On 7/13/06, skye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That reminds me. I don't know the legal answer (logically or morally I know my own answer, which is no for life, yes for death) so I have to ask the question: Last night at a local photo club meeting, one of the new members brought up a question similar to the situation below, with one difference. If an artist sells his work to Owner X, can Owner X make and sell a derivative copy of the work, or give someone else permission to do so? (And does this rule change if the artist dies? I think with books it's a 50-year thing after the author dies?) -- skye -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: B and W Film Tests by Iris Davis
Yep, quite interesting. I've never had good results with any TMax emulsion other than TMZ, no matter what developer used. Tmax Dev produced the best results, but Acros proved far superior than TMax 100, and I still get better (although grainier) results from Tri-X. -Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. Before I went digital I had switched to the T-Max films for the most part after about thirty years of shooting mainly Tri-X. I was very happy with the T-Max 100 in either T-Max developer or D-76, and liked the 400 when it was rated at 200 and souped in something gentle like D-76 1:1. I still have some T-Max (and some outdated but well stored Plus-X) in the freezer. One of these days... Paul -- Original message -- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is Tri-X no longer King of the Hill? Do digi shooters care? http://www.lookingglassphoto.com/funwfilm.html 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: Bad taste
In a message dated 7/14/2006 6:04:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like Michael Reichmann's contrast between photography and painting: They're exact opposites because the painter starts with a blank canvas and can put anything he or she can imagine on it, whereas the photographer starts with a scene or subject (potentially the whole world) and has to decide what to *leave out* of the scene he/she frames in the viewfinder. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia == This is true. Having done both, I feel painting, personally, is a lot more creative. I choose what to put it -- the concept springs from my head. It may also not be reality-based at all. So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. However, this is also true. Photography has been used as the basis for painting quite a few times by quite a few people. And it possible to make a photograph more like a painting. Also, although this list focuses practically exclusively on fairly unmanipulated photographs, not everywhere does. Also painting and photography can be mixed. And photographers can photograph concepts that spring from their heads -- photography can be staged. There is a great deal of photography out there where what is put into the photograph IS chosen by the photographer. Usually shot in a studio, edited, mixed with other elements, etc. I personally like a great deal of that kind of photography and plan to try some someday. I also plan to mix photography and painting. I think the line between the two is certainly less clear than it once was now that we have digital and things like Photoshop. It certainly is now possible to be almost as creative with photography as it is with painting. Things can be removed (cloned out) from photographs, layers can be added, elements/things can be added, styles can be added. One, yes, starts with a photograph and not a totally blank canvas, but the process can be the same. This may make people uncomfortable, but it's simply the way things are going. Personally, I think it's cool. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
But his heirs and licensees do. In fact they care more than the original copyright holder because they are only interested in the money. I did kind of like that Heinlein story where copyrights went to the Galactic Government at the authors death. There were no other taxes whatsoever since the profits from all those copyrights were enough to run the government in style. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Bob Shell wrote: On Jul 14, 2006, at 4:17 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: Dunno how this changes after the photographer's demise. Simple, he doesn't care anymore. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: B and W Film Tests by Iris Davis
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. Before I went digital I had switched to the T-Max films for the most part after about thirty years of shooting mainly Tri-X. I was very happy with the T-Max 100 in either T-Max developer or D-76, and liked the 400 when it was rated at 200 and souped in something gentle like D-76 1:1. I still have some T-Max (and some outdated but well stored Plus-X) in the freezer. One of these days... You may have written about this in the past but I can't remember: what did you use to do for higher ISO BW? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Backwards Compatibility
On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Canon actually made two different adaptors. One was the 1.28x TC Adaptor, the other was the FD Macro converter, which lacked the optical element, but was solely intended for Macro use. The latter is far more common as Canon made them for a few years. Correct, I was only talking about adapters that allow infinity focus. If you don't care about infinity focus you can mount almost any lens on any SLR. For that purpose, you can make your own from a rear lens cap and body cap. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
Just because the original is destroyed does not make the copy an original. I always have a problem with these kind of ideas, because it is clear to me that a copy of me is not me. One book I read about interstellar teleportation made that clear because the original after being copied just went about his life. The copies did not like that because they were in dangerous situations while the original bragged about all the things his copies were doing without such danger affecting him personally. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. It kind of reminds me of the difference between sending a television image from one place to another, as opposed to teleporting that same object. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or Star Trek. They're two different concepts entirely, and can't be confused (although Willie Wonka confused them). cheers, frank -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:00 AM, graywolf wrote: That gets into some strange territory. Copyright in most countries protects your image (the photo) from commercial use by others. The painting is clearly a derivative work. In some countries derivative works are not allow without permission, in others they are. Even the courts do not seem to understand the copyright laws. It is clear that copyright (USA) does not protect ideas, only the results of the ideas, but in some cases the courts have ruled as if the idea is protected. I have no idea what the specific laws say in your country. One problem with truly international lists like this is that blanket statements can't be made because copyright law is interpreted differently in different countries. In the USA the law would be on the photographer's side in a case like this, since there are a number of precedent cases here. If they are your kids, you might add into your side of the issue that he does not have a model release for them either. Again, different in different countries. Also, the original photo (and maybe the painting) would probably be illegal in parts of the USA under child pornography statutes that effectively ban all nude images of children. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
Don't know many painters, do you? No matter what trade you are in you discuss your tools and techniques with your peers. Of course someone who buys a hammer does not think that makes him a carpenter. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- P. J. Alling wrote: Actually the difference between Painting and Photography is that Painters can have long detailed discussions without once mentioning paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. frank theriault wrote: On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. Regards Jens Bladt === Definitely. Agreed. Big time. Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes analogous. It kind of reminds me of the difference between sending a television image from one place to another, as opposed to teleporting that same object. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or Star Trek. They're two different concepts entirely, and can't be confused (although Willie Wonka confused them). cheers, frank -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - The Bed
What Paul said. Marnie = In a message dated 7/13/2006 10:44:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nice shot. An interesting look at a side of life seldom seen. In many ways, this accomplishes the portrait mission of your earlier post. Paul -- Original message -- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's nice - and sometimes surprising - to find that your serious friends have a lot of lightheartedness about them ;-)) http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/thebed.html istDS and K24/2.8 @ f8.0 Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
Bob, How are the cards used to set white balance? Various cards held in front of the lens, at a given distance, while the balance is adjusted 'til the desired degree of warmth is perceived to have been met? Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Bob W wrote: Hi, anybody using a WhiBal? http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html If so, are they any use, or is it just more crap adding weight to my camera bag? Thanks, Bob Obviously this company is a subsidiary of the P.T. Barnum School of Digital Photography and Heavy Equipment Operation. Probably affiliated with the Close Cover Before Striking School of Business. Bob P.S.: Here's what I do use: http://warmcards.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ 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: Bad taste
On 7/14/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course someone who buys a hammer does not think that makes him a carpenter. A nail gun does though. Dave ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Bad taste
That is because most of the folks so commenting are snapshooters they make images of what is found in front of their cameras (found objects). Photographers use a camera to make images of their ideas. They can and do stage and pose them if that is what is needed to present the idea. Many of the snapshooter persuasion think there is something wrong with that. Pure records of existing scenes is all that they accept. In news, legal, and documentary photography that should be the case, but in other areas there is no reason to stick to that limitation. BTW, I am mostly a snapshooter myself, but I do know that is not all there is to photography. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having done both, I feel painting, personally, is a lot more creative. I choose what to put it -- the concept springs from my head. It may also not be reality-based at all. So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. However, this is also true. Photography has been used as the basis for painting quite a few times by quite a few people. And it possible to make a photograph more like a painting. Also, although this list focuses practically exclusively on fairly unmanipulated photographs, not everywhere does. Also painting and photography can be mixed. And photographers can photograph concepts that spring from their heads -- photography can be staged. There is a great deal of photography out there where what is put into the photograph IS chosen by the photographer. Usually shot in a studio, edited, mixed with other elements, etc. I personally like a great deal of that kind of photography and plan to try some someday. I also plan to mix photography and painting. I think the line between the two is certainly less clear than it once was now that we have digital and things like Photoshop. It certainly is now possible to be almost as creative with photography as it is with painting. Things can be removed (cloned out) from photographs, layers can be added, elements/things can be added, styles can be added. One, yes, starts with a photograph and not a totally blank canvas, but the process can be the same. This may make people uncomfortable, but it's simply the way things are going. Personally, I think it's cool. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: B and W Film Tests by Iris Davis
I used Delta 3200 for the most part, generally in 6x7 format. I rated it at 1600 but developed it for 3200. I found the negs were too thin when processed according to Ilford's recommendation for 1600. I used both T-Max developer and D-76. The results were vewry similar. I found T-Max 3200 to be quite a bit grainier or at least harsher. Paul -- Original message -- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. Before I went digital I had switched to the T-Max films for the most part after about thirty years of shooting mainly Tri-X. I was very happy with the T-Max 100 in either T-Max developer or D-76, and liked the 400 when it was rated at 200 and souped in something gentle like D-76 1:1. I still have some T-Max (and some outdated but well stored Plus-X) in the freezer. One of these days... You may have written about this in the past but I can't remember: what did you use to do for higher ISO BW? Kostas -- 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
lens kit ...
On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:44 AM, Cotty wrote: ...I have now consolidated my lens lineup to these: Pentax K15mm 3.5 Canon 24-70 2.8 L Canon 65mm MP-E macro Pentax A*85mm 1.4 Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS matched 2X converter About the same number of lenses as I use, similar field of view range. The difference in the mix of zoom and prime lenses is interesting, talks to different ways of working... DA14 f2.8 FA20-35 f4 - FA35 f2 FA50 f1.4 - A50 f2.8 Macro FA77 f1.8 FA135 f2.8 2x-S converter Can't wait for the 10Mpixel body gets here... I'll have IS with all of them! ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
Jack, I'm not Bob ... You simply use one of the three graded cards to set a custom white balance, from neutral white to warm. Bob, this is an attractive looking set for $65. I see it as particularly helpful for video work where you can't easily color balance after the fact with out very time consuming processing, or for when you need to make a LOT of exposures in RAW mode stills and want to minimize correction variations, and JPEG captures (similar to video). For most work, however, I just leave AWB set and capture in RAW, set my white balance at RAW conversion time. Godfrey On Jul 14, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Jack Davis wrote: How are the cards used to set white balance? Various cards held in front of the lens, at a given distance, while the balance is adjusted 'til the desired degree of warmth is perceived to have been met? P.S.: Here's what I do use: http://warmcards.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Bad taste
Well spoken - or rather - written, Graywolf! Regards Jens 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 graywolf Sendt: 14. juli 2006 16:56 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Bad taste That is because most of the folks so commenting are snapshooters they make images of what is found in front of their cameras (found objects). Photographers use a camera to make images of their ideas. They can and do stage and pose them if that is what is needed to present the idea. Many of the snapshooter persuasion think there is something wrong with that. Pure records of existing scenes is all that they accept. In news, legal, and documentary photography that should be the case, but in other areas there is no reason to stick to that limitation. BTW, I am mostly a snapshooter myself, but I do know that is not all there is to photography. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having done both, I feel painting, personally, is a lot more creative. I choose what to put it -- the concept springs from my head. It may also not be reality-based at all. So the limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. However, this is also true. Photography has been used as the basis for painting quite a few times by quite a few people. And it possible to make a photograph more like a painting. Also, although this list focuses practically exclusively on fairly unmanipulated photographs, not everywhere does. Also painting and photography can be mixed. And photographers can photograph concepts that spring from their heads -- photography can be staged. There is a great deal of photography out there where what is put into the photograph IS chosen by the photographer. Usually shot in a studio, edited, mixed with other elements, etc. I personally like a great deal of that kind of photography and plan to try some someday. I also plan to mix photography and painting. I think the line between the two is certainly less clear than it once was now that we have digital and things like Photoshop. It certainly is now possible to be almost as creative with photography as it is with painting. Things can be removed (cloned out) from photographs, layers can be added, elements/things can be added, styles can be added. One, yes, starts with a photograph and not a totally blank canvas, but the process can be the same. This may make people uncomfortable, but it's simply the way things are going. Personally, I think it's cool. -- 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: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT Rome/London
I'm going to Rome and London (from Seattle) in early October. Also heading to Tuscany but that's a rather amorphous area. Does anyone there want anything from here (that will fit in a suitcase)? Any recommendations on things I absolutely should not miss photographing in the two cities? Primarily a nature photographer I always say that I would like to try new things, however, still not interested in photographing road kill, graffiti or the misery of the human condition. I'm game for anything else. Thanks for any advice, --s -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WhiBal?
Thanks, Godfrey. Now, how do you phically use the cards to determine the desired WB? Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack, I'm not Bob ... You simply use one of the three graded cards to set a custom white balance, from neutral white to warm. Bob, this is an attractive looking set for $65. I see it as particularly helpful for video work where you can't easily color balance after the fact with out very time consuming processing, or for when you need to make a LOT of exposures in RAW mode stills and want to minimize correction variations, and JPEG captures (similar to video). For most work, however, I just leave AWB set and capture in RAW, set my white balance at RAW conversion time. Godfrey On Jul 14, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Jack Davis wrote: How are the cards used to set white balance? Various cards held in front of the lens, at a given distance, while the balance is adjusted 'til the desired degree of warmth is perceived to have been met? P.S.: Here's what I do use: http://warmcards.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ 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: Backwards Compatibility
He's a IT student. He cant' spend a samll fortune on modern Canon-L lenses etc. But he can pick up - or at least find - excellent lenses for very litle money - less than 100 USD each, that will mount and work well on a Pentax DSLR. There's a huge amount of excellent K-mount lenses around at the used market .. But I guess you all know that ;-). I usually tell people, that Pentax is great, but slow. If you need a lot of speed (AF, FPS) get a Canon (or a Nikon). If you need good glass (image quality) at low cost and samll size, get a Pentax. The quality og the lenses was what got me started using Petnax. While using a Yashica TL-X (M42) I borrowed a 35mm Super Takumar from a friend on a trip to Paris. It did fit my Yashica. Great lens. I actually won a competion with that lens. Very good. A bit later I got an MX (1981). I've been using Pentax as my favorite 35mm brand since 1981. If I had to start all over - or won the LOTTO - I'd get a Canon, Mark somthing - for speed. But until I do, I'll stick with the 20-25 K-mount lenses, that are already sitting in my cupboard/camera bag :-) And I enjoy NOT using what everyone else seem to use ;-) 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 Christian Sendt: 14. juli 2006 12:24 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Backwards Compatibility Lucas Rijnders wrote: Quite relevant, as the young member was considing purchasing, and probably actually using, a camera (brand)... So he would choose Pentax because it has backwards compatability for lenses he doesn't own? Why? If he chooses Canon (and I am not saying he should) at least with the proper adapter he can use his FD lenses and with another adapter he can still use screw mount lenses. There are limitations to both Pentax and Canon backwards compatability; albeit less with Pentax if you don't mind the green button thing (which I don't mind). -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- 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: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.0/388 - Release Date: 07/13/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A weird little story of Copyright
I grok it. Tom C. From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: A weird little story of Copyright Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:19:49 -0400 But his heirs and licensees do. In fact they care more than the original copyright holder because they are only interested in the money. I did kind of like that Heinlein story where copyrights went to the Galactic Government at the authors death. There were no other taxes whatsoever since the profits from all those copyrights were enough to run the government in style. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Bob Shell wrote: On Jul 14, 2006, at 4:17 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: Dunno how this changes after the photographer's demise. Simple, he doesn't care anymore. Bob -- 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: Bad taste
In a message dated 7/14/2006 7:46:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: P. J. Alling wrote: Actually the difference between Painting and Photography is that Painters can have long detailed discussions without once mentioning paintbrushes, canvas or brush strokes. == Actually true. While painters can discuss techniques, and sometimes do, that is not usually their main focus. So they can hold long conversations without mentioning supplies or techniques. But it also it depends on the medium, watercolorists are more like to discuss techniques more often than oil painters. Although, on the other hand, painters, on the whole, are often not the best at verbalizing either. So conversations may not actually be that long. Generalizing is sort of stupid anyway. Because so many will not fall within its parameters. About the only consistent thing I have found that one can say about painters is they do not like staying between the lines. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
