OT: The Croc Hunter is no more

[Digital Image Studio]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1732439.htm

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Dumb *istDS/DS2 question

[Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)]

Thibouille a écrit :
> Where can I find a TIFF parser ?
>   
A google to exiftool might do the job. This nice tool also allows to 
change EXIF params (useful for example for copyright notes and extended 
crop).


Patrice

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

Anyone looking for...

[mike]

a divorce?

http://cgi.ebay.ca/SMC-Pentax-A-600mm-F5-6-ED-IF-Ultra-Telephoto-Lens_W0QQitemZ300023293765QQihZ020QQcategoryZ15240QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem




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

Re: Photography (for a change)

[Russell Kerstetter]

To me, the bottom third is a little distracting, because it is very
bright which draws my eye.

russell

On 9/3/06, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a question about composition. I came across the following photo
> (not mine):
>
> http://www.zyeuter.com/bon_baiser_de_valensole/photo107872.html
>
> There is much about it that I like, but I think that the bottom third is
> a mistake. It seems to me that the photographer should have cut off the
> bottom third, then extended the composition somewhat to the right (if
> possible--maybe there's a cement plant there), placing the building at
> the upper-left "golden rectangle" point.
>
> What do others think? Is there justification for keeping the lower third?
>
> 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

Re: Uk review of macro lenses

[Adam Maas]

The decision to upper-case Good bokeh was merely inattention on my part.

I agree that it's very difficult to judge bokeh as it heavil depends on 
the scene, but certain lenses are quite predisposed to producing good 
results in most cases (like th 85L) while others (like most 50's) are 
quite variable.

-Adam


Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Interesting that you choose to upper case "Good Bokeh." I would agree  
> to its importance, but I find it hard to judge. Thee are so many  
> variables: the shape and intensity of the background, the distance  
> between subject and background, even the condition and cleanliness of  
> the front element. It all makes valid comparisons extremely difficult.
> Paul
> On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> 
> 
>>Note that lens abberations are often an indicator of Good Bokeh, for
>>which the 85mm f1.2L is well known. Both the 77mm Limited and FA* 85mm
>>f1.4 are much better generalist lenses than the Canon 85L, but the  
>>Canon
>>is their equal for portrait work. Canon's generalist 85 is the 1.8,
>>which is much better on distortion than the L, as well as being  
>>lighter,
>>much cheaper and faster focusing.
>>
>>-Adam
>>
>>
>>Peter Fairweather wrote:
>>
>>>I wouldn't dream of suggesting that editors are affected by the
>>>possibility of upsetting major advertisers. However I haven't seen
>>>another magazine as critical of the EFs 60mm Canon.
>>>
>>>Lots of people here like the Tamron. There are even a few of us ( not
>>>called Godfrey!)have owned decent Sigma lenses so neither of those
>>>results surprise me.
>>>
>>>The French magazine Chasseur D'Image shows photographs of a
>>>rectilinear grid when they test lenses. I've always found this useful
>>>as a way of seeing distortion. The super new F1.2 85mm Canon L was a
>>>lot less impressive than the Pentax 77mm or the FA* 85mm F1.4.  
>>>both of
>>>which you could have for the same price as one of the Canon's.  
>>>However
>>>how many of us regularly take pictures of graph paper!!
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>

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

Re: Uk review of macro lenses

[Paul Stenquist]

Interesting that you choose to upper case "Good Bokeh." I would agree  
to its importance, but I find it hard to judge. Thee are so many  
variables: the shape and intensity of the background, the distance  
between subject and background, even the condition and cleanliness of  
the front element. It all makes valid comparisons extremely difficult.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote:

> Note that lens abberations are often an indicator of Good Bokeh, for
> which the 85mm f1.2L is well known. Both the 77mm Limited and FA* 85mm
> f1.4 are much better generalist lenses than the Canon 85L, but the  
> Canon
> is their equal for portrait work. Canon's generalist 85 is the 1.8,
> which is much better on distortion than the L, as well as being  
> lighter,
> much cheaper and faster focusing.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> Peter Fairweather wrote:
>> I wouldn't dream of suggesting that editors are affected by the
>> possibility of upsetting major advertisers. However I haven't seen
>> another magazine as critical of the EFs 60mm Canon.
>>
>> Lots of people here like the Tamron. There are even a few of us ( not
>> called Godfrey!)have owned decent Sigma lenses so neither of those
>> results surprise me.
>>
>> The French magazine Chasseur D'Image shows photographs of a
>> rectilinear grid when they test lenses. I've always found this useful
>> as a way of seeing distortion. The super new F1.2 85mm Canon L was a
>> lot less impressive than the Pentax 77mm or the FA* 85mm F1.4.  
>> both of
>> which you could have for the same price as one of the Canon's.  
>> However
>> how many of us regularly take pictures of graph paper!!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
 On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:




> I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of
> advertising
> space the conclusions will be biased in their favor.  At least  
> that's
> what I've seemed to notice.
>
> Jens Bladt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or
>> genrally paid
>> for, by the avertisers?
>> 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
>> Peter Fairweather
>> Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28
>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses
>>
>>
>> I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com  
>> where
>> there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that  
>> phrase
>> get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the  
>> latest
>> VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which
 ranked far above
 the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In
 second place was the
 Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax.
 (86/100)

 One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of
 poor advertising revenue!!

 Peter




>>>
>>> 
>>> I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very,
>>> very
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> nice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Marnie aka Doe
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:
>> 09/01/2006
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:
>> 09/01/2006
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>
> --Albert Einstein
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>




>>>
>>> --
>>> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>>>
>>>   --Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pd

Re: Possibly dumb Adobe Camera Raw question

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I tried that, several times.  Each time, the
> next image opens with whatever wonky settings ACR
> pleases.  The "new Camera Raw Defaults" don't seem to
> "stick".   I just can't seem to get it to open with
> =my= settings.
>
> Any other ideas?

What's wonky about them? Any examples, could you provide a screen
print of the adjustment sliders perhaps?

Did you use "Set Camera Default" or "Reset Camera Default"?

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Uk review of macro lenses

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that lens abberations are often an indicator of Good Bokeh, for
> which the 85mm f1.2L is well known. Both the 77mm Limited and FA* 85mm
> f1.4 are much better generalist lenses than the Canon 85L, but the Canon
> is their equal for portrait work. Canon's generalist 85 is the 1.8,
> which is much better on distortion than the L, as well as being lighter,
> much cheaper and faster focusing.

Ahh, so that's why I love my low contrast spherical aberration
challenged A50/1.2 :-)

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Uk review of macro lenses

[Adam Maas]

Note that lens abberations are often an indicator of Good Bokeh, for 
which the 85mm f1.2L is well known. Both the 77mm Limited and FA* 85mm 
f1.4 are much better generalist lenses than the Canon 85L, but the Canon 
is their equal for portrait work. Canon's generalist 85 is the 1.8, 
which is much better on distortion than the L, as well as being lighter, 
much cheaper and faster focusing.

-Adam


Peter Fairweather wrote:
> I wouldn't dream of suggesting that editors are affected by the
> possibility of upsetting major advertisers. However I haven't seen
> another magazine as critical of the EFs 60mm Canon.
> 
> Lots of people here like the Tamron. There are even a few of us ( not
> called Godfrey!)have owned decent Sigma lenses so neither of those
> results surprise me.
> 
> The French magazine Chasseur D'Image shows photographs of a
> rectilinear grid when they test lenses. I've always found this useful
> as a way of seeing distortion. The super new F1.2 85mm Canon L was a
> lot less impressive than the Pentax 77mm or the FA* 85mm F1.4. both of
> which you could have for the same price as one of the Canon's. However
> how many of us regularly take pictures of graph paper!!
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
>>>On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of
advertising
space the conclusions will be biased in their favor.  At least that's
what I've seemed to notice.

Jens Bladt wrote:




>Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or
>genrally paid
>for, by the avertisers?
>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
>Peter Fairweather
>Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28
>Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses
>
>
>I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com where
>there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that phrase
>get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the latest
>VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'!
>
>Peter
>
>On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which
>>>ranked far above
>>>the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In
>>>second place was the
>>>Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax.
>>>(86/100)
>>>
>>>One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of
>>>poor advertising revenue!!
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very,
>>very
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>nice.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Marnie aka Doe
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:
>09/01/2006
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:
>09/01/2006
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

 --Albert Einstein



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


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>>
>>   --Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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: Possibly dumb Adobe Camera Raw question

[Rick Womer]

Well, I tried that, several times.  Each time, the
next image opens with whatever wonky settings ACR
pleases.  The "new Camera Raw Defaults" don't seem to
"stick".   I just can't seem to get it to open with
=my= settings.  

Any other ideas?

Rick


Mark Roberts wrote:

Change all the settings to the values you want (WB "As
Shot", "Auto"
turned off for everything, 0, 0, 75, +25, 0).
Up near the top of the right-hand side of the ACR
window is a
"settings" box which will now have the word "custom"
in it. Nect to
this box is a small circle with a triangle (pointing
to the right).
Click on this triangle to get a drop-down list and
click "Save New
Camera Raw Defaults" from this list. Done.

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: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 10:11 PM, "Paul Stenquist", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> A number of people apparently have the release. Rob divulges a bit of
> it from time to time.

Thank you Paul.
Now I understand what's going on :-).

Ken


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

Re: PESO: House and Tree

[Paul Stenquist]

Interesting image. The tree is embracing the house. Well seen.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:14 PM, Rick Womer wrote:

> Though I hate to interrupt the breathless speculation
> about the K10D...
>
> Here is another pic from our travels in Germany this
> past summer.  This house and tree in Augsburg seemed
> photo-worthy.
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4890774
>
> Ist D, FA 16-45, ISO 200, f/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/60, RAW file
> processed with ACR and PE4.
>
> Comments most welcome.
>
> Rick
>
>
> (now back to the breathless K10D speculation, already
> in progress...)
>
> 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


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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Paul Stenquist]

A number of people apparently have the release. Rob divulges a bit of  
it from time to time.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:01 PM, K.Takeshita wrote:

> On 9/03/06 9:22 PM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And, I doubt if Pentax released this press on USM (or whatever  
>> they term it).
>
> Never mind, folks.  I am just embarrassing myself, as I was not  
> following
> the thread.  So, what seems to be a press release is circulating in  
> the net?
>
> And it's a "SM" lens, eh? :-).
>
> Ken
>
>
> -- 
> 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

PESO: House and Tree

[Rick Womer]

Though I hate to interrupt the breathless speculation
about the K10D...

Here is another pic from our travels in Germany this
past summer.  This house and tree in Augsburg seemed
photo-worthy.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4890774

Ist D, FA 16-45, ISO 200, f/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/60, RAW file
processed with ACR and PE4.

Comments most welcome.

Rick


(now back to the breathless K10D speculation, already
in progress...)

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: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 9:22 PM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> And, I doubt if Pentax released this press on USM (or whatever they term it).

Never mind, folks.  I am just embarrassing myself, as I was not following
the thread.  So, what seems to be a press release is circulating in the net?

And it's a "SM" lens, eh? :-).

Ken


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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Paul Stenquist]

Almost all manufacturers distribute their press releases via the  
internet. They rely on the integrity of the journalists involved to  
protect their embargo date. Most will do so as a matter of  
professional ethics. Then again, Pentax may have leaked this  
purposely. Stimulating pre-release conversation can be a good thing.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:

> On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> LOL. I wonder how many others have a copy of that press release?
>> Funny how Pentax decided to distribute it in the form of an
>> easy-to-copy PDF!
>
> Plenty I'm guessing, they have been doing this for a while, it makes a
> lot of sense but not great if you don't want the information leaking
> (har). What I'm hanging out for is the brochure, particularly if it's
> like the original German *ist D one, there's nothing like a little
> controversy to brighten the day :-)
>
> -- 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>
> -- 
> 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: GESO: Costa Rica

[Mark Roberts]

Jerome Reyes wrote:

>http://exposedfilm.net/costarica/
>http://exposedfilm.net/journal/2006/06aug/

Nice stuff, especially Shenandoah. Looks like you had some good light
there.
 
-- 
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: GESO: Costa Rica

[Jerome Reyes]

Paul,

> Enjoyed the Costa Rica pics. Looks like a
> nice vacation spot. Expensive?

Usually, yes (at least I think so). But we got both airline tickets
(usually $800 each) through a combination of frequent flyer miles and
airline vouchers. And the resort was thru the parents' time share
exchange, which kept the cost down... but we still had to pay the
all-inclusive fee ($75 pp, per day).

> Some truly excellent shots in the Shenandoah gallery.
> Looks like that iS is working for you.

Absolutely (about the IS). I was telling someone else that those are the
best handheld macro shots I've ever taken (and thats saying a lot since my
macro lens is the oldest of my lens collection). I absolutely stink at
handholding, and so I gave up on macro bug shots years ago... but this
will open up a whole new realm for me, so I'm excited.

> What was the longest lens used here?

IIRC, all of the posted deer shots were taken with the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
handheld. All the bug shots are with the Sigma 100mm macro. Pretty much
everything else is the DA 12-24mm. HTH,

- Jerome

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

Re: MTF Program Line

[cbwaters]

I thought that was a FA and later gizmo.

CW

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: MTF Program Line


> Scott Loveless wrote:
> 
>>Hey, gang!  I've been reading about MTF and I have a question.  What
>>is the MTF program line for and why would I want to use it?  There are
>>lots and lots of descriptions, from very simplified to very technical,
>>of MTF out there on the intarweb, but I can't find anything at all
>>explaining the "MTF Program Line".
> 
> Simple: When you're shooting with Programmed autoexposure set to the
> MTF line the camera sets both the aperture and shutter speed for you,
> but tries to keep the lens set at its sharpest aperture (which it
> knows from the chip built into Pentax F and FA series lenses).
> 
> -- 
> 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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/2006
> 
>

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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> LOL. I wonder how many others have a copy of that press release?
> Funny how Pentax decided to distribute it in the form of an
> easy-to-copy PDF!

Plenty I'm guessing, they have been doing this for a while, it makes a
lot of sense but not great if you don't want the information leaking
(har). What I'm hanging out for is the brochure, particularly if it's
like the original German *ist D one, there's nothing like a little
controversy to brighten the day :-)

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[David Savage]

At 09:13 AM 4/09/2006, Digital Image Studio  wrote:
>On 04/09/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses
> > The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven
> > autofocus lenses
> > (currently under development), which are expected to provide smoother, 
> quieter
> > autofocus operation than conventional lenses."
>
>Let's see how far the rumour spreads ;-)
>
>My treat.

Thanks Rob. LOL.

Impatient bugger.

Dave ;-) 


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

Re: Amusing product review

[Mark Roberts]

Digital Image Studio wrote:

>On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds reasonable, but given the signal processing, I *am* hoping for
>> more than 12 bits per pixel. And as Ken pointed out, shooting RAW+JPEG
>> will add a 10-megapixel JPEG to the file: Perhaps another 1-2 Meg.
>
>I don't know how practical a RAW file of greater than 12bits per pixel
>would be given the likely well capacity vs noise, I suspect the sensor
>SNR is covered using 12bits. What is an interesting prospect to me is
>the potential of oversampling and early gamma curve manipulation of
>the actual RAW data as described in the Nucore blurb.

It's likely that you're correct. But we can still hope, can't we?

 
-- 
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: GESO: Costa Rica

[Paul Stenquist]

Enjoyed the Costa Rica pics. Looks like a nice vacation spot. Expensive?
Some truly excellent shots in the Shenandoah gallery. Looks like that  
iS is working for you. What was the longest lens used here?
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:19 PM, Jerome Reyes wrote:

> Guys and Gals,
>
> Here's a link to a gallery I composed from our recent trip to Costa  
> Rica.
> You should be warned, however, that it is more of a "trip report"  
> than a
> show of anything really "gallery worthy". The gallery is huge, but  
> I offer
> it nonetheless for any and all who are remotely interested in Costa  
> Rica
> and have time to spare. All photos taken with either the ist-D (high
> numbers) or a Pentax point-and-shoot (low numbers).
>
> http://exposedfilm.net/costarica/
>
> Also, the most recent entry in the "monthly journal" part of the  
> website
> (August) includes my first photos with the K100. Literally as soon  
> as the
> K100 arrived, I jumped in the already-packed car and drove to  
> Shenandoah
> for the weekend to play around with it. All but 3 or 4 of the  
> photos were
> taken with the k100, with the occasional shot taken with the ist-D.
>
> http://exposedfilm.net/journal/2006/06aug/
>
> Enjoy, and as usual, comments are always welcomed and appreciated.  
> Best
> regards,
>
>- Jerome
>
>
> -- 
> 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: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 9:09 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No I literally meant it must have been a translation error on the
> press release as it says:

And, I doubt if Pentax released this press on USM (or whatever they term
it).
The only official words from Pentax that might be suggesting anything about
the "improved" lens K-mount was an interview with one of their top honchos
at PMA.  However, the rumour is almost becoming a truth, at least in Japan.

Ken


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

Re: September PUG is open

[Gianfranco Irlanda]

Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with you. I like Gianfranco's photo very much,
although I want
> to move the fishtail a little to balance the composition.

Thanks Bob, and thanks to Ann and john for your appreciation!

> Gianco's picture (the pick of the crop, imo) isn't really
about
> juxtaposition anyway. It seems to me to be about violence,
mystery and
> maybe just a little hint of existentialism and surrealism.

Well, I thought that the (main) juxtaposition was between the
shape of the two surfaces
where the objects lay (the square table and the round shaped
basin)...
I'm glad that the picture is able to retain a bit of ambiguity,
though...
I guess I love (or used to love) surrealism, btw.

> Anybody got a Gauloise? 

:-)

What about a Nazionale Esportazione?
(terrible - for me - Italian cigarette... :-/ )

Ciao,

Gianco
(non-smoker)

_

__
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: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Mark Roberts]

Digital Image Studio wrote:

>No I literally meant it must have been a translation error on the
>press release as it says:
>
>"6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses
>The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven
>autofocus lenses
>(currently under development), which are expected to provide smoother, quieter
>autofocus operation than conventional lenses."

LOL. I wonder how many others have a copy of that press release?
Funny how Pentax decided to distribute it in the form of an
easy-to-copy PDF!
;-)
 
-- 
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: Amusing product review

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Sounds reasonable, but given the signal processing, I *am* hoping for
> more than 12 bits per pixel. And as Ken pointed out, shooting RAW+JPEG
> will add a 10-megapixel JPEG to the file: Perhaps another 1-2 Meg.

I don't know how practical a RAW file of greater than 12bits per pixel
would be given the likely well capacity vs noise, I suspect the sensor
SNR is covered using 12bits. What is an interesting prospect to me is
the potential of oversampling and early gamma curve manipulation of
the actual RAW data as described in the Nucore blurb.

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 9:09 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses
> The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven
> autofocus lenses
> (currently under development), which are expected to provide smoother, quieter
> autofocus operation than conventional lenses."

Oh, I did not know that :-).
Hope it was not my post, was it? :-).
"Supersonic motor"?  Whatever it is, you got be kidding!

Ken


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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 9:16 PM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hope it was not my post, was it? :-).

If I caused this silly confusion, I of course apologize.  I just do not
recollect I posted it, not recently anyway.

Ken


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

GESO: Costa Rica

[Jerome Reyes]

Guys and Gals,

Here's a link to a gallery I composed from our recent trip to Costa Rica.
You should be warned, however, that it is more of a "trip report" than a
show of anything really "gallery worthy". The gallery is huge, but I offer
it nonetheless for any and all who are remotely interested in Costa Rica
and have time to spare. All photos taken with either the ist-D (high
numbers) or a Pentax point-and-shoot (low numbers).

http://exposedfilm.net/costarica/

Also, the most recent entry in the "monthly journal" part of the website
(August) includes my first photos with the K100. Literally as soon as the
K100 arrived, I jumped in the already-packed car and drove to Shenandoah
for the weekend to play around with it. All but 3 or 4 of the photos were
taken with the k100, with the occasional shot taken with the ist-D.

http://exposedfilm.net/journal/2006/06aug/

Enjoy, and as usual, comments are always welcomed and appreciated. Best
regards,

   - Jerome


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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses
> The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven
> autofocus lenses
> (currently under development), which are expected to provide smoother, quieter
> autofocus operation than conventional lenses."

Let's see how far the rumour spreads ;-)

My treat.

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/03/06 8:31 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It must be a translation error then ;-)
>
> I did not know the thread wandered into the "dictionary definition" etc, and
> thought it was silly :-).

Hi Ken,

No I literally meant it must have been a translation error on the
press release as it says:

"6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses
The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven
autofocus lenses
(currently under development), which are expected to provide smoother, quieter
autofocus operation than conventional lenses."

:-)

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 8:31 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It must be a translation error then ;-)

I did not know the thread wandered into the "dictionary definition" etc, and
thought it was silly :-).

Ken


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

Re: Amusing product review

[Mark Roberts]

Digital Image Studio wrote:

>On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>> >My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,
>> >on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.
>>
>> I'm stumped on "IMSMC", but I get 144 RAW files on a 2 Gig card in my
>> istD and I'm hoping for around 150 K10D RAW+JPEG files on a 4 Gig
>> card. Perhaps with good lossless compression they'll get 200 or so.
>
>If it offers a compressed RAW file at 12bits per pixel I'd budget on
>around 10MB per file or slightly larger.

Sounds reasonable, but given the signal processing, I *am* hoping for
more than 12 bits per pixel. And as Ken pointed out, shooting RAW+JPEG
will add a 10-megapixel JPEG to the file: Perhaps another 1-2 Meg.
 
-- 
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: Amusing product review

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David J Brooks wrote:
>
> >My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,
> >on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.
>
> I'm stumped on "IMSMC", but I get 144 RAW files on a 2 Gig card in my
> istD and I'm hoping for around 150 K10D RAW+JPEG files on a 4 Gig
> card. Perhaps with good lossless compression they'll get 200 or so.

If it offers a compressed RAW file at 12bits per pixel I'd budget on
around 10MB per file or slightly larger.

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Digital Image Studio]

On 04/09/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Folks, dictionary definitions are correct, but it's just that the vibration
> frequency applied to the stator of the USM application falls within the
> ultrasonic range.  That's all.

It must be a translation error then ;-)

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

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

Re: D FA Lenses

[Paul Stenquist]

I think there's some confusion in regard to CA vs. digital fringing.  
I've experienced quite a bit of the latter with FA, K and A lenses.  
This condition is typified by color fringing (usually cyan or red) at  
the edges of dark objects that intersect with extremely bright  
highlights, such as a sky. I've found it's much less of a problem  
with DA lenses. It can be cured by cloning or a "replace color"  
operation. But it's somewhat of a pain in the butt.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:33 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:

> I haven't noticed any CA with any of my FA F A M or K lenses, bloom
> sometimes but no CA.  Not even with the SMC P 17mm fisheye.
>
> John Forbes wrote:
>
>> If it did, I didn't notice it.  Mine works very well on digital.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:43:00 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, P. J. Alling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 macro, redesigns of the FA lenses of the same focal lengths.  I  
 suspect
 that the FA lenses were more than acceptable with digital to  
 start with.


>>> I think the FA100/2.8 Macro suffered from CA on digital, but I am
>>> going from memory here. Can't remember who had reported on that.
>>>
>>> Kostas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>
>   --Albert Einstein
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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: D FA Lenses

[P. J. Alling]

I haven't noticed any CA with any of my FA F A M or K lenses, bloom 
sometimes but no CA.  Not even with the SMC P 17mm fisheye.

John Forbes wrote:

>If it did, I didn't notice it.  Mine works very well on digital.
>
>John
>
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:43:00 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis  
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, P. J. Alling wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>macro, redesigns of the FA lenses of the same focal lengths.  I suspect
>>>that the FA lenses were more than acceptable with digital to start with.
>>>  
>>>
>>I think the FA100/2.8 Macro suffered from CA on digital, but I am
>>going from memory here. Can't remember who had reported on that.
>>
>>Kostas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

Re: Pentax glass brings good money

[John Forbes]

You were spot-on with the 85-210, which only got one bid; just a bit low  
with the macro, and too high with the Vivitar.

With lower starting prices you might have done as well or better with the  
macro, sold the Vivitar, and who knows what with the 85-210.  You might  
still have had only one bid, and sold it for $0.99!

So your technique was probably right with the 85-210, probably wrong with  
the Vivitar, and maybe OK with the
macro.  The main thing is that you earned some money.

John


On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 23:55:17 +0100, Paul Stenquist  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am happy with you:-) I now have enough cash in my paypal account to
> pay for the K10. Money my wife (and financial manager) won't ever
> see:-)). (However, she does know what I'm doing. She doesn't miss a
> beat.)
> Paul
> On Sep 3, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to be proven wrong :-)
>>
>>
>> Tim
>> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Paul
>> Stenquist
>> Sent: 3. september 2006 22:50
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Pentax glass brings good money
>>
>> All of my Pentax lenses sold on ebay, despite the feelings of some
>> that they were overpriced. The FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 went for $176, a
>> very good price in my estimation. The M 50/4 macro went for $76, and
>> the venerable SMC Pentax 85-210/4.5 went for $70. To my surprise the
>> Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 didn't sell. If I had to keep one of
>> these lenses, this would be the one I'd want to keep, so I'm not
>> unhappy about this. But since it's a beautiful example of this
>> collectible lens with original hood and front cap, I'm somewhat
>> surprised. I'll take this as a sign and keep it.
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


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

Re: D FA Lenses

[John Forbes]

If it did, I didn't notice it.  Mine works very well on digital.

John

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:43:00 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>> macro, redesigns of the FA lenses of the same focal lengths.  I suspect
>> that the FA lenses were more than acceptable with digital to start with.
>
> I think the FA100/2.8 Macro suffered from CA on digital, but I am
> going from memory here. Can't remember who had reported on that.
>
> Kostas
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


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

Re: Pentax glass brings good money

[Brendan MacRae]

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 went for $176


Good deal, mine went for $167.50 about two weeks ago.
Gee, not bad when they're $209 new from B&H.

-Brendan


__
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: Dumb *istDS/DS2 question

[Mat Maessen]

On 9/3/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's not technically an EXIF field.  But the Pentax MakerNote tag
> is itself formatted like a TIFF IFD, using private tag identifiers.
> Tag 41 identifies the total exposure count (a 32-bit integer).

Thanks John, you got me pointed in the right direction.

I just downloaded/compiled a utility called exifprobe on one of my
Linux boxes here. Fed it a raw file from my DS2. It seems that
MakerNote Tag numger 0x0029 doesn't exist in the file.
Does someone have a raw file from an original DS, and/or from an *istD
I could take a look at, just to make sure my utility is working?

-Mat

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

Re: Photography (for a change)

[Brendan MacRae]

The shot, as it's presented, seems to be open to a lot
of possibilities compositionally. I like what the
photographer chose in that it appears evenly balanced
vertically. I agree that the bottom third could be
cropped, but does he have more sky to play with? If
not, then losing the bottom third may be a mistake. As
far as left or right go, I enjoy seeing things in the
middle sometimes.

-Brendan

--- Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is a question about composition. I came across
> the following photo 
> (not mine):
> 
>
http://www.zyeuter.com/bon_baiser_de_valensole/photo107872.html
> 
> There is much about it that I like, but I think that
> the bottom third is 
> a mistake. It seems to me that the photographer
> should have cut off the 
> bottom third, then extended the composition somewhat
> to the right (if 
> possible--maybe there's a cement plant there),
> placing the building at 
> the upper-left "golden rectangle" point.
> 
> What do others think? Is there justification for
> keeping the lower third?
> 
> Joe
> 
> -- 
> 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: Amusing product review

[Mark Roberts]

David J Brooks wrote:

>My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,  
>on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.

I'm stumped on "IMSMC", but I get 144 RAW files on a 2 Gig card in my
istD and I'm hoping for around 150 K10D RAW+JPEG files on a 4 Gig
card. Perhaps with good lossless compression they'll get 200 or so.
 
-- 
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: MTF Program Line

[Mark Roberts]

Scott Loveless wrote:

>Hey, gang!  I've been reading about MTF and I have a question.  What
>is the MTF program line for and why would I want to use it?  There are
>lots and lots of descriptions, from very simplified to very technical,
>of MTF out there on the intarweb, but I can't find anything at all
>explaining the "MTF Program Line".

Simple: When you're shooting with Programmed autoexposure set to the
MTF line the camera sets both the aperture and shutter speed for you,
but tries to keep the lens set at its sharpest aperture (which it
knows from the chip built into Pentax F and FA series lenses).
 
-- 
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: Amusing product review

[Kenneth Waller]

> I'm assuming that with 10 megapixels and increased bit-depth, the K10D
> will store a similar number of images on a 4-Gig card to what my ist-D
> does on a 2-Gig (given the fact that I expect K10D raw files to be
> compressed, whereas ist-D raw files aren't).

Don't forget the additional memory to simultaneously store jpegs.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amusing product review


> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
>>As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra  
>>that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to  
>>wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.  
>>However, I don't think I want any cards bigger than 2 gig. I figure  
>>that a lost card or a failed card will be less painful in proportion  
>>to its size.
> 
> I'm assuming that with 10 megapixels and increased bit-depth, the K10D
> will store a similar number of images on a 4-Gig card to what my ist-D
> does on a 2-Gig (given the fact that I expect K10D raw files to be
> compressed, whereas ist-D raw files aren't).
> 
> Of course, it still remains to be seen how big K10D files are. It's
> pretty common knowledge now that they're using 22-bit A-D conversion.
> I'm hoping they pass some of that benefit on in the form of 14-bit or
> preferably 16-bit color in the raw files.
> 
> 4-Gig cards are now comfortably under $100.00 in many cases.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Amusing product review

[David J Brooks]

My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,  
on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.

Sir CF

Dave

Quoting Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
> purchasing a K10D in the near future. I've limited my searches to 4G
> capacity as I expect that'll be my minimum size for use with this
> camera. Resellerratings.com only showed two cards at this capacity and
> only one of them had a user review. Here's the review:
> http://www.epinions.com/content_241028468356
>
>
> --
> 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
>



Equine Photography in York Region

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

Re: Pentax glass brings good money

[Mat Maessen]

On 9/3/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of my Pentax lenses sold on ebay, despite the feelings of

If I'd any money left over this week, I would have bid on the M50/4
macro. Ah well.

-Mat

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

Re: Photography (for a change)

[Kenneth Waller]

I don't see an issue with the way it is.
The structure isn't significant enough to stand by itself without the layers 
of fields.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Photography (for a change)


> This is a question about composition. I came across the following photo
> (not mine):
>
> http://www.zyeuter.com/bon_baiser_de_valensole/photo107872.html
>
> There is much about it that I like, but I think that the bottom third is
> a mistake. It seems to me that the photographer should have cut off the
> bottom third, then extended the composition somewhat to the right (if
> possible--maybe there's a cement plant there), placing the building at
> the upper-left "golden rectangle" point.
>
> What do others think? Is there justification for keeping the lower third?
>
> 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

Re: Pentax glass brings good money

[Paul Stenquist]

I am happy with you:-) I now have enough cash in my paypal account to  
pay for the K10. Money my wife (and financial manager) won't ever  
see:-)). (However, she does know what I'm doing. She doesn't miss a  
beat.)
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:

> I'm happy to be proven wrong :-)
>
>
> Tim
> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On  
> Behalf Of Paul
> Stenquist
> Sent: 3. september 2006 22:50
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Pentax glass brings good money
>
> All of my Pentax lenses sold on ebay, despite the feelings of some
> that they were overpriced. The FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 went for $176, a
> very good price in my estimation. The M 50/4 macro went for $76, and
> the venerable SMC Pentax 85-210/4.5 went for $70. To my surprise the
> Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 didn't sell. If I had to keep one of
> these lenses, this would be the one I'd want to keep, so I'm not
> unhappy about this. But since it's a beautiful example of this
> collectible lens with original hood and front cap, I'm somewhat
> surprised. I'll take this as a sign and keep it.
> Paul
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


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

Re: September PUG is open

[P. J. Alling]

The worst looking person I've ever seen on a nude beach was the little 
French woman, I don't even think she was that old, however she'd 
obviously spent her entire life on nude beaches in the tropics, skin 
that looked like light brown raisins and a body shape that was, well 
anyone who read Playboy magazine will remember the Granny cartoon 
character...

Fat isn't necessarily the worst thing you can be.

Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

>I've been to beaches in Europe and in the Carribbean that cater to the
>"sophisticated" Europeans who like to lie on the beach nude or
>semi-nude.  Frankly, those were some of the ugliest scenes I have ever
>seen.  I hate to see a fat tourist in a Speedo, let alone naked.
>
>Dan M
>
>On 9/3/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>You won't see this on USA beaches.  Except for a very few nude
>>beaches, nudity or even just plain topless women is banned. Thong and
>>T-back swimsuits are also banned on many beaches.  I've witnessed
>>culture clash many times in Florida when European tourists tried to
>>act normally and were harassed.  This is how you promote tourism?
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

Re: September PUG is open

[Daniel J. Matyola]

I've been to beaches in Europe and in the Carribbean that cater to the
"sophisticated" Europeans who like to lie on the beach nude or
semi-nude.  Frankly, those were some of the ugliest scenes I have ever
seen.  I hate to see a fat tourist in a Speedo, let alone naked.

Dan M

On 9/3/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You won't see this on USA beaches.  Except for a very few nude
> beaches, nudity or even just plain topless women is banned. Thong and
> T-back swimsuits are also banned on many beaches.  I've witnessed
> culture clash many times in Florida when European tourists tried to
> act normally and were harassed.  This is how you promote tourism?
>
> Bob

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

RE: Pentax glass brings good money

[Tim Øsleby]

I'm happy to be proven wrong :-)


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Stenquist
Sent: 3. september 2006 22:50
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Pentax glass brings good money

All of my Pentax lenses sold on ebay, despite the feelings of some  
that they were overpriced. The FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 went for $176, a  
very good price in my estimation. The M 50/4 macro went for $76, and  
the venerable SMC Pentax 85-210/4.5 went for $70. To my surprise the  
Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 didn't sell. If I had to keep one of  
these lenses, this would be the one I'd want to keep, so I'm not  
unhappy about this. But since it's a beautiful example of this  
collectible lens with original hood and front cap, I'm somewhat  
surprised. I'll take this as a sign and keep it.
Paul

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





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

Re: PESO: Loving Family

[Jack Davis]

Why didn't you suggest this earlier? ;-)))

Jack

--- cbwaters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You two are going to need a time-out...
> 
> Seriously, get a grip.
> 
> CW
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 4:47 PM
> Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
> 
> 
> > Why don't you check once in awhile? Your heart rate might
> appreciate
> > it.
> > I really think you should schedule a series of discussions with
> someone
> > who has a bunch of certificates on their wall.
> > 
> > Jack
> > 
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >> My photos  aren't all that special. But I don't like someone  
> >> distorting my work and then posting it on the web. Very funny. And
> I 
> >> 
> >> like it even less when they refuse to remove it. I'm going to
> start  
> >> billing you for use at midnight tonight. I've been keeping a
> record  
> >> of this for my attorney. Note the copyright notice on my photo.net
>  
> >> webpage. My rate is $100 per day.
> >> Paul
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Sorry! Didn't realize how special your images are to you.
> >> >
> >> > Jack
> >> >
> >> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you don't want me to be "demanding," then don't post images
> >> >> without
> >> >> asking. I don't know why you would need a "web person" to
> manage
> >> >> images
> >> >> on a public site, but perhaps that's the way you do things.
> >> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> It will be "got down" when my web person responds to my
> earlier
> >> >> email.
> >> >>> There was a time (with a previous host) that I had the links,
> but
> >> >> they
> >> >>> no longer work.
> >> >>> He may not be available today, you'll just have to be patient.
> >> >>> Your demanding mode is not helping.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Jack
> >> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >>  You don't know how to remove a file from your web page at
> Photo
> >>  Light? It's still up. Get it down.
> >> 
> >>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Paul, don't fret, this is all going to be OK. Tell me how I
> do
> >>  that.
> >> > It's been deleted from my files. (?)
> >> >
> >> > Jack
> >> >
> >> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm just asking you to remove my photo from your site. The
> >> >> message
> >> >> will
> >> >> remain in the archive of course. In fact, I'm insisting
> that
> >> >> your
> >> >> remove my photo from your site.
> >> >> Paul
> >> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I'd be pleased to, but is it possible once archived?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Jack
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >>  I would appreciate it if you removed that image.
> >>  Paul
> >>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >> 
> >> > A favorite indoor sport.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, Bob
> >> >
> >> > Jack
> >> >
> >> > --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> -Original Message-
> >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On
> >> >>> Behalf Of Jack Davis
> >> >>> Sent: 03 September 2006 00:39
> >> >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> >>> Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Somehow I'm missing the point of this. Is it a
> criticism
> >> of
> >>  Paul's
> >> >>> reaction? or..?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> ...just nit-picking...
> >> >>
> >> >> (sorry - someone had to get it in!)
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob
> >> >>
> >> >
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=180
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4885126&size=lg
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -- 
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  -- 
> >>  PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>  PDML@pdml.net
> >>  http://pdml.net/mailman/listinf

Re: PESO: Loving Family

[Jack Davis]

You're welcome!

Jack

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You've removed it. I appreciate it. My heart rate has never increased
>  
> a beat. Only my incredulity.
> Thanks you,
> Paul
> On Sep 3, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > Why don't you check once in awhile? Your heart rate might
> appreciate
> > it.
> > I really think you should schedule a series of discussions with  
> > someone
> > who has a bunch of certificates on their wall.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> My photos  aren't all that special. But I don't like someone
> >> distorting my work and then posting it on the web. Very funny. And
> I
> >>
> >> like it even less when they refuse to remove it. I'm going to
> start
> >> billing you for use at midnight tonight. I've been keeping a
> record
> >> of this for my attorney. Note the copyright notice on my photo.net
> >> webpage. My rate is $100 per day.
> >> Paul
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry! Didn't realize how special your images are to you.
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
>  If you don't want me to be "demanding," then don't post images
>  without
>  asking. I don't know why you would need a "web person" to manage
>  images
>  on a public site, but perhaps that's the way you do things.
>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > It will be "got down" when my web person responds to my earlier
>  email.
> > There was a time (with a previous host) that I had the links,
> but
>  they
> > no longer work.
> > He may not be available today, you'll just have to be patient.
> > Your demanding mode is not helping.
> >
> > Jack
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> You don't know how to remove a file from your web page at
> Photo
> >> Light? It's still up. Get it down.
> >>
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul, don't fret, this is all going to be OK. Tell me how I
> do
> >> that.
> >>> It's been deleted from my files. (?)
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
>  I'm just asking you to remove my photo from your site. The
>  message
>  will
>  remain in the archive of course. In fact, I'm insisting that
>  your
>  remove my photo from your site.
>  Paul
>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > I'd be pleased to, but is it possible once archived?
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I would appreciate it if you removed that image.
> >> Paul
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> A favorite indoor sport.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Bob
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>> --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  On
> > Behalf Of Jack Davis
> > Sent: 03 September 2006 00:39
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
> >
> > Somehow I'm missing the point of this. Is it a
> criticism
> >> of
> >> Paul's
> > reaction? or..?
> >
> >
>  ...just nit-picking...
> 
>  (sorry - someone had to get it in!)
> 
>  Bob
> 
> >>>
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=180
> >
> >>>
>  http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4885126&size=lg
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>  -- 
>  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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> 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.

Re: OT Spamalot review

[Mark Roberts]

Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

>It is a great show indeed.  I saw it on Broadway a year and a half
>ago, and loved it.  In fact, I  made my Broadway stage debut that
>evening.

It's playing in Pittsburgh now. I just bought tickets for myself and
Dr. Lisa!
 
-- 
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: OT Spamalot review

[Daniel J. Matyola]

It is a great show indeed.  I saw it on Broadway a year and a half
ago, and loved it.  In fact, I  made my Broadway stage debut that
evening.

The play was extremely well done, and very, very funny. I expected it
to be a rehash of the movie (Monty Python and the Holy Grail), but it
was much more than that.

They do follow the basic plot of the movie. They include all the bits
that real Python fans want to see, including, Bring out your Dead/ I'm
not dead yet, the knight who gets all his limbs cut off but still
wants to keep fighting, the killer rabbit, the Knights who say Ni, the
French Knights who taunt the British, the Trojan rabbit, the
catapulted cow, etc. There is also, however, a lot of new material.

They parody a number of Broadway hits, including Phantom of the Opera,
Les Miserable, Chorus Line, and, especially, Fiddler on the Roof. The
knights doing the dance from Fiddler is just hilarious. At one point,
King Arthur decides to go to Broadway, but Sir Robin tells him that he
can't get to Broadway without any Jews. That becomes a musical number.
Finally, Arthur's servant reveals that he is half Jewish, on his
mother's side. When Arthur asks while he never said anything about
this before, the servant replies that "It isn't the sort of thing one
wants to say to a bunch of heavily armed Christians." They also take
on the gay marriage issue in the play.

At the end of the play, they found the clue to the location of the
holy grail, but they were not bright enough to figure it out. The hand
of god came down from above and pointed to my seat, and I got dragged
onstage and honored as "the Best Peasant." Given my heritage, I was
proud to be recognized as the peasant that I am. They asked my name,
and then sang a musical number to "Dan Matyola." Really, they all
actually remembered my name. I got a trophy, a certificate and hugs
from the knights (but not from the Lady of the Lake or her dancing
girls!)

They also took my picture, which can be view by following the link
below. I'm the one not dressed like a knight, Tim Curry is to my left,
David Hyde Pierce in front of me, and Hank Azaria to my right in chain
mail.

It was quite an evening.

In any event, the play is spectacular, and everyone should see it if
they can, not only Python fanatics.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=484093

On 8/30/06, D Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>
> Last night was our night to see Spamalot at the Canon or should i say
> C***N theater here in Toronto. Nice night out, a good dinner at
> Shopsy's Deli and show at 8pm.
> Well cast, the music great as were the costumes and the set. Lighting
> was fantastic.
>
> If you get a chance to see it, you must go.It lives up to the hype.
>
> The poor young lady who had the Grail was a wreck up on stage. We had
> fun though.:-)
>
> Dave

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

MTF Program Line

[Scott Loveless]

Hey, gang!  I've been reading about MTF and I have a question.  What
is the MTF program line for and why would I want to use it?  There are
lots and lots of descriptions, from very simplified to very technical,
of MTF out there on the intarweb, but I can't find anything at all
explaining the "MTF Program Line".

Thanks!

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
Shoot more film!

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

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 5:09 PM, "Pancho Hasselbach", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That's an interesting aspect. For example, DA 40 Ltd is known to cover
> 35mm, probably you remember Unca Mickey (from whom we haven't heard for
> some time) who uses it on his *ist (without any D).
> I'm still waiting for information on the true coverage of the different
> DA lenses, which may be larger than APS in many cases. This might
> indicate whether Pentax let an upgrade path to future larger sensors.
> 
> Anybody out there with DA lenses who still shoots film willing to spend
> some frames?

Pentax said in one of the interviews that the image circle of DA lenses were
purposely made larger than that required for APS-C sensor in order to
adequately cover the whole moving range of the SR system.  I do not know if
all DA's have the same image circle but people now know that at least DA40
does cover the 35mm (probably barely) without any visible vignetting.
Maybe you might begin to see vignetting on 35mm as the focal length goes
wider, but I am interested in seeing the actual results as you suggested,
just  out of curiosity.

Cheers,

Ken



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

Re: D FA Lenses

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, P. J. Alling wrote:

> macro, redesigns of the FA lenses of the same focal lengths.  I suspect
> that the FA lenses were more than acceptable with digital to start with.

I think the FA100/2.8 Macro suffered from CA on digital, but I am 
going from memory here. Can't remember who had reported on that.

Kostas

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

Re: Amusing product review

[Mark Roberts]

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra  
>that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to  
>wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.  
>However, I don't think I want any cards bigger than 2 gig. I figure  
>that a lost card or a failed card will be less painful in proportion  
>to its size.

I'm assuming that with 10 megapixels and increased bit-depth, the K10D
will store a similar number of images on a 4-Gig card to what my ist-D
does on a 2-Gig (given the fact that I expect K10D raw files to be
compressed, whereas ist-D raw files aren't).

Of course, it still remains to be seen how big K10D files are. It's
pretty common knowledge now that they're using 22-bit A-D conversion.
I'm hoping they pass some of that benefit on in the form of 14-bit or
preferably 16-bit color in the raw files.

4-Gig cards are now comfortably under $100.00 in many cases.
 
-- 
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: Attn. Mark Roberts

[DagT]

Den 3. sep. 2006 kl. 23.13 skrev David J Brooks:

> Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On 3/9/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> Tried to respond off-list, but your mail server rejects. It also
>>> rejects the address I used to contact you through. What should I do?
>>
>> You know what semaphore is?  ;-)
>
> ...   . . .   ...

... --- ...

...but that´s morse, not semaphore.

.-)

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

Re: Attn. Mark Roberts

[Cotty]

On 3/9/06, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:

>...   . . .   ...


PbbbddPppbbdbddpPPP  

Re: Uk review of macro lenses

[Peter Fairweather]

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that editors are affected by the
possibility of upsetting major advertisers. However I haven't seen
another magazine as critical of the EFs 60mm Canon.

Lots of people here like the Tamron. There are even a few of us ( not
called Godfrey!)have owned decent Sigma lenses so neither of those
results surprise me.

The French magazine Chasseur D'Image shows photographs of a
rectilinear grid when they test lenses. I've always found this useful
as a way of seeing distortion. The super new F1.2 85mm Canon L was a
lot less impressive than the Pentax 77mm or the FA* 85mm F1.4. both of
which you could have for the same price as one of the Canon's. However
how many of us regularly take pictures of graph paper!!

Peter

> >On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of
> >>advertising
> >>space the conclusions will be biased in their favor.  At least that's
> >>what I've seemed to notice.
> >>
> >>Jens Bladt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or
> >>>genrally paid
> >>>for, by the avertisers?
> >>>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
> >>>Peter Fairweather
> >>>Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28
> >>>Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>>Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com where
> >>>there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that phrase
> >>>get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the latest
> >>>VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'!
> >>>
> >>>Peter
> >>>
> >>>On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which
> >ranked far above
> >the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In
> >second place was the
> >Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax.
> >(86/100)
> >
> >One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of
> >poor advertising revenue!!
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very,
> very
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>nice.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> Marnie aka Doe
> 
> --
> 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
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:
> >>>09/01/2006
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:
> >>>09/01/2006
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >>Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
> >>
> >>  --Albert Einstein
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>PDML@pdml.net
> >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>
>--Albert Einstein
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Attn. Mark Roberts

[David J Brooks]

Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On 3/9/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> Tried to respond off-list, but your mail server rejects. It also
>> rejects the address I used to contact you through. What should I do?
>
> You know what semaphore is?  ;-)

...   . . .   ...

Dave
>
> --
>
>
> 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
>



Equine Photography in York Region

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

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

[Pancho Hasselbach]

That's an interesting aspect. For example, DA 40 Ltd is known to cover 
35mm, probably you remember Unca Mickey (from whom we haven't heard for 
some time) who uses it on his *ist (without any D).
I'm still waiting for information on the true coverage of the different 
DA lenses, which may be larger than APS in many cases. This might 
indicate whether Pentax let an upgrade path to future larger sensors.

Anybody out there with DA lenses who still shoots film willing to spend 
some frames?

TIA, Pancho

Thibouille schrieb:
> Of course the DA won't cover 35mm but that's a different thing. It
> works even without covering the 35mm format.

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

Re: Amusing product review

[Cotty]

On 3/9/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

>As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra  
>that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to  
>wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.  
>However, I don't think I want any cards bigger than 2 gig. I figure  
>that a lost card or a failed card will be less painful in proportion  
>to its size.

Completely agree. I use CF and I have 2GB cards, I won't go bigger.

-- 


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: Amusing product review

[Shel Belinkoff]

Not only are prices dropping, but SDHC cards are still relatively new, and
in a month or so there may not only be lower prices, but a greater number
of card brands to choose from, as well as a greater choice in places that
are selling them.  The same holds true to a similar extent for card readers.

In addition, 8GB SDHC cards are just starting to trickle into the
marketplace.  That should have an efect on the market as well - both in
terms of cost and options.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist 

> As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra  
> that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to  
> wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.  
> However, I don't think I want any cards bigger than 2 gig. I figure  
> that a lost card or a failed card will be less painful in proportion  
> to its size.



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

Re: Amusing product review

[Paul Stenquist]

As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra  
that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to  
wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.  
However, I don't think I want any cards bigger than 2 gig. I figure  
that a lost card or a failed card will be less painful in proportion  
to its size.
paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Mat Maessen wrote:

> On 9/3/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
>> purchasing a K10D in the near future. I've limited my searches to 4G
>> capacity as I expect that'll be my minimum size for use with this
>> camera. Resellerratings.com only showed two cards at this capacity  
>> and
>> only one of them had a user review. Here's the review:
>> http://www.epinions.com/content_241028468356
>
> Sounds like an equipment limitation, rather than a card  
> limitation. :-)
>
> -Mat (who needs to buy another 2GB SD card)
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


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

Re: PESO: Loving Family

[cbwaters]

You two are going to need a time-out...

Seriously, get a grip.

CW

- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family


> Why don't you check once in awhile? Your heart rate might appreciate
> it.
> I really think you should schedule a series of discussions with someone
> who has a bunch of certificates on their wall.
> 
> Jack
> 
> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> My photos  aren't all that special. But I don't like someone  
>> distorting my work and then posting it on the web. Very funny. And I 
>> 
>> like it even less when they refuse to remove it. I'm going to start  
>> billing you for use at midnight tonight. I've been keeping a record  
>> of this for my attorney. Note the copyright notice on my photo.net  
>> webpage. My rate is $100 per day.
>> Paul
>> On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> 
>> > Sorry! Didn't realize how special your images are to you.
>> >
>> > Jack
>> >
>> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you don't want me to be "demanding," then don't post images
>> >> without
>> >> asking. I don't know why you would need a "web person" to manage
>> >> images
>> >> on a public site, but perhaps that's the way you do things.
>> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It will be "got down" when my web person responds to my earlier
>> >> email.
>> >>> There was a time (with a previous host) that I had the links, but
>> >> they
>> >>> no longer work.
>> >>> He may not be available today, you'll just have to be patient.
>> >>> Your demanding mode is not helping.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jack
>> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  You don't know how to remove a file from your web page at Photo
>>  Light? It's still up. Get it down.
>> 
>>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> 
>> > Paul, don't fret, this is all going to be OK. Tell me how I do
>>  that.
>> > It's been deleted from my files. (?)
>> >
>> > Jack
>> >
>> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm just asking you to remove my photo from your site. The
>> >> message
>> >> will
>> >> remain in the archive of course. In fact, I'm insisting that
>> >> your
>> >> remove my photo from your site.
>> >> Paul
>> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I'd be pleased to, but is it possible once archived?
>> >>>
>> >>> Jack
>> >>>
>> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  I would appreciate it if you removed that image.
>>  Paul
>>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> 
>> > A favorite indoor sport.
>> >
>> > Thanks, Bob
>> >
>> > Jack
>> >
>> > --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On
>> >>> Behalf Of Jack Davis
>> >>> Sent: 03 September 2006 00:39
>> >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> >>> Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
>> >>>
>> >>> Somehow I'm missing the point of this. Is it a criticism
>> of
>>  Paul's
>> >>> reaction? or..?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> ...just nit-picking...
>> >>
>> >> (sorry - someone had to get it in!)
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >>
>> > http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=180
>> >>>
>> >
>> >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4885126&size=lg
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- 
>> >> 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
>> >
>> 
>> 
>>  -- 
>>  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: Amusing product review

[Shel Belinkoff]

It's a worthless review.  The reviewer doesn't say what camera or other
gear he's using, what his card reader may be, or any of those things.  As
you know, if the equipment isn't designed to accept and use the card, the
card won't work properly or at all. Further, the card has no indication
that it's SDHC compliant.

May I humbly suggest the Transcend 4GB SDHC card at Newegg.com.  Transcend
makes good cards, new egg is a reputable dealer, and their prices are quite
good.

http://tinyurl.com/rqw6x

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Mark Roberts 

> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
> purchasing a K10D in the near future. I've limited my searches to 4G
> capacity as I expect that'll be my minimum size for use with this
> camera. Resellerratings.com only showed two cards at this capacity and
> only one of them had a user review. Here's the review:
> http://www.epinions.com/content_241028468356
>
>  
> -- 
> 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: PESO: Loving Family

[Paul Stenquist]

You've removed it. I appreciate it. My heart rate has never increased  
a beat. Only my incredulity.
Thanks you,
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

> Why don't you check once in awhile? Your heart rate might appreciate
> it.
> I really think you should schedule a series of discussions with  
> someone
> who has a bunch of certificates on their wall.
>
> Jack
>
> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> My photos  aren't all that special. But I don't like someone
>> distorting my work and then posting it on the web. Very funny. And I
>>
>> like it even less when they refuse to remove it. I'm going to start
>> billing you for use at midnight tonight. I've been keeping a record
>> of this for my attorney. Note the copyright notice on my photo.net
>> webpage. My rate is $100 per day.
>> Paul
>> On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry! Didn't realize how special your images are to you.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
 If you don't want me to be "demanding," then don't post images
 without
 asking. I don't know why you would need a "web person" to manage
 images
 on a public site, but perhaps that's the way you do things.
 On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

> It will be "got down" when my web person responds to my earlier
 email.
> There was a time (with a previous host) that I had the links, but
 they
> no longer work.
> He may not be available today, you'll just have to be patient.
> Your demanding mode is not helping.
>
> Jack
> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You don't know how to remove a file from your web page at Photo
>> Light? It's still up. Get it down.
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Paul, don't fret, this is all going to be OK. Tell me how I do
>> that.
>>> It's been deleted from my files. (?)
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
 I'm just asking you to remove my photo from your site. The
 message
 will
 remain in the archive of course. In fact, I'm insisting that
 your
 remove my photo from your site.
 Paul
 On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote:

> I'd be pleased to, but is it possible once archived?
>
> Jack
>
> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would appreciate it if you removed that image.
>> Paul
>> On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
>>
>>> A favorite indoor sport.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Bob
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>> --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
> Behalf Of Jack Davis
> Sent: 03 September 2006 00:39
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
>
> Somehow I'm missing the point of this. Is it a criticism
>> of
>> Paul's
> reaction? or..?
>
>
 ...just nit-picking...

 (sorry - someone had to get it in!)

 Bob

>>> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=180
>
>>>
 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4885126&size=lg
>
>



 -- 
 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>


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

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___

Pentax glass brings good money

[Paul Stenquist]

All of my Pentax lenses sold on ebay, despite the feelings of some  
that they were overpriced. The FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 went for $176, a  
very good price in my estimation. The M 50/4 macro went for $76, and  
the venerable SMC Pentax 85-210/4.5 went for $70. To my surprise the  
Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 didn't sell. If I had to keep one of  
these lenses, this would be the one I'd want to keep, so I'm not  
unhappy about this. But since it's a beautiful example of this  
collectible lens with original hood and front cap, I'm somewhat  
surprised. I'll take this as a sign and keep it.
Paul

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

Re: Amusing product review

[Mat Maessen]

On 9/3/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
> purchasing a K10D in the near future. I've limited my searches to 4G
> capacity as I expect that'll be my minimum size for use with this
> camera. Resellerratings.com only showed two cards at this capacity and
> only one of them had a user review. Here's the review:
> http://www.epinions.com/content_241028468356

Sounds like an equipment limitation, rather than a card limitation. :-)

-Mat (who needs to buy another 2GB SD card)

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

RE: peso: catchlight

[Shel Belinkoff]

Man, I like this photo quite a bit.  While I see some technical flaws, I
also see some beauty in those flaws, and at least some aspect of them
enhance the photo.  As I believe Paul said, rules are meant to be broken.

There is something very human and soft and gentle about this photo.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: gibikote

> this just happened one afternoon last month.
> my daughter was trying her best to catch the light streaming in thru the 
> window and making patterns on the floor.  a wonderful moment I just didnt 
> want to disturb.  this is the only pic with her 'still', so to say...
others 
> show much movement blur as she was trying to move towards the window.
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4888288



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

Re: PESO: Loving Family

[Jack Davis]

Why don't you check once in awhile? Your heart rate might appreciate
it.
I really think you should schedule a series of discussions with someone
who has a bunch of certificates on their wall.

Jack

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My photos  aren't all that special. But I don't like someone  
> distorting my work and then posting it on the web. Very funny. And I 
> 
> like it even less when they refuse to remove it. I'm going to start  
> billing you for use at midnight tonight. I've been keeping a record  
> of this for my attorney. Note the copyright notice on my photo.net  
> webpage. My rate is $100 per day.
> Paul
> On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > Sorry! Didn't realize how special your images are to you.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> If you don't want me to be "demanding," then don't post images
> >> without
> >> asking. I don't know why you would need a "web person" to manage
> >> images
> >> on a public site, but perhaps that's the way you do things.
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> It will be "got down" when my web person responds to my earlier
> >> email.
> >>> There was a time (with a previous host) that I had the links, but
> >> they
> >>> no longer work.
> >>> He may not be available today, you'll just have to be patient.
> >>> Your demanding mode is not helping.
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
>  You don't know how to remove a file from your web page at Photo
>  Light? It's still up. Get it down.
> 
>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > Paul, don't fret, this is all going to be OK. Tell me how I do
>  that.
> > It's been deleted from my files. (?)
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm just asking you to remove my photo from your site. The
> >> message
> >> will
> >> remain in the archive of course. In fact, I'm insisting that
> >> your
> >> remove my photo from your site.
> >> Paul
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd be pleased to, but is it possible once archived?
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
>  I would appreciate it if you removed that image.
>  Paul
>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > A favorite indoor sport.
> >
> > Thanks, Bob
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On
> >>> Behalf Of Jack Davis
> >>> Sent: 03 September 2006 00:39
> >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>> Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
> >>>
> >>> Somehow I'm missing the point of this. Is it a criticism
> of
>  Paul's
> >>> reaction? or..?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ...just nit-picking...
> >>
> >> (sorry - someone had to get it in!)
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> > http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=180
> >>>
> >
> >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4885126&size=lg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> 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
> >
> 
> 
>  -- 
>  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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> 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-D

Amusing product review

[Mark Roberts]

I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
purchasing a K10D in the near future. I've limited my searches to 4G
capacity as I expect that'll be my minimum size for use with this
camera. Resellerratings.com only showed two cards at this capacity and
only one of them had a user review. Here's the review:
http://www.epinions.com/content_241028468356

 
-- 
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: Herb Keppler's comments in Photo Reporter

[Paul Stenquist]

I agree. I found this column lacking in substance. But I do read his  
work when I happen across it.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:32 PM, John Francis wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 12:22:55PM +1000, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>> On 03/09/06, George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Keppler always has an interesting take on the industry.  He's been
>>> around long enough to put things into perspective.
>>>
>>> He's authored this article on the battle for the 10% of the DSLR
>>> market not owned by the big two.
>>>
>>> >> issueID=&num=15&vol=15&articleType=fc&articleID=964>
>>>
>>> If that link doesn't' work go to 
>>>
>>> The article is "The Way It Is, Grabbing a Piece of the DSLR Pie"
>>
>> Interesting, it makes sense to me and accords with a lot of  
>> reports I've read.
>
> I didn't really find too much in it that I agreed with.
>
> It seemed to place far too much importance on the one (much reported)
> interview with a Pentax official which hinted at a forthcoming  
> "K1000",
> and built a shaky edifice on that one questionable foundation.
> For one thing, it's possible that the name may well have been still in
> flux at the time of the interview.  Or, alternatively, it may have  
> been
> fixed at K100D, but somebody somewhere along the line misread that as
> K1000 (easy enough to do, especially when reading handwritten notes).
>
> Then there's the criticism of Pentax for going after market share by
> adding glitz and eye candy to their entry-level models. Pentax are not
> the only manufacturer doing this, by a long chalk.  Nor, for that
> matter, is a bad idea in my opinion (although I know others disagree).
>
> Furthermore it seems to suggest that the marketing hype over  
> megapixels
> is what is driving the high end of the market.  This seems to fly in
> the face of the evidence that Nikon can still do quite well with  
> bodies
> that do not score well on the pure megapixel scale.
>
> -- 
> 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: D FA Lenses

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 3:49 PM, "Godfrey DiGiorgi", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From another conversation, I believe the reformulation of the D-FA
> 50mm Macro from the FA 50mm Macro was due to back-reflection issues
> with the digital bodies. I've seen work with both lenses and they
> both look very good (with a digital body) so I suspect this only
> happened in particular circumstances but Pentax felt it was
> unacceptable.

My understanding from Pentax source is that the FA version macros were too
costly to manufacture and distribute and every single copy they sold, they
lost money.  So, they changed the barrel designs (Interpretation:
plasticize) and re-offered them as DFA.  In retrospect, this coincide with
their decision to collaborate with Tokina (not OEM) to reduce the mfg cost.
Optical formula is exactly the same as the one for the FA versions.
However, because of the D designation, they certainly added some coating
such as the coating on both sides of some element (s), particularly the
rearmost glass.  Other than that, they should be the same as the FA
versions.

Cheers,

Ken


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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[K.Takeshita]

On 9/03/06 3:59 PM, "Godfrey DiGiorgi", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The dictionary definitions (supported by at least 8 dictionaries
> according to dictionary.com) I provided earlier are what I've heard
> these two adjectives to mean since the 1960s.
> 
>  Supersonic: faster than the speed of sound.
>  Ultrasonic: above the pitch of human hearing.
> 
> I don't know any sensible reason to think that they mean anything
> else. "Ultrasonic" has never been used to mean "below the range of
> human hearing" ... that is the definition of the term "infrasonic".
> 
> Of course, if y'all just want to be argumentative, go right ahead.

Folks, dictionary definitions are correct, but it's just that the vibration
frequency applied to the stator of the USM application falls within the
ultrasonic range.  That's all.

Ken


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

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The dictionary definitions (supported by at least 8 dictionaries  
according to dictionary.com) I provided earlier are what I've heard  
these two adjectives to mean since the 1960s.

   Supersonic: faster than the speed of sound.
   Ultrasonic: above the pitch of human hearing.

I don't know any sensible reason to think that they mean anything  
else. "Ultrasonic" has never been used to mean "below the range of  
human hearing" ... that is the definition of the term "infrasonic".

Of course, if y'all just want to be argumentative, go right ahead.

G


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

Re: Herb Keppler's comments in Photo Reporter

[John Forbes]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:43:08 +0100, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:04:40PM -0400, Bob Shell wrote:
>> Why would you use a familiar nickname for someone you do not know?
>> Mr. Keppler is an old friend of mine, and he despises being called
>> Herb.  His nickname, to those of us who know him, is Burt.  To anyone
>> else he is Herbert or Mr. Keppler.  Show the man some respect.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Are you sure it's spelled that way, and not "Bert" ?

Definitely.  Spelling Burt wrongly is a cuning trap set by Bert and his  
friends so that they know that people who spell it Bert aren't real  
friends, and are being disrespectful and over-familiar.


John




-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


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

Re: D FA Lenses

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

 From another conversation, I believe the reformulation of the D-FA  
50mm Macro from the FA 50mm Macro was due to back-reflection issues  
with the digital bodies. I've seen work with both lenses and they  
both look very good (with a digital body) so I suspect this only  
happened in particular circumstances but Pentax felt it was  
unacceptable.

Godfrey

On Sep 3, 2006, at 11:42 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

> I would expect them to work quite well.  The supposed changes due to
> digital capture would have almost no effect on film.  However there  
> are
> as far as I know only two D FA lenses available a 50mm macro and 100mm
> macro, redesigns of the FA lenses of the same focal lengths.  I  
> suspect
> that the FA lenses were more than acceptable with digital to start  
> with.


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

Re: Herb Keppler's comments in Photo Reporter

[John Francis]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 12:22:55PM +1000, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 03/09/06, George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Keppler always has an interesting take on the industry.  He's been
> > around long enough to put things into perspective.
> >
> > He's authored this article on the battle for the 10% of the DSLR
> > market not owned by the big two.
> >
> > 
> >
> > If that link doesn't' work go to 
> >
> > The article is "The Way It Is, Grabbing a Piece of the DSLR Pie"
> 
> Interesting, it makes sense to me and accords with a lot of reports I've read.

I didn't really find too much in it that I agreed with.

It seemed to place far too much importance on the one (much reported)
interview with a Pentax official which hinted at a forthcoming "K1000",
and built a shaky edifice on that one questionable foundation.
For one thing, it's possible that the name may well have been still in
flux at the time of the interview.  Or, alternatively, it may have been
fixed at K100D, but somebody somewhere along the line misread that as
K1000 (easy enough to do, especially when reading handwritten notes).

Then there's the criticism of Pentax for going after market share by
adding glitz and eye candy to their entry-level models. Pentax are not
the only manufacturer doing this, by a long chalk.  Nor, for that
matter, is a bad idea in my opinion (although I know others disagree).

Furthermore it seems to suggest that the marketing hype over megapixels
is what is driving the high end of the market.  This seems to fly in
the face of the evidence that Nikon can still do quite well with bodies
that do not score well on the pure megapixel scale.

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

Re: Uk review of macro lenses

[P. J. Alling]

That's the ideal, of course.  Having worked for smallish publications 
I'm well aware of that.  However how else would you explain two tests 
with numerically quantified results, where the numbers are marginally on 
the side of one product where the reviewer's comments clearly favor that 
same product, where the recommendations favor the clear loser.  This is 
of course a blatant example, and I have no examples to point to.  
However I've gotten a clear impression of this happening in a number of 
magazines I've read.  In some cases the bias is more interesting, the 
non advertiser never gets into the mix at all.

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>Most magazines maintain a very firm wall between editorial and  
>advertising sales. Not all, but most. Usually, the major publishing  
>houses tend to be more protective of their wall than the minors.
>Paul
>Paul
>On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of  
>>advertising
>>space the conclusions will be biased in their favor.  At least that's
>>what I've seemed to notice.
>>
>>Jens Bladt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or  
>>>genrally paid
>>>for, by the avertisers?
>>>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
>>>Peter Fairweather
>>>Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28
>>>Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses
>>>
>>>
>>>I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com where
>>>there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that phrase
>>>get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the latest
>>>VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'!
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




>The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which
>ranked far above
>the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In
>second place was the
>Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax.
>(86/100)
>
>One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of
>poor advertising revenue!!
>
>Peter
>
>
>  
>

I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very,  
very




>>>nice.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Marnie aka Doe

--
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
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:  
>>>09/01/2006
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:  
>>>09/01/2006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>-- 
>>Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>>
>>  --Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

RE: Action/sport: joggle

[Jens Bladt]

I love the B&W version with orange balls. Great photograph!
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 Roman
Sendt: 2. september 2006 16:23
Til: pdml@pdml.net
Emne: Action/sport: joggle


http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060901203620
joggle & hilby string toy (I guess its called this, but correct me if 
I'm wrong)

I especially love old pavement in duotones. Comments are in Estonian, 
but photos speak for themself and use [related] link at the end of each 
essay to see all sets of this street session. Your comments would be 
appreciated.

-- 
home 

-- 
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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 09/01/2006

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 09/01/2006


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

Re: Two great small features I'd like o much

[Dario Bonazza]

I find rather strange that I just asked two completely manual settings, 
nothing else, and then I got replies telling how much bad an automatic 
function can be. Then, you (and Godfrey as well) suggested to rely on 
automatic functions instead.

Cannot follow you, dear folks...

Dario

- Original Message - 
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: Two great small features I'd like o much


>I wouldn't miss it. I generally beleive that any automatic function 
>requires
> that you know how to outsmrrt it. In other words - more automatics means
> more thinking and more errors. I recently talked to someone who was going 
> to
> graduate as a photographer shortly.  She told me that they are taught to 
> use
> only manual exposure controle. This is the only way to know - at least -
> most of what's going on.
>
> If at all, I would prefere auto ISO setting like this:
> Set ISO automatically within a certain interval, i.e. ISO 200-800.
> For really critical work - like concert shots, it would be great to be 
> able
> to tell the camera this:
> Use 800-3200 ISO but don't ever go below 1/60 secs. This way I could set 
> the
> aperture (Av) to F.4 and get good / useable shots every time :-)
> A grainy shot is still better than an unsharp shot.
>
> The ISO setting would vary instead of the shutterspeed. Perhaps the K10D
> works something like this in Sv mode? Wouldn't that be just GREAT!
>
>
> 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 Dario
> Bonazza
> Sendt: 2. september 2006 21:59
> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Emne: Two great small features I'd like o much
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone ever thought of a double ISO setting on a digicam? I mean two
> separate ISO settings for available light and flash photography, so that 
> you
> can set say ISO 1600 for flashless shots and ISO 200 for flash. The camera
> should be able to automatically switch by sensing flash on/flash off,
> without the need for the photographer to manually switch back and forth 
> all
> the time when you shoot concerts and the like.
>
> For the same reason, two independent white balance settings would be 
> welcome
> as well (e.g. flash for the flash and AUTO or Tungsten for nighttime
> shooting). Again, the camera should switch between the two settings
> according to flash on/fash off.
>
> Why not? Is this a good idea or has it already gone down the toilert for a
> good reason? Is there any DSLR doing that?
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
> 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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 09/01/2006
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 09/01/2006
>
>
> -- 
> 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: Uk review of macro lenses

[Paul Stenquist]

Most magazines maintain a very firm wall between editorial and  
advertising sales. Not all, but most. Usually, the major publishing  
houses tend to be more protective of their wall than the minors.
Paul
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:

> I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of  
> advertising
> space the conclusions will be biased in their favor.  At least that's
> what I've seemed to notice.
>
> Jens Bladt wrote:
>
>> Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or  
>> genrally paid
>> for, by the avertisers?
>> 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
>> Peter Fairweather
>> Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28
>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses
>>
>>
>> I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com where
>> there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that phrase
>> get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the latest
>> VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>
>>>
 The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which
 ranked far above
 the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In
 second place was the
 Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax.
 (86/100)

 One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of
 poor advertising revenue!!

 Peter


>>> 
>>> I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very,  
>>> very
>>>
>>>
>> nice.
>>
>>
>>> Marnie aka Doe
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:  
>> 09/01/2006
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date:  
>> 09/01/2006
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>
>   --Albert Einstein
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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: Photography (for a change)

[Jack Davis]

Don't be so predictable.

Jack

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In this case, I would keep the bottom third. It's the bands of color 
> 
> that make this shot special. Rules are made to be broken.
> Paul
> On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > Eliminating the lower third would place the composition in an oft
> > preferred one wherein the horizon is out of the center. Obviously  
> > not a
> > compelling rule, but one that I've followed from time to time if
> the
> > resulting composition felt better as a result.
> > I think I like the tree/building placement as is.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> This is a question about composition. I came across the following
> >> photo
> >> (not mine):
> >>
> >> http://www.zyeuter.com/bon_baiser_de_valensole/photo107872.html
> >>
> >> There is much about it that I like, but I think that the bottom
> third
> >> is
> >> a mistake. It seems to me that the photographer should have cut
> off
> >> the
> >> bottom third, then extended the composition somewhat to the right
> (if
> >>
> >> possible--maybe there's a cement plant there), placing the
> building
> >> at
> >> the upper-left "golden rectangle" point.
> >>
> >> What do others think? Is there justification for keeping the lower
> >> third?
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: PESO: Loving Family

[Paul Stenquist]

My photos  aren't all that special. But I don't like someone  
distorting my work and then posting it on the web. Very funny. And I  
like it even less when they refuse to remove it. I'm going to start  
billing you for use at midnight tonight. I've been keeping a record  
of this for my attorney. Note the copyright notice on my photo.net  
webpage. My rate is $100 per day.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

> Sorry! Didn't realize how special your images are to you.
>
> Jack
>
> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you don't want me to be "demanding," then don't post images
>> without
>> asking. I don't know why you would need a "web person" to manage
>> images
>> on a public site, but perhaps that's the way you do things.
>> On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>>
>>> It will be "got down" when my web person responds to my earlier
>> email.
>>> There was a time (with a previous host) that I had the links, but
>> they
>>> no longer work.
>>> He may not be available today, you'll just have to be patient.
>>> Your demanding mode is not helping.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
 You don't know how to remove a file from your web page at Photo
 Light? It's still up. Get it down.

 On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jack Davis wrote:

> Paul, don't fret, this is all going to be OK. Tell me how I do
 that.
> It's been deleted from my files. (?)
>
> Jack
>
> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm just asking you to remove my photo from your site. The
>> message
>> will
>> remain in the archive of course. In fact, I'm insisting that
>> your
>> remove my photo from your site.
>> Paul
>> On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be pleased to, but is it possible once archived?
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
 I would appreciate it if you removed that image.
 Paul
 On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jack Davis wrote:

> A favorite indoor sport.
>
> Thanks, Bob
>
> Jack
>
> --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of Jack Davis
>>> Sent: 03 September 2006 00:39
>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
>>>
>>> Somehow I'm missing the point of this. Is it a criticism of
 Paul's
>>> reaction? or..?
>>>
>>>
>> ...just nit-picking...
>>
>> (sorry - someone had to get it in!)
>>
>> Bob
>>
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=180
>>>
>
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4885126&size=lg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>


 -- 
 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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


 -- 
 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PD

Re: September PUG is open

[P. J. Alling]

It's perfectly legal for you to walk nude down the street in Austin TX 
and for women to ride the NY City subways topless.  I wouldn't recommend 
either activities however.

K.Takeshita wrote:

>On 9/03/06 9:42 AM, "Bob Shell", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>You won't see this on USA beaches.  Except for a very few nude
>>beaches, nudity or even just plain topless women is banned. Thong and
>>T-back swimsuits are also banned on many beaches.
>>
>>
>
>Except in Ontario, Canada.
>Several years ago, in a very hot summer day, a local student, who was a
>young lady, took her top off, strolled on a public street and arrested.
>However, her reasoning was that she was feeling too hot and should be able
>to take her top off just as guys do.  In court, she has been successful in
>defending her position.  She might have been a bit too forthcoming on
>women's right, but the verdict was applauded.
>For a couple of weeks after this, topless young ladies, most of them looked
>proper, popped up in street corners etc.  Even some of the not-so-young
>ladies cut grass topless in her backyard etc.  They all showed up in
>newspapers with some amusing articles.
>
>After a while, this quickly died down and now nobody talks about it these
>day, and most people probably do not even know that it is legal for women to
>go topless in public.  There probably must be some proviso to go with this
>verdict, such as only in summer (define summer :-) or outdoor only etc.
>Good example of how quickly people get indifferent to these things.  But
>most people realize the general public morality and I do not think I ever
>see this in newspapers any more or actually see topless women in public.
>
>I do not think the tourists to Toronto significantly increased either :-).
>
>But if you have an urge to go topless here in public, com'on over and you
>won't be arrested.  Just email me before you do that.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ken
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

Re: Uk review of macro lenses

[P. J. Alling]

I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of advertising 
space the conclusions will be biased in their favor.  At least that's 
what I've seemed to notice.

Jens Bladt wrote:

>Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or genrally paid
>for, by the avertisers?
>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
>Peter Fairweather
>Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28
>Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses
>
>
>I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com where
>there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that phrase
>get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the latest
>VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'!
>
>Peter
>
>On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>
>>>The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which
>>>ranked far above
>>>the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In
>>>second place was the
>>>Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax.
>>>(86/100)
>>>
>>>One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of
>>>poor advertising revenue!!
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very, very
>>
>>
>nice.
>  
>
>>Marnie aka Doe
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 09/01/2006
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 09/01/2006
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

Re: peso: catchlight

[P. J. Alling]

That's very nice on many levels.

gibikote wrote:

>hi.
>
>this just happened one afternoon last month.
>my daughter was trying her best to catch the light streaming in thru the 
>window and making patterns on the floor.  a wonderful moment I just didnt 
>want to disturb.  this is the only pic with her 'still', so to say... others 
>show much movement blur as she was trying to move towards the window.
>
>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4888288
>
>auto, handheld, crop & unsharp mask.
>
>all comments welcome.
>
>thanks and regards,
>Sridhar
> 
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

Re: PESO: Loving Family

[Jack Davis]

Sorry! Didn't realize how special your images are to you.

Jack

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If you don't want me to be "demanding," then don't post images
> without 
> asking. I don't know why you would need a "web person" to manage
> images 
> on a public site, but perhaps that's the way you do things.
> On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > It will be "got down" when my web person responds to my earlier
> email.
> > There was a time (with a previous host) that I had the links, but
> they
> > no longer work.
> > He may not be available today, you'll just have to be patient.
> > Your demanding mode is not helping.
> >
> > Jack
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> You don't know how to remove a file from your web page at Photo
> >> Light? It's still up. Get it down.
> >>
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul, don't fret, this is all going to be OK. Tell me how I do
> >> that.
> >>> It's been deleted from my files. (?)
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
>  I'm just asking you to remove my photo from your site. The
> message
>  will
>  remain in the archive of course. In fact, I'm insisting that
> your
>  remove my photo from your site.
>  Paul
>  On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> 
> > I'd be pleased to, but is it possible once archived?
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I would appreciate it if you removed that image.
> >> Paul
> >> On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> A favorite indoor sport.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Bob
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>> --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Jack Davis
> > Sent: 03 September 2006 00:39
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: Re: PESO: Loving Family
> >
> > Somehow I'm missing the point of this. Is it a criticism of
> >> Paul's
> > reaction? or..?
> >
> >
>  ...just nit-picking...
> 
>  (sorry - someone had to get it in!)
> 
>  Bob
> 
> >>> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=180
> >
> >>>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4885126&size=lg
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>  -- 
>  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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> 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
> >
> 
> 
>  -- 
>  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
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> 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
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Photography (for a change)

[Paul Stenquist]

In this case, I would keep the bottom third. It's the bands of color  
that make this shot special. Rules are made to be broken.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Jack Davis wrote:

> Eliminating the lower third would place the composition in an oft
> preferred one wherein the horizon is out of the center. Obviously  
> not a
> compelling rule, but one that I've followed from time to time if the
> resulting composition felt better as a result.
> I think I like the tree/building placement as is.
>
> Jack
>
> --- Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is a question about composition. I came across the following
>> photo
>> (not mine):
>>
>> http://www.zyeuter.com/bon_baiser_de_valensole/photo107872.html
>>
>> There is much about it that I like, but I think that the bottom third
>> is
>> a mistake. It seems to me that the photographer should have cut off
>> the
>> bottom third, then extended the composition somewhat to the right (if
>>
>> possible--maybe there's a cement plant there), placing the building
>> at
>> the upper-left "golden rectangle" point.
>>
>> What do others think? Is there justification for keeping the lower
>> third?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> -- 
>> 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


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

Re: September PUG is open

[P. J. Alling]

Now that you've mentioned it I tried an experiment, if you download it 
you can increase it's size by 200% with no ill effects, using no 
particularly special techniques.

David Savage wrote:

>I have no complaints about that shot...other than it's to small.
>
>
>
>Dave ;-)
>
>On 9/3/06, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>I wonder what the h... happened to my contribution - Mixed Grill or
>>Juxt4283? I'm sure I uploaded it long time ago. Was it subject to
>>censorship???
>>:http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/232100060/
>>
>>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

Re: peso: catchlight

[Paul Stenquist]

Excellent. An unusual look, well rendered. And you have a beautiful  
daughter.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:11 PM, gibikote wrote:

> Dears all,
>
> I am overwhelmed by the response thanks everyone.
> :-))
>
> regards,
> Sridhar
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:31 PM
> Subject: Re: peso: catchlight
>
>
>> I like this.  A very interesting scene.  Nice work!
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> Sunday, September 3, 2006, 9:45:23 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> g> hi.
>>
>> g> this just happened one afternoon last month.
>> g> my daughter was trying her best to catch the light streaming in  
>> thru
>> the
>> g> window and making patterns on the floor.  a wonderful moment I  
>> just
>> didnt
>> g> want to disturb.  this is the only pic with her 'still', so to  
>> say...
>> others
>> g> show much movement blur as she was trying to move towards the  
>> window.
>>
>> g> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4888288
>>
>> g> auto, handheld, crop & unsharp mask.
>>
>> g> all comments welcome.
>>
>> g> thanks and regards,
>> g> Sridhar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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: Herb Keppler's comments in Photo Reporter

[John Francis]

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:04:40PM -0400, Bob Shell wrote:
> Why would you use a familiar nickname for someone you do not know?
> Mr. Keppler is an old friend of mine, and he despises being called  
> Herb.  His nickname, to those of us who know him, is Burt.  To anyone  
> else he is Herbert or Mr. Keppler.  Show the man some respect.
> 
> Bob

Are you sure it's spelled that way, and not "Bert" ?


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

Re: Photography (for a change)

[P. J. Alling]

I like the layered effect.  I'm not sure that the lower third needs to 
be quite as prominent but it adds more to the composition than it 
detracts in my opinion.

Joseph Tainter wrote:

>This is a question about composition. I came across the following photo 
>(not mine):
>
>http://www.zyeuter.com/bon_baiser_de_valensole/photo107872.html
>
>There is much about it that I like, but I think that the bottom third is 
>a mistake. It seems to me that the photographer should have cut off the 
>bottom third, then extended the composition somewhat to the right (if 
>possible--maybe there's a cement plant there), placing the building at 
>the upper-left "golden rectangle" point.
>
>What do others think? Is there justification for keeping the lower third?
>
>Joe
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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

Re: PESO - white flowers

[P. J. Alling]

I like the color rendition of the second, it's more, I think that the 
background could be lightened a bit to good effect, maybe half as bright 
as that on the first, while keeping the white flowers roughly the same 
brightness level.  I don't know if that's possible.

Mat Maessen wrote:

>On 9/2/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Looks a little flat to me (considering the lighting thats not
>>surprising) & seems to have a yellow colour cast
>>A curves adjustment to darken the foliage helps to make the flowers stand out.
>>
>>
>
>Take 2:
>http://www.matoe.org/gallery2/v/tomatoe/testscans/IMGP0046_2.jpg.html
>
>This time, I white-balanced off of the flowers, and applied liberal
>amounts of curves to bring down the background. For some reason the
>JPEG always seems to have less contrast and be brighter in my web
>browser than it looks in the Photoshop window. Maybe the lack of real
>color management in the browser?
>
>-Mat
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



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