Re: lens tests (Pentax and others as well)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:06 PM, AlexG wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance?
> Why do you say Photodo is misleading?


- Because I find the test results there inaccurate based upon my use  
of lenses that they've tested.
- Because their graphs don't make much sense.
- Because people take their word as some kind of gospel, much like  
they do with DPReview.com's tests, and just believe them without  
question or understanding.

etc.

It's my opinion. You don't have to agree with me. ;-)

G



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

Re: Ordered Lightroom today

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 23, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

> Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom.  
> Now
> we'll see how the learning curve goes...

I recommend very strongly that anyone who wants to understand how to  
get a lot of work done with Lightroom with the shortest learning  
curve use the online video tutorials. I found Michael Tapes'  
tutorials an excellent starting point, they're available at
http://www.rawworkflow.com

Some Windows/PC hardware doesn't run Lightroom well, for various  
reasons (lack of the SSE2 instruction set, other stuff that's  
mysterious to me) but it runs very nicely on Apple PowerPC G4, G5 and  
Intel hardware under Mac OS X. I use it *extensively*, every day, and  
it is getting huge amounts of work done for me.

Godfrey

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

Re: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.

[P. J. Alling]

Once again, I tried the link here and it works fine.  I was having some 
trouble connecting a while ago but that seems to have cleared up now.

Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
> "Page not found" - sorry.
>
> Maris
>
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>   
>> This is my response to Graywolf's challenge for a photo I wouldn't
>> have
>> taken except for shooting digital  I knew this was going to be out of
>> focus, and suffer from some movement blur.  However I made the shot
>> anyway and I'm glad I did for the content.
>>
>> The Story:  I was invited to dinner by my cousin and her daughter.  We
>> ate at a 50's themed burger joint.  I liked the patterns the lighting
>> made and took a couple of exposures.  This waitress had no idea that I
>> was taking a shot of the interesting lights and posed.  Here it is.  A
>> fun shot, with some technical difficulties, (or I could claim to be
>> inspired by Knarf, and have induced theauraltian blur...)
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_thefastmovingunknownwaitress.html
>>
>> Equipment:  Pentax *ist-D/smc Pentax FA 28-200mm [IF]AL 
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.


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

Re: PESO: Tall shadows

[P. J. Alling]

Sorry, I managed to reply to the wrong thread.

P. J. Alling wrote:
> I think you're mistaking lack of detail from being mostly out of focus, 
> with lack of detail from being blown out.
>
> Jack Davis wrote:
>   
>> This is another in which the original post got by me. 
>> Please clone out the lower right "truncated" shadow.
>> The head which is nearly touching the bottom edge, should be given more
>> space from the edge, if you can.
>> Otherwise, it's a terrific shot.
>>
>> Jack
>> --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> I almost really really like this.
>>>
>>> The two things I see that bother me a little, granted I wasn't there,
>>> and 
>>> vantage point is probably difficult to achieve in a dynamic situation
>>> are:
>>>
>>> 1. I wish the bottom right truncated shadow was not present.
>>> 2. I wish there were overall more 'white' space along the bottom
>>> edge.
>>>
>>> That doesn't ruin it for me as I do like it, but it feels a little 
>>> unbalanced and the truncated shadow combined with the almost
>>> truncated head 
>>> at the bottom center cause a distraction.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom C.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>   
 From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
 Subject: PESO: Tall shadows
 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:29:35 +0200

 Taken from the S.Marco tower in Venice, looking down at the
   
 
>>> passers-by in
>>> 
>>>   
 S.Marco Square:
 http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc18e.htm

 Apart from the obvious increased contrast and BW conversion, the
   
 
>>> picture 
>>> 
>>>   
 has
 been flipped, rotated and cropped as required.
 Does it work for you?

 Dario


 --
 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 
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.


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

Re: PESO: Tall shadows

[P. J. Alling]

I think you're mistaking lack of detail from being mostly out of focus, 
with lack of detail from being blown out.

Jack Davis wrote:
> This is another in which the original post got by me. 
> Please clone out the lower right "truncated" shadow.
> The head which is nearly touching the bottom edge, should be given more
> space from the edge, if you can.
> Otherwise, it's a terrific shot.
>
> Jack
> --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> I almost really really like this.
>>
>> The two things I see that bother me a little, granted I wasn't there,
>> and 
>> vantage point is probably difficult to achieve in a dynamic situation
>> are:
>>
>> 1. I wish the bottom right truncated shadow was not present.
>> 2. I wish there were overall more 'white' space along the bottom
>> edge.
>>
>> That doesn't ruin it for me as I do like it, but it feels a little 
>> unbalanced and the truncated shadow combined with the almost
>> truncated head 
>> at the bottom center cause a distraction.
>>
>>
>> Tom C.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>>> Subject: PESO: Tall shadows
>>> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:29:35 +0200
>>>
>>> Taken from the S.Marco tower in Venice, looking down at the
>>>   
>> passers-by in
>> 
>>> S.Marco Square:
>>> http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc18e.htm
>>>
>>> Apart from the obvious increased contrast and BW conversion, the
>>>   
>> picture 
>> 
>>> has
>>> been flipped, rotated and cropped as required.
>>> Does it work for you?
>>>
>>> Dario
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 
>
>   


-- 
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.


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

Re: OT: (sorta) Exposure Plot

[Stan Halpin]

Windows only  :-(


stan

On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:39 PM, David Savage wrote:

> G'day All,
>
> I came across a link to this little application and thought some here
> might find it interesting:
>
> 
>
> It only works for .jpg's, but it analyzes the EXIF data and creates a
> graph showing the frequency of use for focal lengths, ISO, shutter
> speed etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> -- 
> 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 -- "A Beach A Bench"

[Russell Kerstetter]

I like this one Peter.  It is simple and peaceful

Russ

On 4/23/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One more PESO today.  Which should be it for a while, (I hear a great
> sigh of relief, now everyone can get back to the Flame War du Jour).
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_beachbench.html
>
> Equipment:  Pentax *ist-Ds/Vivitar Series 1 vmc 35-85mm f2.8 varifocus.
>
> --
> Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
> thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
Legacy Air, Inc.
11900 Airport Way
Broomfield Colorado 80021
(303) 404-0277
fax (303) 404-0280
www.legacy-air.com

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

Re: Paw LV-5

[Fernando Terrazzino]

Hey Dave,

Why "is not a great picture"? I like it very much, I have this feeling
that you capture the essence of the Tahiti brothers (whatever that is
;-) ).

I like where you put them in the frame and the lines behind them. The
light might be harsh but you got some nice shadows on their faces.

Good one.

Fernando

On 4/22/07, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5881516
>
> Only twice in carrying a camera around, have I been ,asked, to take
> someones picture. Once with TOPDML lads in 2003, and recently on Las
> Vegas Blvd S.
>
> These two Gents are sales pitch people from Tahiti Village. The one on
> the right, saw my camera and posed the ever asked question, "Nice
> camera, does it take nice pictures".
> I informed him it took excellent pictures, to wit, they replied, "Take
> our picture, and tell everyone you meet, the Tahiti brothers here."
>
> So, i give the world, the Tahiti Brothers.
>
> Wish full filled.:-)
>
> K10D, 16-45. Processed in LR to brighten the shadow on the one face,
> then reassigned size and sharpness in CS2.
>
> Its not a great picture, but i did tell tham, i would expose the world to them
>
> Dave
>
> --
> Equine Photography
> www.caughtinmotion.com
> http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
> Ontario Canada
>
> --
> 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

OT: (sorta) Exposure Plot

[David Savage]

G'day All,

I came across a link to this little application and thought some here
might find it interesting:



It only works for .jpg's, but it analyzes the EXIF data and creates a
graph showing the frequency of use for focal lengths, ISO, shutter
speed etc.

Cheers,

Dave

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

HDR imaging ... not really OT

[Anand DHUPKAR]

Hi everyone 

On pbase.com, in their latest issue there is an
article on HDR magic.  Concept seems interesting -
take three exposures - one correct, one two stops
under and one two stops over and then merge the three
images where the software captures maximum possible
details from each picture taken.  

this is the link ...
http://i2.pbase.com/o1/mag/pbase_magazine_vol9_apr2007.pdf

Has anyone tried High Dynamic Range Imaging ?  
The pictures he has published in this issue seem
pretty interesting.  

Any thoughts ? 



__
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

Ordered Lightroom today

[Walter Hamler]

Yes, Mark, I too will be interested in how you like it. I had tried the Beta 
and was very unhappy with the Print Module. It appeals to me for the raw 
handling and the database management. Just don't know if I want to spend the 
bucks for another piece of software that will need upgrading every few 
years!!!

Walt 


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

Re: Ordered Lightroom today

[Adam Maas]

No reason it should be slow then. That config spanks my laptop, and it 
runs fine on my laptop.

-Adam

AlexG wrote:
> Athlon64 X2 @ 2.6 Ghz
> 
> It supports SSE2 and 3.
> 
> On 4/23/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What processors? Lightroom needs SSE2 to fly. Running without SSE2
>> support will result in dog-like performance from lightroom.
>>
>> It's quite reasonable in performance on my 1.8GHz Turion 64 laptop with
>> 1GB RAM.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> AlexG wrote:
>>> Let us know how you find it.
>>>
>>> Personally, i think it really stinks on Windows. I have two processors
>>> and tons of ram, and it's slow.
>>>
>>> On 4/23/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom. Now
 we'll see how the learning curve goes...


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

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


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

Re: PESO: not my usual thing (showing orig pic)

[ann sanfedele]

David Savage wrote:

>This is what came to my mind:
>
>
>
>I almost automatically thought of capillaries & heart scans.
>
>I know, weird huh?!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>
Not so weird , really  the branches of trees, the branches of rivers, 
the rivers of blood in your body --
Hope you weren't thinking of it because you are worrieda bout your heart 
though! :)

ann


  - but you can't use this for the color wheel red slot :)

>
>On 4/23/07, ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Mike and Boris  - just for you :
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/2ao44o
>>
>>I think the neon blue one would look nice in a magazine opposite
>>Christian's cormerant sillhouette against
>>the (natural) orange sky.
>>
>>or with 4 other excessively monochrome but highly saturated color shots
>>to finish the 6 point color wheel.
>>
>>Mark's yellow close-up would fit, but it isn't a nature shot.
>>
>>anyone want to play this game?
>>
>>ann  - who has been cleaning out closets and doing dishes for too long today
>>
>>
>
>  
>



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

Re: Ordered Lightroom today

[John Francis]

I'd guess you have AMD processors.  Intels (or the latest
generation of AMDs) work fine with Lightroom, but earlier
AMD chipsets lack one particular set of extended instructions.
Unfortunately, Lightroom makes heavy use of those instructions.


On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:57:25PM -0400, AlexG wrote:
> Let us know how you find it.
> 
> Personally, i think it really stinks on Windows. I have two processors
> and tons of ram, and it's slow.
> 
> On 4/23/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom. Now
> > we'll see how the learning curve goes...
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo

[Paul Stenquist]

Here's one I shot at Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, California:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5887044&size=lg


On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:37 PM, David Savage wrote:

> On 4/24/07, Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure it is
>> not native to Florida.
>
>
> That's a bottle brush alright.
>
> Here's one I took that's in the garden:
>
> 
>
> The native birds love them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> -- 
> 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: Observations from cleaning my gear.

[Mark Cassino]

Leon Altoff wrote:
>  Has 
> anyone else noticed a reducing need to clean their sensor over time?

I noted the same thing iwth my *ist-D. Shooting snow crystals really 
makes the dust spots and sensor flaws pop. I used to clean the sensor 
every few week with wet swabs, this year one cleaning at the start of 
the season took care of it.

WI th the K10D I've had to use the blower once or twice, otherwise no 
problems.

> The coating on one of my Hoya HMC filters 
> has developed shiny spots and streaks and needs to be replaced and two 
> other lenses have managed to keep really cheap filters that are creating 
> extra flare in my pictures - these will be replaced as soon as I find 
> out if I can buy Pentax filters in Australia, order them from overseas 
> or find a place to buy B+W filters from.

I was horrified a few years ago to find shiny spots on the front element 
of my A* 400 f2.8. Not used near salt spray but used around fresh water 
spray. The "breath on lens" treatment was ineffective, so I tried 
rubbing alcohol, it too did not work. I finally used some Kodak water 
based lens cleaning product and it got everything fixed up just fine. I 
suspect distilled water would have worked as well.

(You can't get protective filters for the A* 400 since it has no filter 
rings and a front element big enough to hold a three egg breakfast. I 
uses little 49mm internal filters.)

- MCC



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, Michigan
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Re: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.

[ann sanfedele]

P.J. this is far and away the best photo you have taken and shown the 
list that I've ever seen ... it has life!
You should stop agonizing over technical stuff and just shoot from the 
gut.  
Seriously.

ann


P. J. Alling wrote:

>This is my response to Graywolf's challenge for a photo I wouldn't have 
>taken except for shooting digital  I knew this was going to be out of 
>focus, and suffer from some movement blur.  However I made the shot 
>anyway and I'm glad I did for the content.
>
>The Story:  I was invited to dinner by my cousin and her daughter.  We 
>ate at a 50's themed burger joint.  I liked the patterns the lighting 
>made and took a couple of exposures.  This waitress had no idea that I 
>was taking a shot of the interesting lights and posed.  Here it is.  A 
>fun shot, with some technical difficulties, (or I could claim to be 
>inspired by Knarf, and have induced theauraltian blur...)
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_thefastmovingunknownwaitress.html
>
>Equipment:  Pentax *ist-D/smc Pentax FA 28-200mm [IF]AL
>  
>
__

>  
>



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

Re: Ordered Lightroom today

[Mark Cassino]

AlexG wrote:

> Personally, i think it really stinks on Windows. I have two processors
> and tons of ram, and it's slow.

Could you share what kind of processor configuration you are using - 
Athlon / Intel etc?

Thanks -

MCC



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, Michigan
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Another 85mm f2.0 SMC-M image - Fungi?

[J. C. O'Connell]

Heres a more conventional looking image
not showing any bokeh problems
I took with this lens today:

http://www.jchriso.com/temp/85MMFUNGI.jpg

This one was shot at F5.6, the lens
seems very sharp and contrasty
by this f-Stop to me although
the small web image doesn't really
show it well. Color saturation
is good too...

BTW, What the hell are these?
Fungi or not Fungi?
jco


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

Re: color wheel photo project

[ann sanfedele]

Certainly red -- but
not quite right for the wheel - too much real person detail...

Where is Mark R with his yellow close-up?

Amita's purple is just right, I think

My idea is they all have to be a bit over the top and strongly one-colored

ann wheeling the fortune

John Francis wrote:

>On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:43:07PM -0400, ann sanfedele wrote:
>  
>
>>Luka Knezevic - Strika wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>would this perhaps do for green?
>>>
>>>http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o126/concavex/_IGP6182_2.jpg
>>>
>>>luka
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>hmmm - a bit of a stretch -  for our 6 shot wheel (or rectangle)  start 
>>with those
>>shots of mine and Christian
>>for what my idea is... (another just for the hell fo it project)
>>(in case you missed 'em when we each posted these)
>>
>>christian's lonely cormorant
>>
>>  http://tinyurl.com/348g67
>>
>>ann's trees
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/2ck4u8
>>
>>add your URL here:  :)
>>
>>
>
>http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/GoGoGo.jpg
>
>
>  
>



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

Re: color wheel photo project

[ann sanfedele]

Amita Guha wrote:

>Does it have to be from a Pentax? I took this purple shot with a Leica digicam:
>http://sunny16.zenfolio.com/p1071070963/?photo=h10121955#269621589
>
>Amita :)
>
>On 4/23/07, ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>anyone for green and purple?
>>
>>
>
>  
>
woo woo - I love it!
I here by dub you the purple piece of the color wheel pie

ann


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

Re: OT: Back with protection

[Mark Cassino]

Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I'm back. Godders helped me set up some filters 

Funny, I thought Godders never used filters for protection...

Maybe I've getting my threads crossed - welcome back, Paul. :-)

- MCC



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, Michigan
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Re: Ordered Lightroom today

[AlexG]

Athlon64 X2 @ 2.6 Ghz

It supports SSE2 and 3.

On 4/23/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What processors? Lightroom needs SSE2 to fly. Running without SSE2
> support will result in dog-like performance from lightroom.
>
> It's quite reasonable in performance on my 1.8GHz Turion 64 laptop with
> 1GB RAM.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> AlexG wrote:
> > Let us know how you find it.
> >
> > Personally, i think it really stinks on Windows. I have two processors
> > and tons of ram, and it's slow.
> >
> > On 4/23/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom. Now
> >> we'll see how the learning curve goes...
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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: color wheel photo project

[ann sanfedele]

mike wilson wrote:

>ann sanfedele wrote:
>  
>
>>We have Christian's Cormorant for the Orange, my controversial blue neon 
>>trees for the blue,
>>Mark Roberts close-up of yellow (car?)  and , perhaps, Paul's recent 
>>just for the hell of it
>>for the Red - although, I have this vague recollection there is aother 
>>fairly recent bright red
>>something that would work too
>>
>>anyone for green and purple?
>>
>>
>
>Both at once?
>http://home.fotocommunity.com/mike.a.wilson/index.php?id=529253&d=6022920
>

Nice pic - doesn't work for the wheel... tsk tsk  :)

ann

>
>  
>



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

Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass

[Jack Davis]

The trick is to shoot at a rate wherein the buffer is filled with
images of the proper pixel weight to offset the diminishing battery
power. 

Jack
--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That's the same principle for your camera having slightly more mass
> after 
> installing a fresh set of batteries.  If you pay close attention
> you'll 
> notice your camera feels lighter and lighter as the electrons are
> depleted.
> 
> I guess it's a good thing because on a long photo-shoot the camera is
> easier 
> to hold as time goes on. Of course if you have a filter on the lens
> that is 
> collecting the photonic residue, you'll be offsetting that reduced
> mass by 
> some amount.
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
> >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >All right!! That's got to be the answer and explains why some images
> >are more prone to this phenomenon than others. I think maybe cat fur
> >may be the worst offender. Photo fur balls.
> >
> >Jack
> >--- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That looks like the sort of explanation Calvin's dad would
> provide
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:01:05PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> > > > It's photon residue, popularly known as 'light lint'. It's
> > > scientific
> > > > Latin name is 'Floccus lucis'.
> > > >
> > > > The stuff that the filter stops from going into the lens has to
> go
> > > > somewhere, and so it gets trapped between the filter and the
> front
> > > > element. It's the light equivalent of all that fluff that
> > > accumulates
> > > > in the filter of your clothes dryer and which is so satisfying
> to
> > > > remove.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >  Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > > > > Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
> > > > > Sent: 23 April 2007 21:00
> > > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > > > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer
> > > glass
> > > > >
> > > > > In my case it was more than dust, but something more akin to
> > > > > a haze or a
> > > > > film.  Yeah, there was a little dust in there as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from the dust, my theory about the haze is that there
> may
> > > be
> > > > > something in the lens, like lubricants, that emit some gas or
> > > > > evaporate
> > > > > slightly (we've all experienced the lubricant getting dry at
> > > > > one time or
> > > > > another), and that the filter over the lens element prevents
> the
> > > > > evaporation from just dissipating into the atmosphere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dust, like rust, never sleeps!
> > > > >
> > > > > Shel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > [Original Message]
> > > > > > From: William Robb
> > > > >
> > > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially
> consumer
> > > glass
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> BTW, in my world dust cannot
> > > > > > > > migrate to the area between the filter
> > > > > > >> and the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > lol ... Do you have them sealed somehow?  ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I always thought that too, which is why I found the
> > > > > consistent build
> > > > > > > up of dusty film between the two quite curious.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could never figure that out either. I had a filter on my
> > > > > Nikkor 50/1.4
> > > > > > from the time I bought it. I was pretty good about cleaning
> > > > > the front
> > > > > > surface, but ignored the inside surfaces. It was quite
> > > > > amazing how much
> > > > > dust
> > > > > > was in there after a year or so.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >__
> >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 Pen

Re: Ordered Lightroom today

[Scott Loveless]

I downloaded the trial today after reading Godfrey's  response to my 
editing query and installed it on the new laptop - 1.7GHz Celeron M with 
1.5GB RAM.  Runs nice and smooth so far.  I haven't figured out exactly 
what I'm doing with it, so batch processing may be another story entirely.

-- 

Scott Loveless
www.twosixteen.com



Adam Maas wrote:
> What processors? Lightroom needs SSE2 to fly. Running without SSE2 
> support will result in dog-like performance from lightroom.
>
> It's quite reasonable in performance on my 1.8GHz Turion 64 laptop with 
> 1GB RAM.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> AlexG wrote:
>   
>> Let us know how you find it.
>>
>> Personally, i think it really stinks on Windows. I have two processors
>> and tons of ram, and it's slow.
>>
>> On 4/23/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom. Now
>>> we'll see how the learning curve goes...
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>
>>>   
>
>
>   

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

Re: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

P.S.  WinXP Pro, using FireFox

Maris

Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:
> "Page not found" - sorry.
>
> Maris
>
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_thefastmovingunknownwaitress.html
>>
>> Equipment:  Pentax *ist-D/smc Pentax FA 28-200mm [IF]AL 


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

Re: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

"Page not found" - sorry.

Maris

P. J. Alling wrote:
> This is my response to Graywolf's challenge for a photo I wouldn't
> have
> taken except for shooting digital  I knew this was going to be out of
> focus, and suffer from some movement blur.  However I made the shot
> anyway and I'm glad I did for the content.
>
> The Story:  I was invited to dinner by my cousin and her daughter.  We
> ate at a 50's themed burger joint.  I liked the patterns the lighting
> made and took a couple of exposures.  This waitress had no idea that I
> was taking a shot of the interesting lights and posed.  Here it is.  A
> fun shot, with some technical difficulties, (or I could claim to be
> inspired by Knarf, and have induced theauraltian blur...)
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_thefastmovingunknownwaitress.html
>
> Equipment:  Pentax *ist-D/smc Pentax FA 28-200mm [IF]AL 


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

Re: Ordered Lightroom today

[AlexG]

Let us know how you find it.

Personally, i think it really stinks on Windows. I have two processors
and tons of ram, and it's slow.

On 4/23/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom. Now
> we'll see how the learning curve goes...
>
>
> --
> 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 - Low Bow

[Jack Davis]

Good thing you carry the "D" on your commute. Interesting "bow"
position together with a nicely lit and complimentary sky. The total
composition is well assembled.

Jack
--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> About 1/10 mile from home I rounded the corner and was treated to
> this.
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5886737&size=lg
> 
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Ordered Lightroom today

[Adam Maas]

What processors? Lightroom needs SSE2 to fly. Running without SSE2 
support will result in dog-like performance from lightroom.

It's quite reasonable in performance on my 1.8GHz Turion 64 laptop with 
1GB RAM.

-Adam


AlexG wrote:
> Let us know how you find it.
> 
> Personally, i think it really stinks on Windows. I have two processors
> and tons of ram, and it's slow.
> 
> On 4/23/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom. Now
>> we'll see how the learning curve goes...
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 tests (Pentax and others as well)

[AlexG]

Pardon my ignorance?

Why do you say Photodo is misleading?

On 4/23/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those addicted to lens tests,
>
> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/#pentax
>
> has now started testing Pentax lenses. Right now they've got only the
> FA50/1.4 and DA18-55/3.5-5.6 up, but it looks like they're going to
> do a fair sampling of the rest.
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of these kinds of tests as I feel they
> often give people false impressions of the usefulness of a lens, but
> I do find them interesting now and then. Photozone.de's test are much
> more sensible than the nonsense promulgated as tests by
> www.photodo.com, IMO, or what we read in magazines like Popular
> Photography...
>
> My fire suit is on and sealed so don't bother flaming... ;-)
>
> enjoy
> Godfrey
>
> --
> 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: Just for the hell of it!

[graywolf]

Look everyone, Ann does not need a sign to make a photo interesting 

Need I say, I agree with Bob?


Bob W wrote:
> Some of those shots of Paris are really beautiful, Ann.
> 
> --
>  Bob
>  
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of ann sanfedele
>> Sent: 23 April 2007 22:50
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Just for the hell of it!
>>
>> Toine wrote:
>>
>>> Digital isn't better than film.It's a lot easier and in theory
>>> cheaper. In fact thanks to digital I started shooting again. The
> dark
>>> room was a disaster and shooting color pos. or neg. was  
>> even worse. I
>>> hated the long waiting and the ugly prints from the color lab.
> Tried
>>> PhotoCd and digital scanners which was a little more fun but very
>>> expensive and time consuming.
>>> Shooting RAW and inkjet printers is what I want!
>>> So every picture I have shot the last years would not have 
>> made with film.
>> Lots of shots I've taken I couldn't have gotten using digital - I 
>> couldn't have reacted soon enough...
>> I also couldn't have gotten them with camera's that required 
>> batteries 
>> for anything but a light meter...
>> I couldn't react fast enough... a KX or an LX (without the 
>> winder) and a 
>> 50mm lens , tri-x  - shutter speed at
>> 250, f8 and hyperfocal distance set -  and the camera around my neck
> 
>> requiring only that I lift the camera to
>> my eye and click...  
>>
>> This one is one that no matter how quick my reflexes were, the 
>> combination of having to turn on the camera
>> and turn off the auto focus , etc... would have done me in, I think
> - 
>> because I was shooting through the
>> dirty window of a train  - if I had to change the auto focus 
>> I normally 
>> use shooting digital to manual and turn
>> on the camera I'd have been dead - well, or gotten a different
> shot...
>> also,  there was much less to know about a manual camera - aperture,
> 
>> shutter speed, focus, ISO, DOF view, quickly changed
>> with visible knobs.  
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2vqkx5
>>
>> The main benefits of digital to me are
>>
>> no dark room chemicals to inhale or dispose of.
>> being able to "chimp" (when one is taking pics of something 
>> one can do a 
>> quick do over on)
>> and quickly get my ebay stuff photo'ed and on line.
>>
>> the lightness of the camera - my LX feels like I'm carrying workout 
>> weights when I lift it now.
>> and the speed with which I can see results
>>
>> ann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 4/23/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  
>>>
 Ok, just for the hell of it. The general opinion here is 
>> that digital is
 better than film, so how about everyone posting a photo 
>> that they took
 with digital that they feel they could not, or would not, 
>> have done with
 film.

 -graywolf

 --
 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: nice DA40 example picture ...

[AlexG]

Call me crazy, but i don't like that picture! I dunno, not my style,
but it looks quite good from a performance perspective!

I pulled the trigger, finally.

Stuff will be here on the 25th-- 2 days! can't wait!

I will annoy you all with plenty of pictures

On 4/23/07, Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you. Good one and wonderful lense. Now that I have my set of
> zooms, it's time for primes...
>
> thank you Godfrey.
> --
> new photos ever so often... 
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

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

Re: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.

[AlexG]

sexy!

On 4/23/07, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great expression !
> Nice as is, but I believe a portrait orientation with some slight cropping
> on either side would improve this one.
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.
>
>
> > This is my response to Graywolf's challenge for a photo I wouldn't have
> > taken except for shooting digital  I knew this was going to be out of
> > focus, and suffer from some movement blur.  However I made the shot
> > anyway and I'm glad I did for the content.
> >
> > The Story:  I was invited to dinner by my cousin and her daughter.  We
> > ate at a 50's themed burger joint.  I liked the patterns the lighting
> > made and took a couple of exposures.  This waitress had no idea that I
> > was taking a shot of the interesting lights and posed.  Here it is.  A
> > fun shot, with some technical difficulties, (or I could claim to be
> > inspired by Knarf, and have induced theauraltian blur...)
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_thefastmovingunknownwaitress.html
> >
> > Equipment:  Pentax *ist-D/smc Pentax FA 28-200mm [IF]AL
>
>
> --
> 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: Frecce Tricolori

[AlexG]

Cool!

Fighter jets kick ass.

On 4/23/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I do like it. I think the formation and smoke trail shots are the
> most interesting.
> All nicely caught and with good resolution.
>
> Jack
> --- Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is the quite known (I think) Italian acro team:
> > http://www.dariobonazza.com/freccee.htm
> >
> > Sure I'm not an expert plane shooter (this is in fact just the second
> > time
> > I've shot something like that in 20 years), but I like that gallery.
> > Anyone else? Do you see major mistakes to get rid of the next time?
> > Thanks
> > for commenting.
> >
> > Dario
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo

[J. C. O'Connell]

Ok, but I think the quality or
lack thereof is independent
of performance optimization
at any paricular focussing distance,
and since this is a "portrait"
type lens, it probably is focus
optimized at a closer distance
than inifinity. My hunch is they
sacrificed the bokeh quality to make it physically
a VERY small optical/mechanical design.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Rapp
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo


I had seen them both. I think the key here is the focus distance.
Some 
lenses are formulated for medium or infinity focus. Other, macros for 
example, are formulated of close distance performance.
Again, I compliment you on the f11 shot of the bottle brush.

Bob

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo


> If you look at the first bokeh test photo
> I posted shot at F2.0 from yesterday ,you will see the
> bokeh is not ordinary, its extraordinarily
> bad, kinda jagged double imaged looking. this second shot at F11 still

> shows some of that wierd double image/jaggedness but I probably
> should have posted them together so you
> could see/notice that in the second photo easier.
> I.
>
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Rapp
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:32 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo
>
>
> I agree, the Boketh is ordinary. But no one commented on the shot. 
> Actually quite good. It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. 
> I am sure it is
> not native to Florida.
>
> Bob
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

-- 
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: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo

[David Savage]

On 4/24/07, Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure it is
> not native to Florida.


That's a bottle brush alright.

Here's one I took that's in the garden:



The native birds love them.

Cheers,

Dave

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

Ordered Lightroom today

[Mark Roberts]

Well I just took the plunge and ordered myself a copy of Lightroom. Now 
we'll see how the learning curve goes...


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

PESO - Low Bow

[Tom C]

About 1/10 mile from home I rounded the corner and was treated to this.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5886737&size=lg


Tom C.



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

Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo

[Bob Rapp]

I had seen them both. I think the key here is the focus distance. Some 
lenses are formulated for medium or infinity focus. Other, macros for 
example, are formulated of close distance performance.
Again, I compliment you on the f11 shot of the bottle brush.

Bob

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo


> If you look at the first bokeh test photo
> I posted shot at F2.0 from yesterday ,you will see the
> bokeh is not ordinary, its extraordinarily
> bad, kinda jagged double imaged looking. this second shot at F11 still
> shows
> some of that wierd double image/jaggedness but I probably
> should have posted them together so you
> could see/notice that in the second photo easier.
> I.
>
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Bob Rapp
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:32 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo
>
>
> I agree, the Boketh is ordinary. But no one commented on the shot.
> Actually
> quite good. It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure
> it is
> not native to Florida.
>
> Bob
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

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

RE: PESO: Tall shadows

[Jack Davis]

This is another in which the original post got by me. 
Please clone out the lower right "truncated" shadow.
The head which is nearly touching the bottom edge, should be given more
space from the edge, if you can.
Otherwise, it's a terrific shot.

Jack
--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I almost really really like this.
> 
> The two things I see that bother me a little, granted I wasn't there,
> and 
> vantage point is probably difficult to achieve in a dynamic situation
> are:
> 
> 1. I wish the bottom right truncated shadow was not present.
> 2. I wish there were overall more 'white' space along the bottom
> edge.
> 
> That doesn't ruin it for me as I do like it, but it feels a little 
> unbalanced and the truncated shadow combined with the almost
> truncated head 
> at the bottom center cause a distraction.
> 
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> >Subject: PESO: Tall shadows
> >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:29:35 +0200
> >
> >Taken from the S.Marco tower in Venice, looking down at the
> passers-by in
> >S.Marco Square:
> >http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc18e.htm
> >
> >Apart from the obvious increased contrast and BW conversion, the
> picture 
> >has
> >been flipped, rotated and cropped as required.
> >Does it work for you?
> >
> >Dario
> >
> >
> >--
> >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: Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "P. J. Alling" 
Subject: Re: Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove


>I think you're being much too kind...

HE'S CLUELESS

William Robb

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

Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass

[Tom C]

That's the same principle for your camera having slightly more mass after 
installing a fresh set of batteries.  If you pay close attention you'll 
notice your camera feels lighter and lighter as the electrons are depleted.

I guess it's a good thing because on a long photo-shoot the camera is easier 
to hold as time goes on. Of course if you have a filter on the lens that is 
collecting the photonic residue, you'll be offsetting that reduced mass by 
some amount.

Tom C.


>From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
>
>All right!! That's got to be the answer and explains why some images
>are more prone to this phenomenon than others. I think maybe cat fur
>may be the worst offender. Photo fur balls.
>
>Jack
>--- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That looks like the sort of explanation Calvin's dad would provide
> > :-)
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:01:05PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> > > It's photon residue, popularly known as 'light lint'. It's
> > scientific
> > > Latin name is 'Floccus lucis'.
> > >
> > > The stuff that the filter stops from going into the lens has to go
> > > somewhere, and so it gets trapped between the filter and the front
> > > element. It's the light equivalent of all that fluff that
> > accumulates
> > > in the filter of your clothes dryer and which is so satisfying to
> > > remove.
> > >
> > > --
> > >  Bob
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > > > Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
> > > > Sent: 23 April 2007 21:00
> > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer
> > glass
> > > >
> > > > In my case it was more than dust, but something more akin to
> > > > a haze or a
> > > > film.  Yeah, there was a little dust in there as well.
> > > >
> > > > Apart from the dust, my theory about the haze is that there may
> > be
> > > > something in the lens, like lubricants, that emit some gas or
> > > > evaporate
> > > > slightly (we've all experienced the lubricant getting dry at
> > > > one time or
> > > > another), and that the filter over the lens element prevents the
> > > > evaporation from just dissipating into the atmosphere.
> > > >
> > > > Dust, like rust, never sleeps!
> > > >
> > > > Shel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > [Original Message]
> > > > > From: William Robb
> > > >
> > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer
> > glass
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> BTW, in my world dust cannot
> > > > > > > migrate to the area between the filter
> > > > > >> and the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > lol ... Do you have them sealed somehow?  ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always thought that too, which is why I found the
> > > > consistent build
> > > > > > up of dusty film between the two quite curious.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I could never figure that out either. I had a filter on my
> > > > Nikkor 50/1.4
> > > > > from the time I bought it. I was pretty good about cleaning
> > > > the front
> > > > > surface, but ignored the inside surfaces. It was quite
> > > > amazing how much
> > > > dust
> > > > > was in there after a year or so.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
>
>
>__
>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: GESO: Frecce Tricolori

[Jack Davis]

Yes, I do like it. I think the formation and smoke trail shots are the
most interesting.
All nicely caught and with good resolution.

Jack
--- Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is the quite known (I think) Italian acro team:
> http://www.dariobonazza.com/freccee.htm
> 
> Sure I'm not an expert plane shooter (this is in fact just the second
> time 
> I've shot something like that in 20 years), but I like that gallery.
> Anyone else? Do you see major mistakes to get rid of the next time?
> Thanks 
> for commenting.
> 
> Dario 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 -- "A Beach A Bench"

[Jack Davis]

You didn't ask, but I'm going to point out what you surely already
know. The gazebo is completely blown out.
Nice elements, however.

Jack
--- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One more PESO today.  Which should be it for a while, (I hear a great
> 
> sigh of relief, now everyone can get back to the Flame War du Jour).
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_beachbench.html
> 
> Equipment:  Pentax *ist-Ds/Vivitar Series 1 vmc 35-85mm f2.8
> varifocus.
> 
> -- 
> Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw
> uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: What the Hell? [was... Re: PDML.....R. I. P.]

[Cory Papenfuss]

>> Did you guys have a good flame war and I missed it?
>>
>> Darn!
>
> Made what we used to get into look like a 60 style love in, complete with
> the sitars and hookas.
> Or so I've been told..
>
> William Robb
>
Hookas and bell-bottoms are retro now... didn't you know?

-Cory

-- 

*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA   *
* Electrical Engineering*
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*


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

Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass

[Jack Davis]

All right!! That's got to be the answer and explains why some images
are more prone to this phenomenon than others. I think maybe cat fur
may be the worst offender. Photo fur balls.

Jack
--- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> That looks like the sort of explanation Calvin's dad would provide
> :-)
> 
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:01:05PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> > It's photon residue, popularly known as 'light lint'. It's
> scientific
> > Latin name is 'Floccus lucis'. 
> > 
> > The stuff that the filter stops from going into the lens has to go
> > somewhere, and so it gets trapped between the filter and the front
> > element. It's the light equivalent of all that fluff that
> accumulates
> > in the filter of your clothes dryer and which is so satisfying to
> > remove.
> > 
> > --
> >  Bob
> >  
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> > > Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
> > > Sent: 23 April 2007 21:00
> > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer
> glass
> > > 
> > > In my case it was more than dust, but something more akin to 
> > > a haze or a
> > > film.  Yeah, there was a little dust in there as well.
> > > 
> > > Apart from the dust, my theory about the haze is that there may
> be
> > > something in the lens, like lubricants, that emit some gas or 
> > > evaporate
> > > slightly (we've all experienced the lubricant getting dry at 
> > > one time or
> > > another), and that the filter over the lens element prevents the
> > > evaporation from just dissipating into the atmosphere.
> > > 
> > > Dust, like rust, never sleeps!
> > > 
> > > Shel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: William Robb 
> > > 
> > > > - Original Message - 
> > > > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer
> glass
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> BTW, in my world dust cannot 
> > > > > > migrate to the area between the filter
> > > > >> and the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > lol ... Do you have them sealed somehow?  ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I always thought that too, which is why I found the 
> > > consistent build
> > > > > up of dusty film between the two quite curious.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I could never figure that out either. I had a filter on my 
> > > Nikkor 50/1.4 
> > > > from the time I bought it. I was pretty good about cleaning 
> > > the front 
> > > > surface, but ignored the inside surfaces. It was quite 
> > > amazing how much
> > > dust 
> > > > was in there after a year or so.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 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
> 


__
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: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo

[J. C. O'Connell]

If you look at the first bokeh test photo
I posted shot at F2.0 from yesterday ,you will see the
bokeh is not ordinary, its extraordinarily
bad, kinda jagged double imaged looking. this second shot at F11 still
shows
some of that wierd double image/jaggedness but I probably
should have posted them together so you
could see/notice that in the second photo easier.
I. 

jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Rapp
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo


I agree, the Boketh is ordinary. But no one commented on the shot.
Actually 
quite good. It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure
it is 
not native to Florida.

Bob 

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


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

Re: PESO - Let there be Light

[Tom C]

Thanks Russ.

Tom C.



>From: "Russell Kerstetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: Re: PESO - Let there be Light
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:22:56 -0600
>
>nice one tom
>
>russ
>
>On 4/23/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5885529
> >
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
>
>
>--
>Legacy Air, Inc.
>11900 Airport Way
>Broomfield Colorado 80021
>(303) 404-0277
>fax (303) 404-0280
>www.legacy-air.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: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Tom C]

No problem.

Tom C.


>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:44:08 -0400
>
>I apologize, it was someone else telling
>me to "let it slide", talk a walk, etc.
>those comments were meant for them.
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Tom C
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:21 PM
>To: pdml@pdml.net
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>
>
>"Please don't tell me how to react/respond
>to all this craziness because you are not the one being repeatedly
>subjected to it."
>
>Did I tell you how to react or respond?
>
>Cause and effect.
>
>Introspection.
>
>Tom C.
>
>
> >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
> >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:16:21 -0400
> >
> >HUH? If someone else is WRONG when
> >they imply I must not know what the hell I am
> >doing to defend their WRONG contention, they
> >are going to get a reply to set he record straight.
> >I dont have any other choice but to defend
> >myself..
> >
> >And I dont "feel" persecuted, I AM being persecuted
> >here. I get long third party letters saying I shouldnt
> >be calling someone "clueless" after being wrongly
> >provoked while other as posting My name and the A-word
> >in caps right in the subject headers WITHOUT any provocation
> >whatsoever. Please don't tell me how to react/respond to all this
> >craziness because you are not the one being repeatedly subjected to it.
> >jco
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>
> >Tom C
> >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:20 PM
> >To: pdml@pdml.net
> >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >
> >
> >I'm curious if this is the only place you feel persecuted or if it
> >occurs elsewhere in life and online as well.
> >
> >You know people have their own perceptions and opinions.  Those
> >perceptions and opinions will almost always be different from one
> >another.  It does not
> >make your's right and someone else's wrong.
> >
> >And even if someone else was wrong, so what?
> >
> >
> >Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> > >To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
> > >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> > >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:01:09 -0400
> > >
> > >NO this was not a general discussion that I responded to harshly, he
> > >specifically stated the the M85 F2.0 lens which the thread was
> > >originally written about "has just about the smoothest bokeh of any
> > >lens I have seen" and suggested that the reason was most likely bad
> > >digital processing completely ignoring the fact that I had already
> > >stated teh M85 F2.0 lens had very bad bokeh visible IN THE VIEWFINDER
>
> > >which should have been a clue for him as well as the photos I posted.
>
> > >If he suspected that sharpening or processing might be causing the
> > >problem he should have asked about it, not assumed it must be,
> > >implying that I dont know what bad bokeh is when I see it or cant do
> > >basic digital image processing.
> > >
> > >Regarding "taking my side" on that other thread, continuing that
> > >thread
> >
> > >by posting replies without bothering to change the thread header
> > >containing JCO and the offensive "A-word" right in the subject header
>
> > >was NOT taking my side the way I see/saw it, it only made it far
> > >worse & I found it hard to believe it wasnt being done intentionally
> > >at the time.
> > >The whole point of my complaint was that was being said in the
>headers
> > >and you all just continued to do it at the time...
> > >jco
> > >
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> > >Of
> >
> > >Shel Belinkoff
> > >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:33 PM
> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> > >
> > >
> > >Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw
>
> > >this ...
> > >
> > >JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the
> > >general rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments
> > >about
> >
> > >bokeh. It's no longer about YOUR specific comments.  Threads and
> > >discussions on the PDML, as well as other mail lists, tend to wander.
> > >
> > >Further, you are now making a personal attack by calling a
> > >contributor to the thread "clueless."  True, it's only a mild attack,
>
> > >but one that's going to leave you open to some negative comments and
> > >possibly start another flame war, more than likely causing you to,
> > >once again, use abusive language and post your messages using lots of
>
> > >upper case letters, and get any number of people here to the point
> > >where they'll start responding in kind, as

RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[J. C. O'Connell]

I apologize, it was someone else telling
me to "let it slide", talk a walk, etc.
those comments were meant for them.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:21 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh


"Please don't tell me how to react/respond
to all this craziness because you are not the one being repeatedly
subjected to it."

Did I tell you how to react or respond?

Cause and effect.

Introspection.

Tom C.


>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:16:21 -0400
>
>HUH? If someone else is WRONG when
>they imply I must not know what the hell I am
>doing to defend their WRONG contention, they
>are going to get a reply to set he record straight.
>I dont have any other choice but to defend
>myself..
>
>And I dont "feel" persecuted, I AM being persecuted
>here. I get long third party letters saying I shouldnt
>be calling someone "clueless" after being wrongly
>provoked while other as posting My name and the A-word
>in caps right in the subject headers WITHOUT any provocation 
>whatsoever. Please don't tell me how to react/respond to all this 
>craziness because you are not the one being repeatedly subjected to it.
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

>Tom C
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:20 PM
>To: pdml@pdml.net
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>
>
>I'm curious if this is the only place you feel persecuted or if it 
>occurs elsewhere in life and online as well.
>
>You know people have their own perceptions and opinions.  Those 
>perceptions and opinions will almost always be different from one 
>another.  It does not
>make your's right and someone else's wrong.
>
>And even if someone else was wrong, so what?
>
>
>Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
> >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:01:09 -0400
> >
> >NO this was not a general discussion that I responded to harshly, he 
> >specifically stated the the M85 F2.0 lens which the thread was 
> >originally written about "has just about the smoothest bokeh of any 
> >lens I have seen" and suggested that the reason was most likely bad 
> >digital processing completely ignoring the fact that I had already 
> >stated teh M85 F2.0 lens had very bad bokeh visible IN THE VIEWFINDER

> >which should have been a clue for him as well as the photos I posted.

> >If he suspected that sharpening or processing might be causing the 
> >problem he should have asked about it, not assumed it must be, 
> >implying that I dont know what bad bokeh is when I see it or cant do 
> >basic digital image processing.
> >
> >Regarding "taking my side" on that other thread, continuing that 
> >thread
>
> >by posting replies without bothering to change the thread header 
> >containing JCO and the offensive "A-word" right in the subject header

> >was NOT taking my side the way I see/saw it, it only made it far 
> >worse & I found it hard to believe it wasnt being done intentionally 
> >at the time.
> >The whole point of my complaint was that was being said in the
headers
> >and you all just continued to do it at the time...
> >jco
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >Of
>
> >Shel Belinkoff
> >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:33 PM
> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >
> >
> >Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw

> >this ...
> >
> >JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the 
> >general rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments 
> >about
>
> >bokeh. It's no longer about YOUR specific comments.  Threads and 
> >discussions on the PDML, as well as other mail lists, tend to wander.
> >
> >Further, you are now making a personal attack by calling a 
> >contributor to the thread "clueless."  True, it's only a mild attack,

> >but one that's going to leave you open to some negative comments and 
> >possibly start another flame war, more than likely causing you to, 
> >once again, use abusive language and post your messages using lots of

> >upper case letters, and get any number of people here to the point 
> >where they'll start responding in kind, as which already seems to be 
> >the case.
> >
> >I just don't understand you.  A couple of days ago Norm and I 
> >apologized for contributing to the last outburst, and Tim strongly 
> >took
>
> >your side of that issue, and your response was "fuck you" in three 
> >separate posts, one to Norm, one directed at me, and least 
> >understandable, one to Tim.
> >
> >Relax, chill out, enjoy your camera, or your DVD player, or your HDTV

Re: GESO: Frecce Tricolori

[Bob Sullivan]

Could you get a little closer?  ;-)
Seriously, nice shots and well done.
Composition and exposure look great.
Regards, Bob S.

On 4/23/07, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the quite known (I think) Italian acro team:
> http://www.dariobonazza.com/freccee.htm
>
> Sure I'm not an expert plane shooter (this is in fact just the second time
> I've shot something like that in 20 years), but I like that gallery.
> Anyone else? Do you see major mistakes to get rid of the next time? Thanks
> for commenting.
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
> 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: Frecce Tricolori

[Cotty]

On 24/4/07, Dario Bonazza, discombobulated, unleashed:

>This is the quite known (I think) Italian acro team:
>http://www.dariobonazza.com/freccee.htm
>
>Sure I'm not an expert plane shooter (this is in fact just the second time 
>I've shot something like that in 20 years), but I like that gallery.
>Anyone else? Do you see major mistakes to get rid of the next time? Thanks 
>for commenting.

Nice gallery Dario. I've filmed those Freccing Tricoloris at the Air
Tattoo here in the UK a few times. 

-- 


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: Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove

[P. J. Alling]

I think you're being much too kind...

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ralf R. Radermacher" 
> >Subject: Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove
> >
> >
> >"The lens has lots of light fall-off at all apertures. This is normal
> >for a view-camera lens."
> >
> >:-)
> >
>
> What an idiot.
>
> William Robb
>
>   


-- 
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.


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

RE: WANTED TO BUY - LARGE LENS CASES

[J. C. O'Connell]

thanks, I will check into that.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Ewins
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:21 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: WANTED TO BUY - LARGE LENS CASES


You could try KEH, I've found them to be very cheap if you don't want
something that is absolutely pristine. 

6x7 cases are about the right diameter, but none of mine are long enough
- maybe the 300/4 or 400/4. My Tokina 80-200/2.8 looks about right so
maybe just check out all the various brands for their large zooms.

Regards,
Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia 

J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I need a couple large hard lens cases approx
> 9-9.5 inches Inside height, and approx
> 3 inches Inside diameter.
> 


-- 
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: Just for the hell of it!

[Bill Sawyer]

I agree, Ann, this one really appeals to me

Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Just for the hell of it!

Ann,

I love this photo. ;-)



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

Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh - the photo

[Bob Rapp]

I agree, the Boketh is ordinary. But no one commented on the shot. Actually 
quite good. It looks like an Australian bottle brush flower. I am sure it is 
not native to Florida.

Bob 

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

Re: Cutthroat editing (was - Image file blah blah blah)

[Bob Sullivan]

My daughter-in-law's grandfather culled his slides at 90 years old.
He threw out all the landscapes and only kept pictures with people in them.
He said nobody was interested in the rest.
I hope to live so long...
Regards, Bob S.

On 4/23/07, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott Loveless wrote:
> >  So
> > what's your method for culling the crap?
> >
> I keep everything except the non-exposures or absolute fooling-around
> shots.
>
> All the original shots and work files go into the main database.
>
> Then I do a critical edit and those shots, and put the best into another
> database called "prime."  Most of these shots also go onto my website.
> When I work on project, like putting an exhibit together or submitting
> entries to an agency or juried show, I drawn from that second database.
> Project picks are folded back into the prime database as a sub-folder
> for each project, so I have a record of what I have sent were. I also
> keep a small database of shots for which the rights are encumbered. I
> use Thumbs plus 7 for all this.
>
> When I was doing the art fairs I kept a yet another database with just
> the print masters of the images I was trying to sell. So if I ran out of
> an 11x14 of a particular shot I could pull it up in a jiffy to get more
> ready. That collection lives on my hard drive.
>
> I go back to the rough database from time to time and sometimes pull up
> shots that I really like, but missed in the first edit. Sometimes my
> "prime" pick turns up with a minor flaw not in another shot taken of the
> same subject. And, sometimes a photo editor wants something that I don't
> consider important in the shot I select. A lot of my bug shot sales go
> to textbooks, and there the editor often wants something very specific -
> like a clear shot of the bee's 5th eye on the top of it's head or
> something like that.
>
> HTH - MCC
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mark Cassino Photography
> Kalamazoo, Michigan
> www.markcassino.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: PESO: Tall shadows

[Bob Sullivan]

Works for me.  I saw the shadows then the people.  Regards, Bob S.

On 4/23/07, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taken from the S.Marco tower in Venice, looking down at the passers-by in
> S.Marco Square:
> http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc18e.htm
>
> Apart from the obvious increased contrast and BW conversion, the picture has
> been flipped, rotated and cropped as required.
> Does it work for you?
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
> 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: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Tom C]

"Please don't tell me how to react/respond
to all this craziness because you are not the one being
repeatedly subjected to it."

Did I tell you how to react or respond?

Cause and effect.

Introspection.

Tom C.


>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:16:21 -0400
>
>HUH? If someone else is WRONG when
>they imply I must not know what the hell I am
>doing to defend their WRONG contention, they
>are going to get a reply to set he record straight.
>I dont have any other choice but to defend
>myself..
>
>And I dont "feel" persecuted, I AM being persecuted
>here. I get long third party letters saying I shouldnt
>be calling someone "clueless" after being wrongly
>provoked while other as posting My name and the A-word
>in caps right in the subject headers WITHOUT any provocation
>whatsoever. Please don't tell me how to react/respond
>to all this craziness because you are not the one being
>repeatedly subjected to it.
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Tom C
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:20 PM
>To: pdml@pdml.net
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>
>
>I'm curious if this is the only place you feel persecuted or if it
>occurs
>elsewhere in life and online as well.
>
>You know people have their own perceptions and opinions.  Those
>perceptions
>and opinions will almost always be different from one another.  It does
>not
>make your's right and someone else's wrong.
>
>And even if someone else was wrong, so what?
>
>
>Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
> >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:01:09 -0400
> >
> >NO this was not a general discussion that I responded to harshly, he
> >specifically stated the the M85 F2.0 lens which the thread was
> >originally written about "has just about the smoothest bokeh of any
> >lens I have seen" and suggested that the reason was most likely bad
> >digital processing completely ignoring the fact that I had already
> >stated teh M85 F2.0 lens had very bad bokeh visible IN THE VIEWFINDER
> >which should have been a clue for him as well as the photos
> >I posted. If he suspected that sharpening or processing
> >might be causing the problem he should have asked about it, not
> >assumed it must be, implying that I dont know what bad bokeh
> >is when I see it or cant do basic digital image processing.
> >
> >Regarding "taking my side" on that other thread, continuing that thread
>
> >by posting replies without bothering to change the thread header
> >containing JCO and the offensive "A-word" right in the subject
> >header was NOT taking my side the way I see/saw it, it only made it far
> >worse &
> >I found it hard to believe it wasnt being done intentionally at the
> >time.
> >The whole point of my complaint was that was being said in the headers
> >and you all just continued to do it at the time...
> >jco
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>
> >Shel Belinkoff
> >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:33 PM
> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >
> >
> >Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw
> >this ...
> >
> >JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the
> >general rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments about
>
> >bokeh. It's no longer about YOUR specific comments.  Threads and
> >discussions on the PDML, as well as other mail lists, tend to wander.
> >
> >Further, you are now making a personal attack by calling a contributor
> >to the thread "clueless."  True, it's only a mild attack, but one
> >that's going to leave you open to some negative comments and possibly
> >start another flame war, more than likely causing you to, once again,
> >use abusive language and post your messages using lots of upper case
> >letters, and get any number of people here to the point where they'll
> >start responding in kind, as which already seems to be the case.
> >
> >I just don't understand you.  A couple of days ago Norm and I
> >apologized for contributing to the last outburst, and Tim strongly took
>
> >your side of that issue, and your response was "fuck you" in three
> >separate posts, one to Norm, one directed at me, and least
> >understandable, one to Tim.
> >
> >Relax, chill out, enjoy your camera, or your DVD player, or your HDTV
> >... vent your anger in other ways - go out and take a walk, get some
> >exercise,
> >cut back on the sugar intake.   LIGHTEN UP - not every comment is about
> >you
> >or directed to you.
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >
> >Shel
> >
> >
> >
> > >  -- Original message --
> > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Second

Re: Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ralf R. Radermacher" 
Subject: Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove


"The lens has lots of light fall-off at all apertures. This is normal
for a view-camera lens."

:-)


What an idiot.

William Robb

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

Re: PESO: Tall shadows

[Russell Kerstetter]

interesting idea, i did turn my head upside down to have a second
look, it plays with my eyes like an optical illusion does, I think
after too long staring it would start to hurt -- so I probably would
not hang it on the wall  :)

russ

On 4/23/07, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taken from the S.Marco tower in Venice, looking down at the passers-by in
> S.Marco Square:
> http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc18e.htm
>
> Apart from the obvious increased contrast and BW conversion, the picture has
> been flipped, rotated and cropped as required.
> Does it work for you?
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
Legacy Air, Inc.
11900 Airport Way
Broomfield Colorado 80021
(303) 404-0277
fax (303) 404-0280
www.legacy-air.com

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

RE: WANTED TO BUY - LARGE LENS CASES

[Paul Ewins]

You could try KEH, I've found them to be very cheap if you don't want
something that is absolutely pristine. 

6x7 cases are about the right diameter, but none of mine are long enough -
maybe the 300/4 or 400/4. My Tokina 80-200/2.8 looks about right so maybe
just check out all the various brands for their large zooms.

Regards,
Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia 

J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I need a couple large hard lens cases approx
> 9-9.5 inches Inside height, and approx
> 3 inches Inside diameter.
> 


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

RE: PESO: Tall shadows

[Tom C]

I almost really really like this.

The two things I see that bother me a little, granted I wasn't there, and 
vantage point is probably difficult to achieve in a dynamic situation are:

1. I wish the bottom right truncated shadow was not present.
2. I wish there were overall more 'white' space along the bottom edge.

That doesn't ruin it for me as I do like it, but it feels a little 
unbalanced and the truncated shadow combined with the almost truncated head 
at the bottom center cause a distraction.


Tom C.



>From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: PESO: Tall shadows
>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:29:35 +0200
>
>Taken from the S.Marco tower in Venice, looking down at the passers-by in
>S.Marco Square:
>http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc18e.htm
>
>Apart from the obvious increased contrast and BW conversion, the picture 
>has
>been flipped, rotated and cropped as required.
>Does it work for you?
>
>Dario
>
>
>--
>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: PAW 2007 - 20 - GDG

[Fernando Terrazzino]

Nicely done Godfrey

I like it

On 4/23/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was out for my Saturday morning walk in Guadalupe River Park, San
> Jose, this time carrying camera and tripod. The San Jose Airport is
> very nearby, I was right under the landing flight path for the main
> strip, and the sensation of being in this park with the rose garden
> and old orchards with planes coming in overhead every 10 minutes
> somehow became rather surreal.
>
> So I decided to have some fun and produced this four-exposure
> composite to try to capture that surreality ...
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/20.htm
>
> Comments and critique always appreciated. Flames will bring out the
> fire trucks.
>
> enjoy,
> Godfrey
>
> --
> 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: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Davis"
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass


> Must have leaky filter/lens threads. ;)

It was a Nikkor lens, after all.

William Robb

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

Re: PESO - Let there be Light

[Russell Kerstetter]

nice one tom

russ

On 4/23/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5885529
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
Legacy Air, Inc.
11900 Airport Way
Broomfield Colorado 80021
(303) 404-0277
fax (303) 404-0280
www.legacy-air.com

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

Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Scott Loveless]

J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> HUH? 
Mark!

-- 
Scott Loveless
www.twosixteen.com


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

Re: Cutthroat editing (was - Image file blah blah blah)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob W" 
Subject: RE: Cutthroat editing (was - Image file blah blah blah)


>>  So what's your method for culling the crap?
> 
> I'm leaving it to posterity. As Shakespeare is to theatre, so I am to
> photography,

You're a better photographer than that.

William Robb

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

Re: Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove

[P. J. Alling]

The hell you say!  (I've always wanted to use that phrase).  My lord, 
where did he spout this "bon-mot".  . 

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
> "The lens has lots of light fall-off at all apertures. This is normal
> for a view-camera lens."
>
> :-)
>
> Ralf
>
>   


-- 
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.


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

RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[J. C. O'Connell]

HUH? If someone else is WRONG when
they imply I must not know what the hell I am
doing to defend their WRONG contention, they 
are going to get a reply to set he record straight.
I dont have any other choice but to defend
myself..

And I dont "feel" persecuted, I AM being persecuted
here. I get long third party letters saying I shouldnt
be calling someone "clueless" after being wrongly
provoked while other as posting My name and the A-word
in caps right in the subject headers WITHOUT any provocation
whatsoever. Please don't tell me how to react/respond
to all this craziness because you are not the one being
repeatedly subjected to it.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:20 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh


I'm curious if this is the only place you feel persecuted or if it
occurs 
elsewhere in life and online as well.

You know people have their own perceptions and opinions.  Those
perceptions 
and opinions will almost always be different from one another.  It does
not 
make your's right and someone else's wrong.

And even if someone else was wrong, so what?


Tom C.



>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:01:09 -0400
>
>NO this was not a general discussion that I responded to harshly, he 
>specifically stated the the M85 F2.0 lens which the thread was 
>originally written about "has just about the smoothest bokeh of any 
>lens I have seen" and suggested that the reason was most likely bad 
>digital processing completely ignoring the fact that I had already 
>stated teh M85 F2.0 lens had very bad bokeh visible IN THE VIEWFINDER
>which should have been a clue for him as well as the photos
>I posted. If he suspected that sharpening or processing
>might be causing the problem he should have asked about it, not
>assumed it must be, implying that I dont know what bad bokeh
>is when I see it or cant do basic digital image processing.
>
>Regarding "taking my side" on that other thread, continuing that thread

>by posting replies without bothering to change the thread header 
>containing JCO and the offensive "A-word" right in the subject
>header was NOT taking my side the way I see/saw it, it only made it far
>worse &
>I found it hard to believe it wasnt being done intentionally at the
>time.
>The whole point of my complaint was that was being said in the headers
>and you all just continued to do it at the time...
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

>Shel Belinkoff
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:33 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>
>
>Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw 
>this ...
>
>JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the 
>general rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments about

>bokeh. It's no longer about YOUR specific comments.  Threads and 
>discussions on the PDML, as well as other mail lists, tend to wander.
>
>Further, you are now making a personal attack by calling a contributor 
>to the thread "clueless."  True, it's only a mild attack, but one 
>that's going to leave you open to some negative comments and possibly 
>start another flame war, more than likely causing you to, once again, 
>use abusive language and post your messages using lots of upper case 
>letters, and get any number of people here to the point where they'll 
>start responding in kind, as which already seems to be the case.
>
>I just don't understand you.  A couple of days ago Norm and I 
>apologized for contributing to the last outburst, and Tim strongly took

>your side of that issue, and your response was "fuck you" in three 
>separate posts, one to Norm, one directed at me, and least 
>understandable, one to Tim.
>
>Relax, chill out, enjoy your camera, or your DVD player, or your HDTV 
>... vent your anger in other ways - go out and take a walk, get some 
>exercise,
>cut back on the sugar intake.   LIGHTEN UP - not every comment is about
>you
>or directed to you.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Shel
>
>
>
> >  -- Original message --
> > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
> > > he is completely clueless. His deductions make
> > > no sense because he either doesnt understand
> > > or never noticed how unsharp mask works
> > > or he doesnt read the posts in entirety because I clearly stated 
> > > that this bokeh problem is easily visible in the viewfinder. 
> > > Either or both ways its just plain bad to be posting completely 
> > > wrong stuff
>
> > > like that based on lack of knowledge in the manner in which he 
> > > posts
>
> > > it.
>
>
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/

RE: GESO: Frecce Tricolori

[Tom C]

Wow, some really nice ones in there Dario!

I particularly enjoyed 1, 5, 15, 19, and 20.  The fact that the planes are 
relative large and in formation in the shots is what captures my interest.

Tom C.


>From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: GESO: Frecce Tricolori
>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:23:45 +0200
>
>This is the quite known (I think) Italian acro team:
>http://www.dariobonazza.com/freccee.htm
>
>Sure I'm not an expert plane shooter (this is in fact just the second time
>I've shot something like that in 20 years), but I like that gallery.
>Anyone else? Do you see major mistakes to get rid of the next time? Thanks
>for commenting.
>
>Dario
>



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

Re: PESO -- "A Beach A Bench"

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:32 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:

> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_beachbench.html
> Equipment:  Pentax *ist-Ds/Vivitar Series 1 vmc 35-85mm f2.8  
> varifocus.

For some reason, that reminds me of William Eggleston.
Take it as a compliment. ;-)

G

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

Re: PESO 2007 - 20a - GDG

[Paul Stenquist]

The light makes this interesting. The vignetting helps as well.
Paul
On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

> Another from my walk in the park this past Saturday, adding to the
> Tree collection I've been building:
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/20a.htm
>
> Comments, critique, and a wet blanket always appreciated. No flames
> please: the trees get upset.
>
> best,
> Godfrey
>
> -- 
> 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: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Tom C]

I wasn't baiting.  I frankly couldn't care less how/if he responds.



Tom C.



>From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:15:38 -0400
>
>So what is the word for compulsive baiting ?
>
>Kenneth Waller
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>
>
> > egomania   irrational self-centered attitude or self-worship
> >
> > enissomaniainability to prevent onself from attacking or
> > critcizing
> >
> > rhinotillexomania  compulsive nose picking
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> >>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
> >>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:58:25 -0400
> >>
> >>Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
> >>he is completely clueless. His deductions make
> >>no sense because he either doesnt understand
> >>or never noticed how unsharp mask works
> >>or he doesnt read the posts in entirety because I clearly
> >>stated that this bokeh problem is easily visible
> >>in the viewfinder. Either or both ways its just plain
> >>bad to be posting completely wrong stuff like that
> >>based on lack of knowledge in the manner in which he posts it.
> >>
> >>jco
> >>Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> >>William Robb
> >>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:20 PM
> >>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Original Message -
> >>From: "Thibouille"
> >>Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
> >>
> >>
> >> > Mmm I find the bokeh to be quite OK: not bad but not good either. But
> >> > this lens seems very sharp otherwise.
> >> >
> >> > Mmm I wonder if digital vs film has a big influence over bokeh. I'd
> >> > like to see a comparison like this.
> >>
> >>Something I discovered very early on, thanks to Valentin, was that the
> >>surest way to screw up bokeh is to apply sharpening to the image. The
> >>M85
> >>has just about the smoothest bokeh of any lens I have seen:
> >>http://plg.komkon.org/m85_2/bo1.html.
> >>But, like anything else, heavy handed treatment can bugger things up.
> >>
> >>William Robb
>
>
>--
>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

Another gem from Kennieboy's treasure cove

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

"The lens has lots of light fall-off at all apertures. This is normal
for a view-camera lens."

:-)

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

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

Re: RE: Just for the hell of it!

[Mark Roberts]

I just realized that if I shoot the Mid-Ohio superbike races this 
summer, I *will* be getting some shots that I couldn't get with film. 
That's because I plan to avail myself of the K10D's 
shutter-and-aperture-preferred autoexposure, wherein you set shutter 
speed and aperture and let the camera vary ISO setting. Should be fun.


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

Re: Just for the hell of it!

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Ann,

I love this photo. ;-)

The way I have my K10D set up, it works with exactly the same  
responsiveness and fluidity, if not more, as my Nikon SLRs once did.  
The only hitch is whether I leave it in AF-S or MF focus mode ... in  
the latter it is *exactly* the same.

You're using a less responsive camera, so the comparison is strained.

Godfrey

On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:49 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:

> Lots of shots I've taken I couldn't have gotten using digital - I
> couldn't have reacted soon enough...
> I also couldn't have gotten them with camera's that required batteries
> for anything but a light meter...
> I couldn't react fast enough... a KX or an LX (without the winder)  
> and a
> 50mm lens , tri-x  - shutter speed at
> 250, f8 and hyperfocal distance set -  and the camera around my neck
> requiring only that I lift the camera to
> my eye and click...
>
> This one is one that no matter how quick my reflexes were, the
> combination of having to turn on the camera
> and turn off the auto focus , etc... would have done me in, I think -
> because I was shooting through the
> dirty window of a train  - if I had to change the auto focus I  
> normally
> use shooting digital to manual and turn
> on the camera I'd have been dead - well, or gotten a different shot...
>
> also,  there was much less to know about a manual camera - aperture,
> shutter speed, focus, ISO, DOF view, quickly changed
> with visible knobs.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vqkx5
>
> The main benefits of digital to me are
>
> no dark room chemicals to inhale or dispose of.
> being able to "chimp" (when one is taking pics of something one can  
> do a
> quick do over on)
> and quickly get my ebay stuff photo'ed and on line.
>
> the lightness of the camera - my LX feels like I'm carrying workout
> weights when I lift it now.
> and the speed with which I can see results


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

PESO -- "A Beach A Bench"

[P. J. Alling]

One more PESO today.  Which should be it for a while, (I hear a great 
sigh of relief, now everyone can get back to the Flame War du Jour).

http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_beachbench.html

Equipment:  Pentax *ist-Ds/Vivitar Series 1 vmc 35-85mm f2.8 varifocus.

-- 
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.


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

GESO: Frecce Tricolori

[Dario Bonazza]

This is the quite known (I think) Italian acro team:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/freccee.htm

Sure I'm not an expert plane shooter (this is in fact just the second time 
I've shot something like that in 20 years), but I like that gallery.
Anyone else? Do you see major mistakes to get rid of the next time? Thanks 
for commenting.

Dario 


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

Re: PESO 2007 - 20a - GDG

[Christian]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Another from my walk in the park this past Saturday, adding to the  
> Tree collection I've been building:
> 
>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/20a.htm
> 
> Comments, critique, and a wet blanket always appreciated. No flames  
> please: the trees get upset.
> 
> best,
> Godfrey
> 

Yep, it's a tree.

:-)  Seriously, I really, really, like the OOF areas surrounding the 
sharp trunk.  Looks kinda holga-ish maybe... only sharper...  Whatever, 
I like the effect.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

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

Re: PESO - Let there be Light

[Tom C]

Thanks Ken.

Tom C.


>From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: Re: PESO - Let there be Light
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:20:58 -0400
>
>Well seen & captured.
>
>Kenneth Waller
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Subject: PESO - Let there be Light
>
>
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5885529
> >
> >
> > Tom C.
>
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



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

Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Thibouille wrote:

> Well if I wondered it is because I did not know ;) Never had any time
> to play to see if medium had any influence. I do not usually state
> things just because I think they are. Reason for me being ignorant.
>
> On another POV: s**t, what did I start ? :(

Thibouille,

I'm not sure what you started, or what might be going on. Remember, I  
completely filter at least one boob from my email universe entirely  
so that it remains peaceful here. Noise like that isn't worth  
expending any thought on.

I hope my response was of some value to you.

Godfrey

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

Re: Cutthroat editing (was - Image file blah blah blah)

[Mark Cassino]

Scott Loveless wrote:
>  So 
> what's your method for culling the crap?
> 
I keep everything except the non-exposures or absolute fooling-around 
shots.

All the original shots and work files go into the main database.

Then I do a critical edit and those shots, and put the best into another 
database called "prime."  Most of these shots also go onto my website. 
When I work on project, like putting an exhibit together or submitting 
entries to an agency or juried show, I drawn from that second database. 
Project picks are folded back into the prime database as a sub-folder 
for each project, so I have a record of what I have sent were. I also 
keep a small database of shots for which the rights are encumbered. I 
use Thumbs plus 7 for all this.

When I was doing the art fairs I kept a yet another database with just 
the print masters of the images I was trying to sell. So if I ran out of 
an 11x14 of a particular shot I could pull it up in a jiffy to get more 
ready. That collection lives on my hard drive.

I go back to the rough database from time to time and sometimes pull up 
shots that I really like, but missed in the first edit. Sometimes my 
"prime" pick turns up with a minor flaw not in another shot taken of the 
same subject. And, sometimes a photo editor wants something that I don't 
consider important in the shot I select. A lot of my bug shot sales go 
to textbooks, and there the editor often wants something very specific - 
like a clear shot of the bee's 5th eye on the top of it's head or 
something like that.

HTH - MCC

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, Michigan
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Re: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.

[Kenneth Waller]

Great expression !
Nice as is, but I believe a portrait orientation with some slight cropping 
on either side would improve this one.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.


> This is my response to Graywolf's challenge for a photo I wouldn't have
> taken except for shooting digital  I knew this was going to be out of
> focus, and suffer from some movement blur.  However I made the shot
> anyway and I'm glad I did for the content.
>
> The Story:  I was invited to dinner by my cousin and her daughter.  We
> ate at a 50's themed burger joint.  I liked the patterns the lighting
> made and took a couple of exposures.  This waitress had no idea that I
> was taking a shot of the interesting lights and posed.  Here it is.  A
> fun shot, with some technical difficulties, (or I could claim to be
> inspired by Knarf, and have induced theauraltian blur...)
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_thefastmovingunknownwaitress.html
>
> Equipment:  Pentax *ist-D/smc Pentax FA 28-200mm [IF]AL


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

PESO: Tall shadows

[Dario Bonazza]

Taken from the S.Marco tower in Venice, looking down at the passers-by in 
S.Marco Square:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc18e.htm

Apart from the obvious increased contrast and BW conversion, the picture has 
been flipped, rotated and cropped as required.
Does it work for you?

Dario 


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

Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Kenneth Waller]

So what is the word for compulsive baiting ?

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh


> egomania   irrational self-centered attitude or self-worship
>
> enissomaniainability to prevent onself from attacking or 
> critcizing
>
> rhinotillexomania  compulsive nose picking
>
> Tom C.
>
>>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
>>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:58:25 -0400
>>
>>Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
>>he is completely clueless. His deductions make
>>no sense because he either doesnt understand
>>or never noticed how unsharp mask works
>>or he doesnt read the posts in entirety because I clearly
>>stated that this bokeh problem is easily visible
>>in the viewfinder. Either or both ways its just plain
>>bad to be posting completely wrong stuff like that
>>based on lack of knowledge in the manner in which he posts it.
>>
>>jco
>>Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>>William Robb
>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:20 PM
>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>>
>>
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Thibouille"
>>Subject: Re: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>>
>>
>> > Mmm I find the bokeh to be quite OK: not bad but not good either. But
>> > this lens seems very sharp otherwise.
>> >
>> > Mmm I wonder if digital vs film has a big influence over bokeh. I'd
>> > like to see a comparison like this.
>>
>>Something I discovered very early on, thanks to Valentin, was that the
>>surest way to screw up bokeh is to apply sharpening to the image. The
>>M85
>>has just about the smoothest bokeh of any lens I have seen:
>>http://plg.komkon.org/m85_2/bo1.html.
>>But, like anything else, heavy handed treatment can bugger things up.
>>
>>William Robb


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

Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:05 PM, John Francis wrote:

> That looks like the sort of explanation Calvin's dad would provide :-)

I always liked Calvin's dad.

G

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

RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Tom C]

I'm curious if this is the only place you feel persecuted or if it occurs 
elsewhere in life and online as well.

You know people have their own perceptions and opinions.  Those perceptions 
and opinions will almost always be different from one another.  It does not 
make your's right and someone else's wrong.

And even if someone else was wrong, so what?


Tom C.



>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:01:09 -0400
>
>NO this was not a general discussion that I responded to harshly,
>he specifically stated the the M85 F2.0 lens which the
>thread was originally written about "has just about the smoothest bokeh
>of any lens I have seen"
>and suggested that the reason was most likely bad digital processing
>completely ignoring the fact that I had already stated
>teh M85 F2.0 lens had very bad bokeh visible IN THE VIEWFINDER
>which should have been a clue for him as well as the photos
>I posted. If he suspected that sharpening or processing
>might be causing the problem he should have asked about it, not
>assumed it must be, implying that I dont know what bad bokeh
>is when I see it or cant do basic digital image processing.
>
>Regarding "taking my side" on that other thread, continuing that thread
>by
>posting replies without bothering to change the thread header containing
>JCO and the offensive "A-word" right in the subject
>header was NOT taking my side the way I see/saw it, it only made it far
>worse &
>I found it hard to believe it wasnt being done intentionally at the
>time.
>The whole point of my complaint was that was being said in the headers
>and you all just continued to do it at the time...
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Shel Belinkoff
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:33 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>
>
>Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw
>this ...
>
>JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the general
>rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments about bokeh.
>It's no longer about YOUR specific comments.  Threads and discussions on
>the PDML, as well as other mail lists, tend to wander.
>
>Further, you are now making a personal attack by calling a contributor
>to the thread "clueless."  True, it's only a mild attack, but one that's
>going to leave you open to some negative comments and possibly start
>another flame war, more than likely causing you to, once again, use
>abusive language and post your messages using lots of upper case
>letters, and get any number of people here to the point where they'll
>start responding in kind, as which already seems to be the case.
>
>I just don't understand you.  A couple of days ago Norm and I apologized
>for contributing to the last outburst, and Tim strongly took your side
>of that issue, and your response was "fuck you" in three separate posts,
>one to Norm, one directed at me, and least understandable, one to Tim.
>
>Relax, chill out, enjoy your camera, or your DVD player, or your HDTV
>... vent your anger in other ways - go out and take a walk, get some
>exercise,
>cut back on the sugar intake.   LIGHTEN UP - not every comment is about
>you
>or directed to you.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Shel
>
>
>
> >  -- Original message --
> > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
> > > he is completely clueless. His deductions make
> > > no sense because he either doesnt understand
> > > or never noticed how unsharp mask works
> > > or he doesnt read the posts in entirety because I clearly stated
> > > that this bokeh problem is easily visible in the viewfinder. Either
> > > or both ways its just plain bad to be posting completely wrong stuff
>
> > > like that based on lack of knowledge in the manner in which he posts
>
> > > it.
>
>
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



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

Re: PESO 2007 - 20a - GDG

[Kenneth Waller]

Well executed technically, but by itself it doesn't do any thing for me.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PESO 2007 - 20a - GDG


> Another from my walk in the park this past Saturday, adding to the  
> Tree collection I've been building:
> 
>   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/20a.htm
> 
> Comments, critique, and a wet blanket always appreciated. No flames  
> please: the trees get upset.
> 
> best,
> Godfrey


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

Re: PESO - Let there be Light

[Kenneth Waller]

Well seen & captured.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: PESO - Let there be Light


> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5885529
> 
> 
> Tom C.


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

Re: PAW 2007 - 20 - GDG

[Kenneth Waller]

I give it a B+ for creativity & an A for execution.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PAW 2007 - 20 - GDG


>I was out for my Saturday morning walk in Guadalupe River Park, San  
> Jose, this time carrying camera and tripod. The San Jose Airport is  
> very nearby, I was right under the landing flight path for the main  
> strip, and the sensation of being in this park with the rose garden  
> and old orchards with planes coming in overhead every 10 minutes  
> somehow became rather surreal.
> 
> So I decided to have some fun and produced this four-exposure  
> composite to try to capture that surreality ...
> 
>   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/20.htm
> 
> Comments and critique always appreciated. Flames will bring out the  
> fire trucks.
> 
> enjoy,
> Godfrey


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

Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass

[John Francis]

That looks like the sort of explanation Calvin's dad would provide :-)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:01:05PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> It's photon residue, popularly known as 'light lint'. It's scientific
> Latin name is 'Floccus lucis'. 
> 
> The stuff that the filter stops from going into the lens has to go
> somewhere, and so it gets trapped between the filter and the front
> element. It's the light equivalent of all that fluff that accumulates
> in the filter of your clothes dryer and which is so satisfying to
> remove.
> 
> --
>  Bob
>  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> > Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
> > Sent: 23 April 2007 21:00
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
> > 
> > In my case it was more than dust, but something more akin to 
> > a haze or a
> > film.  Yeah, there was a little dust in there as well.
> > 
> > Apart from the dust, my theory about the haze is that there may be
> > something in the lens, like lubricants, that emit some gas or 
> > evaporate
> > slightly (we've all experienced the lubricant getting dry at 
> > one time or
> > another), and that the filter over the lens element prevents the
> > evaporation from just dissipating into the atmosphere.
> > 
> > Dust, like rust, never sleeps!
> > 
> > Shel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: William Robb 
> > 
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> BTW, in my world dust cannot 
> > > > > migrate to the area between the filter
> > > >> and the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
> > > >
> > > > lol ... Do you have them sealed somehow?  ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I always thought that too, which is why I found the 
> > consistent build
> > > > up of dusty film between the two quite curious.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I could never figure that out either. I had a filter on my 
> > Nikkor 50/1.4 
> > > from the time I bought it. I was pretty good about cleaning 
> > the front 
> > > surface, but ignored the inside surfaces. It was quite 
> > amazing how much
> > dust 
> > > was in there after a year or so.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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

PESO -- -- The fast moving unknown waitress.

[P. J. Alling]

This is my response to Graywolf's challenge for a photo I wouldn't have 
taken except for shooting digital  I knew this was going to be out of 
focus, and suffer from some movement blur.  However I made the shot 
anyway and I'm glad I did for the content.

The Story:  I was invited to dinner by my cousin and her daughter.  We 
ate at a 50's themed burger joint.  I liked the patterns the lighting 
made and took a couple of exposures.  This waitress had no idea that I 
was taking a shot of the interesting lights and posed.  Here it is.  A 
fun shot, with some technical difficulties, (or I could claim to be 
inspired by Knarf, and have induced theauraltian blur...)

http://home.earthlink.net/~morephotos/PESO_--_thefastmovingunknownwaitress.html

Equipment:  Pentax *ist-D/smc Pentax FA 28-200mm [IF]AL

-- 
Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf 
thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.


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

RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[J. C. O'Connell]

NO this was not a general discussion that I responded to harshly,
he specifically stated the the M85 F2.0 lens which the
thread was originally written about "has just about the smoothest bokeh
of any lens I have seen"
and suggested that the reason was most likely bad digital processing
completely ignoring the fact that I had already stated 
teh M85 F2.0 lens had very bad bokeh visible IN THE VIEWFINDER
which should have been a clue for him as well as the photos
I posted. If he suspected that sharpening or processing
might be causing the problem he should have asked about it, not
assumed it must be, implying that I dont know what bad bokeh
is when I see it or cant do basic digital image processing.

Regarding "taking my side" on that other thread, continuing that thread
by
posting replies without bothering to change the thread header containing
JCO and the offensive "A-word" right in the subject
header was NOT taking my side the way I see/saw it, it only made it far
worse &
I found it hard to believe it wasnt being done intentionally at the
time.
The whole point of my complaint was that was being said in the headers
and you all just continued to do it at the time...
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:33 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh


Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw
this ...

JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the general
rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments about bokeh. 
It's no longer about YOUR specific comments.  Threads and discussions on
the PDML, as well as other mail lists, tend to wander.

Further, you are now making a personal attack by calling a contributor
to the thread "clueless."  True, it's only a mild attack, but one that's
going to leave you open to some negative comments and possibly start
another flame war, more than likely causing you to, once again, use
abusive language and post your messages using lots of upper case
letters, and get any number of people here to the point where they'll
start responding in kind, as which already seems to be the case.

I just don't understand you.  A couple of days ago Norm and I apologized
for contributing to the last outburst, and Tim strongly took your side
of that issue, and your response was "fuck you" in three separate posts,
one to Norm, one directed at me, and least understandable, one to Tim.

Relax, chill out, enjoy your camera, or your DVD player, or your HDTV
... vent your anger in other ways - go out and take a walk, get some
exercise,
cut back on the sugar intake.   LIGHTEN UP - not every comment is about
you
or directed to you.

Kind regards,

Shel



>  -- Original message --
> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
> > he is completely clueless. His deductions make
> > no sense because he either doesnt understand
> > or never noticed how unsharp mask works
> > or he doesnt read the posts in entirety because I clearly stated 
> > that this bokeh problem is easily visible in the viewfinder. Either 
> > or both ways its just plain bad to be posting completely wrong stuff

> > like that based on lack of knowledge in the manner in which he posts

> > it.



-- 
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 2007 - 20a - GDG

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Another from my walk in the park this past Saturday, adding to the  
Tree collection I've been building:

   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/20a.htm

Comments, critique, and a wet blanket always appreciated. No flames  
please: the trees get upset.

best,
Godfrey

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

RE: Just for the hell of it!

[Bob W]

Some of those shots of Paris are really beautiful, Ann.

--
 Bob
 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of ann sanfedele
> Sent: 23 April 2007 22:50
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Just for the hell of it!
> 
> Toine wrote:
> 
> >Digital isn't better than film.It's a lot easier and in theory
> >cheaper. In fact thanks to digital I started shooting again. The
dark
> >room was a disaster and shooting color pos. or neg. was  
> even worse. I
> >hated the long waiting and the ugly prints from the color lab.
Tried
> >PhotoCd and digital scanners which was a little more fun but very
> >expensive and time consuming.
> >Shooting RAW and inkjet printers is what I want!
> >So every picture I have shot the last years would not have 
> made with film.
> >
> 
> Lots of shots I've taken I couldn't have gotten using digital - I 
> couldn't have reacted soon enough...
> I also couldn't have gotten them with camera's that required 
> batteries 
> for anything but a light meter...
> I couldn't react fast enough... a KX or an LX (without the 
> winder) and a 
> 50mm lens , tri-x  - shutter speed at
> 250, f8 and hyperfocal distance set -  and the camera around my neck

> requiring only that I lift the camera to
> my eye and click...  
> 
> This one is one that no matter how quick my reflexes were, the 
> combination of having to turn on the camera
> and turn off the auto focus , etc... would have done me in, I think
- 
> because I was shooting through the
> dirty window of a train  - if I had to change the auto focus 
> I normally 
> use shooting digital to manual and turn
> on the camera I'd have been dead - well, or gotten a different
shot...
> 
> also,  there was much less to know about a manual camera - aperture,

> shutter speed, focus, ISO, DOF view, quickly changed
> with visible knobs.  
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2vqkx5
> 
> The main benefits of digital to me are
> 
> no dark room chemicals to inhale or dispose of.
> being able to "chimp" (when one is taking pics of something 
> one can do a 
> quick do over on)
> and quickly get my ebay stuff photo'ed and on line.
> 
> the lightness of the camera - my LX feels like I'm carrying workout 
> weights when I lift it now.
> and the speed with which I can see results
> 
> ann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >On 4/23/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Ok, just for the hell of it. The general opinion here is 
> that digital is
> >>better than film, so how about everyone posting a photo 
> that they took
> >>with digital that they feel they could not, or would not, 
> have done with
> >>film.
> >>
> >>-graywolf
> >>
> >>--
> >>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: color wheel photo project

[John Francis]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:43:07PM -0400, ann sanfedele wrote:
> Luka Knezevic - Strika wrote:
> 
> >would this perhaps do for green?
> >
> >http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o126/concavex/_IGP6182_2.jpg
> >
> >luka
> >
> hmmm - a bit of a stretch -  for our 6 shot wheel (or rectangle)  start 
> with those
> shots of mine and Christian
> for what my idea is... (another just for the hell fo it project)
> (in case you missed 'em when we each posted these)
> 
> christian's lonely cormorant
> 
>   http://tinyurl.com/348g67
> 
> ann's trees
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2ck4u8
> 
> add your URL here:  :)

http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/GoGoGo.jpg


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

RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh

[Tom C]

Do you mean this ISN'T the PJCODML (Pummel JCO Discuss Mailing List) ?

Pardon me.  Which door was it?

Tom C.


>From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: RE: More 85mm f2.0 smc-M bokeh
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:33:08 -0700
>
>Looks like I'm going to need tighter filtering, but, as long as I saw this
>...
>
>JCO, the thread has moved from your specific comment through the general
>rendering of the 85mm lens bokeh to some general comments about bokeh.
>It's no longer about YOUR specific comments.  Threads and discussions on
>the PDML, as well as other mail lists, tend to wander.
>
>Further, you are now making a personal attack by calling a contributor to
>the thread "clueless."  True, it's only a mild attack, but one that's going
>to leave you open to some negative comments and possibly start another
>flame war, more than likely causing you to, once again, use abusive
>language and post your messages using lots of upper case  letters, and get
>any number of people here to the point where they'll start responding in
>kind, as which already seems to be the case.
>
>I just don't understand you.  A couple of days ago Norm and I apologized
>for contributing to the last outburst, and Tim strongly took your side of
>that issue, and your response was "fuck you" in three separate posts, one
>to Norm, one directed at me, and least understandable, one to Tim.
>
>Relax, chill out, enjoy your camera, or your DVD player, or your HDTV ...
>vent your anger in other ways - go out and take a walk, get some exercise,
>cut back on the sugar intake.   LIGHTEN UP - not every comment is about you
>or directed to you.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Shel
>
>
>
> >  -- Original message --
> > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Secondly, this WR guy's posts, really show
> > > he is completely clueless. His deductions make
> > > no sense because he either doesnt understand
> > > or never noticed how unsharp mask works
> > > or he doesnt read the posts in entirety because I clearly
> > > stated that this bokeh problem is easily visible
> > > in the viewfinder. Either or both ways its just plain
> > > bad to be posting completely wrong stuff like that
> > > based on lack of knowledge in the manner in which he posts it.
>
>
>
>--
>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