Re: PESO - Wallingford Bridge

[Rick Womer]

I wanted to take a shot toward the town from the car park at the other end of 
the bridge.  The problem was that right below where I took this photo were two 
canoes/Canadiens tied up, with huge BRIGHT red-orange lifejackets in them.  Not 
the sort of spring color I was after...

Rick

http://photo.net/photos/RickW


--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Cotty  wrote:
> 
> >We took the bus from Oxford to the old market town of
> Wallingford, and
> >walked a 6 mile loop from there on Sunday.  The first
> bridge there was
> >built by the Romans; this version is a modern knockoff
> from 1809.
> >
> >I decided to play with the fisheye on this one; I'm
> not sure what I
> >think of it.  There's some CA in the upper right
> that I couldn't
> >completely get rid of in Lightroom.
> >
> >http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8916413&size=lg
> >
> >(K10D and DA 10-17)
> 
> Interesting! I sometimes park opposite and wolf down a
> Maccy D's from
> Benson, pausing during a mad dash between Oxford and
> Reading.
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 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
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Earthquake in Central Italy

[Bob W]

> 
> Thanks for the update!
> My friend in Viareggio said they just barely felt it, their 
> young son  
> awakened but didn't know why.
> 
> I've been thinking of all those displaced and killed by the quake. A  
> sad day.
> 
> Also the historical architecture that has been destroyed.
> 
> Godfrey

Some of Cartier-Bresson's most famous pictures were taken in Aquila degli
Abruzzi, as it was then known. The town drew a lot of photographers because
it was quite remote until relatively recently, and people continued to dress
in distinctive local clothing for a long time after such things had been
homogenized elsewhere. Set against the beautiful architecture it must have
been a wonderful sight, and a beautiful place. I do hope it can be restored
- because of the photographs I have always wanted to go there.

Scroll down on this page to see the best known:
http://hanulh.egloos.com/1408823

Bob


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Bob W]

Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a formula
for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your
assertion. 

I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong. The
calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on viewing
distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc
changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't argue
with the numbers.

Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to take
you seriously. 

Jose

> 
> NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof
> after the shot, DOF is an "in camera" thingy...
> you have to change the in camera image magnification or
> f-stop to change the image DOF.
> 
> JC O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
>  

> 
> 
> Coc is always a factor.
> 
> You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and 
> the depth of
> field changes.
> 
> Bob
> 
> > 
> > The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not
> > a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever
> > your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification
> > or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot.
> > You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you
> > shoot it.
> > 
> > JC O'Connell
> > hifis...@gate.net
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On
> > Behalf Of
> > Larry Colen
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> > > > So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I
> > > > better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my 
> > intuition says
> > > > yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining
> > pixels (which
> > > > would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in 
> focus use
> > > the following formulae:
> > > 
> > > dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
> > > df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]
> > 
> > Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of
> > confusion is
> > first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC
> > (pixel size).
> > 
> > > 
> > > where
> > > c = circle of confusion
> > > U = subject distance
> > > F = focal length
> > > f = f-number
> > > 
> > > To calculate the circle of confusion
> > > 
> > > c = (v * D) / (1000 * S)
> > > 
> > > where
> > > v = film format / image size
> > > D = viewing distance
> > > S = print size
> > > 
> > > Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition,
> > by Richard
> > > Platt.
> > > 
> > > Very easy with a spreadsheet.
> > > 
> > > Bob


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Phishing spam

[AlunFoto]

Unfortunately, it's enough to be member of the PDML if the infected
party is using a POP3/IMAP/Exchange client to read the List, rather
than using webmail. The mail address of a poster is stored in the
header of all mails and can be scavenged from the inbox and/or "sent
elements" by the 'bot.

Brings even more pertinence to batting down the hatches... :-)

Jostein


2009/4/6 Bob W :
> I received some phishing spam on this email address today. I only use it for
> PDML and for replies to offlist emails from PDMLers. In the PDML archives
> the email addresses are hidden. Ergo, a PDMLer who has contacted me offlist,
> or one of their other correspondents, has had their address book raided by
> spyware.
>
> Please batten down the hatches.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

DA* 60-250/4 official date, Tokina 12-24 review and May surprise ?

[Thibouille]

* It seems this lens finaly would be formaly announced 24th april (2009 lol).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=31519318
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/56427-its-official-da-60-250-launch-date-24th-april.html

* DPR (for what its worth) tested the Tokina 12-24 which after all is
pretty much a DA12-24 (opticaly).

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15/

* There are a number of sources indicating a little surprise in for
May from Pentax and is not the 60-250.
There's no other clue: lens, body, accessory... We shall see if
there's anything at all ;)


-- 
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB
Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Tarke Homestead

[Jack Davis]

I did a B&W conversion and varied the light in both versions, but I kept coming 
back to an exposure that "recorded" the ravages realized due to age and weather.
I may attempt to get closer to the near front corner of the house and try for 
some drama.
Thanks for commenting.

Jack


--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Ken Waller  wrote:

> From: Ken Waller 
> Subject: Re: Tarke Homestead
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 9:05 PM
> Once again, I wish the light was softer.
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jack Davis" 
> Subject: PESO: Tarke Homestead
> 
> 
> >
> > Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and
> around for awhile.
> > Am including a link to a long since abandoned
> homestead on Tarke Rd.
> > So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the
> front that I had no 
> > option but this side view.
> > Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > K10, DA60~45
> >
> >
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403
> 
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[Mark Roberts]

I've updated the GFM Nature Photography Weekend FAQ a little: A few more 
photos, a couple of more links to other PDML photo galleries of the 
event and a downloadable map.


http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

Afyer 35 years of experience, I dont need no stinking formula, everybody
knows the depth of field
is image locked once you make the exposure. To change it ( increase or
decrease the relative depth of field ), you have to change the in-camera
magnification or fstop before shooting. You cant manipulate more or
less image DOF ***after the exposure ***. Making a print larger or
smaller doesnt change DOF, nor does declaring a the COC bigger or
larger.
To increase or decrease the image DOF you have make changes BEFORE
the exposureAFTER is impossible.

While not a formula, its a rule, DOF is proportional to f-number
and inversely proportional to in-camera image magnification. 

Relative DOF = (f-stop number)/(in camera image magnification). These
are the
only two factors that increase or decrease relative DOF. These cannot
be changed after the exposure. NOTE how, COC, Format, focal length,
print size, etc
do not matter. ONLY in-camera magnification changes and/or f-ratio
changes can
increase or decrease the relative DOF. Its very basic.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Bob W
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:03 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field


Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a
formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test
your assertion. 

I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are wrong.
The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on
viewing distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these
the coc changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You
can't argue with the numbers.

Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start to
take you seriously. 

Jose

> 
> NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof
> after the shot, DOF is an "in camera" thingy...
> you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to 
> change the image DOF.
> 
> JC O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
>  

> 
> 
> Coc is always a factor.
> 
> You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and
> the depth of
> field changes.
> 
> Bob
> 
> > 
> > The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not
> > a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever
> > your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or 
> > increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant 
> > change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it.
> > 
> > JC O'Connell
> > hifis...@gate.net
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf

> > Of Larry Colen
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> > > > So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I 
> > > > better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my
> > intuition says
> > > > yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining
> > pixels (which
> > > > would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in
> focus use
> > > the following formulae:
> > > 
> > > dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
> > > df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]
> > 
> > Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion

> > is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than 
> > CoC (pixel size).
> > 
> > > 
> > > where
> > > c = circle of confusion
> > > U = subject distance
> > > F = focal length
> > > f = f-number
> > > 
> > > To calculate the circle of confusion
> > > 
> > > c = (v * D) / (1000 * S)
> > > 
> > > where
> > > v = film format / image size
> > > D = viewing distance
> > > S = print size
> > > 
> > > Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition,
> > by Richard
> > > Platt.
> > > 
> > > Very easy with a spreadsheet.
> > > 
> > > Bob


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
























































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Matthew Hunt]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W  wrote:

> You can't argue with the numbers.

OR A BRICK WALL.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Luiz Felipe]

You're actually saying if one zoom out (reduce the magnification of the 
subject) and crop back to the desired composition the DOF will be 
increased, right? So the pic taken with the zoom at 35mm will present 
greater DOF than the one taken at 70mm, after you enlarge both to the 
same subject size, right?


...so the K20d has greater DOF than the *ist DS, right?

I love numbers... :-)

LF

JC OConnell escreveu:

depth of field is determined solely by in camera magnification
and working fstop. So cropping/format is not a factor but changing
lenses from a given distance will affect DOF, likewise moving further
away with the same lens and stopping down more will also both increase
DOF.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 



-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Larry Colen
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:35 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Trading resolution for depth of field


Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation, and
can just give me the answers.

Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my mongrel
legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back to the office was
getting some shots of it with some lupin by the side of the trail.

I didn't have quite as much depth of field as I'd like, so I decided to
try zooming way out and then just cropping. Smaller sensor, shorter
lens, more depth of field. If the equation is linear, I should get the
same DOF by downresing (downrezzing?) a longer lens over the whole
sensor, as I would using a shorter lens and cropping.

This would also mean that a K20 would have a lot less DOF than my K100
at the same focal length, assuming that they were blown up large enough
that the sensor resolution became a factor. 


So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better
off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or do
I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also reduce
noise) for a larger circle of confusion?




--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Paul Stenquist]

This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on  
a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect  
to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct,  
but each is discussing an entirely different matter.


Let it go.


On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote:

Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a  
formula

for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your
assertion.

I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are  
wrong. The
calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on  
viewing

distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc
changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't  
argue

with the numbers.

Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start  
to take

you seriously.

Jose



NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof
after the shot, DOF is an "in camera" thingy...
you have to change the in camera image magnification or
f-stop to change the image DOF.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net






Coc is always a factor.

You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and
the depth of
field changes.

Bob



The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not
a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever
your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification
or increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot.
You cant change the relative DOF of an image after you
shoot it.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net



-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On
Behalf Of
Larry Colen
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:

So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I
better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my

intuition says

yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining

pixels (which

would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion?



To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in

focus use

the following formulae:

dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]


Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of
confusion is
first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than CoC
(pixel size).



where
c = circle of confusion
U = subject distance
F = focal length
f = f-number

To calculate the circle of confusion

c = (v * D) / (1000 * S)

where
v = film format / image size
D = viewing distance
S = print size

Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition,

by Richard

Platt.

Very easy with a spreadsheet.

Bob



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
and follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Paul Stenquist]

No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of  
a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's  
hanging on a wall.


On Apr 7, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote:


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W  wrote:


You can't argue with the numbers.


OR A BRICK WALL.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
and follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

YES - right.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Luiz Felipe
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


You're actually saying if one zoom out (reduce the magnification of the 
subject) and crop back to the desired composition the DOF will be 
increased, right? So the pic taken with the zoom at 35mm will present 
greater DOF than the one taken at 70mm, after you enlarge both to the 
same subject size, right?

...so the K20d has greater DOF than the *ist DS, right?

I love numbers... :-)

LF

JC OConnell escreveu:
> depth of field is determined solely by in camera magnification and 
> working fstop. So cropping/format is not a factor but changing lenses 
> from a given distance will affect DOF, likewise moving further away 
> with the same lens and stopping down more will also both increase DOF.
> 
> JC O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf 
> Of Larry Colen
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:35 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Trading resolution for depth of field
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation, and

> can just give me the answers.
> 
> Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my 
> mongrel legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back to the 
> office was getting some shots of it with some lupin by the side of the

> trail.
> 
> I didn't have quite as much depth of field as I'd like, so I decided 
> to try zooming way out and then just cropping. Smaller sensor, shorter

> lens, more depth of field. If the equation is linear, I should get the

> same DOF by downresing (downrezzing?) a longer lens over the whole 
> sensor, as I would using a shorter lens and cropping.
> 
> This would also mean that a K20 would have a lot less DOF than my K100

> at the same focal length, assuming that they were blown up large 
> enough that the sensor resolution became a factor.
> 
> So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better

> off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or 
> do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also 
> reduce
> noise) for a larger circle of confusion?
> 
> 

-- 
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.




















































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: And the mouse said to the elephant...

[Christian]

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/16612744

Enjoy,
Ralf


Nice catch.  You couldn't have asked for better placement of the two 
machines.


Christian


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead

[Jack Davis]

Thanks, Marnie. I could have climbed the fence and gotten a low shot from the 
near front corner of the house. Maybe I'll consider going back.
I varied the light and fiddled with B&W, but this version simply best exposed 
the scene. As I mentioned in another post, I want this sort of subject to be 
well lit to allow a 'study' of its textures and detail.

Jack


--- On Mon, 4/6/09, eactiv...@aol.com  wrote:

> From: eactiv...@aol.com 
> Subject: Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 10:54 PM
> In a message dated 4/6/2009 4:28:18 P.M. Pacific  Daylight
> Time, 
> jdavi...@yahoo.com writes:
> > JD> Beautiful calm 78F  afternoon. Had to get out
> and
> > around for awhile.
> > JD> Am  including a link to a long since abandoned
> > homestead on Tarke Rd.  
> > JD> So completely overgrown and impenetrable from
> the
> > front  that I
> > JD> had no option but this side view.
> > JD> Seems I  can't resist such remnants of the
> past.
> > 
> > JD> Jack
> >  
> > JD> K10, DA60~45
> > 
> > JD>
> > 
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403
> 
> ===
> I  think it's an okay photo, as is, Jack (sort of like
> some okays I've shown 
> lately  ;-)). But it might be really grabbing with
> different light/angle.
> 
> HTH,  Marnie aka Doe  :-)
> 
> -
> Warning: I am now  filtering my email, so you may be
> censored.  
> 
> **Worried about job security? Check out the 5
> safest jobs in a 
> recession. 
> (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003)
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

NO I DISAGREE. Image DOF is the RELATIVE sharpness
of objects in front of, and behind, the actual plane
of focus. TO INCREASE OR DECREASE this relative
sharpness you have to change the incamera
magnification  or f-stop. PRINT SIZE has nothing
to do with changing the DOF of an image. While
you can argue all day long that making a print
smaller and smaller increases the "perceived"
DOF, I dont, because all it does is make it
harder to see the **same DOF**, its doesnt actually
change the image DOF at all.

Furthermore, I disagree with using the term
"critial" to define DOF. Its not critical, its
what it is, and thats simply the difference in
sharpness of foreground and background objects
relative to objects in the plane of focus. It
doesnt have to be some "critical" barely perceivable
difference, sometimes its huge and obvious. but
in any case, if you want to increase or decrease
that DOF, you need to know what CHANGES it, and
what DOES NOT.


JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on  
a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect  
to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct,  
but each is discussing an entirely different matter.

Let it go.


On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote:

> Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a
> formula
> for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your
> assertion.
>
> I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are
> wrong. The
> calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on  
> viewing
> distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc
> changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't  
> argue
> with the numbers.
>
> Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start
> to take
> you seriously.
>
> Jose
>
>>
>> NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof
>> after the shot, DOF is an "in camera" thingy...
>> you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to 
>> change the image DOF.
>>
>> JC O'Connell
>> hifis...@gate.net
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Coc is always a factor.
>>
>> You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth 
>> of field changes.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>>
>>> The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not
>>> a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever
>>> your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or 
>>> increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant 
>>> change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it.
>>>
>>> JC O'Connell
>>> hifis...@gate.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf

>>> Of Larry Colen
>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM
>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I 
> better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my
>>> intuition says
> yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining
>>> pixels (which
> would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion?
>

 To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in
>> focus use
 the following formulae:

 dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
 df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]
>>>
>>> Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion

>>> is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than 
>>> CoC (pixel size).
>>>

 where
 c = circle of confusion
 U = subject distance
 F = focal length
 f = f-number

 To calculate the circle of confusion

 c = (v * D) / (1000 * S)

 where
 v = film format / image size
 D = viewing distance
 S = print size

 Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition,
>>> by Richard
 Platt.

 Very easy with a spreadsheet.

 Bob
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> and follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
 

























































































































































































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

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

I agree on no need to get personal. But print size has
zero to do with changing DOF. Smaller or larger, you cant
change the image DOF with printing techniques. In camera
magnification and f-number are the only factors...

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of  
a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's  
hanging on a wall.

On Apr 7, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W  wrote:
>
>> You can't argue with the numbers.
>
> OR A BRICK WALL.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> and follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
 











































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Cory Papenfuss]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Paul Stenquist wrote:

This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a 
viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the 
ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is 
discussing an entirely different matter.


Let it go.


... but as I'm sure we will discover, only one is correct.  ;-)

-Cory

--

*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, PPSEL-IA*
* Research Associate, Vibrations and Acoustics Laboratory   *
* Mechanical Engineering*
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

This theoretical crap is boring.

Quite wasting your time mass debating the theory & go put it into
practice by taking some interesting photos.

DS



2009/4/7 JC OConnell 
>
> NO I DISAGREE. Image DOF is the RELATIVE sharpness
> of objects in front of, and behind, the actual plane
> of focus. TO INCREASE OR DECREASE this relative
> sharpness you have to change the incamera
> magnification  or f-stop. PRINT SIZE has nothing
> to do with changing the DOF of an image. While
> you can argue all day long that making a print
> smaller and smaller increases the "perceived"
> DOF, I dont, because all it does is make it
> harder to see the **same DOF**, its doesnt actually
> change the image DOF at all.
>
> Furthermore, I disagree with using the term
> "critial" to define DOF. Its not critical, its
> what it is, and thats simply the difference in
> sharpness of foreground and background objects
> relative to objects in the plane of focus. It
> doesnt have to be some "critical" barely perceivable
> difference, sometimes its huge and obvious. but
> in any case, if you want to increase or decrease
> that DOF, you need to know what CHANGES it, and
> what DOES NOT.
>
>
> JC O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Paul Stenquist
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
>
>
> This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on
> a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect
> to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct,
> but each is discussing an entirely different matter.
>
> Let it go.
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote:
>
> > Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a
> > formula
> > for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test your
> > assertion.
> >
> > I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are
> > wrong. The
> > calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc depends on
> > viewing
> > distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the coc
> > changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't
> > argue
> > with the numbers.
> >
> > Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start
> > to take
> > you seriously.
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >>
> >> NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof
> >> after the shot, DOF is an "in camera" thingy...
> >> you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to
> >> change the image DOF.
> >>
> >> JC O'Connell
> >> hifis...@gate.net
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Coc is always a factor.
> >>
> >> You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth
> >> of field changes.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not
> >>> a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever
> >>> your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or
> >>> increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant
> >>> change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it.
> >>>
> >>> JC O'Connell
> >>> hifis...@gate.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf
>
> >>> Of Larry Colen
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM
> >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>> Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> > So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I
> > better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my
> >>> intuition says
> > yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining
> >>> pixels (which
> > would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion?
> >
> 
>  To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in
> >> focus use
>  the following formulae:
> 
>  dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
>  df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]
> >>>
> >>> Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion
>
> >>> is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than
> >>> CoC (pixel size).
> >>>
> 
>  where
>  c = circle of confusion
>  U = subject distance
>  F = focal length
>  f = f-number
> 
>  To calculate the circle of confusion
> 
>  c = (v * D) / (1000 * S)
> 
>  where
>  v = film format / image size
>  D = viewing distance
>  S = print size
> 
>  Source: The Professional Guide to Photo Data, 3rd edition,
> >>> by Richard
>  Platt.
> 
>  Very easy with a spreadsheet.
> 
>  Bob
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> > and follow

Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie

[Luiz Felipe]

First, I like them. Some - ok, most - could be enhanced, but then it's 
very easy to do that on a desk, looking at ease from pic to pic and 
discovering some major issue we didn't see live. :-)


First (now the first photo), I'd crop heavy, losing the cut stems from 
the flowers and anything above her head. I'd lose the end of the veil 
and probably some of the back of her arm.


Second (yes, the second photo), I'd probably lose the sidekicks, lots of 
floor and ceiling - or flip the camera for start. Like very much the way 
they tower above anyone else, but the floor disrupts that feeling.


Third - not so easy to improve, since I also like the idea. Longer lens 
from a slightly greater distance, maybe? Would it be possible??


Fourth, very close to perfect (I like the idea too), maybe if he would 
be either holding her hand or offering his hand to her??


Fifth, the one with the green hose... crop it out, not because it is 
that awful, but because the moment the bride and groom kiss everything 
else fades away... or at least should. ;-)


John, much better than my first wedding photos, not as good as your 
next... and not a worry since the bride smiled. As long as they're 
happy, don't lose sleep over some pic you could have done otherwise. The 
next pic will always be better.


LF

John Celio escreveu:

http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230

You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast 
majority of them), even though the bride liked them all.  I learned 
VOLUMES shooting this wedding.  There are so many "woulda coulda 
shoulda" photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next 
time.


Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche.  
Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos 
that I completely missed at the time.  My self-esteem regarding this 
shoot is in a constant state of flux, shifting between "Gosh this turned 
out well," and "Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment."


John

--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/calemp
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.





--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

Correct, either you CAN change image DOF via printing
or you CANT. Forget the former.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Cory Papenfuss
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:58 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Paul Stenquist wrote:

> This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on

> a
> viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to
the 
> ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each
is 
> discussing an entirely different matter.
>
> Let it go.

... but as I'm sure we will discover, only one is correct.  ;-)

-Cory

-- 


*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, PPSEL-IA
*
* Research Associate, Vibrations and Acoustics Laboratory
*
* Mechanical Engineering
*
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
*

*


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.













































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Matthew Hunt]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:

> No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of a
> lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's hanging
> on a wall.

What criterion do you use to define "the ability of a lens to
resolve"?  Where does that criterion come from?

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

PESO - Proud Parents

[frank theriault]

Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to
freaking snow on the ground!).  I wondered if this was baby's first
spring day out to the Market?

http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html

Comments always welcome.

cheers,
frank

ps:  note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only...

;-)

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

THEORETICAL CRAP? Screw you, this is REAL WORLD BASIC
photograhpy techniques. I would think that any photographer
needs to know how to control DOF. You cant just go
"take pictures" without some basic knowledge of "what
controls what" in your images. And the fundemental
knowledge of "what can be changed later and what can't"
certainly doesnt hurt either. 

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:58 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


This theoretical crap is boring.

Quite wasting your time mass debating the theory & go put it into
practice by taking some interesting photos.

DS



2009/4/7 JC OConnell 
>
> NO I DISAGREE. Image DOF is the RELATIVE sharpness
> of objects in front of, and behind, the actual plane
> of focus. TO INCREASE OR DECREASE this relative
> sharpness you have to change the incamera
> magnification  or f-stop. PRINT SIZE has nothing
> to do with changing the DOF of an image. While
> you can argue all day long that making a print
> smaller and smaller increases the "perceived"
> DOF, I dont, because all it does is make it
> harder to see the **same DOF**, its doesnt actually
> change the image DOF at all.
>
> Furthermore, I disagree with using the term
> "critial" to define DOF. Its not critical, its
> what it is, and thats simply the difference in
> sharpness of foreground and background objects
> relative to objects in the plane of focus. It
> doesnt have to be some "critical" barely perceivable difference, 
> sometimes its huge and obvious. but in any case, if you want to 
> increase or decrease that DOF, you need to know what CHANGES it, and
> what DOES NOT.
>
>
> JC O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf 
> Of Paul Stenquist
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
>
>
> This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on

> a viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect 
> to the ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, 
> but each is discussing an entirely different matter.
>
> Let it go.
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Bob W wrote:
>
> > Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a 
> > formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to 
> > test your assertion.
> >
> > I have provided a formula which shows quite clearly that you are 
> > wrong. The calculation uses coc as a factor. The formula for coc 
> > depends on viewing
> > distance and print size, therefore by changing either of these the
coc
> > changes. If the coc changes, the depth of field changes. You can't
> > argue
> > with the numbers.
> >
> > Give us a formula which shows you are right, then people might start

> > to take you seriously.
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >>
> >> NO WAY JOSE. you can never change the dof
> >> after the shot, DOF is an "in camera" thingy...
> >> you have to change the in camera image magnification or f-stop to 
> >> change the image DOF.
> >>
> >> JC O'Connell
> >> hifis...@gate.net
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Coc is always a factor.
> >>
> >> You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the 
> >> depth of field changes.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The question was regarding relative DOF, COC is not
> >>> a factor. The only way to increase DOF from whatever
> >>> your reference is, is to decrease IN CAMERA magnification or 
> >>> increase f-stop number. All that other stuff is moot. You cant 
> >>> change the relative DOF of an image after you shoot it.
> >>>
> >>> JC O'Connell
> >>> hifis...@gate.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On 
> >>> Behalf
>
> >>> Of Larry Colen
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM
> >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>> Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> > So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I 
> > better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my
> >>> intuition says
> > yes), or do I get the same benefit by just combining
> >>> pixels (which
> > would also reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion?
> >
> 
>  To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in
> >> focus use
>  the following formulae:
> 
>  dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
>  df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]
> >>>
> >>> Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of 
> >>> confusion
>
> >>> is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than 
> >>> CoC (pixel size).
> >>>
> 
>  where
>  c = circle of confu

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

I dont agree with that terminology, it's his not mine.
DOF is relative sharpness of foreground and background
objects in an image compared to the objects in the plane
of focus. ( just my working terminology FWIW).

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:12 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Stenquist 
wrote:

> No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of

> a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's 
> hanging on a wall.

What criterion do you use to define "the ability of a lens to resolve"?
Where does that criterion come from?

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
 











































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[frank theriault]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, JC OConnell  wrote:
> THEORETICAL CRAP? Screw you, this is REAL WORLD BASIC
> photograhpy techniques. I would think that any photographer
> needs to know how to control DOF. You cant just go
> "take pictures" without some basic knowledge of "what
> controls what" in your images. And the fundemental
> knowledge of "what can be changed later and what can't"
> certainly doesnt hurt either.

I think the point is that we don't need to know numbers, equations or
theories to know that the wider the aperture the narrower the dof and
vice-versa.  Working with post-processing programmes lets you know
what can be "changed later and what can't".

I agree with you, BTW, that DOF is a function of camera, not
processing, and the thought that these things can be applied or
altered in photoshop is wrong-headed (but that's just me).

But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some
people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we
can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and
taking photos!

;-)

cheers,
frank




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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

Whatever floats your boat sweetie.

2009/4/7 JC OConnell :
> Screw you

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie

[frank theriault]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:14 PM, John Celio  wrote:
> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230
>
> You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast
> majority of them), even though the bride liked them all.  I learned VOLUMES
> shooting this wedding.  There are so many "woulda coulda shoulda" photos!
> I've got a long list of things to do differently next time.
>
> Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche.  Please
> ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I
> completely missed at the time.  My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a
> constant state of flux, shifting between "Gosh this turned out well," and
> "Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment."

I like these!  From the moody "bride in the window" shot to the
playful "bride and groom peeking around the corner" shot, it's all
good!

I'm sure they'll be pleased with these.

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Matthew Hunt]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM, JC OConnell  wrote:

> I dont agree with that terminology, it's his not mine.
> DOF is relative sharpness of foreground and background
> objects in an image compared to the objects in the plane
> of focus. ( just my working terminology FWIW).

So, if a certain object in the foreground is half as sharp (or twice
as blurred) as an object in the plane of focus, is it within the DOF?
What if it's a third as sharp?  A quarter?  Where do you draw the
line?

To define the DOF, you need a concept of "acceptable sharpness" or
"acceptable circle of confusion".  These criteria typically arise from
assumptions about the final print (film size, print size, viewing
distance...).  In our previous discussion, I provided a number of
reputable citations discussing the origin of these criteria.  If you
had read them, instead of screaming unsubstantiated assertions back at
me, we wouldn't have to go through this again.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

2009/4/7 frank theriault :
> But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
> until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some
> people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we
> can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and
> taking photos!

Amen!

All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically
competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web.

I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.

DS

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Luiz Felipe]

...there IS a light at the end...

LF

Doug Brewer escreveu:

David Savage wrote:

2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt :


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage  wrote:



I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.


Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything.



LOL

Here's my latest boring photo:



:-)

DS


cool. she flashed you.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.





--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie

[Toine]

No idea why but I like 6255.

Toine

2009/4/7 John Celio :
> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230
>
> You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast
> majority of them), even though the bride liked them all.  I learned VOLUMES
> shooting this wedding.  There are so many "woulda coulda shoulda" photos!
> I've got a long list of things to do differently next time.
>
> Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche.  Please
> ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I
> completely missed at the time.  My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a
> constant state of flux, shifting between "Gosh this turned out well," and
> "Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment."
>
> John
>
> --
> http://www.neovenator.com
> http://www.cafepress.com/calemp
> http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

Im NOT the guy who was demanding formulae. As far
as fstop goes, yes most people know that stopping
down increases DOF and opening up decreases it, but
the only other factor that affects DOF, in-camera
image magnification, is not very well known. That's
mainly why I posted on this thread.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
frank theriault
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:21 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, JC OConnell  wrote:
> THEORETICAL CRAP? Screw you, this is REAL WORLD BASIC photograhpy 
> techniques. I would think that any photographer needs to know how to 
> control DOF. You cant just go "take pictures" without some basic 
> knowledge of "what controls what" in your images. And the fundemental
> knowledge of "what can be changed later and what can't"
> certainly doesnt hurt either.

I think the point is that we don't need to know numbers, equations or
theories to know that the wider the aperture the narrower the dof and
vice-versa.  Working with post-processing programmes lets you know what
can be "changed later and what can't".

I agree with you, BTW, that DOF is a function of camera, not processing,
and the thought that these things can be applied or altered in photoshop
is wrong-headed (but that's just me).

But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some people
like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we can't
forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and taking
photos!

;-)

cheers,
frank




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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
















































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

2009/4/7 Doug Brewer :
> David Savage wrote:
>>
>> 2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt :
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
 mediocre, pool myself.
>>>
>>> Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything.
>>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Here's my latest boring photo:
>>
>> 
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> DS
>
> cool. she flashed you.

I remotly controlled it too.

The Jedi mind trick is an amazing thing.

DS

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

you are trying to define some sort of "absolute" DOF
which really doesnt exist unless you consider a certain
COC as perfect.

The entire thread and original post was all about
the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease
DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ).

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:27 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM, JC OConnell  wrote:

> I dont agree with that terminology, it's his not mine.
> DOF is relative sharpness of foreground and background objects in an 
> image compared to the objects in the plane of focus. ( just my working

> terminology FWIW).

So, if a certain object in the foreground is half as sharp (or twice as
blurred) as an object in the plane of focus, is it within the DOF? What
if it's a third as sharp?  A quarter?  Where do you draw the line?

To define the DOF, you need a concept of "acceptable sharpness" or
"acceptable circle of confusion".  These criteria typically arise from
assumptions about the final print (film size, print size, viewing
distance...).  In our previous discussion, I provided a number of
reputable citations discussing the origin of these criteria.  If you had
read them, instead of screaming unsubstantiated assertions back at me,
we wouldn't have to go through this again.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.















































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

Its important to remember, that while good technique
cant improve a "bad" image, bad technique CAN 
destroy a "good" image. Technique isnt everything, but
it doesnt hurt to get it right.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


2009/4/7 frank theriault :
> But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want, 
> until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some 
> people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we 
> can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and 
> taking photos!

Amen!

All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically
competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web.

I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.

DS

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.













































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

This is true.

2009/4/7 JC OConnell :
> Its important to remember, that while good technique
> cant improve a "bad" image, bad technique CAN
> destroy a "good" image. Technique isnt everything, but
> it doesnt hurt to get it right.
>
> JC O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> David Savage
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
>
>
> 2009/4/7 frank theriault :
>> But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
>> until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some
>> people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we
>> can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and
>> taking photos!
>
> Amen!
>
> All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically
> competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web.
>
> I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
> mediocre, pool myself.
>
> DS

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Matthew Hunt]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:49 AM, JC OConnell  wrote:
> you are trying to define some sort of "absolute" DOF
> which really doesnt exist unless you consider a certain
> COC as perfect.

Actually, I'm claiming the opposite.  That any definition depends on
assumptions of the acceptable circle of confusion, and therefore is
not "absolute".

> The entire thread and original post was all about
> the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease
> DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ).

But your claims regarding relative DOF are only valid if the image
format (film size, crop factor, whatever you want to call it) is
constant.

A change in format leads to a change in allowable CoC, which you're
dropping on the floor.  If you dispute that the allowable CoC is
different for different formats, then you are the one who is claiming
there's an "absolute" DOF.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt

> The entire thread and original post was all about
> the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease
> DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ).

But your claims regarding relative DOF are only valid if the image
format (film size, crop factor, whatever you want to call it) is
constant.

A change in format leads to a change in allowable CoC, which you're
dropping on the floor.  If you dispute that the allowable CoC is
different for different formats, then you are the one who is claiming
there's an "absolute" DOF.

===

NO NO NO NO,

My post is ALL INCLUSIVE. The only thing that affects (increases or
decreases)
the image DOF is : (the image magnification in-camera) & (f-stop used).
Format, crop
factors, COC, print size, etc, blah blah blah have ZERO effect on DOF.
That is the common myth
I am trying to dispell. Its all about image magnification and f-stop and
THATS IT.
Changing the format, film size, "COC" means nothing..ONLY
changes to the image magnification
and f-stop change the DOF.

JCO







































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[frank theriault]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM, JC OConnell  wrote:
> Im NOT the guy who was demanding formulae. As far
> as fstop goes, yes most people know that stopping
> down increases DOF and opening up decreases it, but
> the only other factor that affects DOF, in-camera
> image magnification, is not very well known. That's
> mainly why I posted on this thread.

Fair enough...

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead

[Jack Davis]

In this respect we are on the same wave length. It's the type of image that 
either triggers a rewind of our migratory existence or imparts a mortality 
melancholy. 
Some try to find pictorial drama while others are comfortable lapsing into a 
pensive stream of trenchant thought of the life journey.

Thanks, Frank!

Jack


--- On Tue, 4/7/09, frank theriault  wrote:

> From: frank theriault 
> Subject: Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:33 AM
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Jack Davis
>  wrote:
> >
> > Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and
> around for awhile.
> > Am including a link to a long since abandoned
> homestead on Tarke Rd.
> > So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the
> front that I had no option but this side view.
> > Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > K10, DA60~45
> >
> >
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403
> 
> I like this one.  I generally like abandoned homes,
> especially ones
> like this that look like they've been this way for
> decades.  I love
> the fact that this one's becoming overgrown - as if
> nature's
> swallowing it up and soon there'll be nothing left.  I
> guess it just
> shows how temporary and fleeting our time on this earth is.
>  Things
> that we think of as permanent don't last as long as we
> imagine.
> 
> Lovely shot.
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> -- 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri
> Cartier-Bresson
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: More RAW software

[David J Brooks]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:52 AM,   wrote:
> In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:01:54 A.M. Pacific  Daylight Time,
> pentko...@gmail.com writes:
> Found the old email and  link.
>
> http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html
>
> Site  is still active, but it looks like it supports up to version 5 only.
>
> Dave  B
>
> ===
> I've now tried the Smart Curve PSE plug-in and it's  simply great.
>
> Marnie aka Doe :-) And you can't beat the price  (none).

Don't tell me I actually helped some one here.:-)

I'm usually the one looking for help;

LOL

Dave
>
> -
> Warning: I am  now filtering my email, so you may be censored.
>
> **Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
> recession.
> (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003)
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field- IMAGE MAGNIFICATION

[JC OConnell]

For the sake of clarity, I neglected to post
the definition of in-camera image magnification (M).
in-camera image magnification is the ratio
of object size to image size. Longer lenses
and shorter object distances increase magnification,
shorter lenses and longer distances decrease magnification.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
 











































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Proud Parents

[Jack Davis]

I see a circle of cute and happy. ;) DOF appears quite appropriate to me.
Bloom on the white hood doesn't even bother me.
Really nice, Frank!

Jack


--- On Tue, 4/7/09, frank theriault  wrote:

> From: frank theriault 
> Subject: PESO - Proud Parents
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:13 AM
> Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we
> awoke to
> freaking snow on the ground!).  I wondered if this was
> baby's first
> spring day out to the Market?
> 
> http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html
> 
> Comments always welcome.
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> ps:  note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the
> camera only...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> -- 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri
> Cartier-Bresson
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Proud Parents

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:13 AM, frank theriault wrote:


Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to
freaking snow on the ground!).  I wondered if this was baby's first
spring day out to the Market?

http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html


Cute hat! ];-)

ps:  note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera  
only...


LOL Most of my circle of confusion begins in the mind. ;-)

Godfrey

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Proud Parents

[Fernando]

Nice moment Frank. To my eye the crop works great, placing the three
adult faces as a frame for the baby. And it has the
cute-baby-with-bear-ears appeal ;-)

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, frank theriault
 wrote:
> Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to
> freaking snow on the ground!).  I wondered if this was baby's first
> spring day out to the Market?
>
> http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html
>
> Comments always welcome.
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> ps:  note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only...
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[David J Brooks]

Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this.

Dave

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> I've updated the GFM Nature Photography Weekend FAQ a little: A few more
> photos, a couple of more links to other PDML photo galleries of the event
> and a downloadable map.
>
> http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[Matthew Hunt]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:

> Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this.

Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by
the earthquakes.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Luiz Felipe]

...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo 
of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but 
my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the 
thread.


They also would like to use the photo as background for a while...

LF

David Savage escreveu:

This is true.

2009/4/7 JC OConnell :

Its important to remember, that while good technique
cant improve a "bad" image, bad technique CAN
destroy a "good" image. Technique isnt everything, but
it doesnt hurt to get it right.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net



-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


2009/4/7 frank theriault :

But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some
people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we
can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and
taking photos!

Amen!

All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically
competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web.

I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.

DS


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.




--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

Sure, go ahead.

Cheers,

Dave

2009/4/7 Luiz Felipe :
> ...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of
> yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my
> co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread.
>
> They also would like to use the photo as background for a while...
>
> LF
>
> David Savage escreveu:
>>
>> This is true.
>>
>> 2009/4/7 JC OConnell :
>>>
>>> Its important to remember, that while good technique
>>> cant improve a "bad" image, bad technique CAN
>>> destroy a "good" image. Technique isnt everything, but
>>> it doesnt hurt to get it right.
>>>
>>> JC O'Connell
>>> hifis...@gate.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>>> David Savage
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM
>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/4/7 frank theriault :

 But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
 until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some
 people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we
 can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and
 taking photos!
>>>
>>> Amen!
>>>
>>> All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically
>>> competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web.
>>>
>>> I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
>>> mediocre, pool myself.
>>>
>>> DS

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Wedding Rookie

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Celio"

Subject: GESO: Wedding Rookie



http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230

You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast 
majority of them), even though the bride liked them all.  I learned 
VOLUMES shooting this wedding.  There are so many "woulda coulda shoulda" 
photos! I've got a long list of things to do differently next time.


Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche. 
Please ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that 
I completely missed at the time.  My self-esteem regarding this shoot is 
in a constant state of flux, shifting between "Gosh this turned out well," 
and "Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment."


You survived and the bride liked the work.
Treat it as the victory it is.

William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

Oh & I informed the "model" of your request & this was her reply:

"OH MAN I take that as a f&*king compliment!!"

You've helped brighten someone's day.

:-)

Cheers,

Dave

2009/4/7 Luiz Felipe :
> ...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of
> yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my
> co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread.
>
> They also would like to use the photo as background for a while...
>
> LF

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Doug Brewer]

David Savage wrote:


I remotly controlled it too.

The Jedi mind trick is an amazing thing.

DS


yes, it often helps you see the light at the end of the tunnel...

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Luiz Felipe]

...it is... (with all respect, please...)

David, you can't possibly imagine the kind of laughter around here on 
the account of select excerpts the thread AND the photo. Thanks for your 
(and her) kind permission. :-)


LF

David Savage escreveu:

Oh & I informed the "model" of your request & this was her reply:

"OH MAN I take that as a f&*king compliment!!"

You've helped brighten someone's day.

:-)

Cheers,

Dave

2009/4/7 Luiz Felipe :

...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of
yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but my
co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the thread.

They also would like to use the photo as background for a while...

LF


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.




--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[Scott Loveless]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>
>> Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this.
>
> Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by
> the earthquakes.

Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures.

-- 
Scott Loveless
Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Wedding Rookie

[Graydon]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:28:15AM -0600, William Robb scripsit:
> You survived and the bride liked the work.
> Treat it as the victory it is.

Mark!

-- Graydon

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Larry Colen]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:28:28PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
> 2009/4/7 frank theriault :
> > But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
> > until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some
> > people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we
> > can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and
> > taking photos!
> 
> Amen!
> 
> All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically
> competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web.
> 
> I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
> mediocre, pool myself.

I've done quite a few of those, but they aren't nearly as frustrating
as the brilliant photos that were ruined because of a technical error,
of which I have quite a few.  For sufficiently small values of
brilliant that is.

Also nice shot of the glowing bunghole. did you do that by timing the
flash? Or by aiming a mirror? If you did it with a mirror, you might
be able to achieve a similar effect by just taping a mirror to the
jeans so her hand didn't need to be there.



-- 
The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post
the wrong answer.
Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

2009/4/7 Larry Colen :
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:28:28PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
>> 2009/4/7 frank theriault :
>> > But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
>> > until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to "get it".  Some
>> > people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too.  But we
>> > can't forget what the underlying theory is about:  going out and
>> > taking photos!
>>
>> Amen!
>>
>> All also add that there thousands upon thousand of technically
>> competent, but mind numbingly boring, photos on the inter web.
>>
>> I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
>> mediocre, pool myself.
>
> I've done quite a few of those, but they aren't nearly as frustrating
> as the brilliant photos that were ruined because of a technical error,
> of which I have quite a few.  For sufficiently small values of
> brilliant that is.
>
> Also nice shot of the glowing bunghole. did you do that by timing the
> flash? Or by aiming a mirror? If you did it with a mirror, you might
> be able to achieve a similar effect by just taping a mirror to the
> jeans so her hand didn't need to be there.

She's actually holding a flash was just being goofy, struck this pose
and wouldn't you know my shutter went off :-) It's one of many shots I
took during the lighting test for a group shot.

Me & the camera were set up on the roof, the on camera flash was in
wireless master mode and the flashes that the models were holding were
in wireless slave mode (ie the on camera flash triggered the flashes
below) Because we were using a mix of Nikon, Canon & Minolta flashes,
Nkon CLS & optical triggers, we couldn't get the to all go off at the
same time. The final shot was still fun:



I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in hand :-)

:-)

DS

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[John Francis]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:32:48PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
> 2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt :
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage  wrote:
> >
> >> I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
> >> mediocre, pool myself.
> >
> > Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Here's my latest boring photo:
> 
> 

"Yes, since you ask - I *do* think the sun shines out of ..."   :-)


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Eactivist]

Can we watch the language on list,  SOMETIMES?

Thanks.

-
Warning:  I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored.  

**Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a 
recession. 
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[Mark Roberts]

Scott Loveless wrote:

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:


Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this.

Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by
the earthquakes.


Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures.


Sort of like pushing virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods? 
Probably not.


BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just 
below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the 
mountain. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Wallingford Bridge

[frank theriault]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Rick Womer  wrote:
>
> We took the bus from Oxford to the old market town of Wallingford, and walked 
> a 6 mile loop from there on Sunday.  The first bridge there was built by the 
> Romans; this version is a modern knockoff from 1809.
>
> I decided to play with the fisheye on this one; I'm not sure what I think of 
> it.  There's some CA in the upper right that I couldn't completely get rid of 
> in Lightroom.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8916413&size=lg
>
> (K10D and DA 10-17)

The fisheye works beautifully, Rick.  Beautiful, idyllic scene,
beautifully shot.

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Proud Parents

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 4/7/2009 6:13:23 A.M. Pacific  Daylight Time, 
knarftheria...@gmail.com writes:
Sunday was a beautiful spring  day (unlike today when we awoke to
freaking snow on the ground!).  I  wondered if this was baby's first
spring day out to the  Market?

http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html

Comments  always welcome.

cheers,
frank

ps:  note the circle of  confusion and dof which is from the camera  only...

;-)


Nice shot. Not surprised you spotted  it -- the bunny ears.

Marnie aka Doe  :-)

-
Warning: I am now  filtering my email, so you may be censored.  

**Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a 
recession. 
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare0003)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Mark Roberts]

David Savage wrote:




I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in hand :-)


Casual Friday in Australia, huh?


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[Scott Loveless]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> Scott Loveless wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this.
>>>
>>> Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by
>>> the earthquakes.
>>
>> Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures.
>
> Sort of like pushing virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods? Probably
> not.

More like hoping they get stuck before they fall too far and the rest
of us can use their heads as stepping stones.

>
> BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just
> below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the mountain.
> http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58

Excellent!

-- 
Scott Loveless
Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[David J Brooks]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Scott Loveless  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>>
>>> Earthquakes, Canadians, what kind of place is this.
>>
>> Well, the Canadians could always fall in the gaping fissures formed by
>> the earthquakes.
>
> Actually, the contingency plan involves _pushing_ them into the fissures.

That's assuming we get out of the chairs long enough.

Dave
>
> --
> Scott Loveless
> Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[Doug Brewer]

Mark Roberts wrote:


BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just 
below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the 
mountain. http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58


Nico, Cory and you.

Doug would have been the guy behind the camera.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mark's FAQ

[David J Brooks]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Scott Loveless  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Mark Roberts  wrote:

>> BTW: Doug Brewer has contributed a photo to the FAQ. Scroll down to just
>> below the map thumbnail for a shot of Nico, Doug and myself on the mountain.
>> http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=58

I have a hard time climbing a 6' step ladder, thus you won't see me in
any attic window photos.:-)

Dave
>
> Excellent!
>
> --
> Scott Loveless
> Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie

[David J Brooks]

I like the ones you have chosen to show up John. The bride in window
worked out well, and i like the peak a boo shot around the barn.

Dave

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:14 PM, John Celio  wrote:
> http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1230
>
> You will not be seeing the many photos that I hate (which is the vast
> majority of them), even though the bride liked them all.  I learned VOLUMES
> shooting this wedding.  There are so many "woulda coulda shoulda" photos!
> I've got a long list of things to do differently next time.
>
> Comments welcome, but I know they're not perfect and pretty cliche.  Please
> ignore the green hose and beige plastic box in the barn photos that I
> completely missed at the time.  My self-esteem regarding this shoot is in a
> constant state of flux, shifting between "Gosh this turned out well," and
> "Holy crap I am going to die of embarassment."
>
> John
>
> --
> http://www.neovenator.com
> http://www.cafepress.com/calemp
> http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: GESO: Wedding Rookie

[David J Brooks]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:

> Clone out the hose and box. It's five minutes of work.
> Paul

I'd have to take a week of work to do that.:-)

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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Peso water the grass

[frank theriault]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM, David J Brooks  wrote:
> Thursday was, b-e-a utiful. Plus 14 C and lots of sun.
> The weather channel called for a bit of rain today, so i decided
> Thursday would be a good day to lay down some grass seed, have it get
> some moisture and get a good start to hide all the bare spots.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks/3409895891/
>
> Now i just have to figure out what neighbour has my seed.
>
> K10D DAF 50-2.8 LR2 when i got it to work correctly

You didn't know it, Dave, but you were just getting ready for the
skating rink that's in your back yard today!

But you'll have to shovel off the now first.

It was fun riding to work with that 50 kmh sidewind, especially going
over bridges with ice on the roadbed!

I'd like to see your yard today!

cheers,
frank


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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Proud Parents

[David J Brooks]

I like the DOF her Frank. Also i like how you have the LHS framed up
with the other lady.

Dave

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, frank theriault
 wrote:
> Sunday was a beautiful spring day (unlike today when we awoke to
> freaking snow on the ground!).  I wondered if this was baby's first
> spring day out to the Market?
>
> http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/04/proud-parents.html
>
> Comments always welcome.
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> ps:  note the circle of confusion and dof which is from the camera only...
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - Wallingford Bridge

[David J Brooks]

I like it Rick.

The curve could be the fish eye, or it was built like that, makes you think.

Dave

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Rick Womer  wrote:
>
> We took the bus from Oxford to the old market town of Wallingford, and walked 
> a 6 mile loop from there on Sunday.  The first bridge there was built by the 
> Romans; this version is a modern knockoff from 1809.
>
> I decided to play with the fisheye on this one; I'm not sure what I think of 
> it.  There's some CA in the upper right that I couldn't completely get rid of 
> in Lightroom.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8916413&size=lg
>
> (K10D and DA 10-17)
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead

[David J Brooks]

My kinda house.:-)

I like the bit of fence in the fore ground.

Dave

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Jack Davis  wrote:
>
> Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and around for awhile.
> Am including a link to a long since abandoned homestead on Tarke Rd.
> So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the front that I had no option 
> but this side view.
> Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past.
>
> Jack
>
> K10, DA60~45
>
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Peso water the grass

[David J Brooks]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, frank theriault
 wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>> Thursday was, b-e-a utiful. Plus 14 C and lots of sun.
>> The weather channel called for a bit of rain today, so i decided
>> Thursday would be a good day to lay down some grass seed, have it get
>> some moisture and get a good start to hide all the bare spots.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks/3409895891/
>>
>> Now i just have to figure out what neighbour has my seed.
>>
>> K10D DAF 50-2.8 LR2 when i got it to work correctly
>
> You didn't know it, Dave, but you were just getting ready for the
> skating rink that's in your back yard today!
>
> But you'll have to shovel off the now first.
>
> It was fun riding to work with that 50 kmh sidewind, especially going
> over bridges with ice on the roadbed!
>
> I'd like to see your yard today!

LOL. It looks like it did all winter, under snow.:-)
Funny thing is, Sunday was nice so i went for my first big bicycle
ride of the year. Rattled off 10k after my third outing.

Now, 10cm of snow and icy roads.

Dave

>
> cheers,
> frank
>
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO's Some Black an white

[David J Brooks]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:56 AM,  <27...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I added a few black and white photos to my newest folder.They were all shot 
> with Tri-x film and I made 11 x 14 prints of them. I photographed each print 
> with the K20D and 100mm F2.8 Pentax Macro lens.
> Here is a link to one in the group..
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918271

That's a wonderful shot. Excellent lighting and smile.

>
> and for you girly fans here is a link to Heather Thomas, different than 
> Heather Locklear.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918275

Nice.

Dave
>
> Joe
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO - 'A shadow of its former self'

[David J Brooks]

Good shot. Like the tree trunk back ground.

Lots of detail in the leaf.

Dave

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ken Waller  wrote:
> Check put http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html
>
> Taken with a K20D, 600mm f4.0 SMC FA lens, 1/4000 sec, f 8.0, 1600 ISO
>
> Comments apporeciated.
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO's Some Black an white

[frank theriault]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:56 AM,  <27...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I added a few black and white photos to my newest folder.They were all shot 
> with Tri-x film and I made 11 x 14 prints of them. I photographed each print 
> with the K20D and 100mm F2.8 Pentax Macro lens.
> Here is a link to one in the group..
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918271
>
> and for you girly fans here is a link to Heather Thomas, different than 
> Heather Locklear.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918275

Each is a lovely shot in it's own way (and for different reasons).

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT - new look

[frank theriault]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Doug Brewer  wrote:
> I got tired of looking at my same old blog design, so I re-did it, modifying
> a different theme. If you like, please head over to
>
> http://www.drivingtheflies.com
>
> and have a look.
>
> Thanks,

I still don't see the flies.

But it looks good!

cheers,
frank


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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT - new look

[Doug Brewer]

frank theriault wrote:

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Doug Brewer  wrote:


I got tired of looking at my same old blog design, so I re-did it, modifying
a different theme. If you like, please head over to

http://www.drivingtheflies.com

and have a look.

Thanks,



I still don't see the flies.

But it looks good!

cheers,
frank




are you sure you don't see the flies?

thanks for looking

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Bummer !

[Thibouille]

Newer spec is out, SDXC and btw, file format is exFat (based on middle
aged FAT as usual).
Vista SP1 already support exFat by the way.

-- 
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB
Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT - Video testing

[frank theriault]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Cotty  wrote:
> Hi gang,
>
> Just testing a flash video encoder, any volunteers?
>
> 
>
> less than a minute of dark house fire shots, just need to know if you
> can see it :-)

The word "Fire" on the big red trucks (sorry, "lorries") is backwards.

Other than that, it all looks good!

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT - new look

[frank theriault]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Doug Brewer  wrote:

> are you sure you don't see the flies?
>
> thanks for looking

There they are, on the right!

I feel better about it now.

Still looks great.

cheers,
frank



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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Aussie Casual Friday

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:


David Savage wrote:


I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in  
hand :-)


Casual Friday in Australia, huh?


Brilliant!

Godfrey
--
 www.gdgphoto.com
 www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/sets
 twitter.com/godfreydigiorgi


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead

[Jack Davis]

Thanks, David! I included that just for you.. ;))

Jack


--- On Tue, 4/7/09, David J Brooks  wrote:

> From: David J Brooks 
> Subject: Re: PESO: Tarke Homestead
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:55 AM
> My kinda house.:-)
> 
> I like the bit of fence in the fore ground.
> 
> Dave
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Jack Davis
>  wrote:
> >
> > Beautiful calm 78F afternoon. Had to get out and
> around for awhile.
> > Am including a link to a long since abandoned
> homestead on Tarke Rd.
> > So completely overgrown and impenetrable from the
> front that I had no option but this side view.
> > Seems I can't resist such remnants of the past.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > K10, DA60~45
> >
> >
> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=403
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[David Savage]

2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt :
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage  wrote:
>
>> I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
>> mediocre, pool myself.
>
> Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything.

LOL

Here's my latest boring photo:



:-)

DS

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO's Some Black an white

[Jack Davis]

Cleverly done, Frank. Love the Christmas light scene. 
Knowing your photo prowess, I must assume you intend the HDR effect on 
Heather's.(?)

Jack

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, frank theriault  wrote:

> From: frank theriault 
> Subject: Re: PESO's Some Black an white
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 10:09 AM
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:56 AM,  <27...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > I added a few black and white photos to my newest
> folder.They were all shot with Tri-x film and I made 11 x 14
> prints of them. I photographed each print with the K20D and
> 100mm F2.8 Pentax Macro lens.
> > Here is a link to one in the group..
> >
> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918271
> >
> > and for you girly fans here is a link to Heather
> Thomas, different than Heather Locklear.
> >
> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8918275
> 
> Each is a lovely shot in it's own way (and for
> different reasons).
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> -- 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri
> Cartier-Bresson
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

Sir,

MY "burden of proof" is no greater than yours.
If you cant provide any reliable "proof"
that my contention is not true, then
your word is no better than mine. I dont need
any more "proof" to support my contention than
you need to support yours.

This is very simple. DOF is all about magnfication
and f-stop. 

I did supply the formula,

relative DOF =  F-stop number/MAGNIFICATION.

INCREASING F-STOP NUMBER OR DECREASING IMAGE MAGINIFICATION
increases the image relative DOF. 

Conversely, 

DECREASING THE F-STOP NUMBER OR INCREASING THE
MAGNIFICATION  decreases the image relative DOF.

If you dont believe me, do some experiments. 
I have, its called about 35 years of practical
experience to back up what I have read in theory.
This isn't my theory, this is the correct theory
that I have read and found to be true over the years.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Bob W
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:00 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field


> > The entire thread and original post was all about
> > the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease
> > DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ).
> 
> But your claims regarding relative DOF are only valid if the image 
> format (film size, crop factor, whatever you want to call it) is 
> constant.
> 
> A change in format leads to a change in allowable CoC, which you're 
> dropping on the floor.  If you dispute that the allowable CoC is 
> different for different formats, then you are the one who is claiming 
> there's an "absolute" DOF.
> 
> ===
> 
> NO NO NO NO,
> 
> My post is ALL INCLUSIVE. The only thing that affects (increases or
> decreases)
> the image DOF is : (the image magnification in-camera) &
> (f-stop used).
> Format, crop
> factors, COC, print size, etc, blah blah blah have ZERO effect on DOF.
> That is the common myth
> I am trying to dispell. Its all about image magnification and 
> f-stop and
> THATS IT.
> Changing the format, film size, "COC" means nothing..ONLY
> changes to the image magnification
> and f-stop change the DOF.
> 

You seem very certain about this, but you won't provide us with any
objective criteria, such as a formula, by which the people who disagree
with
you can come to any conclusion. Why not? Why don't you provide us with
some
evidence, then we'll shut up about it? Give us a depth of field formula
in
which all the terms are constant, except for image magnification in
camera
and f-stop, and in which viewing distance and coc have ZERO effect. Go
on,
be a sport.

Bob


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
 
















































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: peso - thinking inside the box

[frank theriault]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
>
> http://annsan.smugmug.com/gallery/2526444_XRhmm/1/507669324_Wedby/Medium
>
>
> I have some nerve peso-ing when I've hardly been here - but anyway...
> have at it

HAR!  Ashley look pretty darned happy in her new box.  Wonderfully
captured.  Love the way you have the box at an angle (not square to
the frame).

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: peso - thinking inside the box

[Jack Davis]

Cute stuff, Ann. Thanks for posting!

Jack


--- On Tue, 4/7/09, ann sanfedele  wrote:

> From: ann sanfedele 
> Subject: peso - thinking inside the box
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 12:24 PM
> http://annsan.smugmug.com/gallery/2526444_XRhmm/1/507669324_Wedby/Medium
> 
> 
> I have some nerve peso-ing when I've hardly been here -
> but anyway...
> have at it
> 
> ann
> 
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.


  

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO 2009 - 047 - GDG

[frank theriault]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
> Evening walk and I caught this inspiration...
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/047-halfmoon.jpg
> "Half Moon Overhead" - Sunnyvale 2009
> Panasonic G1 + Olympus G.Zuiko 40mm f/1.4
> ISO 200 @ f/2 @ 1/320 second

Very nice!

cheers,
frank


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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: Connections #2

[Fernando]

Thanks Paul!

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> I missed this one. I like it. Quite a group of characters there. I
> especially like the guy on the left who's apparently on the verge of passing
> out:-). Nice moment, with two conversations going on. Well rendered.
> Paul
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Fernando wrote:
>
>> Thanks Frank!
>>
>>> I'm guessing Little Italy, possibly looking down Grace from College?
>>
>> Nope, you got this one wrong ;-)
>>
>> Roncesvalles, I believe 5 blocks north of Queen. I love that street,
>> is really picturesque and lively (when the sun comes out that is).
>> Unfortunately is a long walk from home.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, frank theriault
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Fernando  wrote:

 Spring arrived on Toronto on Sunday (is already gone BTW) and I had
 the chance to go for a nice stroll. Part of the "human interactions"
 series that I've been shooting for a while already, and that has been
 renamed to "connections", and that is far from finished.

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/3418994249/sizes/o/

 Pentax K20D and DA21
>>>
>>> That's a hell of a shot, Fernando.  I'm somewhat surprised that no one
>>> else has commented on it in the past 18 hours or so.
>>>
>>> The different facial and body expressions (including hand gestures!)
>>> of the two groups talking, all seemingly oblivious of the fellow
>>> sleeping, the rail setting them off from the sidestreet, the
>>> neighbourhood in the background.  Great juxtaposition between the
>>> animated conversations and the sleeper and the quiet-looking houses.
>>>
>>> Beautiful geometries and composition.
>>>
>>> All in all a terrific street photo!
>>>
>>> I'm guessing Little Italy, possibly looking down Grace from College?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> frank
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>> follow the directions.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: peso - thinking inside the box

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

LOL ... I like it, the subject and then the picture make a very  
amusing joke. :-)


G

On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:24 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:


http://annsan.smugmug.com/gallery/2526444_XRhmm/1/507669324_Wedby/Medium


I have some nerve peso-ing when I've hardly been here - but anyway...
have at it



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Adam Maas]

At least it's not Godders and I this time ;-)

-Adam

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Joseph McAllister  wrote:
> Bzzz.
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 07:06 , JC OConnell wrote:
>
>>
>> NO NO NO NO,
>>
>> My post is ALL INCLUSIVE. The only thing that affects (increases or
>> decreases)
>> the image DOF is : (the image magnification in-camera) & (f-stop used).
>> Format, crop
>> factors, COC, print size, etc, blah blah blah have ZERO effect on DOF.
>> That is the common myth
>> I am trying to dispell. Its all about image magnification and f-stop and
>> THATS IT.
>> Changing the format, film size, "COC" means nothing..ONLY
>> changes to the image magnification
>> and f-stop change the DOF.
>
> Joseph McAllister
> Lots of gear, not much time
>
> http://gallery.me.com/jomac
> http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Ken Waller]

Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" 

Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field



On 7/4/09, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:


Let it go.



Mark


Mark !
Just 'Mark', Mark.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Trading resolution for depth of field

[JC OConnell]

"sharpness" has to be defined to define a particular
DOF. But when you want to increase or decrease DOF,
the whole sharpness/COC thing washes out, only camera f-stops
and camera image magnification changes get you there.

Im not buying into the argument that if you make anything
tiny enough the image DOF is increased or if you make
it the size of a billboard the DOF is reduced. Its not,
the definition I have been using since the beginnning
of thread is that image DOF is all relative, not absolute,
and its the relative sharpness of the out of focus planes
that can only be changed with mag/fstop. Print size doesnt
affect that.

JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM, JC OConnell  wrote:

> Smaller prints dont have more DOF, they're
> just harder to see clearly!

And that's what determines depth of field:  The appearance of sharpness.
Every derivation of DOF begins with that criterion.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
 










































































































































































--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Trading resolution for depth of field

[Ken Waller]

Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" 


Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field




On Apr 7, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Cotty wrote:


On 7/4/09, Luiz Felipe, discombobulated, unleashed:

...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that  
photo
of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh  
quietly but
my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them  
the

thread.

They also would like to use the photo as background for a while...


It will brighten up the orifice for sure.

--

Unfortunately, everyone will get behind in their work.


Reminds me of the butcher that backed into a meat grinder.





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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT PESO - "By the power of Greyskull...."

[frank theriault]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Bob Sullivan  wrote:
> Dave,
> Neat gallery, two my son's favorites - sharp things and fire!
> Tesla was a genius.

Possibly quite crazy, but a genius!

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shooting close to home (was 'nother stump)

[Ken Waller]

Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f

- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault" 


Subject: Re: Shooting close to home (was 'nother stump)



On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:


Definitely let us know if you do. I popped over to Davenport yesterday
for a little shooting just before sunset:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157616322123961/



This one's a hell of a shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/3416664805/in/set-72157616322123961/

But just a small nit, is the horizon just a titch off horizontal?
About .5 degree?  Not that it takes away...


According to my Official PDML Mouse pad, 'Rotate the entire image 0.42 
degrees clockwise'.




cheers,
frank



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT PESO - "By the power of Greyskull...."

[frank theriault]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:23 PM, David Savage  wrote:
> G'day all,
>
> Here is another from last weekend:
>
> 
>
> Direct link (~120kb):
> 
>
> There was no Photoshop trickery involved. If you click on the first
> link there is an explanation of how the shot was made.
>
> A small gallery of my other shots from the night can be found here:
>
> 

I like the whole gallery, but my fave is the guy with the umbrella.

cheers,
frank

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

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.