Pentax Photo Annual anymore?

[Dario Bonazza]

Hi folks,
I bought those annuals from Italian Pentax importers for many years, but now 
they say they did not receive those books from Japan anymore.
Is anyone aware of the availability of this annual anywhere in the world? 
Perhaps thay have stopped publishing it...
Dario 



--
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 Filigree

[Bruce Walker]

Thank you, Walt.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Walt  wrote:
> Very nice, Bruce!
>
> She really does have beautiful skin and eyes, doesn't she?
>
> -- Walt
>
>
> On 7/21/2013 8:33 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> Iryna returns: http://flic.kr/p/fe7tcq
>>
>> Now modelling jewelry from Lavishy, an indie Toronto designer that my
>> wife is writing an article about. With Gerrit's help we set up in the
>> shade of a gazebo in Little Malta, on the western fringes of The
>> Junction, closely watched by a small crowd of grizzled old Maltese
>> ex-pats from the cultural center across the road.
>>
>> K20D, DA* 50-135mm/F2.8 @ 70mm/F4.0, 1/160th sec, ISO 200.
>> AF540FGZ @ 1/2 power in Westcott Apollo 28" softbox camera-right.
>> Lr + Ps + Nik + Portraiture.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> --
>> -bmw
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
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 - Dinan Basilica

[Bruce Walker]

Very appealing space, Rick. Beautifully portrayed.

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Rick Womer  wrote:
> Another photo from the Dinan Basilica in Brittany.  The arches and the mixed 
> lighting attracted me:
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17464297
>
> Or, more simply,
>
> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17464297-lg.jpg
>
> (K-5, DA 16-45)
>
> Comments appreciated!
>
> 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.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
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: Frond

[Bruce Walker]

This is an interesting one, Dan. While the graphic elements please me,
I find the busy background too jarring. Competes with the foreground.
I think the colour scheme is disharmonious -- that may be what's
bugging me.

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Daniel J. Matyola
 wrote:
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468790
> Comments are invited.
>
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
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: Re: Geso A gallery from the plow demo

[John]

Dave,

Boy,   Great pictures and it brought back a lot of memories.  My 
Grandfather was born and raised on a farm in Sunderland, Vt.  He wanted 
to go to College but his father said he he had to work one more year on 
the farm before he could go.  It wasn't the horses, my grandfather was 
licensed? or able to drive steam tractors and he was needed until a 
replacement was found.


His last job was as an engineer for the State of Pensylvania. No...he 
didn't drive stuff, He was a professional Engineer and was a mine 
inspector.  He made sure that mines, especially coal mines met 
regulations and especially had put in settling ponds (important if you 
were mining coal.)


When he retired, he, of course, bought a small farm in central 
Pennsylvania and raised sheep.  As an aside, my Grandmother was raised 
in Connecticut and did not believe sheep did well in the rain.  I think 
she thought they would shrink. I can still hear her telling my 
Grandfather that the sheep need to be brought to the barn because it was 
raining and he straining to read the paper.


 In order to keep the grass down in the pastures, he bought a Farmall 
Cub.  Being from Vermont, he saved money, and bought one with a cracked 
block.  He pulled the block himself and had it welded up and then put to 
service pulling a horse drawn sickle bar that he found at a Farm Auction 
and he cut down the draw bar so it be pulled by the Cub.  I have more 
than a few hours driving that tractor (Drive it like a man, son) long 
before I had a license.  This is the long way to say that I enjoyed the 
pictures and they did bring back memories


Thanks,

John Graves

--
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 Filigree

[Gerrit Visser]

Those are great.

I found it very educational. My style is usually to take shots as we walk or
get bussed past scenes while travelling. There is no time to really consider
the scene, background or exposure and depth of field.
I'll bring my camera next time to practice a bit myself.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Gerrit

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bruce Walker
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 9:33 PM
To: Pentax Discuss Mailing List
Subject: PESO Filigree

Iryna returns: http://flic.kr/p/fe7tcq

Now modelling jewelry from Lavishy, an indie Toronto designer that my wife
is writing an article about. With Gerrit's help we set up in the shade of a
gazebo in Little Malta, on the western fringes of The Junction, closely
watched by a small crowd of grizzled old Maltese ex-pats from the cultural
center across the road.

K20D, DA* 50-135mm/F2.8 @ 70mm/F4.0, 1/160th sec, ISO 200.
AF540FGZ @ 1/2 power in Westcott Apollo 28" softbox camera-right.
Lr + Ps + Nik + Portraiture.

Comments welcome.

--
-bmw

--
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: Frond

[Gerrit Visser]

I love the waxy look and the drops hanging on.
Would this work better vertically?

Gerrit

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Daniel J. Matyola
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:07 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: PESO: Frond

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468790
Comments are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
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: Pentax Photo Annual anymore?

[Daniel J. Matyola]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/professional-photography-publications/218859-asahi-pentax-annual-pentax-photo-annual.html
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Dario Bonazza
 wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I bought those annuals from Italian Pentax importers for many years, but now
> they say they did not receive those books from Japan anymore.
> Is anyone aware of the availability of this annual anywhere in the world?
> Perhaps thay have stopped publishing it...
> Dario
>
> --
> 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: Bulk Film Loading

[pdml-mark]

Interesting - wouldn't the minilab lose the last frame by cutting off 
the film? In the rolls I develop by hand I get pretty close to the end 
of the spoolm but maybe the cannister is smaller than I think.


I once brought a roll of E-6 to a Walgreens and was upbrided by the 
machine operator who told me it would ruin his chemistry... brought it 
to the pro lab instead.


Mark


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


Be careful not to spoil the light-tightness of the end caps & you're
good to go.

I've got several "reusable" cartridges that turned out to be old
commercial cartridges with a plastic label applied to hide the 
original

artwork.

Actually, when I was running the mini-lab I kept several Chinese
commercial C-41 cartridges that had plastic labels over the original
Fuji film artwork (not just re-badged Fuji film because the underlying
cartridges were originally Fujichrome E-6).

So they can not only be reused for hand reloading, they were sometimes
reused for commercial reloading.

Also, the way we processed film at the mini-lab left a VERY short 
leader

sticking out of the cartridge. If you're careful *NOT* to rewind that
leader into the cartridge, you don't need to pop the ends off the 
cartridge.


Just tape the end of your bulk film to the leader & use it to pull the
film into the cartridge. Once you've got a couple of turns on friction
will help to keep it from slipping off if the tape doesn't hold.

But, if you rewind it & lose that leader inside the cartridge, it's 
not

long enough to retrieve with a leader extractor.

When I ran the mini-lab we had a big box to throw the old cartridges
into. When it filled up it got taped up & shipped back to Kodak for
recycling. I bet, if you can still find a mini-lab where you are, you
could ask and they'd let you take something like a gallon zip lock bag
full of used cartridges away with you. Might even let you pick through
the box to find the ones the stub leader hasn't been retracted yet.

Probably won't even have to ask "Pretty Please!"

One thing about mini-labs.

You can take the occasional E-6 in and have it cross processed without
hurting their chemistry and you get some really different negatives.

But, NEVER, EVER take traditional B&W films to a mini-lab. The average
mini-lab operator drone won't know what it is & they won't know any
better than to send it through the C-41 processor. It can mess up 
their
chemistry a little bit (they'll get over it if they even notice), and 
it

will definitely EFF UP your film.


On 7/20/2013 5:57 PM, Mark C wrote:

On 7/20/2013 11:18 AM, John Sessoms wrote:


I seem to have inherited the pack-rat gene as a dominant from both
parents ...


Then you are probably the right person to ask this question - can you
re-use commercial film canisters?  I am somewhat embarrassed to admit
this in a public forum but I just developed 2 rolls of Pro-Max 100. 
Just
for the fun of it I tried popping the end of each canister off with 
just
my fingers, no can opener. They came off easily and after the film 
was
spooled I put the canister, center spool and ends back together. Both 
of

them look perfectly serviceable. Did you ever try re-using the actual
canister?  I don't think this would work with Kodak or Fuji canisters 
-

the end caps on those seem to be held on tight and a can opener is
needed to get them off - but who knows about other brands, like
UltraFine and Adox etc...

If I can reuse the canisters, which normally sell for about $1 each,
then the $1.75 per roll I paid for the Pro Max was not a terribly bad 
deal.


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.


--
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: Pentax Photo Annual anymore?

[Dario Bonazza]

Thanks Dan. I've just posted there, asking details for the 2012-2013 
edition.

Dario

-Messaggio originale- 
From: Daniel J. Matyola

Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax Photo Annual anymore?

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/professional-photography-publications/218859-asahi-pentax-annual-pentax-photo-annual.html
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Dario Bonazza
 wrote:

Hi folks,
I bought those annuals from Italian Pentax importers for many years, but 
now

they say they did not receive those books from Japan anymore.
Is anyone aware of the availability of this annual anywhere in the world?
Perhaps thay have stopped publishing it...
Dario

--
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.



-
Nessun virus nel messaggio.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
Versione: 2013.0.3349 / Database dei virus: 3204/6509 -  Data di rilascio: 
21/07/2013 



--
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: Frond

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks for your comments, Bruce.  My reaction was similar.  Through my
view finder, I saw only the patterns of the frond's "leaves," the
texture of the main subject, and the water droplets.  The background
did not register at the time,
 and it came as a surprise when it jumped out at me on my computer screen.

The background is what it is.  I took a few other shots of that fern,
and some had much better backgrounds, but the frond did not look the
way that I wanted.  Perhaps I will go back there after the next rain,
and try again.  I may even resort to cheating, and bring my own
background to place under the frond.  

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
> This is an interesting one, Dan. While the graphic elements please me,
> I find the busy background too jarring. Competes with the foreground.
> I think the colour scheme is disharmonious -- that may be what's
> bugging me.
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Daniel J. Matyola
>  wrote:
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468790
>> Comments are invited.
>>
>> Dan Matyola
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> -bmw
>
> --
> 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: Frond

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks, Gerrit.  As mentioned in my reply to Bruce's post, I am
considering going back and reshooting it.  I will also look at the
reorientation you suggest.  It is an interesting thought.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Gerrit Visser  wrote:
> I love the waxy look and the drops hanging on.
> Would this work better vertically?
>
> Gerrit
>
> -Original Message-
> From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Daniel J. Matyola
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:07 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: PESO: Frond
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468790
> Comments are invited.
>
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
> --
> 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.

PESO: Best Buds

[Daniel J. Matyola]

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
Comments and criticisms are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
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: KEH in the bay area

[Kenneth Waller]

Still looks like you'll have to pay $3.00 to get to KEH to sell your gear.

-Original Message-
>From: Aahz Maruch 

>Subject: Re: KEH in the bay area
>
>On Sun, Jul 21, 2013, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>
>> They don't charge admission when they are in Detroit!
>
>KEH isn't charging admission, they're attending a larger show:
>
>http://photocentral.org/HaywardCameraShow.html
>-- 
>Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
>  <*>   <*>   <*>
>Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.


-- 
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: Bulk Film Loading

[John Sessoms]

I wonder if there's any hope of Plus-X or the like ever making a comeback?

I seem to remember that when Kodak was shutting down their B&W film line
there was a news item to the effect that some company in China had
bought all of the production machinery.

Which just spawned another thought - someone appears to be still
manufacturing Kodak T-Max, but who is it?

On 7/21/2013 9:05 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:

Hi Mark,

Been doing that a lot lately too; I have something like 10 canisters
only so I don't load everything up and the rest sits inside the loader
on my bookshelf.  I have an extra 100' in the freezer though.

Fuji just gave a press release that Neopan 400 is being phased out,
but here is a not so well known alternative film:

http://www.adorama.com/KE400100.html

Its brought to you by the same guys who gave us Ilford.  How & why its
cheaper is beyond me, but its quality almost the same as Ilford HP5+
(a bit grainier; I have yet to compare the Kentmere 100 with FP4).  It
takes longer to process it with the same chemistry; so far we have
tried it with Ilford's ID-11 and homebrewed (pa)Rodinal.

Bong

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Mark C  wrote:

I've been shooting a bit of 35mm B&W these days and finally broke down and
bought a daylight loader for bulk rolls and some reloadable canisters. I'm
sure someone here has done or does do the bulk film loading thing...
Question that I'm wondering about - is there any problem with just putting
the 100 foot roll into the loader and then filling canisters as needed, or
is there a reason why you should load up the whole bulk roll in one session?
Although I do shoot a fair amount of film it would take a month or two to
use up the approximately 20 rolls I'd get out of a 100 foot roll.. Is it OK
to just load up a few canisters as needed, which means the bulk roll would
be stored in the loader, or should I load it all up at once?

TIA -

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.

PESO - Grand Canyon - 1975

[George Sinos]

This image was restored from an old transparency.  Almost 40 years
old, badly faded, the slide had almost reached the end of its life.
After scanning and a little work with Lightroom, the image will be
around for a few more years.  I'm sure after the picture is long gone
the canyon will still be there.



gs

George Sinos

www.GeorgesPhotos.net
www.GeorgeSinos.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: PESO: Best Buds

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks, Gerrit and Jack.

Yes, I think I do need to do a little more PS work on it.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Gerrit Visser  wrote:
> Good name. Almost looks like they are leaning toward each other reaching for
> a kiss.
> colours belnd well from the leaves to background in this one.
>
> gerrit
>
> -Original Message-
> From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Daniel J. Matyola
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 10:07 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: PESO: Best Buds
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
> Comments and criticisms are invited.
>
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
> --
> 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: Bulk Film Loading

[John Sessoms]

It's just a short stub - 1/4 to 3/8 inch sticking out of the cartridge.

Taking as an example my K1000, the distance between where the film comes
out of the cartridge & the nearest edge of the shutter window is about
1/2 inch.

I think that's about right. I was going to look, but I can't right now
because I have film in the camera.

Plus whatever slack there is from where you're winding the next frame
and only get half a stroke & know to rewind because if you force it
you're either going to break the film off from the cartridge or you're
going to get overlap on your last two frames.

I don't know of any camera that would put an image on that last inch or
so of the film. I'll bet not exposing that area is even part of the
specification Kodak gave the camera manufacturers many years ago.

... or whoever invented the 35mm film cartridge.


On 7/22/2013 9:16 AM, pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:

Interesting - wouldn't the minilab lose the last frame by cutting off
the film? In the rolls I develop by hand I get pretty close to the end
of the spoolm but maybe the cannister is smaller than I think.

I once brought a roll of E-6 to a Walgreens and was upbrided by the
machine operator who told me it would ruin his chemistry... brought it
to the pro lab instead.

Mark


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


Be careful not to spoil the light-tightness of the end caps & you're
good to go.

I've got several "reusable" cartridges that turned out to be old
commercial cartridges with a plastic label applied to hide the original
artwork.

Actually, when I was running the mini-lab I kept several Chinese
commercial C-41 cartridges that had plastic labels over the original
Fuji film artwork (not just re-badged Fuji film because the underlying
cartridges were originally Fujichrome E-6).

So they can not only be reused for hand reloading, they were sometimes
reused for commercial reloading.

Also, the way we processed film at the mini-lab left a VERY short leader
sticking out of the cartridge. If you're careful *NOT* to rewind that
leader into the cartridge, you don't need to pop the ends off the
cartridge.

Just tape the end of your bulk film to the leader & use it to pull the
film into the cartridge. Once you've got a couple of turns on friction
will help to keep it from slipping off if the tape doesn't hold.

But, if you rewind it & lose that leader inside the cartridge, it's not
long enough to retrieve with a leader extractor.

When I ran the mini-lab we had a big box to throw the old cartridges
into. When it filled up it got taped up & shipped back to Kodak for
recycling. I bet, if you can still find a mini-lab where you are, you
could ask and they'd let you take something like a gallon zip lock bag
full of used cartridges away with you. Might even let you pick through
the box to find the ones the stub leader hasn't been retracted yet.

Probably won't even have to ask "Pretty Please!"

One thing about mini-labs.

You can take the occasional E-6 in and have it cross processed without
hurting their chemistry and you get some really different negatives.

But, NEVER, EVER take traditional B&W films to a mini-lab. The average
mini-lab operator drone won't know what it is & they won't know any
better than to send it through the C-41 processor. It can mess up their
chemistry a little bit (they'll get over it if they even notice), and it
will definitely EFF UP your film.


On 7/20/2013 5:57 PM, Mark C wrote:

On 7/20/2013 11:18 AM, John Sessoms wrote:


I seem to have inherited the pack-rat gene as a dominant from both
parents ...


Then you are probably the right person to ask this question - can you
re-use commercial film canisters?  I am somewhat embarrassed to admit
this in a public forum but I just developed 2 rolls of Pro-Max 100. Just
for the fun of it I tried popping the end of each canister off with just
my fingers, no can opener. They came off easily and after the film was
spooled I put the canister, center spool and ends back together. Both of
them look perfectly serviceable. Did you ever try re-using the actual
canister?  I don't think this would work with Kodak or Fuji canisters -
the end caps on those seem to be held on tight and a can opener is
needed to get them off - but who knows about other brands, like
UltraFine and Adox etc...

If I can reuse the canisters, which normally sell for about $1 each,
then the $1.75 per roll I paid for the Pro Max was not a terribly bad
deal.

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.




--
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 - Dinan Basilica

[Don Guthrie]

Very rich tones & shadows with an appropriate Renaissance Art look - 
great shot.


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Rick Womer  wrote:
> Another photo from the Dinan Basilica in Brittany.  The arches and 
the mixed lighting attracted me:

>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17464297
>
> Or, more simply,
>
> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17464297-lg.jpg
>
> (K-5, DA 16-45)
>
> Comments appreciated!
>
> 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.


--
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: Best Buds

[Don Guthrie]

It does look like they are having a morning chat.

pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:06:33 -0400
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: PESO: Best Buds
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
Comments and criticisms are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



--
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: Re: Rolling down the track

[Don Guthrie]

You can't have too much train for trainspotters. In the full gallery I 
had some more shots and angles. Send them to:



http://donspix.smugmug.com/Trains/Steam-Train/30556104_RZr3Tm#!i=2636604737&k=mMgbFTz&lb=1&s=A

Thanks for the comments.

pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:45:44 -0700
From: Aahz Maruch
To:pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Rolling down the track
Message-ID:<20130722144544.ga11...@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, Steve Cottrell wrote:

>On 10/7/13, Don Guthrie, discombobulated, unleashed:

>>
>>Recently had an opportunity to photograph a genuine steam engine on the
>>tracks. I took many pictures and will post some galleries when I get
>>them up on flicker. Meantime for those who have no moral objections to
>>Google plus please look at this link and let me know if the experience
>>works for you. Thanks
>>
>>https://plus.google.com/u/0/100687245332697763729/posts/BbeeSxVWxD5

>
>Interesting choice of composition! Personally I would lose the dead
>space left of the tree, but it loses nothing in your interpretation.

What I'd expect my trainspotting friends to say isn't so much that
there's too much dead space left as not enough train right.;-)   Nice
shot otherwise!

Much as I hate Google these days, this is a lot better than the current
flickr interface.
-- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.

RE: PESO: Best Buds

[Gerrit Visser]

Good name. Almost looks like they are leaning toward each other reaching for
a kiss.
colours belnd well from the leaves to background in this one.

gerrit

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Daniel J. Matyola
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 10:07 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: PESO: Best Buds

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
Comments and criticisms are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
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: Frond

[John Sessoms]

If you're going to be "cheating", go ahead and bring your own "rain" - take
along a spray bottle of water/glycerin mix and create your own raindrops.

On 7/22/2013 9:56 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

Thanks for your comments, Bruce.  My reaction was similar.  Through my
view finder, I saw only the patterns of the frond's "leaves," the
texture of the main subject, and the water droplets.  The background
did not register at the time,
  and it came as a surprise when it jumped out at me on my computer screen.

The background is what it is.  I took a few other shots of that fern,
and some had much better backgrounds, but the frond did not look the
way that I wanted.  Perhaps I will go back there after the next rain,
and try again.  I may even resort to cheating, and bring my own
background to place under the frond.  

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bruce Walker  wrote:

This is an interesting one, Dan. While the graphic elements please me,
I find the busy background too jarring. Competes with the foreground.
I think the colour scheme is disharmonious -- that may be what's
bugging me.

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Daniel J. Matyola
 wrote:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468790
Comments are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



PS: "raindrops on roses & whiskers on kittens" works out just fine, but
raindrops on kittens just seems to piss 'em off.

--
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: Bulk Film Loading

[Zos Xavius]

I'm pretty sure kodak still has a few film lines running still. TX400 is one.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM, John Sessoms  wrote:
> I wonder if there's any hope of Plus-X or the like ever making a comeback?
>
> I seem to remember that when Kodak was shutting down their B&W film line
> there was a news item to the effect that some company in China had
> bought all of the production machinery.
>
> Which just spawned another thought - someone appears to be still
> manufacturing Kodak T-Max, but who is it?
>
>
> On 7/21/2013 9:05 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Been doing that a lot lately too; I have something like 10 canisters
>> only so I don't load everything up and the rest sits inside the loader
>> on my bookshelf.  I have an extra 100' in the freezer though.
>>
>> Fuji just gave a press release that Neopan 400 is being phased out,
>> but here is a not so well known alternative film:
>>
>> http://www.adorama.com/KE400100.html
>>
>> Its brought to you by the same guys who gave us Ilford.  How & why its
>> cheaper is beyond me, but its quality almost the same as Ilford HP5+
>> (a bit grainier; I have yet to compare the Kentmere 100 with FP4).  It
>> takes longer to process it with the same chemistry; so far we have
>> tried it with Ilford's ID-11 and homebrewed (pa)Rodinal.
>>
>> Bong
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Mark C  wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been shooting a bit of 35mm B&W these days and finally broke down
>>> and
>>> bought a daylight loader for bulk rolls and some reloadable canisters.
>>> I'm
>>> sure someone here has done or does do the bulk film loading thing...
>>> Question that I'm wondering about - is there any problem with just
>>> putting
>>> the 100 foot roll into the loader and then filling canisters as needed,
>>> or
>>> is there a reason why you should load up the whole bulk roll in one
>>> session?
>>> Although I do shoot a fair amount of film it would take a month or two to
>>> use up the approximately 20 rolls I'd get out of a 100 foot roll.. Is it
>>> OK
>>> to just load up a few canisters as needed, which means the bulk roll
>>> would
>>> be stored in the loader, or should I load it all up at once?
>>>
>>> TIA -
>>>
>>> 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.

-- 
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: Bulk Film Loading

[P.J. Alling]

I think that Kodak outsourced production to a firm in China...

On 7/22/2013 11:06 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
I wonder if there's any hope of Plus-X or the like ever making a 
comeback?


I seem to remember that when Kodak was shutting down their B&W film line
there was a news item to the effect that some company in China had
bought all of the production machinery.

Which just spawned another thought - someone appears to be still
manufacturing Kodak T-Max, but who is it?

On 7/21/2013 9:05 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:

Hi Mark,

Been doing that a lot lately too; I have something like 10 canisters
only so I don't load everything up and the rest sits inside the loader
on my bookshelf.  I have an extra 100' in the freezer though.

Fuji just gave a press release that Neopan 400 is being phased out,
but here is a not so well known alternative film:

http://www.adorama.com/KE400100.html

Its brought to you by the same guys who gave us Ilford.  How & why its
cheaper is beyond me, but its quality almost the same as Ilford HP5+
(a bit grainier; I have yet to compare the Kentmere 100 with FP4).  It
takes longer to process it with the same chemistry; so far we have
tried it with Ilford's ID-11 and homebrewed (pa)Rodinal.

Bong

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Mark C  wrote:
I've been shooting a bit of 35mm B&W these days and finally broke 
down and
bought a daylight loader for bulk rolls and some reloadable 
canisters. I'm

sure someone here has done or does do the bulk film loading thing...
Question that I'm wondering about - is there any problem with just 
putting
the 100 foot roll into the loader and then filling canisters as 
needed, or
is there a reason why you should load up the whole bulk roll in one 
session?
Although I do shoot a fair amount of film it would take a month or 
two to
use up the approximately 20 rolls I'd get out of a 100 foot roll.. 
Is it OK
to just load up a few canisters as needed, which means the bulk roll 
would

be stored in the loader, or should I load it all up at once?

TIA -

Mark






--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: Bulk Film Loading

[P.J. Alling]

Kodak Retina folders had a somewhat shorter distance between the 
canister and the last frame, party due to their compact size.  I don't 
remember how much less and I'm too lazy to look but it wasn't much.  
There was still plenty of room between the last usable film and the 
spool even if one were being sloppy attaching the film.


On 7/22/2013 12:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

It's just a short stub - 1/4 to 3/8 inch sticking out of the cartridge.

Taking as an example my K1000, the distance between where the film comes
out of the cartridge & the nearest edge of the shutter window is about
1/2 inch.

I think that's about right. I was going to look, but I can't right now
because I have film in the camera.

Plus whatever slack there is from where you're winding the next frame
and only get half a stroke & know to rewind because if you force it
you're either going to break the film off from the cartridge or you're
going to get overlap on your last two frames.

I don't know of any camera that would put an image on that last inch or
so of the film. I'll bet not exposing that area is even part of the
specification Kodak gave the camera manufacturers many years ago.

... or whoever invented the 35mm film cartridge.


On 7/22/2013 9:16 AM, pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:

Interesting - wouldn't the minilab lose the last frame by cutting off
the film? In the rolls I develop by hand I get pretty close to the end
of the spoolm but maybe the cannister is smaller than I think.

I once brought a roll of E-6 to a Walgreens and was upbrided by the
machine operator who told me it would ruin his chemistry... brought it
to the pro lab instead.

Mark


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


Be careful not to spoil the light-tightness of the end caps & you're
good to go.

I've got several "reusable" cartridges that turned out to be old
commercial cartridges with a plastic label applied to hide the original
artwork.

Actually, when I was running the mini-lab I kept several Chinese
commercial C-41 cartridges that had plastic labels over the original
Fuji film artwork (not just re-badged Fuji film because the underlying
cartridges were originally Fujichrome E-6).

So they can not only be reused for hand reloading, they were sometimes
reused for commercial reloading.

Also, the way we processed film at the mini-lab left a VERY short 
leader

sticking out of the cartridge. If you're careful *NOT* to rewind that
leader into the cartridge, you don't need to pop the ends off the
cartridge.

Just tape the end of your bulk film to the leader & use it to pull the
film into the cartridge. Once you've got a couple of turns on friction
will help to keep it from slipping off if the tape doesn't hold.

But, if you rewind it & lose that leader inside the cartridge, it's not
long enough to retrieve with a leader extractor.

When I ran the mini-lab we had a big box to throw the old cartridges
into. When it filled up it got taped up & shipped back to Kodak for
recycling. I bet, if you can still find a mini-lab where you are, you
could ask and they'd let you take something like a gallon zip lock bag
full of used cartridges away with you. Might even let you pick through
the box to find the ones the stub leader hasn't been retracted yet.

Probably won't even have to ask "Pretty Please!"

One thing about mini-labs.

You can take the occasional E-6 in and have it cross processed without
hurting their chemistry and you get some really different negatives.

But, NEVER, EVER take traditional B&W films to a mini-lab. The average
mini-lab operator drone won't know what it is & they won't know any
better than to send it through the C-41 processor. It can mess up their
chemistry a little bit (they'll get over it if they even notice), 
and it

will definitely EFF UP your film.


On 7/20/2013 5:57 PM, Mark C wrote:

On 7/20/2013 11:18 AM, John Sessoms wrote:


I seem to have inherited the pack-rat gene as a dominant from both
parents ...


Then you are probably the right person to ask this question - can you
re-use commercial film canisters?  I am somewhat embarrassed to admit
this in a public forum but I just developed 2 rolls of Pro-Max 100. 
Just
for the fun of it I tried popping the end of each canister off with 
just

my fingers, no can opener. They came off easily and after the film was
spooled I put the canister, center spool and ends back together. 
Both of

them look perfectly serviceable. Did you ever try re-using the actual
canister?  I don't think this would work with Kodak or Fuji 
canisters -

the end caps on those seem to be held on tight and a can opener is
needed to get them off - but who knows about other brands, like
UltraFine and Adox etc...

If I can reuse the canisters, which normally sell for about $1 each,
then the $1.75 per roll I paid for the Pro Max was not a terribly bad
deal.

Mark



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit t

Re: PESO: Best Buds

[John]

Oh yeah. I can see it all now, them starring in a whole new series of
"Road" movies:

The Road to Longwood; The Road to Arizona Sonora Desert; The
Road to Keukenhof; The Road to Ryōan-ji ...

On 7/22/2013 10:06 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
Comments and criticisms are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



--
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: AF280T Failure

[John Sessoms]

Just tilt, no swivel.

On 7/21/2013 4:49 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:

I was looking at the 285 earlier today. I think that's what I'm going
to find. I prefer having an autothyristor vs just full manual. It
looks like it swivels too which is a must.

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM, John Sessoms  wrote:

OLD Vivitar 285-HV is pretty good. Trigger voltage <6vdc won't fry your
DSLR.

NEW Vivitar 285-HV not so good. Quality control issues I'm told.


On 7/20/2013 10:27 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:


So my AF280T made some awful cracking sounds and now only seems to
fire at 1/1. This makes it pretty much impossible to use. Close
objects are blown at even iso 100 and f8. Bummer. Just as I was about
to go out and shoot an event. Joy. I could go with the onboard flash,
but I think I will just stay home now. I've really had no luck with
flashes lately. Every one I have bought has either blown up or failed
in some way a short time later. Its probably time to bite the bullet
and send my metz 54 in. At least I can have something reliable again.
Oh photoshoots coming up too. So what's the cheapest half decent flash
I can buy on the cheap? Old vivitars?





--
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: Bulk Film Loading

[John]

Maybe that was the source of "some company in China had bought all of
the production machinery."

On 7/22/2013 11:59 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:

I think that Kodak outsourced production to a firm in China...

On 7/22/2013 11:06 AM, John Sessoms wrote:

I wonder if there's any hope of Plus-X or the like ever making a
comeback?

I seem to remember that when Kodak was shutting down their B&W film line
there was a news item to the effect that some company in China had
bought all of the production machinery.

Which just spawned another thought - someone appears to be still
manufacturing Kodak T-Max, but who is it?

On 7/21/2013 9:05 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:

Hi Mark,

Been doing that a lot lately too; I have something like 10 canisters
only so I don't load everything up and the rest sits inside the loader
on my bookshelf.  I have an extra 100' in the freezer though.

Fuji just gave a press release that Neopan 400 is being phased out,
but here is a not so well known alternative film:

http://www.adorama.com/KE400100.html

Its brought to you by the same guys who gave us Ilford.  How & why its
cheaper is beyond me, but its quality almost the same as Ilford HP5+
(a bit grainier; I have yet to compare the Kentmere 100 with FP4).  It
takes longer to process it with the same chemistry; so far we have
tried it with Ilford's ID-11 and homebrewed (pa)Rodinal.

Bong

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Mark C  wrote:

I've been shooting a bit of 35mm B&W these days and finally broke
down and
bought a daylight loader for bulk rolls and some reloadable
canisters. I'm
sure someone here has done or does do the bulk film loading thing...
Question that I'm wondering about - is there any problem with just
putting
the 100 foot roll into the loader and then filling canisters as
needed, or
is there a reason why you should load up the whole bulk roll in one
session?
Although I do shoot a fair amount of film it would take a month or
two to
use up the approximately 20 rolls I'd get out of a 100 foot roll..
Is it OK
to just load up a few canisters as needed, which means the bulk roll
would
be stored in the loader, or should I load it all up at once?

TIA -

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: KEH in the bay area

[John Sessoms]

They were at the trade show that accompanies the PPNC covention.

Lots of disappointment mostly. Their buyer makes an offer based on what
he thinks they're going to be able to sell it for and still make a
profit ... which given how low KEH's prices sometimes are, ain't much.

Plus, KEH applies their quality standards when buying as well as when
selling. Many prospective sellers were not happy to discover old stuff
they thought was "LN" was really "BGN".

On 7/21/2013 7:16 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 02:27:31PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:

I just got an email from KEH that they are going to be at the Hayward
camera show next weekend, buying and selling gear.


It looks like they are just going to be buying stuff at the show:
Dear Larry,

KEH Camera is heading to Hayward, CA for a one day buying event at the Hayward 
Camera Show!

We are currently paying top dollar for your clean, used gear, so this is a 
great time to come see us!  Our buyer will be available to make you an offer on 
the spot for your photographic equipment.

Admission to the show is $3.00.

If you cannot attend the buying event, or have too much gear to transport, KEH 
would still love to buy your used equipment!  Please send an email to 
maxdol...@aol.com, and our buyer will be in touch with you shortly.

We look forward to seeing you there!




--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://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: PESO: Best Buds

[Jack Davis]

Interesting composition. Would benefit, I think, if area around the leaf were 
cleaned up a bit.

Jack



From: Daniel J. Matyola 
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List  
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:06 AM
Subject: PESO: Best Buds


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
Comments and criticisms are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
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: Bulk Film Loading

[P.J. Alling]

I'm thinking that the reason they outsourced to a firm in China is that 
they sold the machinery to a firm in China.


It makes for a nice closed logic loop, and a certain amount of irony.  
Kodak couldn't make a profit selling the same film they made to the same 
specifications on the same machinery, but they can make a profit 
reselling that film if someone else operates the machinery.


On 7/22/2013 12:40 PM, John wrote:

Maybe that was the source of "some company in China had bought all of
the production machinery."

On 7/22/2013 11:59 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:

I think that Kodak outsourced production to a firm in China...

On 7/22/2013 11:06 AM, John Sessoms wrote:

I wonder if there's any hope of Plus-X or the like ever making a
comeback?

I seem to remember that when Kodak was shutting down their B&W film 
line

there was a news item to the effect that some company in China had
bought all of the production machinery.

Which just spawned another thought - someone appears to be still
manufacturing Kodak T-Max, but who is it?

On 7/21/2013 9:05 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:

Hi Mark,

Been doing that a lot lately too; I have something like 10 canisters
only so I don't load everything up and the rest sits inside the loader
on my bookshelf.  I have an extra 100' in the freezer though.

Fuji just gave a press release that Neopan 400 is being phased out,
but here is a not so well known alternative film:

http://www.adorama.com/KE400100.html

Its brought to you by the same guys who gave us Ilford.  How & why its
cheaper is beyond me, but its quality almost the same as Ilford HP5+
(a bit grainier; I have yet to compare the Kentmere 100 with FP4).  It
takes longer to process it with the same chemistry; so far we have
tried it with Ilford's ID-11 and homebrewed (pa)Rodinal.

Bong

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Mark C  wrote:

I've been shooting a bit of 35mm B&W these days and finally broke
down and
bought a daylight loader for bulk rolls and some reloadable
canisters. I'm
sure someone here has done or does do the bulk film loading thing...
Question that I'm wondering about - is there any problem with just
putting
the 100 foot roll into the loader and then filling canisters as
needed, or
is there a reason why you should load up the whole bulk roll in one
session?
Although I do shoot a fair amount of film it would take a month or
two to
use up the approximately 20 rolls I'd get out of a 100 foot roll..
Is it OK
to just load up a few canisters as needed, which means the bulk roll
would
be stored in the loader, or should I load it all up at once?

TIA -

Mark











--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: Bulk Film Loading

[John Sessoms]

PS: Maybe this happened a long time ago when corporations still invested
in training their employees and the operator actually looked at the film
cartridge before sticking it in the processor.

My employer didn't train me, but I had learned just enough from my first
year of photography school (before I ran out of money & had to come home
to look for a J.O.B.) to fill in the "Grand Canyon of the Colorado"
sized gaps in the information I was given.

The Walgreen's operator was an idiot of an unusual kind if he noticed
the type of film. Most mini-lab operators wouldn't even have seen it was
E-6 film or known what E-6 film meant even if they did notice it.

Running an occasional roll of E-6 through the C-41 chemistry won't harm
the chemistry. It's called cross processing. You do have to compensate
your replenishment if you're doing a lot of it, but one roll in a
hundred won't matter.



On 7/22/2013 9:16 AM, pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:

Interesting - wouldn't the minilab lose the last frame by cutting off
the film? In the rolls I develop by hand I get pretty close to the end
of the spoolm but maybe the cannister is smaller than I think.

I once brought a roll of E-6 to a Walgreens and was upbrided by the
machine operator who told me it would ruin his chemistry... brought it
to the pro lab instead.

Mark


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


Be careful not to spoil the light-tightness of the end caps & you're
good to go.

I've got several "reusable" cartridges that turned out to be old
commercial cartridges with a plastic label applied to hide the original
artwork.

Actually, when I was running the mini-lab I kept several Chinese
commercial C-41 cartridges that had plastic labels over the original
Fuji film artwork (not just re-badged Fuji film because the underlying
cartridges were originally Fujichrome E-6).

So they can not only be reused for hand reloading, they were sometimes
reused for commercial reloading.

Also, the way we processed film at the mini-lab left a VERY short leader
sticking out of the cartridge. If you're careful *NOT* to rewind that
leader into the cartridge, you don't need to pop the ends off the
cartridge.

Just tape the end of your bulk film to the leader & use it to pull the
film into the cartridge. Once you've got a couple of turns on friction
will help to keep it from slipping off if the tape doesn't hold.

But, if you rewind it & lose that leader inside the cartridge, it's not
long enough to retrieve with a leader extractor.

When I ran the mini-lab we had a big box to throw the old cartridges
into. When it filled up it got taped up & shipped back to Kodak for
recycling. I bet, if you can still find a mini-lab where you are, you
could ask and they'd let you take something like a gallon zip lock bag
full of used cartridges away with you. Might even let you pick through
the box to find the ones the stub leader hasn't been retracted yet.

Probably won't even have to ask "Pretty Please!"

One thing about mini-labs.

You can take the occasional E-6 in and have it cross processed without
hurting their chemistry and you get some really different negatives.

But, NEVER, EVER take traditional B&W films to a mini-lab. The average
mini-lab operator drone won't know what it is & they won't know any
better than to send it through the C-41 processor. It can mess up their
chemistry a little bit (they'll get over it if they even notice), and it
will definitely EFF UP your film.


On 7/20/2013 5:57 PM, Mark C wrote:

On 7/20/2013 11:18 AM, John Sessoms wrote:


I seem to have inherited the pack-rat gene as a dominant from both
parents ...


Then you are probably the right person to ask this question - can you
re-use commercial film canisters?  I am somewhat embarrassed to admit
this in a public forum but I just developed 2 rolls of Pro-Max 100. Just
for the fun of it I tried popping the end of each canister off with just
my fingers, no can opener. They came off easily and after the film was
spooled I put the canister, center spool and ends back together. Both of
them look perfectly serviceable. Did you ever try re-using the actual
canister?  I don't think this would work with Kodak or Fuji canisters -
the end caps on those seem to be held on tight and a can opener is
needed to get them off - but who knows about other brands, like
UltraFine and Adox etc...

If I can reuse the canisters, which normally sell for about $1 each,
then the $1.75 per roll I paid for the Pro Max was not a terribly bad
deal.

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.




--
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: Rolling down the track

[Aahz Maruch]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, Steve Cottrell wrote:
> On 10/7/13, Don Guthrie, discombobulated, unleashed:
>> 
>>Recently had an opportunity to photograph a genuine steam engine on the 
>>tracks. I took many pictures and will post some galleries when I get 
>>them up on flicker. Meantime for those who have no moral objections to 
>>Google plus please look at this link and let me know if the experience 
>>works for you. Thanks
>>
>>https://plus.google.com/u/0/100687245332697763729/posts/BbeeSxVWxD5
> 
> Interesting choice of composition! Personally I would lose the dead
> space left of the tree, but it loses nothing in your interpretation.

What I'd expect my trainspotting friends to say isn't so much that
there's too much dead space left as not enough train right.  ;-)  Nice
shot otherwise!

Much as I hate Google these days, this is a lot better than the current
flickr interface.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.

Re: PESO: Frond

[Don Guthrie]

Feeling a little green ( with envy) after viewing. I did keep turning my 
head. Did you try this in portrait mode?


pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:06:35 -0400
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: PESO: Frond
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468790
Comments are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola





--
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.

Thinking about copyrighting sunshine and some more..

[Igor Roshchin]

I just read this blog post about YouTube Content-ID matching system
mishaps and false rights claims by the copyright owners:
http://www.geekosystem.com/wind-sound-content-id/

Last year, I had a few videos with the live-recorded music for which 
YouTube claimed the copyright (music itself, not the recording, while that 
music was in a public domain by all laws and rules).
It looked just as a fishing expedition by those copyright holding
companies. It took me some effort to have them releasing those claims.
(Of course, everything is automazingly-dehumanized, hence, no apologies.)

Having read this blog post where some company claims rights on the wind
sounds and bird-singing, I am thinking that I should copyright the 
sound of sunshine and moonshine (not the liquid), before somebody has 
done that. (I might copyright the visual appearance as well, what the
heck?!) And if in addition I can copyright the sounds of running water and
flashing toilet, I'll be rich!

Cheers,

Igor


PS. Interesting, that Google's support pages say:
"Don't enable generic material for Content ID matching (e.g, white noise,
waves crashing, or applause)":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2605065?hl=en


-- 
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 - Spider Rock

[kwaller]

The light is no harsher than the landscape.


Aahz,
From the orientation of the shadow, the sun was almost overhead. When 
traveling, sometimes you take what you can get, But with a dawn or dusk lit 
scene, this image would move out of the documentary category and into a fine 
outdoor art category.


Its taken me many years to really appreciate the quality of light in my 
images and there are many times I just won't take a shot knowing the current 
light will degrade what could otherwise be a good/great image.




Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Aahz Maruch" 

Subject: Re: PESO - Spider Rock



On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, Brian Walters wrote:


In Canyon de Chelly, Arizona.

We were there in the middle of the day so it's a bit harsh - you
take the light you're given...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1370864/PESO/slides/_IGP1754-K5-1peso.html


The light is no harsher than the landscape.  (Haven't been there, been to
plenty other parts of Arizona/Utah/New Mexico.)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 
http://rule6.info/

 <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.

Re: Best Buds

[kwaller]

Dan, I believe you'd have a stronger image if you eliminated the leaf 
entirely and showed the buds in a portrait orientation.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Daniel J. Matyola" 

Subject: PESO: Best Buds



http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
Comments and criticisms are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



--
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: KEH in the bay area

[kwaller]

I use them as buyers of last resort when I want to eliminate the item from 
my collection - beats collecting dust or simply pitching it.


I've found their buyers to be reasonable in most cases after having scanned 
the internet and checking asking prices for similar items.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "John Sessoms" 

Subject: Re: KEH in the bay area



They were at the trade show that accompanies the PPNC covention.

Lots of disappointment mostly. Their buyer makes an offer based on what
he thinks they're going to be able to sell it for and still make a
profit ... which given how low KEH's prices sometimes are, ain't much.

Plus, KEH applies their quality standards when buying as well as when
selling. Many prospective sellers were not happy to discover old stuff
they thought was "LN" was really "BGN".

On 7/21/2013 7:16 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 02:27:31PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:

I just got an email from KEH that they are going to be at the Hayward
camera show next weekend, buying and selling gear.


It looks like they are just going to be buying stuff at the show:
Dear Larry,

KEH Camera is heading to Hayward, CA for a one day buying event at the 
Hayward Camera Show!


We are currently paying top dollar for your clean, used gear, so this is 
a great time to come see us!  Our buyer will be available to make you an 
offer on the spot for your photographic equipment.


Admission to the show is $3.00.

If you cannot attend the buying event, or have too much gear to 
transport, KEH would still love to buy your used equipment!  Please send 
an email to maxdol...@aol.com, and our buyer will be in touch with you 
shortly.


We look forward to seeing you there!




--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com 
http://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: PESO - Grand Canyon - 1975

[Bruce Walker]

It's good to have this shot of it though, in case the canyon gets lost
or damaged.

The restored image's patina really adds something special to it, I
feel. I like it.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, George Sinos  wrote:
>
> This image was restored from an old transparency.  Almost 40 years
> old, badly faded, the slide had almost reached the end of its life.
> After scanning and a little work with Lightroom, the image will be
> around for a few more years.  I'm sure after the picture is long gone
> the canyon will still be there.
>
> 
>
> gs
>
> George Sinos
> 
> www.GeorgesPhotos.net
> www.GeorgeSinos.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.




--
-bmw

-- 
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.

KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

If anyone is interested.
http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[kwaller]

Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Darren Addy" 

Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



If anyone is interested.
http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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 - Golden

[Bruce Walker]

My current fave from the outing: http://flic.kr/p/feMF8U

K20D, DA* 50-135/2.8 @ 70mm/F5.0, 1/160th, ISO 200.
AF540FGZ at 1/2 in Westcott Medium Apollo softbox, left.
Lr + Ps + Nik + Portraiture

Comments welcome.

--
-bmw

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Bill]

On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Can it really be worth $2569 ?


Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.

bill


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons for
owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill  wrote:
> On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>
>> Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>>
> Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.
>
> bill
>
>
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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: ELLIE PANO

[Bob W]

It's very well worth it. I went to South Africa for several weeks in 1998, 
including a few days in Kruger NP, and loved it. I even have pictures of 
elephants at, I think, that same spot. Now I would love to go on a walking, 
boating safari in Okavango.

B

On 22 Jul 2013, at 01:45, John Francis  wrote:

> 
> Getting out to Africa to photograph the wildlife has been
> on my bucket list for the last 30 years, and this image just
> reinforces that desire.
> 
> Great shot!
> 
> -- 
> 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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I guess 
that they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of 
money, I'd buy it.


On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



If anyone is interested.
http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE 



--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi






--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

Agree with P.J.
An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody snags it.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:
> They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I guess that
> they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of money, I'd
> buy it.
>
>
> On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>
>> Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>>
>> Kenneth Waller
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>> Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>
>>
>>> If anyone is interested.
>>>
>>> http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>>> Peter Galassi
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
> failure, and those that will.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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: Re: Rolling down the track

[Aahz Maruch]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Don Guthrie wrote:
>
> You can't have too much train for trainspotters. In the full gallery
> I had some more shots and angles. Send them to:
> 
> http://donspix.smugmug.com/Trains/Steam-Train/30556104_RZr3Tm#!i=2636604737&k=mMgbFTz&lb=1&s=A

IMO, this is the best one, you did a good job pulling the contrast on the
steam/smoke:

http://donspix.smugmug.com/Trains/Steam-Train/30556104_RZr3Tm#!i=2636612429&k=BVTwSj6&lb=1&s=XL


> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:
>>Message: 11
>>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:45:44 -0700
>>From: Aahz Maruch
>>To:pdml@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: Rolling down the track
>>Message-ID:<20130722144544.ga11...@panix.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 10/7/13, Don Guthrie, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>Recently had an opportunity to photograph a genuine steam engine on the
>>tracks. I took many pictures and will post some galleries when I get
>>them up on flicker. Meantime for those who have no moral objections to
>>Google plus please look at this link and let me know if the experience
>>works for you. Thanks
>>
>>https://plus.google.com/u/0/100687245332697763729/posts/BbeeSxVWxD5

Interesting choice of composition! Personally I would lose the dead
space left of the tree, but it loses nothing in your interpretation.
>>What I'd expect my trainspotting friends to say isn't so much that
>>there's too much dead space left as not enough train right.;-)   Nice
>>shot otherwise!
>>
>>Much as I hate Google these days, this is a lot better than the current
>>flickr interface.

-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.

Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

Frankly, if you were a Pentax shooter and you were considering
spending $2500 for this lens, you would get more bang-for-the-buck by
purchasing a Sony A900 (24.3MP Full Frame with Sony Exmor sensor &
in-body image stabilization) and then getting the Zeiss 135mm f1.8
(for Sony) for a total outlay of about the same amount of money. You'd
give up the 1.5x longer FOV, but in exchange get more megapixels and a
full frame sensor.



On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> Agree with P.J.
> An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
> sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
> at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
> price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
> Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody snags it.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling  
> wrote:
>> They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I guess that
>> they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of money, I'd
>> buy it.
>>
>>
>> On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>>>
>>> Kenneth Waller
>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>>> Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>>
>>>
 If anyone is interested.

 http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE

 --
 "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
 Peter Galassi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
>> failure, and those that will.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
> Peter Galassi



-- 
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

Re: A900 vs K-5ii
(The K-5ii has almost 2 EV more dynamic range, which is huge.)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> Frankly, if you were a Pentax shooter and you were considering
> spending $2500 for this lens, you would get more bang-for-the-buck by
> purchasing a Sony A900 (24.3MP Full Frame with Sony Exmor sensor &
> in-body image stabilization) and then getting the Zeiss 135mm f1.8
> (for Sony) for a total outlay of about the same amount of money. You'd
> give up the 1.5x longer FOV, but in exchange get more megapixels and a
> full frame sensor.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>> Agree with P.J.
>> An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
>> sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
>> at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
>> price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
>> Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody snags it.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling  
>> wrote:
>>> They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I guess that
>>> they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of money, I'd
>>> buy it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

 Can it really be worth $2569 ?

 Kenneth Waller
 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

 - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
 Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8


> If anyone is interested.
>
> http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE
>
> --
> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
> Peter Galassi



>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
>>> failure, and those that will.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>> Peter Galassi
>
>
>
> --
> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
> Peter Galassi



-- 
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

On an APS-C camera it's like having a 200mm f1.8 for focusing and a 
200mm f2.8 as far as DOF is concerned at any particular distance, when 
compared to a Full Frame camera.  If it lives up to it's reputation, for 
optical quality, it will out perform any sensor with reasonable pixel 
density.  If you need such a beast the asking price could well be seen 
as a bargain.  There is literally nothing else in the Pentax system that 
compares to it.


On 7/22/2013 3:07 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

Agree with P.J.
An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody snags it.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:

They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I guess that
they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of money, I'd
buy it.


On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



If anyone is interested.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi





--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
failure, and those that will.



--
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.






--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Zos Xavius]

Time to go hold up a few banks ;)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> Agree with P.J.
> An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
> sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
> at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
> price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
> Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody snags it.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling  
> wrote:
>> They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I guess that
>> they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of money, I'd
>> buy it.
>>
>>
>> On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>>>
>>> Kenneth Waller
>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>>> Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>>
>>>
 If anyone is interested.

 http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE

 --
 "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
 Peter Galassi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
>> failure, and those that will.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
> Peter Galassi
>
> --
> 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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[kwaller]

An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment.


So what does that make my 200mm f4.0 SMC A* Ed Macro worth?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Darren Addy" 

Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Agree with P.J.
An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody snags 
it.


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling  
wrote:
They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I guess 
that
they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of money, 
I'd

buy it.


On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



If anyone is interested.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[kwaller]

So its a status lens?

I mean a Rolex still tells time like a Casio or Timex, so its mainly a 
status thing, but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


Reminds me of when I was searching for stereo components many moons ago for 
$ I could get a very good sounding system but for many times that amount 
I could get a highly recommended system that I honestly couldn't hear the 
difference in sound quality.



Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Darren Addy" 

Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons for
owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill  wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?


Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.

bill



--
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: PAW185 - UP

[DagT]

I´m not sure if this works, but the PAW is moved to google+ this week, at least 
until I get home to update the website:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wSJFa08S9tE/Ue2RuaqO1_I/BGA/mzK5KmyLfW0/w811-h543-no/_DT36524-up.jpg

DagT


-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Bob W]

The difference between a Rolex and a Timex is that you can beat off potential 
muggers with a Rolex and you won't damage the watch, whereas with a Timex 
no-one wants to mug you.

B

On 22 Jul 2013, at 21:02,  wrote:

> So its a status lens?
> 
> I mean a Rolex still tells time like a Casio or Timex, so its mainly a status 
> thing, but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?
> 
> Reminds me of when I was searching for stereo components many moons ago for 
> $ I could get a very good sounding system but for many times that amount 
> I could get a highly recommended system that I honestly couldn't hear the 
> difference in sound quality.
> 
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
> 
> 
>> Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons for
>> owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill  wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
 
 Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>>> Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.
>>> 
>>> bill
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: PAW185 - UP

[Bruce Walker]

That made me laugh, Dag!

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, DagT  wrote:
> I´m not sure if this works, but the PAW is moved to google+ this week, at 
> least until I get home to update the website:
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wSJFa08S9tE/Ue2RuaqO1_I/BGA/mzK5KmyLfW0/w811-h543-no/_DT36524-up.jpg
>
> DagT
>
>
> --
> 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.



--
-bmw

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

If you have to ask you can't afford it.

On the other hand you might want to ask Mark Cassio, (I hope I got your 
name right Mark).  He had parts custom made to repair his A*200 4.0 IIRC.


On 7/22/2013 3:55 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment.


So what does that make my 200mm f4.0 SMC A* Ed Macro worth?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Agree with P.J.
An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody 
snags it.


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling 
 wrote:
They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I 
guess that
they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of 
money, I'd

buy it.


On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 


Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



If anyone is interested.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE 



--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi






--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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.

"A shiny (almost) new K-7 arrived in the mail today!"

[Zos Xavius]

Yay! No more sensor with dust trapped underneath the filter. No more
unreliable shutter button. Thanks to Joe Wilensky for the timely
delivery and reasonable price. It still amazes me that it was cheaper
to just buy another k-7 than send my beat one into CRIS. Can't wait to
get out the tripod and get some night shooting in. Next on my list is
fixing my K-5 finally and getting my 12-24 back into usable condition.
Just have to find a screw for that and then I have fix the aperture
spring holder. Judging by the last shot I took with it, the elements
are still in good shape...so fingers crossed!

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Kenneth Waller]

Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for $800usd.

-Original Message-
>From: "P.J. Alling" 
>Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>
>If you have to ask you can't afford it.
>
>On the other hand you might want to ask Mark Cassio, (I hope I got your 
>name right Mark).  He had parts custom made to repair his A*200 4.0 IIRC.
>
>On 7/22/2013 3:55 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>> An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
>>> sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
>>> at as an investment.
>>
>> So what does that make my 200mm f4.0 SMC A* Ed Macro worth?
>>
>> Kenneth Waller
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>
>>
>>> Agree with P.J.
>>> An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
>>> sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
>>> at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
>>> price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
>>> Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody 
>>> snags it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling 
>>>  wrote:
 They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I 
 guess that
 they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of 
 money, I'd
 buy it.


 On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
> Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
> 
> Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>
>
>> If anyone is interested.
>>
>> http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE
>>  
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>> Peter Galassi

-- 
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: "A shiny (almost) new K-7 arrived in the mail today!"

[Aahz Maruch]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Zos Xavius wrote:
>
> Yay! No more sensor with dust trapped underneath the filter. No more
> unreliable shutter button. Thanks to Joe Wilensky for the timely
> delivery and reasonable price. It still amazes me that it was cheaper
> to just buy another k-7 than send my beat one into CRIS. Can't wait to
> get out the tripod and get some night shooting in. Next on my list is
> fixing my K-5 finally and getting my 12-24 back into usable condition.
> Just have to find a screw for that and then I have fix the aperture
> spring holder. Judging by the last shot I took with it, the elements
> are still in good shape...so fingers crossed!

Congrats!
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.

Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

Kenneth Waller 
> but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller  wrote:
> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for $800usd.

Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
: )

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Bruce Walker]

Well, your A* 135mm f1.8 is _really_ old, pre-dates digital, and is
missing that new lens smell. Plus it will certainly be suffering from
random subatomic perturbations -- they all do eventually.

I'll take it off your hands for fifty bucks. Can't hope for better.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Kenneth Waller  wrote:
> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for $800usd.
>
> -Original Message-
>>From: "P.J. Alling" 
>>Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>
>>If you have to ask you can't afford it.
>>
>>On the other hand you might want to ask Mark Cassio, (I hope I got your
>>name right Mark).  He had parts custom made to repair his A*200 4.0 IIRC.
>>
>>On 7/22/2013 3:55 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
 An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
 sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
 at as an investment.
>>>
>>> So what does that make my 200mm f4.0 SMC A* Ed Macro worth?
>>>
>>> Kenneth Waller
>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>>> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>>
>>>
 Agree with P.J.
 An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
 sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
 at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
 price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
 Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody
 snags it.

 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling
  wrote:
> They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I
> guess that
> they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of
> money, I'd
> buy it.
>
>
> On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>
>> Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>>
>> Kenneth Waller
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy"
>> 
>> Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>
>>
>>> If anyone is interested.
>>>
>>> http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>>> Peter Galassi
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 July 2013 05:25, P.J. Alling  wrote:
> On an APS-C camera it's like having a 200mm f1.8 for focusing and a 200mm
> f2.8 as far as DOF is concerned at any particular distance, when compared to
> a Full Frame camera.  If it lives up to it's reputation, for optical
> quality, it will out perform any sensor with reasonable pixel density.  If
> you need such a beast the asking price could well be seen as a bargain.
> There is literally nothing else in the Pentax system that compares to 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.

I suspect it's reputation is in direct relationship to its rarity,
it's certainly not stellar optically, been there, done that.

--
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
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: Best Buds

[Ann Sanfedele]

What Ken said -- kinda ...

Although  for me the problem is the light area next to the leaf

ann

On 7/22/2013 14:05, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Dan, I believe you'd have a stronger image if you eliminated the leaf
entirely and showed the buds in a portrait orientation.

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Daniel J. Matyola"

Subject: PESO: Best Buds



http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
Comments and criticisms are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola





--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[kwaller]

Well, your A* 135mm f1.8 is _really_ old, pre-dates digital, and is
missing that new lens smell.


Actually Bruce my comment was about the A* 200mm macro
I don't have the A* 135 f1.8.

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Walker" 

Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Well, your A* 135mm f1.8 is _really_ old, pre-dates digital, and is
missing that new lens smell. Plus it will certainly be suffering from
random subatomic perturbations -- they all do eventually.

I'll take it off your hands for fifty bucks. Can't hope for better.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Kenneth Waller  
wrote:
Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for 
$800usd.


-Original Message-

From: "P.J. Alling" 
Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

If you have to ask you can't afford it.

On the other hand you might want to ask Mark Cassio, (I hope I got your
name right Mark).  He had parts custom made to repair his A*200 4.0 IIRC.

On 7/22/2013 3:55 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment.


So what does that make my 200mm f4.0 SMC A* Ed Macro worth?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 


Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Agree with P.J.
An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody
snags it.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:

They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I
guess that
they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of
money, I'd
buy it.


On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy"

Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



If anyone is interested.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE


--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[kwaller]

Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).


Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the 
grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.


It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a 
workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and 
went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had 
heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite 
a recommendation I'd say.


In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135 
because of its unique function - macro with working distance.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller


- Original Message - 
From: "Darren Addy" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Kenneth Waller 

but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller  
wrote:
Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for 
$800usd.


Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
: )

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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: PAW185 - UP

[Daniel J. Matyola]

another unique and intriguing image, Dag.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, DagT  wrote:
> I´m not sure if this works, but the PAW is moved to google+ this week, at 
> least until I get home to update the website:
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wSJFa08S9tE/Ue2RuaqO1_I/BGA/mzK5KmyLfW0/w811-h543-no/_DT36524-up.jpg
>
> DagT
>
>
> --
> 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: Best Buds

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks, Don.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Don Guthrie  wrote:
> It does look like they are having a morning chat.
>
> pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:06:33 -0400
>> From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: PESO: Best Buds
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
>> Comments and criticisms are invited.
>>
>> Dan Matyola
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
>
>
> --
> 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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Zos Xavius]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html

Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:
>> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
>> in the answer).
>
>
> Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
> It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
> grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.
>
> It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
> workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
> went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
> heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite
> a recommendation I'd say.
>
> In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
> because of its unique function - macro with working distance.
>
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM
>
> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>
>
>> Kenneth Waller 
>>>
>>> but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
>>> $800usd.
>>
>>
>> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
>> in the answer).
>> : )
>>
>> --
>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>> Peter Galassi
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Best Buds

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks, John.

Don't forget Butchart.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM, John  wrote:
> Oh yeah. I can see it all now, them starring in a whole new series of
> "Road" movies:
>
> The Road to Longwood; The Road to Arizona Sonora Desert; The
> Road to Keukenhof; The Road to Ryōan-ji ...
>
>
> On 7/22/2013 10:06 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
>> Comments and criticisms are invited.
>>
>> Dan Matyola
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>>
>
> --
> 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: Best Buds

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks, Ken and Ann.

Actually, I took another image without the leaf:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468794

Somehow, I like the composition of the image with the leaf better,
although I was also a bit bothered about the light area, as Ann was.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM,   wrote:
> Dan, I believe you'd have a stronger image if you eliminated the leaf
> entirely and showed the buds in a portrait orientation.
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
> - Original Message - From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
> 
> Subject: PESO: Best Buds
>
>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468795
>> Comments and criticisms are invited.
>>
>> Dan Matyola
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
>
>
> --
> 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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html
>
> Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
> this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
> goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
> lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:
>>> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
>>> in the answer).
>>
>>
>> Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
>> It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
>> grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.
>>
>> It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
>> workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
>> went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
>> heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite
>> a recommendation I'd say.
>>
>> In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
>> because of its unique function - macro with working distance.
>>
>>
>> Kenneth Waller
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>
>>
>>> Kenneth Waller 

 but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
>>> wrote:

 Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
 $800usd.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
>>> in the answer).
>>> : )
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>>> Peter Galassi
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.



-- 
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Zos Xavius]

The kmount is a convenience indeed. Yeah, I thought it was a bit high.
I've been looking at the 2.5 takumars too. I might end up going that
route since they are so much cheaper. At the apertures I'd be using it
at mostly, I could easily just work with it stopped down a bit. It
would be brighter than a lot of my other glass that only opens to f4
or so. Actually I know nothing about the f2 M85. I have been looking
for an 85mm though. I'm tempted to convert my beat k-7 into an M42
camera and leave the adapter on it all the time. I would like to get
some more M42 glass

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
> to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
> And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
> same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
> for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
>> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html
>>
>> Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
>> this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
>> goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
>> lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:
 Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
 in the answer).
>>>
>>>
>>> Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
>>> It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
>>> grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.
>>>
>>> It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
>>> workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
>>> went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
>>> heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite
>>> a recommendation I'd say.
>>>
>>> In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
>>> because of its unique function - macro with working distance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kenneth Waller
>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>>
>>>
 Kenneth Waller 
>
> but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
 wrote:
>
> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
> $800usd.


 Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
 in the answer).
 : )

 --
 "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
 Peter Galassi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
> Peter Galassi
>
> --
> 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: Bulk Film Loading

[pdml-mark]

I'll have to look at the next roll I develop - maybe there is more room 
at the end than I remember. I'm mostly shooting with an *ist film body 
and Mz-S these days, so the camera decides when the film is over. But 
both bodies let me leave the leader out, so I could pursue the short 
leader option for reloading canisters...


Mark


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

It's just a short stub - 1/4 to 3/8 inch sticking out of the 
cartridge.


Taking as an example my K1000, the distance between where the film 
comes

out of the cartridge & the nearest edge of the shutter window is about
1/2 inch.

I think that's about right. I was going to look, but I can't right now
because I have film in the camera.

Plus whatever slack there is from where you're winding the next frame
and only get half a stroke & know to rewind because if you force it
you're either going to break the film off from the cartridge or you're
going to get overlap on your last two frames.

I don't know of any camera that would put an image on that last inch 
or

so of the film. I'll bet not exposing that area is even part of the
specification Kodak gave the camera manufacturers many years ago.

... or whoever invented the 35mm film cartridge.


On 7/22/2013 9:16 AM, pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:

Interesting - wouldn't the minilab lose the last frame by cutting off
the film? In the rolls I develop by hand I get pretty close to the 
end

of the spoolm but maybe the cannister is smaller than I think.

I once brought a roll of E-6 to a Walgreens and was upbrided by the
machine operator who told me it would ruin his chemistry... brought 
it

to the pro lab instead.

Mark


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


Be careful not to spoil the light-tightness of the end caps & you're
good to go.

I've got several "reusable" cartridges that turned out to be old
commercial cartridges with a plastic label applied to hide the 
original

artwork.

Actually, when I was running the mini-lab I kept several Chinese
commercial C-41 cartridges that had plastic labels over the original
Fuji film artwork (not just re-badged Fuji film because the 
underlying

cartridges were originally Fujichrome E-6).

So they can not only be reused for hand reloading, they were 
sometimes

reused for commercial reloading.

Also, the way we processed film at the mini-lab left a VERY short 
leader
sticking out of the cartridge. If you're careful *NOT* to rewind 
that

leader into the cartridge, you don't need to pop the ends off the
cartridge.

Just tape the end of your bulk film to the leader & use it to pull 
the
film into the cartridge. Once you've got a couple of turns on 
friction

will help to keep it from slipping off if the tape doesn't hold.

But, if you rewind it & lose that leader inside the cartridge, it's 
not

long enough to retrieve with a leader extractor.

When I ran the mini-lab we had a big box to throw the old cartridges
into. When it filled up it got taped up & shipped back to Kodak for
recycling. I bet, if you can still find a mini-lab where you are, 
you
could ask and they'd let you take something like a gallon zip lock 
bag
full of used cartridges away with you. Might even let you pick 
through

the box to find the ones the stub leader hasn't been retracted yet.

Probably won't even have to ask "Pretty Please!"

One thing about mini-labs.

You can take the occasional E-6 in and have it cross processed 
without

hurting their chemistry and you get some really different negatives.

But, NEVER, EVER take traditional B&W films to a mini-lab. The 
average

mini-lab operator drone won't know what it is & they won't know any
better than to send it through the C-41 processor. It can mess up 
their
chemistry a little bit (they'll get over it if they even notice), 
and it

will definitely EFF UP your film.


On 7/20/2013 5:57 PM, Mark C wrote:

On 7/20/2013 11:18 AM, John Sessoms wrote:


I seem to have inherited the pack-rat gene as a dominant from both
parents ...


Then you are probably the right person to ask this question - can 
you
re-use commercial film canisters?  I am somewhat embarrassed to 
admit
this in a public forum but I just developed 2 rolls of Pro-Max 100. 
Just
for the fun of it I tried popping the end of each canister off with 
just
my fingers, no can opener. They came off easily and after the film 
was
spooled I put the canister, center spool and ends back together. 
Both of
them look perfectly serviceable. Did you ever try re-using the 
actual
canister?  I don't think this would work with Kodak or Fuji 
canisters -

the end caps on those seem to be held on tight and a can opener is
needed to get them off - but who knows about other brands, like
UltraFine and Adox etc...

If I can reuse the canisters, which normally sell for about $1 
each,
then the $1.75 per roll I paid for the Pro Max was not a terribly 
bad

deal.

Mark



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

Re: PESO: Frond

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Thanks, Don.

At your suggestion, I rotated the image 90 degrees.  I still like the
landscape orientation better;  it looks too much like a little tree.
Perhaps my problem is that when I found the fern, the frond was in
landscape orientation, and I remember it that way.

Also, in response to Bruce's comments, I tried to tone done the
background colors a bit.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Don Guthrie  wrote:
> Feeling a little green ( with envy) after viewing. I did keep turning my
> head. Did you try this in portrait mode?
>
> pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:06:35 -0400
>> From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: PESO: Frond
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468790
>> Comments are invited.
>>
>> Dan Matyola
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: Bulk Film Loading

[pdml-mark]

Regarding the Kodak deal in China: In 1998 Kodak realized that the 
emergence of a  more prosperous middle class in China would create huge 
demand for photographic products. Obviously, people would want to buy 
film, and lots of it. So they got into China big time, with considerable 
cost added by the Chinese government limiting their options. They 
figured that by 2008 the demand for film in China would be huge and 
sales would sky rocket...


Oops - the Chinese market went directly to digital and largely by passed 
film...


Two quotes from The Economist:

May, 1998:

"But Kodak is really buying something more valuable: admission to what 
could be the biggest film market in the world within a decade (it is 
already the third-largest, and is growing by 20-40% a year). It has paid 
dearly for its entry ticket, but the rewards could be commensurate. 
Local manufacturing and distribution should bring a big cost advantage 
over Fuji, and lots of goodwill from the Chinese government. And the 
deal will allow Kodak to escape the official 40% import duties China 
imposes on film."


http://www.economist.com/node/159001


January, 2012

"Kodak also failed to read emerging markets correctly. It hoped that the 
new Chinese middle class would buy lots of film. They did for a short 
while, but then decided that digital cameras were cooler. Many 
leap-frogged from no camera straight to a digital one."



http://www.economist.com/node/21542796


I keep hoping that someone in China will fire up the factories and make 
some good B&W film, maybe even something like Plus X. Not sure if that 
will happen. The only films I know of are Shanghai and Lucky. There was 
speculation at one time that J&C's old Classic Pan 100 was made in China 
but no one ever seems to have figured that out. The other Classic Pan 
films are rumored to be Forte? or Foam? I don't remember.


I wonder where the Ultrafine Xtreme products are made - including the T 
grain film that they produce - but so far I have only shot one roll of 
Xtreme 400 and could not even accurately describe its properties. My 
first impression was good, though.


Mark

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

I'm thinking that the reason they outsourced to a firm in China is 
that they sold the machinery to a firm in China.


It makes for a nice closed logic loop, and a certain amount of irony. 
Kodak couldn't make a profit selling the same film they made to the 
same specifications on the same machinery, but they can make a profit 
reselling that film if someone else operates the machinery.


On 7/22/2013 12:40 PM, John wrote:


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Bob Sullivan]

Long ago, during film days I tested the Pentax 135's.
I found they ranked A135/1.8, K135/2.5, M135/3.5, and far behind the
Takumar 135/2.5? in K mount.
Rob S. later introduced me to the Voightlander A125/2.5 which is very sharp.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
> to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
> And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
> same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
> for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
>> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html
>>
>> Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
>> this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
>> goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
>> lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:
 Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
 in the answer).
>>>
>>>
>>> Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
>>> It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
>>> grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.
>>>
>>> It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
>>> workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
>>> went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
>>> heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite
>>> a recommendation I'd say.
>>>
>>> In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
>>> because of its unique function - macro with working distance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kenneth Waller
>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>>
>>>
 Kenneth Waller 
>
> but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
 wrote:
>
> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
> $800usd.


 Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
 in the answer).
 : )

 --
 "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
 Peter Galassi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
> Peter Galassi
>
> --
> 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: Bulk Film Loading

[John]

The Pentax K1000 *is* 1/2 inch from the lip of the cassette to the edge
of the shutter window. I went out for a long time today and shot the
roll of film that was loaded in it, and I am now able to measure it.

And I found out Kodak did invent the pre-loaded 135 film cassette.

It was, in fact, introduced for the Kodak Retina, invented by Dr. August
Nagel of the Kodak AG Dr. The cassette was designed to fit in existing
Leica & Zeiss cameras & I guess the Retina was designed around the
cassette.

Cool stuff, hunh?

On 7/22/2013 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Kodak Retina folders had a somewhat shorter distance between the
canister and the last frame, party due to their compact size.  I don't
remember how much less and I'm too lazy to look but it wasn't much.
There was still plenty of room between the last usable film and the
spool even if one were being sloppy attaching the film.

On 7/22/2013 12:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

It's just a short stub - 1/4 to 3/8 inch sticking out of the cartridge.

Taking as an example my K1000, the distance between where the film comes
out of the cartridge & the nearest edge of the shutter window is about
1/2 inch.

I think that's about right. I was going to look, but I can't right now
because I have film in the camera.

Plus whatever slack there is from where you're winding the next frame
and only get half a stroke & know to rewind because if you force it
you're either going to break the film off from the cartridge or you're
going to get overlap on your last two frames.

I don't know of any camera that would put an image on that last inch or
so of the film. I'll bet not exposing that area is even part of the
specification Kodak gave the camera manufacturers many years ago.

... or whoever invented the 35mm film cartridge.


On 7/22/2013 9:16 AM, pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:

Interesting - wouldn't the minilab lose the last frame by cutting off
the film? In the rolls I develop by hand I get pretty close to the end
of the spoolm but maybe the cannister is smaller than I think.

I once brought a roll of E-6 to a Walgreens and was upbrided by the
machine operator who told me it would ruin his chemistry... brought it
to the pro lab instead.

Mark


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


Be careful not to spoil the light-tightness of the end caps & you're
good to go.

I've got several "reusable" cartridges that turned out to be old
commercial cartridges with a plastic label applied to hide the original
artwork.

Actually, when I was running the mini-lab I kept several Chinese
commercial C-41 cartridges that had plastic labels over the original
Fuji film artwork (not just re-badged Fuji film because the underlying
cartridges were originally Fujichrome E-6).

So they can not only be reused for hand reloading, they were sometimes
reused for commercial reloading.

Also, the way we processed film at the mini-lab left a VERY short
leader
sticking out of the cartridge. If you're careful *NOT* to rewind that
leader into the cartridge, you don't need to pop the ends off the
cartridge.

Just tape the end of your bulk film to the leader & use it to pull the
film into the cartridge. Once you've got a couple of turns on friction
will help to keep it from slipping off if the tape doesn't hold.

But, if you rewind it & lose that leader inside the cartridge, it's not
long enough to retrieve with a leader extractor.

When I ran the mini-lab we had a big box to throw the old cartridges
into. When it filled up it got taped up & shipped back to Kodak for
recycling. I bet, if you can still find a mini-lab where you are, you
could ask and they'd let you take something like a gallon zip lock bag
full of used cartridges away with you. Might even let you pick through
the box to find the ones the stub leader hasn't been retracted yet.

Probably won't even have to ask "Pretty Please!"

One thing about mini-labs.

You can take the occasional E-6 in and have it cross processed without
hurting their chemistry and you get some really different negatives.

But, NEVER, EVER take traditional B&W films to a mini-lab. The average
mini-lab operator drone won't know what it is & they won't know any
better than to send it through the C-41 processor. It can mess up their
chemistry a little bit (they'll get over it if they even notice),
and it
will definitely EFF UP your film.


On 7/20/2013 5:57 PM, Mark C wrote:

On 7/20/2013 11:18 AM, John Sessoms wrote:


I seem to have inherited the pack-rat gene as a dominant from both
parents ...


Then you are probably the right person to ask this question - can you
re-use commercial film canisters?  I am somewhat embarrassed to admit
this in a public forum but I just developed 2 rolls of Pro-Max 100.
Just
for the fun of it I tried popping the end of each canister off with
just
my fingers, no can opener. They came off easily and after the film was
spooled I put the canister, center spool and ends back together.
Both of
them look perfectly serviceable. Did you ever

Re: Thinking about copyrighting sunshine and some more..

[John Sessoms]

He should sue the troll for abuse of process & have the suit declared a
class action so that everybody who's been screwed over can join in the
class. Give 'em a taste of their own medicine and drive them into
bankruptcy.

On 7/22/2013 1:11 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:



I just read this blog post about YouTube Content-ID matching system
mishaps and false rights claims by the copyright owners:
http://www.geekosystem.com/wind-sound-content-id/

Last year, I had a few videos with the live-recorded music for which
YouTube claimed the copyright (music itself, not the recording, while that
music was in a public domain by all laws and rules).
It looked just as a fishing expedition by those copyright holding
companies. It took me some effort to have them releasing those claims.
(Of course, everything is automazingly-dehumanized, hence, no apologies.)

Having read this blog post where some company claims rights on the wind
sounds and bird-singing, I am thinking that I should copyright the
sound of sunshine and moonshine (not the liquid), before somebody has
done that. (I might copyright the visual appearance as well, what the
heck?!) And if in addition I can copyright the sounds of running water and
flashing toilet, I'll be rich!

Cheers,

Igor


PS. Interesting, that Google's support pages say:
"Don't enable generic material for Content ID matching (e.g, white noise,
waves crashing, or applause)":
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2605065?hl=en




--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[John]

Never cared for either Rolex or Timex. The former is too expensive & the 
latter is too cheap (in all the various definitions of the word). I'll 
stick with the Swiss Army Watch (actual Victorinox) that I've worn for 
the last 30 years.


And the days when I lusted after the A* 135mm f/1.8 are past as well.

Now it had better be a FA* 135mm f/1.8 and it needs a FF 135 DSLR to go 
with it.


On 7/22/2013 2:54 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons for
owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill  wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?


Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.

bill



--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[John]

"Beat off" doesn't have quite the same meaning in the U.S.

On 7/22/2013 4:25 PM, Bob W wrote:

The difference between a Rolex and a Timex is that you can beat off
potential muggers with a Rolex and you won't damage the watch,
whereas with a Timex no-one wants to mug you.

B

On 22 Jul 2013, at 21:02,  wrote:


So its a status lens?

I mean a Rolex still tells time like a Casio or Timex, so its
mainly a status thing, but can the 1.8 be that much better than a
2.8?

Reminds me of when I was searching for stereo components many moons
ago for $ I could get a very good sounding system but for many
times that amount I could get a highly recommended system that I
honestly couldn't hear the difference in sound quality.


Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy"
 Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons
for owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill
 wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.

bill


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[John]

So you didn't care what it's worth, you just wanted to rub it in.

On 7/22/2013 6:33 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:

Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for $800usd.

-Original Message-

From: "P.J. Alling" 
Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

If you have to ask you can't afford it.

On the other hand you might want to ask Mark Cassio, (I hope I got your
name right Mark).  He had parts custom made to repair his A*200 4.0 IIRC.

On 7/22/2013 3:55 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:

An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment.


So what does that make my 200mm f4.0 SMC A* Ed Macro worth?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Agree with P.J.
An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody
snags it.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:

They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I
guess that
they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of
money, I'd
buy it.


On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy"

Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



If anyone is interested.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE


--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi




--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Zos Xavius]

Hmmm...pentax forums reviews rate the M85 f2 and K135 f2.5 fairly
highly in terms of sharpness.I really do want an 85. I think I
might have to pick up an M135 3.5 for cheap to see how I get along
with that FL.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
> The kmount is a convenience indeed. Yeah, I thought it was a bit high.
> I've been looking at the 2.5 takumars too. I might end up going that
> route since they are so much cheaper. At the apertures I'd be using it
> at mostly, I could easily just work with it stopped down a bit. It
> would be brighter than a lot of my other glass that only opens to f4
> or so. Actually I know nothing about the f2 M85. I have been looking
> for an 85mm though. I'm tempted to convert my beat k-7 into an M42
> camera and leave the adapter on it all the time. I would like to get
> some more M42 glass
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>> Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
>> to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
>> And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
>> same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
>> for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
>>> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html
>>>
>>> Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
>>> this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
>>> goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
>>> lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:
> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
> in the answer).


 Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
 It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
 grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.

 It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
 workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
 went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
 heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. 
 Quite
 a recommendation I'd say.

 In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
 because of its unique function - macro with working distance.


 Kenneth Waller
 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller


 - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
 Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM

 Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8


> Kenneth Waller 
>>
>> but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
>> $800usd.
>
>
> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
> in the answer).
> : )
>
> --
> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
> Peter Galassi



 --
 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>> Peter Galassi
>>
>> --
>> 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: Bulk Film Loading

[John Sessoms]

Leader might not be the right word.

When you run the film through the film processor, the cassette sits in a 
little spring loaded cup while the machine pulls the film out of the 
cassette. When the film is pulled fully out, the tension pulls the 
cassette & the cup down against a switch that activates a blade cutting 
the film loose from the cassette. The cutter leaves about a quarter inch 
of film protruding from the almost empty cassette.


If you're loading your own cassettes you could tape the end of your bulk 
roll on to the stub & not have to pop the cassette open to attach the 
film to the spindle. Just hand wind it a half turn while feeding the end 
of your film past the felt wipers & it should wind right onto the 
spindle with no problem from there.


Also, if you're bringing in film with the leader already out and the 
operator is on the ball, he/she should ask you if you're sure you have 
exposed film. Most of the time the leader hanging out means the film was 
never used.


On 7/22/2013 9:20 PM, pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:

I'll have to look at the next roll I develop - maybe there is more room
at the end than I remember. I'm mostly shooting with an *ist film body
and Mz-S these days, so the camera decides when the film is over. But
both bodies let me leave the leader out, so I could pursue the short
leader option for reloading canisters...

Mark


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


It's just a short stub - 1/4 to 3/8 inch sticking out of the cartridge.

Taking as an example my K1000, the distance between where the film comes
out of the cartridge & the nearest edge of the shutter window is about
1/2 inch.

I think that's about right. I was going to look, but I can't right now
because I have film in the camera.

Plus whatever slack there is from where you're winding the next frame
and only get half a stroke & know to rewind because if you force it
you're either going to break the film off from the cartridge or you're
going to get overlap on your last two frames.

I don't know of any camera that would put an image on that last inch or
so of the film. I'll bet not exposing that area is even part of the
specification Kodak gave the camera manufacturers many years ago.

... or whoever invented the 35mm film cartridge.


On 7/22/2013 9:16 AM, pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:

Interesting - wouldn't the minilab lose the last frame by cutting off
the film? In the rolls I develop by hand I get pretty close to the end
of the spoolm but maybe the cannister is smaller than I think.

I once brought a roll of E-6 to a Walgreens and was upbrided by the
machine operator who told me it would ruin his chemistry... brought it
to the pro lab instead.

Mark


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


Be careful not to spoil the light-tightness of the end caps & you're
good to go.

I've got several "reusable" cartridges that turned out to be old
commercial cartridges with a plastic label applied to hide the original
artwork.

Actually, when I was running the mini-lab I kept several Chinese
commercial C-41 cartridges that had plastic labels over the original
Fuji film artwork (not just re-badged Fuji film because the underlying
cartridges were originally Fujichrome E-6).

So they can not only be reused for hand reloading, they were sometimes
reused for commercial reloading.

Also, the way we processed film at the mini-lab left a VERY short
leader
sticking out of the cartridge. If you're careful *NOT* to rewind that
leader into the cartridge, you don't need to pop the ends off the
cartridge.

Just tape the end of your bulk film to the leader & use it to pull the
film into the cartridge. Once you've got a couple of turns on friction
will help to keep it from slipping off if the tape doesn't hold.

But, if you rewind it & lose that leader inside the cartridge, it's not
long enough to retrieve with a leader extractor.

When I ran the mini-lab we had a big box to throw the old cartridges
into. When it filled up it got taped up & shipped back to Kodak for
recycling. I bet, if you can still find a mini-lab where you are, you
could ask and they'd let you take something like a gallon zip lock bag
full of used cartridges away with you. Might even let you pick through
the box to find the ones the stub leader hasn't been retracted yet.

Probably won't even have to ask "Pretty Please!"

One thing about mini-labs.

You can take the occasional E-6 in and have it cross processed without
hurting their chemistry and you get some really different negatives.

But, NEVER, EVER take traditional B&W films to a mini-lab. The average
mini-lab operator drone won't know what it is & they won't know any
better than to send it through the C-41 processor. It can mess up their
chemistry a little bit (they'll get over it if they even notice),
and it
will definitely EFF UP your film.


On 7/20/2013 5:57 PM, Mark C wrote:

On 7/20/2013 11:18 AM, John Sessoms wrote:


I seem to have inherited the pack-rat gene as a do

Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Darren Addy]

Every lens is sharp at f8 or f11. The difference between the Big Boys
and the others are how sharp it is wide open. (Yes, all will be less
sharp than they are at f/8 but comparing the performance wide open is
what you are really paying for).

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
> Hmmm...pentax forums reviews rate the M85 f2 and K135 f2.5 fairly
> highly in terms of sharpness.I really do want an 85. I think I
> might have to pick up an M135 3.5 for cheap to see how I get along
> with that FL.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
>> The kmount is a convenience indeed. Yeah, I thought it was a bit high.
>> I've been looking at the 2.5 takumars too. I might end up going that
>> route since they are so much cheaper. At the apertures I'd be using it
>> at mostly, I could easily just work with it stopped down a bit. It
>> would be brighter than a lot of my other glass that only opens to f4
>> or so. Actually I know nothing about the f2 M85. I have been looking
>> for an 85mm though. I'm tempted to convert my beat k-7 into an M42
>> camera and leave the adapter on it all the time. I would like to get
>> some more M42 glass
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>>> Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
>>> to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
>>> And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
>>> same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
>>> for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
 http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html

 Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
 this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
 goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
 lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?

 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:
>> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
>> in the answer).
>
>
> Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
> It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
> grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.
>
> It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
> workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
> went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
> heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. 
> Quite
> a recommendation I'd say.
>
> In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
> because of its unique function - macro with working distance.
>
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM
>
> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>
>
>> Kenneth Waller 
>>>
>>> but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
>>> $800usd.
>>
>>
>> Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
>> in the answer).
>> : )
>>
>> --
>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>> Peter Galassi
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
>>> Peter Galassi
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.



-- 
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

-- 
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 f

PESO: Echinacea

[Daniel J. Matyola]

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468791
Comments are invited.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[Kenneth Waller]

Not really, everyone has a price.

-Original Message-
>From: John 
>Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>
>So you didn't care what it's worth, you just wanted to rub it in.
>
>On 7/22/2013 6:33 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>> Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for $800usd.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>> From: "P.J. Alling" 
>>> Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>>
>>> If you have to ask you can't afford it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand you might want to ask Mark Cassio, (I hope I got your
>>> name right Mark).  He had parts custom made to repair his A*200 4.0 IIRC.
>>>
>>> On 7/22/2013 3:55 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
> sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
> at as an investment.

 So what does that make my 200mm f4.0 SMC A* Ed Macro worth?

 Kenneth Waller
 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

 - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
 Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8


> Agree with P.J.
> An argument could probably be made for the fact that it isn't going to
> sell for LESS in the future, so from that standpoint could be looked
> at as an investment. If and when Pentax ever offers a FF camera, the
> price will probably easily jump a grand (minimum).
> Frankly, I don't expect it to be available for long before somebody
> snags it.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM, P.J. Alling
>  wrote:
>> They're rare, and Pentax is unlikely to ever make another, so I
>> guess that
>> they're worth that much to someone.  If I had an unlimited pot of
>> money, I'd
>> buy it.
>>
>>
>> On 7/22/2013 2:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Can it really be worth $2569 ?
>>>
>>> Kenneth Waller
>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy"
>>> 
>>> Subject: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
>>>
>>>
 If anyone is interested.

 http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK06009016184N?r=FE


 --
 "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -



-- 
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

Meanwhile back at the homestead, granny, was busy beating off the Indians...

On 7/22/2013 10:23 PM, John wrote:

"Beat off" doesn't have quite the same meaning in the U.S.

On 7/22/2013 4:25 PM, Bob W wrote:

The difference between a Rolex and a Timex is that you can beat off
potential muggers with a Rolex and you won't damage the watch,
whereas with a Timex no-one wants to mug you.

B

On 22 Jul 2013, at 21:02,  wrote:


So its a status lens?

I mean a Rolex still tells time like a Casio or Timex, so its
mainly a status thing, but can the 1.8 be that much better than a
2.8?

Reminds me of when I was searching for stereo components many moons
ago for $ I could get a very good sounding system but for many
times that amount I could get a highly recommended system that I
honestly couldn't hear the difference in sound quality.


Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy"
 Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons
for owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill
 wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?

Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.

bill





--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: Echinacea

[Kenneth Waller]

Very nice capture Dan but The top OOF portion is irrelevant IMO. A much 
stronger image without it.

-Original Message-
>From: "Daniel J. Matyola" 
>Subject: PESO: Echinacea
>
>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468791
>Comments are invited.
>
>Dan Matyola
>http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



-- 
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: PAW185 - UP

[Ann Sanfedele]

It works :-)  light is perfect

ann


On 7/22/2013 16:16, DagT wrote:

I´m not sure if this works, but the PAW is moved to google+ this week, at least 
until I get home to update the website:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wSJFa08S9tE/Ue2RuaqO1_I/BGA/mzK5KmyLfW0/w811-h543-no/_DT36524-up.jpg

DagT




--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

Timex's old mechanical design was an escapement mechanism which wasn't 
the most accurate, a good copy would give +/- 5 minutes a day, a bad 
copy much worse, however they were rugged as all get out.  Timex today 
doesn't make any mechanical watches at all, and really current day 
electrolytic watch movements are all pretty much interchangeable, 
regardless of manufacture.


On 7/22/2013 10:22 PM, John wrote:
Never cared for either Rolex or Timex. The former is too expensive & 
the latter is too cheap (in all the various definitions of the word). 
I'll stick with the Swiss Army Watch (actual Victorinox) that I've 
worn for the last 30 years.


And the days when I lusted after the A* 135mm f/1.8 are past as well.

Now it had better be a FA* 135mm f/1.8 and it needs a FF 135 DSLR to 
go with it.


On 7/22/2013 2:54 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons for
owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill  
wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:


Can it really be worth $2569 ?


Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.

bill






--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

I have both of those, I paid quite a bit less for the K 135 f2.5 and a 
bit more for the M 85mm f2.0 They are easily worth the money asked if 
they're in good condition.  I use the 85mm in low light a lot, so I'm 
often shooting wide open in low light, in Av mode so I don't miss the 
lens having an A setting.


On 7/22/2013 8:52 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html

Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:

Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).


Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.

It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite
a recommendation I'd say.

In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
because of its unique function - macro with working distance.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller


- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM

Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Kenneth Waller 

but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
wrote:

Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
$800usd.


Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
: )

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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.



--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

The M 85 was designed as a portrait lens, maximum sharpness and 
resolution isn't the highest priority in lens indented for that useee.  
That said I find it more than sharp enough stopped down a bit on film, 
and the center is a bit sharper, so it doesn't matter that much on APS-C 
digital. When the light is low the fact that it's only about as sharp 
wide open as a moderately good zoom is hardly a handicap, and it's 
extreme small size, about the same size as a 55mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 
makes up for a lot.  Sure you could have the K 85mm f1.8 for only about 
a hundred two, dollars more, (and the smc Takumar 85mm f1.9 is 
considered a collectors item so you're going to pay a premium for that 
as well), from KEH, when it's in stock but that lens is twice the size 
of the M.  The M is a little jewel but it's a compromise like all other 
things in life.


On 7/22/2013 9:10 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html

Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:

Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).


Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.

It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite
a recommendation I'd say.

In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
because of its unique function - macro with working distance.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller


- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM

Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Kenneth Waller 

but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
wrote:

Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
$800usd.


Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
: )

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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.






--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[P.J. Alling]

There's also the relatively rare K 135 f3.5 which is actually a bit 
sharper than the M version.  Once again in keeping with the M 
designation the M is quite a bit more compact.  The K 135mm f3.5 is 
almost as big as the M 200 f4.0.


On 7/22/2013 10:03 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:

Long ago, during film days I tested the Pentax 135's.
I found they ranked A135/1.8, K135/2.5, M135/3.5, and far behind the
Takumar 135/2.5? in K mount.
Rob S. later introduced me to the Voightlander A125/2.5 which is very sharp.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:

Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html

Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:

Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).


Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from around it !
It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of the
grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.

It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get it and
went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as he had
heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was using. Quite
a recommendation I'd say.

In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the A* 135
because of its unique function - macro with working distance.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller


- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM

Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Kenneth Waller 

but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 
wrote:

Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
$800usd.


Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
: )

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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.



--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi

--
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.



--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive 
failure, and those that will.


--
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: Echinacea

[Bob Sullivan]

Like ken says, very nice but you don't need the top.  Regards,  Bob S.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Kenneth Waller  wrote:
>
> Very nice capture Dan but The top OOF portion is irrelevant IMO. A much 
> stronger image without it.
>
> -Original Message-
>>From: "Daniel J. Matyola" 
>>Subject: PESO: Echinacea
>>
>>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17468791
>>Comments are invited.
>>
>>Dan Matyola
>>http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
>
>
> --
> 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: 'Seney Sunrise'

[Aahz Maruch]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
>>That is publication worthy!
> 
> Well since you mention it, its from a number of years ago and it
> recently made it into the finals for a local contest and I thought
> I'd repost it for some of the newbies & oldies here,

Congrats!  Hope you win (or won, considering how late I'm posting this
response), you certainly have a good shot at it!

> - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy"
> 
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:26 PM
> Subject: Re: PESO: 'Seney Sunrise'
> 
> 
>>WOW. That is publication worthy. Superb!
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Gerrit Visser
>> wrote:
>>>Wonderful deep colours
>>>
>>>Gerrit
>>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>>>kwal...@peoplepc.com
>>>Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:53 PM
>>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>Subject: PESO: 'Seney Sunrise'
>>>
>>>Taken in Seney National Wildlife Refuge in the Upper Peninsula
>>>of Michigan
>>>several summers ago.
>>>
>>>Your thoughts appreciated.
>>>
>>>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17459149
>>>
>>>Kenneth Waller
>>>http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.

Re: PESO Dogwood

[Aahz Maruch]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013, Bruce Walker wrote:
>
> http://flic.kr/p/f7BHhH  Dogwood berries
> 
> Tried my new 30" octa umbrella softbox for macro work; I like it.
> Reversed the flash to increase specularity and create more of a
> spotlight effect.

What do you mean by "reverse the flash"?  (Tried quacking but got mostly
comic book hits. ;-)
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.

Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8

[J.C. O'Connell]

the biggest difference between the k85 and the m85 is the bokeh of the k 
is much much better than the m.

the m has horrible busy bokeh.



On 7/22/2013 11:40 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
The M 85 was designed as a portrait lens, maximum sharpness and 
resolution isn't the highest priority in lens indented for that 
useee.  That said I find it more than sharp enough stopped down a bit 
on film, and the center is a bit sharper, so it doesn't matter that 
much on APS-C digital. When the light is low the fact that it's only 
about as sharp wide open as a moderately good zoom is hardly a 
handicap, and it's extreme small size, about the same size as a 55mm 
f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 makes up for a lot.  Sure you could have the K 85mm 
f1.8 for only about a hundred two, dollars more, (and the smc Takumar 
85mm f1.9 is considered a collectors item so you're going to pay a 
premium for that as well), from KEH, when it's in stock but that lens 
is twice the size of the M.  The M is a little jewel but it's a 
compromise like all other things in life.


On 7/22/2013 9:10 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html 



Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM,   wrote:

Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).


Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from 
around it !
It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of 
the

grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.

It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get 
it and
went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as 
he had
heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was 
using. Quite

a recommendation I'd say.

In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the 
A* 135

because of its unique function - macro with working distance.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller


- Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" 


To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM

Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8



Kenneth Waller 

but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller 


wrote:

Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
$800usd.


Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
: )

--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi



--
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.









--
J.C. O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
--


--
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.