date:20160909

Thanks Ann!

stan

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 9:08 PM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> 
> Ditto what Paul said... I'm in touch with friends from high school and grade 
> school even that I truly was glad to be in touch with again and I enjoy the 
> company of friends around the world over a game of Words With Friends- I skim 
> the news feed, use the message chat box occasionally and can getreassurance 
> that friends are ok when Hurricanes and tornados and earthquakes are breaking 
> news where they live and other means of communication are out.
> 
> And I definitely enjoyed traveling to Alaska with Stan through his quickly 
> posted pix there.
> 
> ann
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/9/2016 8:22 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> I don't give a hoot about Zuckerberg, nor do most other Facebook users. I 
>> use it because it has allowed me to reconnect with hundreds of people from 
>> my numerous past lives. I post photos because my friends want to see them. 
>> My life is considerably better with Facebook than it would be without it.
>> Paul via phone
>> 
>>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 7:09 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why in God's name would anyone supply content to Zuckerberg?  I mean 
>>> really.  I simply cannot wait for Facebook to go the way of Myspace.
>>> 
>>> 
 On 9/9/2016 6:47 PM, Jostein wrote:
 
 Interesting fallout over nudity.
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/09/world/europe/ap-eu-norway-facebook-napalm-girl.html?_r=0
 
 Jostein
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
>>> immortality through not dying.
>>> -- Woody Allen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.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: OT - Facebook and napalm girl

2016-09-09 Thread ann sanfedele

Ditto what Paul said... I'm in touch with friends from high school and
grade school even that I truly was glad to be in touch with again and I
enjoy the company of friends around the world over a game of Words With
Friends- I skim the news feed, use the message chat box occasionally and
can getreassurance that friends are ok when Hurricanes and tornados and
earthquakes are breaking news where they live and other means of
communication are out.

And I definitely enjoyed traveling to Alaska with Stan through his
quickly posted pix there.

ann

On 9/9/2016 8:22 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

I don't give a hoot about Zuckerberg, nor do most other Facebook users. I use
it because it has allowed me to reconnect with hundreds of people from my
numerous past lives. I post photos because my friends want to see them. My life
is considerably better with Facebook than it would be without it.
Paul via phone

On Sep 9, 2016, at 7:09 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Why in God's name would anyone supply content to Zuckerberg? I mean really. I
simply cannot wait for Facebook to go the way of Myspace.

On 9/9/2016 6:47 PM, Jostein wrote:

Interesting fallout over nudity.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/09/world/europe/ap-eu-norway-facebook-napalm-girl.html?_r=0

Jostein

--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

2016-09-09 Thread John


On 9/9/2016 3:31 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:



I see.

And just as a followup thought (which is probably obvious): I didn't
mean that dance experience of a model is needed (even though it could be
a big added bonus). And in reverse, I am not sure that all good dancers
would make good models.

After having written, a constructive idea came to my mind:
I am thinking if the same shot as you did would work better if the
models where lying (horizontally), while the camera would be right above
them. That would allow an easier back-curve "matching", while avoiding
unnecessary strain.

But then, it might be harder to accomplish, unless you have some type of
gantry or a boom lift in the studio (or a 2-level loft with a balcony).

... but the models you have are better than that equipment. :-)

Igor




You could probably do it with one of those "Little Giant" ladders that
folds every which way.



 Bruce Walker Fri, 09 Sep 2016 11:09:18 -0700 wrote:

Zooming right to the point, I agree with you, Igor, that the more
relaxed the posing the better the results. And harmony is certainly
what I hope to get if possible. I thought that my two models did quite
well following my directions, but no doubt a number of factors would
have resulted in falling short of perfection.


Dorrie on the right is 5 inches shorter than Camille, and Camille's
trunk is longer than Dorrie's. Neither of them dances. I put Dorrie on
a step stool then iteratively directed them as they tried to fit their
curved backs together. It likely took over a minute just to get this
one pose.

Oh, and Dorrie and Camille met for the first time at this shoot, 45
minutes before this shot. And this was the first time I had ever
worked with two nude models.

If I had a couple of trained dancers who also worked together, I bet I
could get even a better overall look.

But as they say, the best nude models are the ones you have with you.

:)

Thanks, as always for your well considered thoughts, Igor. Appreciated!


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:




Cuteing edge photography? ;-)


Bruce,
Nice idea and photo.

But there is something that bothered me when I looked at the photo in
the morning, and it still does, when I am looking at it again.

You might remember that I've been photographing dancers. And having
been dancing myself a several different "vernacular" dances, I
appreciate the ergonomics of the dance. And I am convinced that
ergonomic dancing yields the true beauty of the dance, both social and
performance versions.
Over the years, I've had extensive discussions on this and related
topics (including photographs of dancers)  with several respectful
dance instructors from difference dances.

While sharing my thoughts dancers and photographers in my workshops on
how to make better photographs of dancers (from both sides), I've
analyzed together with the workshop participants the visible level of
ergonomics/comfort in different photos. And a couple of relevant
aspects of that are: (1) It is usually easy to see if the photo was
taken in motion (dynamic) or while hitting the pose statically.
And (2) in both dynamic and even in static photos, one can usually see
how ergonomic that pose was. This is especially apparent in couple's
dances.


All this long prelude is to describe where my comment is stemming from.
(As it is a rather different perspective than that of your photography.)
We've already discussed the issue of pose ergonomics back in June of
2014. So, forgive me for repeating certain aspects of the same ideas
introduction now, 2+ years later.

Now, to the point:
What keeps swirling in my mind is that in this photo the pose is
rather uncomfortable for the model on the right.
I might be wrong, but I don't think you were going after tension in
this case, as I think it was the harmony. I think if the pose were
more comfortable, the photo would radiate more harmony.
But maybe you had a different intent. Hence my curiousity: Did you?

Igor


ann sanfedele Fri, 09 Sep 2016 08:20:31 -0700 wrote:

cutting edge photography :-)

nice

ann


On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Next in my Body Language series.

http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY

nsfw: nipples in profile.

645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO

Comments always welcome!







--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

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

Re: OT - Facebook and napalm girl

Saying we are supplying content to Zuckerberg is like saying we are
supplying content to Bell when we talk on the phone.  Facebook -- for
better or worse -- is pretty much a utility now.


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:09 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:
> Why in God's name would anyone supply content to Zuckerberg?  I mean really.
> I simply cannot wait for Facebook to go the way of Myspace.
>
>
> On 9/9/2016 6:47 PM, Jostein wrote:
>>
>>
>> Interesting fallout over nudity.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/09/world/europe/ap-eu-norway-facebook-napalm-girl.html?_r=0
>>
>> Jostein
>>
>
>
> --
> I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
> immortality through not dying.
> -- Woody Allen
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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: OT - Facebook and napalm girl

Thanks for bringing attention to that, Jostein. First I'd heard of it.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Jostein  wrote:
>
> Interesting fallout over nudity.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/09/world/europe/ap-eu-norway-facebook-napalm-girl.html?_r=0
>
> Jostein
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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: OT - Facebook and napalm girl

I don't give a hoot about Zuckerberg, nor do most other Facebook users. I use 
it because it has allowed me to reconnect with hundreds of people from my 
numerous past lives. I post photos because my friends want to see them. My life 
is considerably better with Facebook than it would be without it. 
Paul via phone

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 7:09 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:
> 
> Why in God's name would anyone supply content to Zuckerberg?  I mean really.  
> I simply cannot wait for Facebook to go the way of Myspace.
> 
> 
>> On 9/9/2016 6:47 PM, Jostein wrote:
>> 
>> Interesting fallout over nudity.
>> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/09/world/europe/ap-eu-norway-facebook-napalm-girl.html?_r=0
>>  
>> 
>> Jostein
> 
> 
> -- 
> I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
> immortality through not dying.
> -- Woody Allen
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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: OT - Facebook and napalm girl

2016-09-09 Thread P.J. Alling

Why in God's name would anyone supply content to Zuckerberg?  I mean 
really.  I simply cannot wait for Facebook to go the way of Myspace.



On 9/9/2016 6:47 PM, Jostein wrote:


Interesting fallout over nudity.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/09/world/europe/ap-eu-norway-facebook-napalm-girl.html?_r=0 



Jostein




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


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

OT - Facebook and napalm girl

2016-09-09 Thread Jostein



Interesting fallout over nudity.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/09/world/europe/ap-eu-norway-facebook-napalm-girl.html?_r=0

Jostein

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: Camera Obervations from a workshop

2016-09-09 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

Kind of interesting to me that people even mention such things. I didn't have 
cameras with in-built level indication until recently (I think my Olympus E-5 
in 2010 was the first), same for multi-exposure bracketing. I just brought 
along a bubble level and did my own bracketing when needed. 

>From the lack of those features, it sounds like they might have been working 
>with current but not necessarily top of the line bodies. Your K-3 was the top 
>of the line Pentax just prior to the K-1. 

G

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Ken Waller  wrote:
> 
> I recently attended a 5 day photo workshop in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 
> along with 10 other participants.
> As usual I was the only Pentax equipped photog, the rest were all Canon or 
> Nikon users.
> 
> I was surprised to hear the comments some of the participants had about their 
> cameras regarding seemingly small features that their cameras lacked - like 
> lack of a level indicator and their in ability to shoot more than 3 multiple 
> exposures. These participants all had recent or the latest Nikon or Canon 
> bodies. Some of this may have been due to the operators lack of familiarity 
> with their cameras but others were sure about their cameras limitations and 
> surprised that my not the latest K-3 had these features.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: DFA 70-200 failure

Thanks for the comments Paul. The 150-450 is the one addition I may consider 
once I clear out my shelves and simplify my kit. Igor, glad to hear that your 
own lesson in the fallibility of photo gear was not very costly. I recall a 
Pentax lens I used to own (I don’t remember which one) whose tripod mount 
frequently loosened and I regularly carried a compact screwdriver in my kit to 
tighten it up before use. 

Back in the long ago Before Digital days when Film was King and ASA400 was too 
grainy for most purposes, there used to be photography magazines printed on 
actual paper and sold at newsstands or via subscription. Those magazines 
periodically ran stories about how to travel (e.g., how to maintain the quality 
of a few bricks of film while on safari in Africa). In such articles they 
always cautioned that the vibrations in airplanes would loosen screws on the 
camera, and cautioning of the need to check that everything was tight and 
secure after a flight and before using the equipment. I think we now have less 
vibration aboard aircraft, and we may have better screws (or Loc-Tite to hold 
the screws). And fewer magazine articles to remind us of the possible issues. I 
for one had become much more blasé, assuming that my gear was going to remain 
intact. 


> On Sep 9, 2016, at 4:51 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> 
> Yep. It's best to check that screw now and then. The tripod mount is very 
> sturdy but the screw has to be tight. I tighten it with a flat blade 
> screwdriver. Doing it by hand is inadequate.
> 
> Paul via phone
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Stan,
>> 
>> Sorry to hear about that.
>> 
>> Just two weekends ago, I was photographing an ice-skating performance with 
>> the 60-250, staying at the top level of the bleechers.
>> Then I hear a having piece falling down, bouncing from the concrete floor.
>> (Fortunately, nobody was right below me, and my little daughter was about a 
>> foot to the side.)
>> It was the tripod mount from the lens.
>> I've never untightened it from the lens. And this time it came off by 
>> itself. (Actually, I've never looked at it, and if asked, from the memory, I 
>>  would probably say that it cannot be detached easily, but if the screw is 
>> loosened, the collar can be rotated.)
>> 
>> I thought I was lucky it wasn't while I was holding the lense by the collar.
>> 
>> Igor
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In my recent listing of items soon to be up for sale, I made a passing
>>> comment about the 70-200.
>>> 
>>> The (Tamron?) Pentax DFA HD 70-200/2.8 is a big hefty lens that balances 
>>> well
>>> on the K-1 body + grip. It has a detachable tripod mount. It produces
>>> wonderful mages. But…
>>> 
>>> The metal bit on the back end of the lens that mates with the K-mount on the
>>> body is a thin plate about 1-1.5mm thick. That plate attaches to the back 
>>> end
>>> of the lens via four small screws (just a little larger than the screws that
>>> hold the sidepieces on your eyeglasses). Those screws go into a hard plastic
>>> (not metal) portion of the lens construction. When one or more of those
>>> screws is loose or otherwise weakened, then the lens body will detach from
>>> the K-mount plate. Leaving the plate attached to the camera, the other 99% 
>>> of
>>> the lens on the table or floor or ground. You needn’t ask how I know this.
>>> 
>>> I like this lens and the images it produces, I like the versatility of this
>>> zoom range, I am not ready to give up on it. We’ll see what the verdict of
>>> the repair technician is. But I must say that I am a bit miffed that a
>>> 2-month-old $1800 lens should fall apart in the wilds of Alaska with no
>>> possible replacement. ( Off the grid, no way to order another or find a
>>> rental. Too close to the end off the trip, the timing was off, even if I had
>>> somehow smoke-signaled an emergency shout-out to B&H for a replacement with
>>> next day delivery, it would still have taken 3-4 days to get to me…)
>>> 
>>> So anyway, for those of you with this lens, be careful. Don’t put undue
>>> pressure on the lens. Do use the lens tripod mount in lieu of mounting the
>>> body and letting the lens hang off. And watch for symptoms of impending
>>> disaster. Reflecting later, I realized that there were signs which I didn’t
>>> pay attention to. Specifically, there were times when the in-camera
>>> viewfinder display of F-stop etc. behaved as though I had an M-series lens
>>> mounted. I.e., no F-stop was displayed. Wiggling the lens a bit would 
>>> correct
>>> the problem, and to the extent that I gave it any thought I figured I had
>>> dirty contacts. In retrospect, the mounting plate was probably coming loose
>>> and that was causing the display issue. Or maybe I had dirty contacts and
>>> this wasn’t symptomatic of an impending failure. I don’t know.
>>> 
>>> I don’t abuse my camera equipment, but I also don’t treat my gear as though
>>> it w

Re: DFA 70-200 failure

There are two screws involved here. One, which looks more like a knob allows 
the tripod collar to rotate when loosened. The other, which is slotted, secures 
the tripod foot to the lens. When doing handheld work, like the Porsche pans I 
shot last week, I remove the foot.

Paul via phone

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> 
> 
> Stan,
> 
> Sorry to hear about that.
> 
> Just two weekends ago, I was photographing an ice-skating performance with 
> the 60-250, staying at the top level of the bleechers.
> Then I hear a having piece falling down, bouncing from the concrete floor.
> (Fortunately, nobody was right below me, and my little daughter was about a 
> foot to the side.)
> It was the tripod mount from the lens.
> I've never untightened it from the lens. And this time it came off by itself. 
> (Actually, I've never looked at it, and if asked, from the memory, I  would 
> probably say that it cannot be detached easily, but if the screw is loosened, 
> the collar can be rotated.)
> 
> I thought I was lucky it wasn't while I was holding the lense by the collar.
> 
> Igor
> 
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> In my recent listing of items soon to be up for sale, I made a passing
>> comment about the 70-200.
>> 
>> The (Tamron?) Pentax DFA HD 70-200/2.8 is a big hefty lens that balances well
>> on the K-1 body + grip. It has a detachable tripod mount. It produces
>> wonderful mages. But…
>> 
>> The metal bit on the back end of the lens that mates with the K-mount on the
>> body is a thin plate about 1-1.5mm thick. That plate attaches to the back end
>> of the lens via four small screws (just a little larger than the screws that
>> hold the sidepieces on your eyeglasses). Those screws go into a hard plastic
>> (not metal) portion of the lens construction. When one or more of those
>> screws is loose or otherwise weakened, then the lens body will detach from
>> the K-mount plate. Leaving the plate attached to the camera, the other 99% of
>> the lens on the table or floor or ground. You needn’t ask how I know this.
>> 
>> I like this lens and the images it produces, I like the versatility of this
>> zoom range, I am not ready to give up on it. We’ll see what the verdict of
>> the repair technician is. But I must say that I am a bit miffed that a
>> 2-month-old $1800 lens should fall apart in the wilds of Alaska with no
>> possible replacement. ( Off the grid, no way to order another or find a
>> rental. Too close to the end off the trip, the timing was off, even if I had
>> somehow smoke-signaled an emergency shout-out to B&H for a replacement with
>> next day delivery, it would still have taken 3-4 days to get to me…)
>> 
>> So anyway, for those of you with this lens, be careful. Don’t put undue
>> pressure on the lens. Do use the lens tripod mount in lieu of mounting the
>> body and letting the lens hang off. And watch for symptoms of impending
>> disaster. Reflecting later, I realized that there were signs which I didn’t
>> pay attention to. Specifically, there were times when the in-camera
>> viewfinder display of F-stop etc. behaved as though I had an M-series lens
>> mounted. I.e., no F-stop was displayed. Wiggling the lens a bit would correct
>> the problem, and to the extent that I gave it any thought I figured I had
>> dirty contacts. In retrospect, the mounting plate was probably coming loose
>> and that was causing the display issue. Or maybe I had dirty contacts and
>> this wasn’t symptomatic of an impending failure. I don’t know.
>> 
>> I don’t abuse my camera equipment, but I also don’t treat my gear as though
>> it were egg-shell delicate jewelry. It bugs me that I may not be able to
>> trust this lens after it is repaired and I will probably trade up if/when
>> Pentax offers a 70-200 in lieu of what is said to be a rebranded Tamron.
>> 
>> stan
>> --
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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: DFA 70-200 failure

Yep. It's best to check that screw now and then. The tripod mount is very 
sturdy but the screw has to be tight. I tighten it with a flat blade 
screwdriver. Doing it by hand is inadequate.

Paul via phone

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> 
> 
> Stan,
> 
> Sorry to hear about that.
> 
> Just two weekends ago, I was photographing an ice-skating performance with 
> the 60-250, staying at the top level of the bleechers.
> Then I hear a having piece falling down, bouncing from the concrete floor.
> (Fortunately, nobody was right below me, and my little daughter was about a 
> foot to the side.)
> It was the tripod mount from the lens.
> I've never untightened it from the lens. And this time it came off by itself. 
> (Actually, I've never looked at it, and if asked, from the memory, I  would 
> probably say that it cannot be detached easily, but if the screw is loosened, 
> the collar can be rotated.)
> 
> I thought I was lucky it wasn't while I was holding the lense by the collar.
> 
> Igor
> 
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> In my recent listing of items soon to be up for sale, I made a passing
>> comment about the 70-200.
>> 
>> The (Tamron?) Pentax DFA HD 70-200/2.8 is a big hefty lens that balances well
>> on the K-1 body + grip. It has a detachable tripod mount. It produces
>> wonderful mages. But…
>> 
>> The metal bit on the back end of the lens that mates with the K-mount on the
>> body is a thin plate about 1-1.5mm thick. That plate attaches to the back end
>> of the lens via four small screws (just a little larger than the screws that
>> hold the sidepieces on your eyeglasses). Those screws go into a hard plastic
>> (not metal) portion of the lens construction. When one or more of those
>> screws is loose or otherwise weakened, then the lens body will detach from
>> the K-mount plate. Leaving the plate attached to the camera, the other 99% of
>> the lens on the table or floor or ground. You needn’t ask how I know this.
>> 
>> I like this lens and the images it produces, I like the versatility of this
>> zoom range, I am not ready to give up on it. We’ll see what the verdict of
>> the repair technician is. But I must say that I am a bit miffed that a
>> 2-month-old $1800 lens should fall apart in the wilds of Alaska with no
>> possible replacement. ( Off the grid, no way to order another or find a
>> rental. Too close to the end off the trip, the timing was off, even if I had
>> somehow smoke-signaled an emergency shout-out to B&H for a replacement with
>> next day delivery, it would still have taken 3-4 days to get to me…)
>> 
>> So anyway, for those of you with this lens, be careful. Don’t put undue
>> pressure on the lens. Do use the lens tripod mount in lieu of mounting the
>> body and letting the lens hang off. And watch for symptoms of impending
>> disaster. Reflecting later, I realized that there were signs which I didn’t
>> pay attention to. Specifically, there were times when the in-camera
>> viewfinder display of F-stop etc. behaved as though I had an M-series lens
>> mounted. I.e., no F-stop was displayed. Wiggling the lens a bit would correct
>> the problem, and to the extent that I gave it any thought I figured I had
>> dirty contacts. In retrospect, the mounting plate was probably coming loose
>> and that was causing the display issue. Or maybe I had dirty contacts and
>> this wasn’t symptomatic of an impending failure. I don’t know.
>> 
>> I don’t abuse my camera equipment, but I also don’t treat my gear as though
>> it were egg-shell delicate jewelry. It bugs me that I may not be able to
>> trust this lens after it is repaired and I will probably trade up if/when
>> Pentax offers a 70-200 in lieu of what is said to be a rebranded Tamron.
>> 
>> stan
>> --
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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: DFA 70-200 failure

2016-09-09 Thread Igor PDML-StR



Stan,

Sorry to hear about that.

Just two weekends ago, I was photographing an ice-skating performance with 
the 60-250, staying at the top level of the bleechers.

Then I hear a having piece falling down, bouncing from the concrete floor.
(Fortunately, nobody was right below me, and my little daughter was about 
a foot to the side.)

It was the tripod mount from the lens.
I've never untightened it from the lens. And this time it came off by 
itself. (Actually, I've never looked at it, and if asked, from the 
memory, I  would probably say that it cannot be detached easily, but if 
the screw is loosened, the collar can be rotated.)


I thought I was lucky it wasn't while I was holding the lense by the 
collar.


Igor


On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:



In my recent listing of items soon to be up for sale, I made a passing
comment about the 70-200.

The (Tamron?) Pentax DFA HD 70-200/2.8 is a big hefty lens that balances well
on the K-1 body + grip. It has a detachable tripod mount. It produces
wonderful mages. But…

The metal bit on the back end of the lens that mates with the K-mount on the
body is a thin plate about 1-1.5mm thick. That plate attaches to the back end
of the lens via four small screws (just a little larger than the screws that
hold the sidepieces on your eyeglasses). Those screws go into a hard plastic
(not metal) portion of the lens construction. When one or more of those
screws is loose or otherwise weakened, then the lens body will detach from
the K-mount plate. Leaving the plate attached to the camera, the other 99% of
the lens on the table or floor or ground. You needn’t ask how I know this.

I like this lens and the images it produces, I like the versatility of this
zoom range, I am not ready to give up on it. We’ll see what the verdict of
the repair technician is. But I must say that I am a bit miffed that a
2-month-old $1800 lens should fall apart in the wilds of Alaska with no
possible replacement. ( Off the grid, no way to order another or find a
rental. Too close to the end off the trip, the timing was off, even if I had
somehow smoke-signaled an emergency shout-out to B&H for a replacement with
next day delivery, it would still have taken 3-4 days to get to me…)

So anyway, for those of you with this lens, be careful. Don’t put undue
pressure on the lens. Do use the lens tripod mount in lieu of mounting the
body and letting the lens hang off. And watch for symptoms of impending
disaster. Reflecting later, I realized that there were signs which I didn’t
pay attention to. Specifically, there were times when the in-camera
viewfinder display of F-stop etc. behaved as though I had an M-series lens
mounted. I.e., no F-stop was displayed. Wiggling the lens a bit would correct
the problem, and to the extent that I gave it any thought I figured I had
dirty contacts. In retrospect, the mounting plate was probably coming loose
and that was causing the display issue. Or maybe I had dirty contacts and
this wasn’t symptomatic of an impending failure. I don’t know.

I don’t abuse my camera equipment, but I also don’t treat my gear as though
it were egg-shell delicate jewelry. It bugs me that I may not be able to
trust this lens after it is repaired and I will probably trade up if/when
Pentax offers a 70-200 in lieu of what is said to be a rebranded Tamron.

stan
--


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: DFA 70-200 failure

Ouch. Sorry to hear that. Hope you can get it repaired or replaced for a 
minimal amount. A bit of whining might motivate Pentax to replace it! It has 
worked for me in the past, although that was in the pre-Ricoh days, and I 
recited three magic words: New York Times.

I was ready to buy the 70-200s at one point,  but then I discovered that my 
60-250/4 doesn’t vignette noticeably on the K-1, at least not at the stops I 
generally use — f4 to f8 max. I would like that extra stop of aperture, but I 
haven’t found a pressing need. And the 60-250/4 is built like a tank. The 
150-450 is sturdier still. I just checked both to make sure I wasn’t working 
with ticking time bombs.. The mounts are solidly screwed in to the thick metal 
lens body. 

Best,
Paul
> On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Stanley Halpin  
> wrote:
> 
> In my recent listing of items soon to be up for sale, I made a passing 
> comment about the 70-200.
> 
> The (Tamron?) Pentax DFA HD 70-200/2.8 is a big hefty lens that balances well 
> on the K-1 body + grip. It has a detachable tripod mount. It produces 
> wonderful mages. But…
> 
> The metal bit on the back end of the lens that mates with the K-mount on the 
> body is a thin plate about 1-1.5mm thick. That plate attaches to the back end 
> of the lens via four small screws (just a little larger than the screws that 
> hold the sidepieces on your eyeglasses). Those screws go into a hard plastic 
> (not metal) portion of the lens construction. When one or more of those 
> screws is loose or otherwise weakened, then the lens body will detach from 
> the K-mount plate. Leaving the plate attached to the camera, the other 99% of 
> the lens on the table or floor or ground. You needn’t ask how I know this.
> 
> I like this lens and the images it produces, I like the versatility of this 
> zoom range, I am not ready to give up on it. We’ll see what the verdict of 
> the repair technician is. But I must say that I am a bit miffed that a 
> 2-month-old $1800 lens should fall apart in the wilds of Alaska with no 
> possible replacement. ( Off the grid, no way to order another or find a 
> rental. Too close to the end off the trip, the timing was off, even if I had 
> somehow smoke-signaled an emergency shout-out to B&H for a replacement with 
> next day delivery, it would still have taken 3-4 days to get to me…)
> 
> So anyway, for those of you with this lens, be careful. Don’t put undue 
> pressure on the lens. Do use the lens tripod mount in lieu of mounting the 
> body and letting the lens hang off. And watch for symptoms of impending 
> disaster. Reflecting later, I realized that there were signs which I didn’t 
> pay attention to. Specifically, there were times when the in-camera 
> viewfinder display of F-stop etc. behaved as though I had an M-series lens 
> mounted. I.e., no F-stop was displayed. Wiggling the lens a bit would correct 
> the problem, and to the extent that I gave it any thought I figured I had 
> dirty contacts. In retrospect, the mounting plate was probably coming loose 
> and that was causing the display issue. Or maybe I had dirty contacts and 
> this wasn’t symptomatic of an impending failure. I don’t know.
> 
> I don’t abuse my camera equipment, but I also don’t treat my gear as though 
> it were egg-shell delicate jewelry. It bugs me that I may not be able to 
> trust this lens after it is repaired and I will probably trade up if/when 
> Pentax offers a 70-200 in lieu of what is said to be a rebranded Tamron.
> 
> stan
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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: OT: Sony apparently didn't sweat the small stuff

2016-09-09 Thread P.J. Alling


Apparently someone sweated but it wasn't small...

On 9/9/2016 2:45 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

One thing you don't have to worry about with Pentax weather sealing:
http://goo.gl/dFRVga




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


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

Camera Obervations from a workshop

2016-09-09 Thread Ken Waller

I recently attended a 5 day photo workshop in the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan along with 10 other participants.
As usual I was the only Pentax equipped photog, the rest were all Canon or 
Nikon users.


I was surprised to hear the comments some of the participants had about 
their cameras regarding seemingly small features that their cameras lacked - 
like lack of a level indicator and their in ability to shoot more than 3 
multiple exposures. These participants all had recent or the latest Nikon or 
Canon bodies. Some of this may have been due to the operators lack of 
familiarity with their cameras but others were sure about their cameras 
limitations and surprised that my not the latest K-3 had these features.


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.

Re: PESO - jigsaw

2016-09-09 Thread Igor PDML-StR




I see.

And just as a followup thought (which is probably obvious): I didn't mean 
that dance experience of a model is needed (even though it could be a big 
added bonus). And in reverse, I am not sure that all good dancers would 
make good models.


After having written, a constructive idea came to my mind:
I am thinking if the same shot as you did would work better if 
the models where lying (horizontally), while the camera would be right 
above them. That would allow an easier back-curve "matching", while avoiding 
unnecessary strain.


But then, it might be harder to accomplish, unless you have some type of 
gantry or a boom lift in the studio (or a 2-level loft with a balcony).


... but the models you have are better than that equipment. :-)

Igor



 Bruce Walker Fri, 09 Sep 2016 11:09:18 -0700 wrote:

Zooming right to the point, I agree with you, Igor, that the more
relaxed the posing the better the results. And harmony is certainly
what I hope to get if possible. I thought that my two models did quite
well following my directions, but no doubt a number of factors would
have resulted in falling short of perfection.


Dorrie on the right is 5 inches shorter than Camille, and Camille's
trunk is longer than Dorrie's. Neither of them dances. I put Dorrie on
a step stool then iteratively directed them as they tried to fit their
curved backs together. It likely took over a minute just to get this
one pose.

Oh, and Dorrie and Camille met for the first time at this shoot, 45
minutes before this shot. And this was the first time I had ever
worked with two nude models.

If I had a couple of trained dancers who also worked together, I bet I
could get even a better overall look.

But as they say, the best nude models are the ones you have with you.

:)

Thanks, as always for your well considered thoughts, Igor. Appreciated!


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:




Cuteing edge photography? ;-)


Bruce,
Nice idea and photo.

But there is something that bothered me when I looked at the photo in the 
morning, and it still does, when I am looking at it again.


You might remember that I've been photographing dancers. And having been 
dancing myself a several different "vernacular" dances, I appreciate the 
ergonomics of the dance. And I am convinced that ergonomic dancing yields the 
true beauty of the dance, both social and performance versions.
Over the years, I've had extensive discussions on this and related topics 
(including photographs of dancers)  with several respectful dance instructors 
from difference dances.


While sharing my thoughts dancers and photographers in my workshops on how to 
make better photographs of dancers (from both sides), I've analyzed together 
with the workshop participants the visible level of ergonomics/comfort in 
different photos. And a couple of relevant aspects of that are: (1) It is 
usually easy to see if the photo was taken in motion (dynamic) or while 
hitting the pose statically.
And (2) in both dynamic and even in static photos, one can usually see how 
ergonomic that pose was. This is especially apparent in couple's dances.



All this long prelude is to describe where my comment is stemming from.
(As it is a rather different perspective than that of your photography.)
We've already discussed the issue of pose ergonomics back in June of 2014. 
So, forgive me for repeating certain aspects of the same ideas introduction 
now, 2+ years later.


Now, to the point:
What keeps swirling in my mind is that in this photo the pose is rather 
uncomfortable for the model on the right.
I might be wrong, but I don't think you were going after tension in this 
case, as I think it was the harmony. I think if the pose were more 
comfortable, the photo would radiate more harmony.

But maybe you had a different intent. Hence my curiousity: Did you?

Igor


ann sanfedele Fri, 09 Sep 2016 08:20:31 -0700 wrote:

cutting edge photography :-)

nice

ann


On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Next in my Body Language series.

http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY

nsfw: nipples in profile.

645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO

Comments always welcome!





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

DFA 70-200 failure

In my recent listing of items soon to be up for sale, I made a passing comment 
about the 70-200.

The (Tamron?) Pentax DFA HD 70-200/2.8 is a big hefty lens that balances well 
on the K-1 body + grip. It has a detachable tripod mount. It produces wonderful 
mages. But…

The metal bit on the back end of the lens that mates with the K-mount on the 
body is a thin plate about 1-1.5mm thick. That plate attaches to the back end 
of the lens via four small screws (just a little larger than the screws that 
hold the sidepieces on your eyeglasses). Those screws go into a hard plastic 
(not metal) portion of the lens construction. When one or more of those screws 
is loose or otherwise weakened, then the lens body will detach from the K-mount 
plate. Leaving the plate attached to the camera, the other 99% of the lens on 
the table or floor or ground. You needn’t ask how I know this.

I like this lens and the images it produces, I like the versatility of this 
zoom range, I am not ready to give up on it. We’ll see what the verdict of the 
repair technician is. But I must say that I am a bit miffed that a 2-month-old 
$1800 lens should fall apart in the wilds of Alaska with no possible 
replacement. ( Off the grid, no way to order another or find a rental. Too 
close to the end off the trip, the timing was off, even if I had somehow 
smoke-signaled an emergency shout-out to B&H for a replacement with next day 
delivery, it would still have taken 3-4 days to get to me…)

So anyway, for those of you with this lens, be careful. Don’t put undue 
pressure on the lens. Do use the lens tripod mount in lieu of mounting the body 
and letting the lens hang off. And watch for symptoms of impending disaster. 
Reflecting later, I realized that there were signs which I didn’t pay attention 
to. Specifically, there were times when the in-camera viewfinder display of 
F-stop etc. behaved as though I had an M-series lens mounted. I.e., no F-stop 
was displayed. Wiggling the lens a bit would correct the problem, and to the 
extent that I gave it any thought I figured I had dirty contacts. In 
retrospect, the mounting plate was probably coming loose and that was causing 
the display issue. Or maybe I had dirty contacts and this wasn’t symptomatic of 
an impending failure. I don’t know.

I don’t abuse my camera equipment, but I also don’t treat my gear as though it 
were egg-shell delicate jewelry. It bugs me that I may not be able to trust 
this lens after it is repaired and I will probably trade up if/when Pentax 
offers a 70-200 in lieu of what is said to be a rebranded Tamron.

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

OT: Sony apparently didn't sweat the small stuff

2016-09-09 Thread Darren Addy

One thing you don't have to worry about with Pentax weather sealing:
http://goo.gl/dFRVga

-- 
“The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

2016-09-09 Thread Jack Davis


Like the consept, Bruce, but from the instant I saw this I was in sort of a 
stress mode 
attempting to make the models less strained and contorted. The idea is good, 
but worthy of
a serious effort.

J 

- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Walker" 
To: "Pentax Discuss Mailing List" 
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 6:28:45 AM
Subject: PESO - jigsaw

Next in my Body Language series.

http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY

nsfw: nipples in profile.

645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO

Comments always 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.

Boris FSF

2016-09-09 Thread Boris Liberman

Still have some gear that you can grab really cheap.

* Pentax K-5, original magnifying eyecap, original battery grip, extra
battery, also original.

* Sigma 24-60/2.8 Full Frame, very nice lens

* Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - first version, screw driven AF, also very nice lens

* Ricoh GXR body (has no lens, due to the way Ricoh system is
designed). I have one too many

* Ricoh GXR 28 mm module + attachment adapter that turns it into 21 mm
lens. In 21 mm form it is ever so sligthly soft  in the corners.

If you're interested - do contact me off the list.

Thanks in advance.


-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

2016-09-09 Thread Daniel J. Matyola

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:

> It likely took over a minute just to get this
> one pose.
>

A whole minuite  That is pretty efficient work, but anyone else's
standards!

This image has wonderful curving lines;  It is effective even as an
abstract.

The tones are marvelous, and the overall composition quite effective.

This series of images with nude models is really superb.

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.

FSF heads up

I need to simplify.

I have had my K-3 since about whenever it came out, I have had the 645Z for 2 
years or a bit longer, (since about when it came out), and I have had the K-1 
since it came out this spring. Each of these cameras and associated lenses has 
its own advantages* but for the photography I do, mostly when traveling, I 
don’t need all three systems. And I don’t need all of the lenses I have for the 
K-1 system I will keep.

So, once I have done some pricing research, and taken some “product shots” I 
will be offering the following for sale:

K-3 body and battery grip, O-GPS-1 unit
DA 15/4.0 Ltd.
FA* 24/2.0  (FullFrame)
DA 20-40/2.8-4 Ltd.
Carl Zeiss T* 35/2.0(FullFrame)
DA 40/2.8 Ltd.
FA 28-105/4-5.6 (FullFrame)
DA* 50-135/2.8  [missing “window” on lens hood]
DA* 55/1.4
PK-A 100/2.8(FullFrame)
PK-A 200/4.0(FullFrame)

645Z body
645-A 35/3.5
645-FA 45/2.8   [broken lens hood]
645-DFA 55/2.8
645-FA 75/2.8
645-FA 120/4.0 Macro
645-FA 150/2.8
645-FA 200/4.0
645-FA 150-300/5.6
645-A 1.4x
645-A 2x
645 ext tube set

Plus some other bits such as the DA 1.4x extender, a helicoid extension tube 
for 645, etc.

If any of this catches your eye, email me OFFLIST at pho...@stanhalpin.com just 
to say you want to know more about x item(s). I will email reply once I have 
figured out my asking prices. I will post an updated listing with prices here 
next Friday. By the way, my next trip, in November, will take me into the Euro 
zone and it is possible I could arrange local delivery or shipment for some 
items. I do have luggage weight limits…

stan

* Advantages/disadvantages of the three systems, from my idiosyncratic 
perspective:
APSC K-3: Light weight, compact. With two top quality lenses (20-40 Ltd 
and 50-135/2.8) plus the 1.4x this is a simple powerful travel kit. Weather 
resistant build. A “crop” sensor, fewer megapixels, but excellent quality. I 
would love to keep this but my wife wants something smaller/lighter (like her 
older Leica-branded Panasonic compact) and I know I wouldn’t use it enough to 
justify keeping it. 

K-1 full frame: Not light, not compact. Too many options, too easy for 
me to inadvertently switch into a different mode without noticing for too many 
shots. My solution is to use only this camera and to know it thoroughly. Lovely 
large images with broad dynamic range, good noise control. A two-lens kit here, 
with the 24-70 and 70-200 is good for all but long-range wildlife or sports 
situations. I have the FA 400/5.6, may be 
looking for an alternate long-range lens. My new 70-200/2.8 was great on my 
recent Alaska trip, right up until it fell apart. More on that later, the lens 
is on its way for repair.

645Z: Not light, not compact. But about the same size/weight as the K-1 
with battery grip. The lenses are correspondingly not light nor compact. The 
sensor is awesome and the older FA-series lenses stand up well when used with 
the digital sensor. The 75/2.8, 150/2.8, and 120/4.0 Macro are right up there 
near the top of my list of all-time Pentax great lenses. However, the FA-series 
lenses are not weather-sealed and so this is not a good outdoor/landscape kit 
for wet rainy climates. Unless you pair the WR body with newer series lenses 
which are themselves WR. The body also does not have SR. I think the newer 
lenses have stabilization built in. If the body had shake reduction/image 
stabilization, and if the system with FA lenses were weather resistant I would 
keep this kit in lieu of the K-1. I carried both to Alaska, I got my Ansel 
Adams shots of Denali across Wonder Lake and the Reflection Pond with the 645, 
and now it is time to move on.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

Thank you very much, Marco.

I have long admired Robert Mapplethorpe's nude studies and I have
strived to get the tones that he achieved in his female nude studies.
With this one, I think I'm just about there. :)


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Marco Alpert  wrote:
> I’ll resist the impulse to pile on the pun train (to mangle a metaphor), and 
> point out that your B&W tonalities (here and elsewhere) are lovely in the 
> extreme.
>
> m
>
>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
>>
>> Well, I saw that coming. :)  Thanks, Ann!
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:19 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
>>> cutting edge photography :-)
>>>
>>> nice
>>>
>>> ann
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

 Next in my Body Language series.

 http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY

 nsfw: nipples in profile.

 645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO

 Comments always welcome!

>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

Zooming right to the point, I agree with you, Igor, that the more
relaxed the posing the better the results. And harmony is certainly
what I hope to get if possible. I thought that my two models did quite
well following my directions, but no doubt a number of factors would
have resulted in falling short of perfection.

Dorrie on the right is 5 inches shorter than Camille, and Camille's
trunk is longer than Dorrie's. Neither of them dances. I put Dorrie on
a step stool then iteratively directed them as they tried to fit their
curved backs together. It likely took over a minute just to get this
one pose.

Oh, and Dorrie and Camille met for the first time at this shoot, 45
minutes before this shot. And this was the first time I had ever
worked with two nude models.

If I had a couple of trained dancers who also worked together, I bet I
could get even a better overall look.

But as they say, the best nude models are the ones you have with you.

:)

Thanks, as always for your well considered thoughts, Igor. Appreciated!


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
>
>
> Cuteing edge photography? ;-)
>
>
> Bruce,
> Nice idea and photo.
>
> But there is something that bothered me when I looked at the photo in the
> morning, and it still does, when I am looking at it again.
>
> You might remember that I've been photographing dancers. And having been
> dancing myself a several different "vernacular" dances, I appreciate the
> ergonomics of the dance. And I am convinced that ergonomic dancing yields
> the true beauty of the dance, both social and performance versions.
> Over the years, I've had extensive discussions on this and related topics
> (including photographs of dancers)  with several respectful dance
> instructors from difference dances.
>
> While sharing my thoughts dancers and photographers in my workshops on how
> to make better photographs of dancers (from both sides), I've analyzed
> together with the workshop participants the visible level of
> ergonomics/comfort in different photos. And a couple of relevant aspects of
> that are: (1) It is usually easy to see if the photo was taken in motion
> (dynamic) or while hitting the pose statically.
> And (2) in both dynamic and even in static photos, one can usually see how
> ergonomic that pose was. This is especially apparent in couple's dances.
>
>
> All this long prelude is to describe where my comment is stemming from.
> (As it is a rather different perspective than that of your photography.)
> We've already discussed the issue of pose ergonomics back in June of 2014.
> So, forgive me for repeating certain aspects of the same ideas introduction
> now, 2+ years later.
>
> Now, to the point:
> What keeps swirling in my mind is that in this photo the pose is rather
> uncomfortable for the model on the right.
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you were going after tension in this
> case, as I think it was the harmony. I think if the pose were more
> comfortable, the photo would radiate more harmony.
> But maybe you had a different intent. Hence my curiousity: Did you?
>
> Igor
>
>
>
> ann sanfedele Fri, 09 Sep 2016 08:20:31 -0700 wrote:
>
> cutting edge photography :-)
>
> nice
>
> ann
>
>
> On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> Next in my Body Language series.
>>
>> http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY
>>
>> nsfw: nipples in profile.
>>
>> 645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO
>>
>> Comments always welcome!
>>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

2016-09-09 Thread Igor PDML-StR




Cuteing edge photography? ;-)


Bruce,
Nice idea and photo.

But there is something that bothered me when I looked at the 
photo in the morning, and it still does, when I am looking at it again.


You might remember that I've been photographing dancers. And having been 
dancing myself a several different "vernacular" dances, I appreciate the 
ergonomics of the dance. And I am convinced that ergonomic dancing yields 
the true beauty of the dance, both social and performance versions.
Over the years, I've had extensive discussions on this and related topics 
(including photographs of dancers)  with several respectful dance 
instructors from difference dances.


While sharing my thoughts dancers and photographers in my workshops on how 
to make better photographs of dancers (from both sides), I've analyzed 
together with the workshop participants the visible level of 
ergonomics/comfort in different photos. And a couple of relevant aspects 
of that are: (1) It is usually easy to see if the photo was taken in 
motion (dynamic) or while hitting the pose statically.
And (2) in both dynamic and even in static photos, one can usually see how 
ergonomic that pose was. This is especially apparent in couple's dances.



All this long prelude is to describe where my comment is stemming from.
(As it is a rather different perspective than that of your photography.)
We've already discussed the issue of pose ergonomics back in June of 
2014. So, forgive me for repeating certain aspects of the same ideas 
introduction now, 2+ years later.


Now, to the point:
What keeps swirling in my mind is that in this photo the pose is 
rather uncomfortable for the model on the right.
I might be wrong, but I don't think you were going after tension in 
this case, as I think it was the harmony. I think if the pose were more 
comfortable, the photo would radiate more harmony.

But maybe you had a different intent. Hence my curiousity: Did you?

Igor


ann sanfedele Fri, 09 Sep 2016 08:20:31 -0700 wrote:

cutting edge photography :-)

nice

ann


On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Next in my Body Language series.

http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY

nsfw: nipples in profile.

645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO

Comments always welcome!



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

2016-09-09 Thread Marco Alpert

I’ll resist the impulse to pile on the pun train (to mangle a metaphor), and 
point out that your B&W tonalities (here and elsewhere) are lovely in the 
extreme.

m

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
> 
> Well, I saw that coming. :)  Thanks, Ann!
> 
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:19 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
>> cutting edge photography :-)
>> 
>> nice
>> 
>> ann
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>> 
>>> Next in my Body Language series.
>>> 
>>> http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY
>>> 
>>> nsfw: nipples in profile.
>>> 
>>> 645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO
>>> 
>>> Comments always welcome!
>>> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: The Prisoner is now 50 years old.

2016-09-09 Thread John


On 9/9/2016 3:16 AM, Larry Colen wrote:



Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

Well, FWIW, I loved Lost almost as much as the Prisoner.

BTW, any Ender fans here?  Anyone else read the new prequel that come out
last month?


Someone once said that Orson Scott Card wrote an amazing first novel and
has spent the rest of his career doing his best to prove that it was a
fluke. I actually did quite enjoy the first several Ender books, but was
less and less impressed by everything of his I've read since.




I really enjoyed the original short story of "Ender's Game", and there was
another short story he wrote that I liked, but I can't recall the title
now. It was a post-apocalyptic road tale.

I read the novel "Ender's Game" and the first sequel "Speaker for the
Dead"; then trudged my way through his "Homecoming Saga".

It's been a downhill journey.

--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

Well, I saw that coming. :)  Thanks, Ann!

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:19 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> cutting edge photography :-)
>
> nice
>
> ann
>
>
> On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>>
>> Next in my Body Language series.
>>
>> http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY
>>
>> nsfw: nipples in profile.
>>
>> 645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO
>>
>> Comments always welcome!
>>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.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 - Morning on the Pond

2016-09-09 Thread ann sanfedele

It's inviting - and much more pleasant in it's simplicity than something 
with wow factor weather to my eye...


I've been there in a way...

Didn't youpost another with different weather from that perspectivea few 
days ago?


ann

On 9/8/2016 10:44 PM, Rick Womer wrote:

Thanks, Paul. It was a peaceful and lovely place to spend a couple of
weeks.

Rick

On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Paul Stenquist  wrote:


Pretty pic and an interesting perspective.

Paul via phone


On Sep 7, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Rick Womer 
> wrote:

It feels as though it was a long time ago that we were on vacation...

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18280903&size=lg

(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.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw

2016-09-09 Thread ann sanfedele


cutting edge photography :-)

nice

ann


On 9/9/2016 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Next in my Body Language series.

http://portfolio.brucemwalker.com/index/I70xb_T3x.lY

nsfw: nipples in profile.

645z, dfa645 90mm/2.8 macro, f:13, 1/125th sec, 100 ISO

Comments always welcome!




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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 - jigsaw